Having read through the opinion the one thing that strikes me is how completely unnecessary deciding that people with computers connected to the internet, becau

Having read through the opinion the one thing that strikes me is how completely unnecessary deciding that people with computers connected to the internet, because of the existence of hackers, have no expectation of privacy. The judge had found, by tighter reasoning, that law enforcement didn't violate the Fourth Amendment in using their tools to find the defendants IP. Then, having gone through that, for no obvious reason, goes on to decide that no one has an expectation of privacy on their personal computers because computers are so full of security holes and hackers are so sophisticated these days that, essentially everyone has 'broken blinds' that anyone else in the world can see through on what would ordinarily be considered a private space. It boggles the mind. Up to that point the judge basically says "The defendant decided to go somewhere questionable and do something illegal -- since the FBI was watching, controlling, in fact that questionable place that was more or less public but dedicated to illegal activity, they had every reason to collect information because of probable cause". Great! Perfect! There is a lot of precedent. I'm reminded of when the FBI took over a biker bar that was known to be a nexus of drug trade and bugged the place and wired it for surveillance and put people who went there and were seen doing illegal things under surveillance themselves. From what I understand, it was a fruitful endeavor. But this is like they did that then decided since the road that connects to that bar also connected to houses that could be seen from the street, any of those houses can be searched. It's insane.