5 ms·

No offence but if the Washington Post wants to convince people that computer technicians should not be able to report to the FBI whatever they find in their cos

No offence but if the Washington Post wants to convince people that computer technicians should not be able to report to the FBI whatever they find in their costumer's computers, they should use examples other than a doctor having child porn in his drive.

jameskilton 10y ago
Did you miss the part where the FBI is paying this technician to specifically look for any potentially questionable material? No-one is arguing that reporting something that you stumble upon while doing your job is wrong. This isn't what happened here. This tech was paid to go out of his way to search the computer for the potential of incriminating data. Aka, this is a search without a warrant. Also, of course the media is going to use and abuse "think of the children". This is how politicians convince the public to accept more surveillance and give up their freedoms.
- akjainaj 10y ago
  I don't agree with the "search without a warrant" part, because it sounds like they specifically were going after this doctor, when they were just looking for whatever they could find in any consumer drive to report it. There is also no proof that this technician was looking into unallocated sectors of the drive just to find something to incriminate customers, since looking into unallocated sectors is standard practice to recover missing files.
  - h_r 10y ago
    In the absence of proof of exactly how they are searching, the troubling aspect to me is the financial incentives being offered to low paid employees to somehow find criminal material. I have no trouble imagining unethical workers even going as far as planting material because "baby needs a new pair of shoes" or the FBI will pay extra to bust some juicy target.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    > because it sounds like they specifically were going after this doctor, when they were just looking for whatever they could find in any consumer drive to report it. Walking into every house on a street or in a city and searching it for drugs is still a highly illegal search. Whether or not a specific person was targeted is entirely beside the point.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Walking into a house when the owner says "Please walk into my house and look for my lost stuff. I'll pay you" changes the equation, right?
      - pavel_lishin 10y ago
        Not if the owner says "Walk into my house and fix my boiler", and you start digging through his underwear drawer.
- ocschwar 10y ago
  Well, IIUC, he didn't go out of his way. He was asked by the customer to recover deleted files, so he stumbled where otherwise he would not have looked at all. Which makes me wonder why he was paid at all. Normal people don't need an offer of money to call the cops when they come across CP.
konceptz 10y ago
Not sure why they should use other examples when the example isn't hypothetical. It reports on what is happening with this exact case. Perhaps you have more issue with the overly general title?
- akjainaj 10y ago
  What I mean is that these opinion pieces are usually written to change the mind of the readers, but saying "if we let the FBI do this, we will catch more pedophiles" will only make people side with the FBI, I think.

jameskilton 10y ago

Did you miss the part where the FBI is paying this technician to specifically look for any potentially questionable material? No-one is arguing that reporting something that you stumble upon while doing your job is wrong. This isn't what happened here. This tech was paid to go out of his way to search the computer for the potential of incriminating data. Aka, this is a search without a warrant. Also, of course the media is going to use and abuse "think of the children". This is how politicians convince the public to accept more surveillance and give up their freedoms.

akjainaj 10y ago
I don't agree with the "search without a warrant" part, because it sounds like they specifically were going after this doctor, when they were just looking for whatever they could find in any consumer drive to report it. There is also no proof that this technician was looking into unallocated sectors of the drive just to find something to incriminate customers, since looking into unallocated sectors is standard practice to recover missing files.
- h_r 10y ago
  In the absence of proof of exactly how they are searching, the troubling aspect to me is the financial incentives being offered to low paid employees to somehow find criminal material. I have no trouble imagining unethical workers even going as far as planting material because "baby needs a new pair of shoes" or the FBI will pay extra to bust some juicy target.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > because it sounds like they specifically were going after this doctor, when they were just looking for whatever they could find in any consumer drive to report it. Walking into every house on a street or in a city and searching it for drugs is still a highly illegal search. Whether or not a specific person was targeted is entirely beside the point.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Walking into a house when the owner says "Please walk into my house and look for my lost stuff. I'll pay you" changes the equation, right?
    - pavel_lishin 10y ago
      Not if the owner says "Walk into my house and fix my boiler", and you start digging through his underwear drawer.
ocschwar 10y ago
Well, IIUC, he didn't go out of his way. He was asked by the customer to recover deleted files, so he stumbled where otherwise he would not have looked at all. Which makes me wonder why he was paid at all. Normal people don't need an offer of money to call the cops when they come across CP.

konceptz 10y ago

Not sure why they should use other examples when the example isn't hypothetical. It reports on what is happening with this exact case. Perhaps you have more issue with the overly general title?

akjainaj 10y ago
What I mean is that these opinion pieces are usually written to change the mind of the readers, but saying "if we let the FBI do this, we will catch more pedophiles" will only make people side with the FBI, I think.