4 ms·

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

14 points by andreydrak 10y ago

ominous 10y ago
A federal judge for the Eastern District of Virginia has ruled that the user of any computer that connects to the Internet should not have an expectation of privacy because computer security is ineffectual at stopping hackers. "(...) the court FINDS that any such subjective expectation of privacy—if one even existed in this case—is not objectively reasonable." Some days are more dystopian than others. Also, see the EFF statement: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/federal-court-fourth-amendment-does-not-protect-your-home-computer https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/federal-court-fourth-a...
PeekPoke 10y ago
Sounds like this judge is in the agencies pockets.
haspoken 10y ago
And the ramifications of companies and businesses connecting computers to the internet? Privacy policies? Could this be used as a defense for an attacker?
- mirimir 10y ago
  Well, we know that the NSA pwns sysadmins. More generally, the ruling seems inconsistent with CFFA. So websites could freely compromise users, even more than they already do. And perhaps vice versa. Although there's arguably a distinction between home computers and commercial ones.
  - type0 10y ago
    Arguable distinction is that no-one wants to talk about industrial espionage.
mirimir 10y ago
This is a dangerous ruling, for sure. But the problem is that most home computers connected to the Internet are in fact not private. Sure, the defendant in this case was using Tor. But the fact that NIT pwned him tells me that he was working in Windows. Probably with just Tor browser. And obviously not with any protection against non-Tor Internet connectivity. The Tor Project ought to warn users about these issues.
wisp-hr 10y ago
Wow, that's not good
surge 10y ago
From an OPSec perspective, yeah, you shouldn't expect that your location couldn't be compromised somehow, even with countermeasures. So in some sense they're right, in a legal sense is where its a bit scary.
AstralStorm 10y ago
So there is no private property, because anyone can force doors? There is then no intellectual property more so, because anyone can crack DRM. I like this ruling. It is delicious dumb precedent. Also it would imply that you needed a licenced for public screening of any content played on a PC connected to the Internet.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

14 points by andreydrak 10y ago

A federal judge for the Eastern District of Virginia has ruled that the user of any computer that connects to the Internet should not have an expectation of privacy because computer security is ineffectual at stopping hackers. "(...) the court FINDS that any such subjective expectation of privacy—if one even existed in this case—is not objectively reasonable." Some days are more dystopian than others. Also, see the EFF statement: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/federal-court-fourth-amendment-does-not-protect-your-home-computer https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/federal-court-fourth-a...

PeekPoke 10y ago

Sounds like this judge is in the agencies pockets.

haspoken 10y ago

And the ramifications of companies and businesses connecting computers to the internet? Privacy policies? Could this be used as a defense for an attacker?

mirimir 10y ago
Well, we know that the NSA pwns sysadmins. More generally, the ruling seems inconsistent with CFFA. So websites could freely compromise users, even more than they already do. And perhaps vice versa. Although there's arguably a distinction between home computers and commercial ones.
- type0 10y ago
  Arguable distinction is that no-one wants to talk about industrial espionage.

mirimir 10y ago

This is a dangerous ruling, for sure. But the problem is that most home computers connected to the Internet are in fact not private. Sure, the defendant in this case was using Tor. But the fact that NIT pwned him tells me that he was working in Windows. Probably with just Tor browser. And obviously not with any protection against non-Tor Internet connectivity. The Tor Project ought to warn users about these issues.

wisp-hr 10y ago

Wow, that's not good

surge 10y ago

From an OPSec perspective, yeah, you shouldn't expect that your location couldn't be compromised somehow, even with countermeasures. So in some sense they're right, in a legal sense is where its a bit scary.

AstralStorm 10y ago

So there is no private property, because anyone can force doors? There is then no intellectual property more so, because anyone can crack DRM. I like this ruling. It is delicious dumb precedent. Also it would imply that you needed a licenced for public screening of any content played on a PC connected to the Internet.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]