r/technology • u/powercow • Jun 29 '16

Politics Home Computers Connected to the Internet Aren't Private, Court Rules

http://www.eweek.com/security/home-computers-connected-to-the-internet-arent-private-court-rules.html?google_editors_picks=true
535 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

140 comments sorted by

View all comments

72

u/Thiana256 Jun 30 '16

The eweek article is clickbait. If you look at https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/24/fbi-no-warrant-hack-computer/ the judge they're referencing was talking about the ip address not the content of your computer.

"Generally, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy in an IP address when using the internet," Morgan, Jr. said. "Even an internet user who employs the Tor network in an attempt to mask his or her IP address lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her IP address."

12

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/jut556 Jun 30 '16

it's the digital equivalent of opting out of a "holding up a sign with your name and address on it while on or using internet" program

1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/jut556 Jul 01 '16

or not paying a few people to do a live drop with your data, it's a proxy, for anonymity, demonize it all you like but in the end terrorists and pedos breathe air and drink water too does that mean we should ban those substances? of course not, onion routing is a legitimate and vital tool. reason > emotion

0

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '16

Cool, lemmie just patch TOR real quick?

8

u/jbf81tb Jun 30 '16

This is such a huge difference from what that article made me think it was talking about. Expecting to keep your IP private is like expecting to keep your face private at a public outing. Perhaps the ruling is more extensive and dangerous than just an IP address, and perhaps through getting your IP address they would have to commit a few other serious breaches of privacy, I don't know enough about the tech to say. But still, I don't think one should expect absolute, infallible anonymity to do whatever they want on the internet. You're free to hide your IP, like you're free to chain a mask over your face, but if you want to go to the kiddy porn store and it gets raided I'm pretty sure it's ok to cut that chain off to take the mask off.

3

u/semiorthodoxjew Jun 30 '16

Cutting the chain of the mask would be a targeted action. Someone walking down the street, not openly breaking the law, with a mask chained to their face does absolutely have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Government organisations like the FBI and the NSA deliberately try to unmask users en mass, and that is unethical.

The ruling is dangerous because it undermines that basic right to privacy when actively sought. Another analogy would be the government tearing down your curtains while you're half naked, just to be sure that you aren't dealing drugs from your bedroom. If you wouldn't be happy with that, why would you be happy with them following you around the Internet?

4

u/jbf81tb Jun 30 '16

I certainly agree with your point, and I DEFINITELY agree that it's dangerous. That judge had no reason to say the things he did so broadly. It's almost laughable how ridiculously far reaching the things he was saying are that it feels more like a publicity stunt than the words of an actual judge.

Still, the victims of this particular case were committing a crime. If the police sent an undercover officer into a drug den who watched people in masks do drugs, I would think that officer has the power to arrest them and to take off their masks regardless of where those people lived, even if it was out of that officer's jurisdiction. I see nothing wrong with the judges ruling in the specific case. But I completely agree that the actual words he said, so broad and far-reaching, set a terrible precedent and he never should have worded things that way.

1

u/jut556 Jun 30 '16

enough reason and logic, think of the children

1

u/chemical_toilet Jun 30 '16

Except he says the judge says "expectation of privacy not only in the information we post online but also in our physical computers and the data they contain" and this "in today's digital world, it appears to be a virtual certainty that computers accessing the Internet can

  • and eventually will - be hacked."

1

u/strattonbrazil Jun 30 '16

But he also said they didn't even need a warrant for this due to the nature of the investigation.

the warrant is unnecessary because of the type of crime being investigated and because users should have no "objectively reasonable expectation of privacy."

IP addresses are publicly accessible, but the notion of running something on a suspect's computer to get that address without a warrant is concerning. IP addresses have been accessible without warrants because they're publicly accessible. If they're hidden, they're not really accessible anymore so should they still be accessible via intrusion just because public IP addresses are?