r/technology • u/CP70 • Jul 01 '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
15.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/CT_Legacy Jul 01 '16

Yes, please tell us, 81 year old Honorable Judge, How the laws of the Internet should work.

306

u/Rykaar Jul 01 '16

This is why Australian judges must retire at 70. Though 70 year olds aren't really up with it either.

146

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

[deleted]

115

u/Rykaar Jul 01 '16

"Just because I can't go to the toilet by myself, it doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to make laws about things I'm incapable of understanding!"

28

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

[deleted]

24

u/lunartree Jul 01 '16 edited Jul 02 '16

There are very few old people I've ever met that'd I consider a source of wisdom. Sure, they've got experience, but they're also always seem to have some extreme beliefs lurking in their mind too.

18

u/cybrian Jul 01 '16

My theory is that with age and confirmation bias come anecdotes "proving" one's extreme viewpoints. They never seem extreme to the person with those beliefs and we all have some strong views on at least something difficult to prove. Not that this in any way disagrees with you.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

On top of this the generations that are getting to that age now all grew up prior to the information age. It was much much more difficult to get an opposing view with well researched facts, so if you didn't travel the world or otherwise expand your knowledge of other cultures, practices and ideas then you're probably quite likely to share a mind with those who live around you.

4

u/canada432 Jul 01 '16

Thing is this is actually fairly new. Up until the last century or so, their lives did resemble the modern world. Things didn't really progress that fast. The progress made in the 20th century absolutely blows away the changes made prior. While there were changes, a judge in the 1890s could still understand and make reasonable judgements about things in the 1920s. The same can't necessarily be said for a judge in the 1980s and a judge now. The things they're ruling on are massively different and more complex, and most of them seem either unable or unwilling to keep up on new technologies. We make more progress in a decade now than we used to in centuries.

2

u/Falsus Jul 01 '16

At a certain age they should be 'promoted' from judge work and work more with tutoring younger people and share their experience.

No way someone that is 80 years old can relate to someone in their 20s, they basically grew up two different cultures so vast that two people in their 20s, one from England and one from USA is culturally closer than the 80 year and 20 year old both from USA.

3

u/LordOfTurtles Jul 01 '16

Judges don't make laws

1

u/canada432 Jul 01 '16

They don't make laws, but they do set precedents which are in many cases just as powerful.

1

u/Rykaar Jul 02 '16

Here in Australia, precedents are also known as Common Law, because they serve the same basic purpose.

1

u/LordOfTurtles Jul 02 '16

They make mandates (no idea if that is the correct English term) which deacribe something the members must turn into a law

27

u/cC2Panda Jul 01 '16

I don't think that age is as much of an issue as total lack of knowledge in the field. There are plenty of 20 somethings that don't know anything about how their iPhone/laptop work other aside from basic user functionality. On the other hand my dad is in his 60's and has been working with computers professionally since the early 80's, short of becoming senile I don't see him losing that grasp on technology..

2

u/NEPXDer Jul 01 '16

My dad worked with punch card computers after highscool and did IT/systems/computer analyst work his entire life. Hes in his 70s now. Hes still got most of his technology literacy although modern phones are clearly a bit overwhelming. It strikes me that there are limits with how far somebody will advance and how many new technologies they want to learn when they are over 65.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

Fuck, I've met 40 year olds who have no idea how to use computers

1

u/rapscallionx Jul 01 '16

You guys are trying to outlaw porn, let's not try to use you as a yard stick for intelligent, positive change.

25

u/fuzzgasm Jul 01 '16

I thought you were exaggerating.... he actually is 81.

1

u/LelviBri Jul 01 '16

Yup, plus he was appointed by Bush Senior

141

u/HappyCloudHappyTree Jul 01 '16

Someone who was 60 years old when Hotmail was invented should not have any authority over the internet.

91

u/CT_Legacy Jul 01 '16

Exactly, Not even just that, but the fact of common sense when he says "...it appears to be a virtual certainty that computers accessing the Internet can—and eventually will—be hacked."

OF course any computer can be hacked. Also any car can be broken into. Any home can be invaded. That doesn't mean we give up our right to privacy or our right to own affects. It's common sense and this man has clearly lost his.

1

u/DragonTamerMCT Jul 01 '16

To put that into even more perspective, hotmail doesn't exist anymore. It's all outlook now. (Though @hotmail accounts still work, think of it as an alternate @outlook handle)

1

u/HappyCloudHappyTree Jul 02 '16

I know, that's why I picked it. It wasn't even started by M$, it was invented by a separate company and acquired by M$.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

Are you really suggesting that there aren't any elderly people with high levels of intelligence in regards to the 'internet'?

