3 ms·

in germany, the highest court ruled exactly the opposite: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundrecht_auf_Gew%C3%A4hrleistung_der_Vertraulichkeit_und_Integrit%C3%A

by cleeus 10y ago

in germany, the highest court ruled exactly the opposite: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundrecht_auf_Gew%C3%A4hrleistung_der_Vertraulichkeit_und_Integrit%C3%A4t_informationstechnischer_Systeme https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundrecht_auf_Gew%C3%A4hrleis... rough translation: "The right to confidentiality and integrity on IT systems" google translate link: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGrundrecht_auf_Gew%C3%A4hrleistung_der_Vertraulichkeit_und_Integrit%C3%A4t_informationstechnischer_Systeme https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=h... As far as I remember the CCC wrote an expertise in the ruling and mentioned computerized implants. That was the point were the judges understood that there should be an expectation of privacy on home computers.

tallanvor 10y ago
It looks like this was just a district court, though. Higher courts in the US could certainly overturn this ruling.
- kire456 10y ago
  Non-American here: glad to hear they can. Will they, in cases like this, do that by themselves? Or should someone (EFF) appeal this ruling? Or can only the suspect/criminal in this specific case appeal?
  - colechristensen 10y ago
    The defendant must appeal, but someone (the EFF) often supports the defendant through either friend-of-the-court briefs [1] or directly supplying free legal services. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae