8 ms·

The absurdity of this is everyone - and I mean everyone, judging by private browsing habits - has an "expectation of privacy" when it comes to their home comput

The absurdity of this is everyone - and I mean everyone, judging by private browsing habits - has an "expectation of privacy" when it comes to their home computer. So the judgement here is absurd on its face. This isn't standing naked in front of a bay window, there's no real room for interpretation. So when a judge says there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy, he/she isn't even being honest with themselves, let alone the entirety of the computer-owning public. This is a bald-faced hand-out to law "enforcement" and has no bearing in reality.

CyberDildonics 10y ago
It is also very easy to make hypocrites of people in cases like this. Break into the home computes of the people who brought this forward and see if they stand behind their argument.
s_q_b 10y ago
This is akin to ruling that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a home because windows aren't fully secure against burglars.
- plandis 10y ago
  While somewhat true, analogies make for poor logical arguments. grellas' argument is much more succinct.
  - s_q_b 10y ago
    Pith is often a useful tool to expose absurdity.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  That's actually true though. Not burglars exactly, but the police absolutely can peer through gaps that you accidentally leave in your windows, even if you expect to be private inside. The court ruling even refers to this example. Sometimes people on HN complain when security researchers are threatened with prosecution under the CFAA. Well, which is it - is exploiting vulnerabilities more akin to peering through someone's window blinds with unintended gaps, or burglary?
  - s_q_b 10y ago
    This depends highly on context. The Jones intrusion/trespassing test and the Katz reasonable expectation of privacy test are generally used to determine whether police observations from the curtilage (the area surrounding the house) constitute a search. For example, a Florida appeals court recently ruled that peaking through "a gap accidentally left in a window" was violative of the Fourth Amendment. There's a whole series of window peaking, gate crossing, fielding entering, etc. cases. They tend to turn on the very specific facts of the case, such as whether the police intruded on a private space to look through the window, or whether the occupant sufficiently indicated that the space was private.
  - tajen 10y ago
    People have been found guilty of changing a URL by incrementing the client number. Then when the police infects a computer with a targetted worm, we're told it's "peering through open windows"...
    - jdc 10y ago
      Who was convicted in the former case?
      - beardog 10y ago
        Weev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev
        daveloyall 10y ago
        Seriously? I have taught people to do that. Not to access information they aren't authorized to have, simply because it's faster than filling out the web form...
        lawnchair_larry 10y ago
        It was eventually overturned on appeal, but not after a year or two in prison and great financial ruin.
afarrell 10y ago
> he/she isn't even being honest with themselves He may not be a member of the computer-owning public. The article refers to him as "Senior U.S. District Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr.". Senior status is not a title like Senior Engineer[1]. Rather, it means that he is actually semi-retired: He is paid his pension and travel expenses and has discretion over which cases to take. For example, there is one judge that is basically retired and lives on Cape Cod. However, he occasionally holds court down there in order to handle traffic cases for those caught speeding on federal land so that they don't have to go up to Boston. Judges on Senior status often decide to not do sentencing and they pretty much universally decline to hear Child Porn cases. There is some fraction of Senior Status judges who don't use Outlook or Gmail but rather have their secretaries print their emails, they handwrite the responses, and their secretaries type up their emails and send them. Considering all of this and the fact that he was born in 1935[2], he may genuinely believe that if he has a home computer that infection with viruses and weird pop-ups is inevitable. Sources: [1] a talk given at the Haystack Observatory by the Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Coke_Morgan,_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Coke_Morgan,_Jr. --- Edit: Of course, this isn't the majority of judges by any means. Many of them are comfortable writing opinions from their iPad while at an airport. Also, consider Scalia's opinion in Riley v. California, which this opinion would seem to directly contradict (once I can actually find the pdf...)
- cokernel 10y ago
  Riley v. California: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf
  - afarrell 10y ago
    I mean for the case that this article talks about, but thank you for that link.
    - cokernel 10y ago
      I believe the article links directly to a PDF copy of the USA v. Matish decision housed by the EFF: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/06/23/matish_suppression_edva.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2016/06/23/matish_suppression_edva...

CyberDildonics 10y ago

It is also very easy to make hypocrites of people in cases like this. Break into the home computes of the people who brought this forward and see if they stand behind their argument.

s_q_b 10y ago

This is akin to ruling that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a home because windows aren't fully secure against burglars.

plandis 10y ago
While somewhat true, analogies make for poor logical arguments. grellas' argument is much more succinct.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  Pith is often a useful tool to expose absurdity.
MichaelBurge 10y ago
That's actually true though. Not burglars exactly, but the police absolutely can peer through gaps that you accidentally leave in your windows, even if you expect to be private inside. The court ruling even refers to this example. Sometimes people on HN complain when security researchers are threatened with prosecution under the CFAA. Well, which is it - is exploiting vulnerabilities more akin to peering through someone's window blinds with unintended gaps, or burglary?
- s_q_b 10y ago
  This depends highly on context. The Jones intrusion/trespassing test and the Katz reasonable expectation of privacy test are generally used to determine whether police observations from the curtilage (the area surrounding the house) constitute a search. For example, a Florida appeals court recently ruled that peaking through "a gap accidentally left in a window" was violative of the Fourth Amendment. There's a whole series of window peaking, gate crossing, fielding entering, etc. cases. They tend to turn on the very specific facts of the case, such as whether the police intruded on a private space to look through the window, or whether the occupant sufficiently indicated that the space was private.
- tajen 10y ago
  People have been found guilty of changing a URL by incrementing the client number. Then when the police infects a computer with a targetted worm, we're told it's "peering through open windows"...
  - jdc 10y ago
    Who was convicted in the former case?
    - beardog 10y ago
      Weev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev
      - daveloyall 10y ago
        Seriously? I have taught people to do that. Not to access information they aren't authorized to have, simply because it's faster than filling out the web form...
        lawnchair_larry 10y ago
        It was eventually overturned on appeal, but not after a year or two in prison and great financial ruin.

afarrell 10y ago

> he/she isn't even being honest with themselves He may not be a member of the computer-owning public. The article refers to him as "Senior U.S. District Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr.". Senior status is not a title like Senior Engineer[1]. Rather, it means that he is actually semi-retired: He is paid his pension and travel expenses and has discretion over which cases to take. For example, there is one judge that is basically retired and lives on Cape Cod. However, he occasionally holds court down there in order to handle traffic cases for those caught speeding on federal land so that they don't have to go up to Boston. Judges on Senior status often decide to not do sentencing and they pretty much universally decline to hear Child Porn cases. There is some fraction of Senior Status judges who don't use Outlook or Gmail but rather have their secretaries print their emails, they handwrite the responses, and their secretaries type up their emails and send them. Considering all of this and the fact that he was born in 1935[2], he may genuinely believe that if he has a home computer that infection with viruses and weird pop-ups is inevitable. Sources: [1] a talk given at the Haystack Observatory by the Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Coke_Morgan,_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Coke_Morgan,_Jr. --- Edit: Of course, this isn't the majority of judges by any means. Many of them are comfortable writing opinions from their iPad while at an airport. Also, consider Scalia's opinion in Riley v. California, which this opinion would seem to directly contradict (once I can actually find the pdf...)

cokernel 10y ago
Riley v. California: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf
- afarrell 10y ago
  I mean for the case that this article talks about, but thank you for that link.
  - cokernel 10y ago
    I believe the article links directly to a PDF copy of the USA v. Matish decision housed by the EFF: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/06/23/matish_suppression_edva.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2016/06/23/matish_suppression_edva...