3 ms·

>Bad judging all around here. I am not so sure. Yes, the Judge could have ruled defendant's have a reasonable expectation of privacy for devices connected to

>Bad judging all around here. I am not so sure. Yes, the Judge could have ruled defendant's have a reasonable expectation of privacy for devices connected to the internet. And while it may even be true subjectively, I think the Judge did get it right objectively. A lot of people in this thread, and you to some extent, suggest that this judge's ruling is the non-digital equivalent of saying a person does not have a reasonable expectation on their home because those too can be broken into the same as an internet connected device. Even in your examples you list "your home" and "your car", but as you know, legally, a home and car don't carry the same expectation of privacy from a 4th amendment analysis. Further, just because a internet connected device and home can be broken into that does not make it a good or fair analogy. Internet connected devices can be broken into by anyone, anywhere in the world so long as they have an internet connection, that is not the case with a home. Nor can people protect their digital data with lethal force the same way one might protect their home. The threats to privacy and the privacy protections for an internet device and a physical home are simply not the same. Perhaps a better way to distinguish a home and internet connect device is to use other precedent as an analogy. A public phone booth (reasonable expectation of privacy) vs speaking on your private cell phone in public (no reasonable expectation of privacy). Trash in your house (reasonable expectation of privacy) and when you put in on the curb for pick up (no expectation of privacy), might be good for saying non-internet connect device (privacy) and internet connected device (no privacy). So why don't I think it bad decision? Lets just say if the Judge did rule there is a reasonable expectation on internet connected devices, it wouldn't stop the Gov. They could always hide behind the non-Gov search/seizure argument in future cases. In other words, the Gov could always say they didn't hack a defendant's internet connected device, that a non-Gov actor searched/seized the data and anonymously provided the evidence to the Gov; therefore, the evidence is not subject to 4th amendment protections. Again not something likely to happen in any of these non-digital analogies (i.e. police are not going to claim the person who broke into your home, while breaking into your home seized evidence of your crimes and gave it to the police anonymously). As much as we would all like to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on our internet connected devices, we don't objectively; therefore, I think the court reached the right decision. Definitely if the security of the devices improves to keep out Gov and non-Gov actors alike (objective expectations), then our reasonable expectations (subjective) and the law can change with it.

eric_h 10y ago
I upvoted you because I believe you made a cogent argument, but I respectfully disagree. I would argue that it's only relatively recently that people have started to associate an internet connected machine with the potential for a lack of privacy. People have begun to realize that making a secure device is difficult, but that doesn't mean they don't expect some degree of privacy. Most certainly don't expect that connecting their laptop to Wifi that they control and pay for automatically reduces the privacy of things contained on their laptop, and only on their laptop to zero. Further, the expectation is that security and privacy is a feature that all (well, most) companies are actively working to improve, and therefore a fluid definition of an expectation of privacy is dangerous, I think.
- will_brown 10y ago
  Well with or without the upvote, thanks for the reply. I am a lawyer and OP is a lawyer, and ultimately whether anyone disagrees with the judges ruling, I shouldn't be downvoted because I played devils advocate with OP and legally I agree with the ruling. It is law, as OP hints I acknowledge this Judge may very well be overturned at some point, and I even gave an example where I would agree with him being overturned, so the downvotes without replies are bizarre. >People have begun to realize that making a secure device is difficult, but that doesn't mean they don't expect some degree of privacy. I totally agree and just think a lot of people in the thread don't understand 4th Amendment law and are conflating 4th amendment analysis of reasonable expectation of privacy with the separate right to privacy. The Judge's ruling is very limited: In a criminal case the Gov can introduce evidence of a crime they collected from a device connected to the internet they obtained without a warrant. My point is, even if the Judge said the introduction of said evidence violates the 4th Amendment and should be suppressed...legally such a ruling would still be limited and have no effect of the Gov's actual efforts to collect all that data without a warrant. The only practical effect such a ruling would have is that once the Gov has evidence of a crime then they will obtain a narrow search warrant or alternatively (as I mention above) introduce the evidence as collected by a non-Gov 3rd party (not subject to 4th Amendment protections). >Further, the expectation is that security and privacy is a feature that all (well, most) companies are actively working to improve, and therefore a fluid definition of an expectation of privacy is dangerous, I think. Yes, fluid definitions can be dangerous, but it can also be the most beautiful and powerful thing about the law. One such example separate but equal being defined constitutional in Plessy v Ferguson, then being redefined as unconstitutional in Brown v Board.

eric_h 10y ago

I upvoted you because I believe you made a cogent argument, but I respectfully disagree. I would argue that it's only relatively recently that people have started to associate an internet connected machine with the potential for a lack of privacy. People have begun to realize that making a secure device is difficult, but that doesn't mean they don't expect some degree of privacy. Most certainly don't expect that connecting their laptop to Wifi that they control and pay for automatically reduces the privacy of things contained on their laptop, and only on their laptop to zero. Further, the expectation is that security and privacy is a feature that all (well, most) companies are actively working to improve, and therefore a fluid definition of an expectation of privacy is dangerous, I think.

will_brown 10y ago
Well with or without the upvote, thanks for the reply. I am a lawyer and OP is a lawyer, and ultimately whether anyone disagrees with the judges ruling, I shouldn't be downvoted because I played devils advocate with OP and legally I agree with the ruling. It is law, as OP hints I acknowledge this Judge may very well be overturned at some point, and I even gave an example where I would agree with him being overturned, so the downvotes without replies are bizarre. >People have begun to realize that making a secure device is difficult, but that doesn't mean they don't expect some degree of privacy. I totally agree and just think a lot of people in the thread don't understand 4th Amendment law and are conflating 4th amendment analysis of reasonable expectation of privacy with the separate right to privacy. The Judge's ruling is very limited: In a criminal case the Gov can introduce evidence of a crime they collected from a device connected to the internet they obtained without a warrant. My point is, even if the Judge said the introduction of said evidence violates the 4th Amendment and should be suppressed...legally such a ruling would still be limited and have no effect of the Gov's actual efforts to collect all that data without a warrant. The only practical effect such a ruling would have is that once the Gov has evidence of a crime then they will obtain a narrow search warrant or alternatively (as I mention above) introduce the evidence as collected by a non-Gov 3rd party (not subject to 4th Amendment protections). >Further, the expectation is that security and privacy is a feature that all (well, most) companies are actively working to improve, and therefore a fluid definition of an expectation of privacy is dangerous, I think. Yes, fluid definitions can be dangerous, but it can also be the most beautiful and powerful thing about the law. One such example separate but equal being defined constitutional in Plessy v Ferguson, then being redefined as unconstitutional in Brown v Board.