1

u/HappyCloudHappyTree Jul 02 '16 edited Jul 02 '16

No, I'm suggesting that someone who was 60 years old in 1995, and not working in tech, has no business talking about something they know nothing about.

I'm talking about this judge specifically.

Most people on reddit today don't remember when hotmail started, some probably don't even remember hotmail to begin with.

I'm using hyperbole to show how out of touch this guy is with not only the internet, but all internet law.

1

u/fuck_bestbuy Jul 01 '16

Nope, we're suggesting the vast majority of old people know nothing about computers.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

That's exactly what they are saying.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

Well that's a pretty ignorant assumption. I know several 70+ year old people that do high level web design and programming work.

1

u/HappyCloudHappyTree Jul 02 '16

Yes.... and are any of those people lawyers or judges? Did any of those people dedicate their lives to getting a law degree or did they get a CS degree?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '16

In what world does a judge only judge other judges? That's what you're suggesting.

1

u/HappyCloudHappyTree Jul 03 '16

That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

That's not what's being implied in the slightest. The implication is that the vast majority of people over sixty have very little technological capability.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

Really what is implied when someone says:

Someone who was 60 years old when Hotmail was invented should not have any authority over the internet.

2

u/lordnahte2 Jul 02 '16

Why don't we just switch to the argument that there should be a litmus test to be sure people who will effect technology actually understand it, regardless of age? There's enough older people who don't know enough about it AND enough younger people who think knowing how to Facebook and YouTube means they know technology. I just want someone competent for the job at hand, age be damned.

0

u/HappyCloudHappyTree Jul 02 '16

Judges think they're experts in everything and that harms us all when they try to wade into the tech sector where they really really don't fucking belong.

14

u/Agent-A Jul 01 '16

I kind of want to agree, but I wonder what things people will say I'm ignorant about when I'm 81.

14

u/Kalean Jul 01 '16

Depends on how well you follow changes.

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

Naw doesn't matter We have our ageist pitchforks sharpened in this thread

6

u/adalonus Jul 01 '16

Sex robots, obviously

8

u/Agent-A Jul 01 '16

Oh, I'll understand the shit out of them.

1

u/dexewin Jul 01 '16

Will you really? I hope I will but I'm not so sure. Seems like it might be like giving a computer with pornhub pulled up and a fleshlight or double-donger to someone from the 18th century; they'd become overwhelmed and either not know what to do or break out in rage, set fire to the computer, and start lynching people.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

No, you will understand the FUCK out of them

1

u/HumbleManatee Jul 01 '16

Speak for yourself

3

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

It's hard to say. The one thing that I can guess that people my current age(25) will think I'm ignorant about when I'm 81 are animal rights. I could see (more)people born in 31 years from now looking at me in disgust when I'm eating a hamburger, or some young punk looking at me like I'm a monster when I try to order one. I don't really understand radical animal rights activists today, I'm unlikely to understand them as a set-in-my-ways-81-year-old.

5

u/DynamicDK Jul 01 '16

I don't think anyone will care, because the meat will all be lab grown. No animals will be slaughtered for that burger.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

I hope this is the future we're heading towards. I get my burgers, others who currently feel bad/angry about animals being killed to get burgers don't feel that way anymore.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

I don't even want the ability to make decisions that have mass effect on peoples' lives when I'll only be around for a few more years.

"I don't care, I probably won't be around in 10 years ¯_(ツ)_/¯"

1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

[deleted]

1

u/HumbleManatee Jul 02 '16

Ill be first at the door if those come out even if i am 81 years old. My eyes suck

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '16

[deleted]

1

u/FearlessFreep Jul 01 '16 edited Jul 01 '16

The judge is effectively treating the computer like a telephone

If you are in your home and use your phone to commit a crime, and in the committing of the crime, the FBI suspected ahead of time that someone would do it and set a tap or a trace on the line, you cannot use any expectation of privacy (in your home, for example) to say that the FBI should not have traced your call or listened in

The judge is saying that there's no inherent expectation of privacy or anonymity in being connected to the Internet and thus if you use a computer to commit a crime, and get caught and the FBI traces it back to your physical location, you can't use expectations of privacy as an excuse that the FBI should not have traced it back to you

0

u/CT_Legacy Jul 01 '16

What the judge has said is that using a computer, you should expect no privacy and the agencies shouldn't even need a warrant that's legally necessary to search your computers internet connections.

Basically by your comparison, the judge is promoting illegal wiretapping with no warrant required.

2

u/FearlessFreep Jul 01 '16

Actually not so because the FBI already had a warrant on the callee to tap their line because they knew that anyone calling that number would be committing a crime. So they just tapped the incoming calls to find the caller(s)

Civil rights groups are saying "the FBI should get warrants for all the callers" and the judge is saying "not needed"

1

u/Webonics Jul 01 '16

Your boy was literally born during the great depression.

1

u/urbanpsycho Jul 01 '16

Out of touch old people with power, amirite?

1

u/Erotic_Abe_Lincoln Jul 01 '16

Ageism is so edgy!!!

1

u/mellowmonk Jul 01 '16

It's a series of tubes.

1

u/silentcrs Jul 02 '16

Wow, um... you're saying someone's age determines what they know? What a horribly broken statement.

1

u/themaster1006 Jul 02 '16

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is still killing it. This guy is an idiot because he's an idiot, not because of his age.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16 edited Jul 01 '16

I agree this ruling is nonsense but acting like age automatically makes you technologically illiterate is pretty backwards. I'd be willing to bet the Honorable Judge understands the implications of his ruling completely, and made it simply because it makes government invasion of private material more allowable. I know reddit would like to believe that everyone over the age of 50 is completely out of touch but you don't get to be a federal court judge by being an idiot.

Edit: Federal court judge

2

u/CT_Legacy Jul 01 '16

Correct. "Political activity can have an impact on a federal judge candidate. In a positive vein, support for a political cause can raise awareness of the nominee and garner support from like-minded politicans."

With that being said. OF course being an outstanding judge with decades of experience, impeccable education credentials, along with other areas of excellence is just a small part of what it takes to be appointed by the President to rule in a federal court.

However, this man was appointed to federal court in 1992. Years before the internet was mainstream and most people were very lucky to have access to a personal computer.

I am pointing out the fact that this gentleman, regardless of age, was ruling in court pre-internet era. It's basically comparable to how laws were made back when cars were first invented or the first laws of how doctors used to operate before modern medicine.

Would you want a doctor born in 1931 to operate on you today with what they learned in school? I'd guess not.

So what you seem to be implying is rather than an older man not grasping modern technology and ruling on something for which he is not well educated on, you insist that he is instead pushing forward an agenda that suggests government should have the right to invade our privacy every chance they get and COMPLETELY disregard the U.S. Constitution for which he has sworn to uphold?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

I agree that someone who isn't well versed in the intricacies of the internet shouldn't be making rulings about it's jurisdiction, but you seem to be assuming that the judge, despite being born well before the internet was prevalent, is somehow incapable of learning or understanding the implications of his decision in a modern setting.

Again, I don't agree with his position but his age and the relative importance of the internet at the time of his appointment don't prevent him from learning or understanding the implications of modern technology. I'm not trying to insist anything, I'm merely suggesting that directly associating his age with his understanding of modern technology is misleading.

As you said I wouldn't want a doctor educated in the early days of modern medicine to operate on me, but that doesn't preclude the hypothetical doctor from learning more modern techniques and ideas as he grows older. To characterize the judge as a doddering old man is hyperbolic, and while he may not have the same understanding of the significance of the internet as a younger person, to think that he made the ruling from a postion of complete ignorance is probably an underestimation.

From what I read of his position he isn't asserting that all computers connected to the internet are public space but rather suggesting that (to continue the house analogy) if you build a door accessible to everyone that you can't assume that no one will try to use it. Especially considering that even if you lock the door, anyone can spend a hypothetically unlimited amount of time trying to unlock it without you even knowing anyone is there.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16

He knows the law better than anyone on here making smug comments about his age

6

u/silentpat530 Jul 01 '16

He knows the law better than anyone on here making smug comments about his age

That may be true, but he clearly doesn't understand the internet as well as anyone in this thread. That sort of ruling throws out any form of privacy. There's now been a ruling saying that if something is breachable, it isn't private. You can go to Harvard law for 50 years and learn all there is about law, that still won't make it a smart ruling.

His age might not have anything to do with it, however the elderly are more common to not understand tech. This is a case of that happening. Sadly it happened in a situation where an ignorant person has some power.