4 ms·

> What can the Feds/providers do differently to prevent this from happening so often? In the United States we might start considering computer equipment as pri

> What can the Feds/providers do differently to prevent this from happening so often? In the United States we might start considering computer equipment as private spaces, not unlike our residents and vehicles. With so much of our lives increasingly digital in nature, it's not that screwy of an idea that law enforcement should require a search warrant for computer equipment and storage media.

owenmarshall 15y ago
> In the United States we might start considering computer > equipment as private spaces, not unlike our residents and > vehicles. With so much of our lives increasingly digital > in nature, it's not that screwy of an idea that law > enforcement should require a search warrant for computer > equipment and storage media. That's not at all the issue. The 4th amendment has been extended to digital media: http://www.cybercrime.gov/ssmanual/index.html http://www.cybercrime.gov/ssmanual/index.html I'd be willing to bet my house that the law enforcement had a search warrant to take the data in question. The problem is that the government's strategy -- grab the hardware -- doesn't work well when the hard drive is a virtual disk that sits on a server with a ton of other virtual disks. Ultimately though, I think this isn't a question that can be solved by technical means. The solution is going to come when law enforcement can come up with a way of "confiscating" the virtual disks that doesn't open the door for claims of tampering & evidence planting.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  In a sane environment, you'd be right. But the government is going to claim that its "right" to get at the evidence is stronger than the property rights of the other co-resident users. Consider: the 4th Amendment isn't in effect when you're within 100 miles (?) of the border; the chance of smuggling, etc., is greater there, so the need to detain and search people in that zone outweighs our rights. Or, consider a case in which my buddy borrows my car, and is seen driving through an unsavory neighborhood, is stopped, and found with a big sum of cash. This gives them the "right" to confiscate my car because it was involved in drug trafficking, even though no crime has been committed, and I wasn't involved in any case.
  - owenmarshall 15y ago
    Those constitution free zones only apply to stops and searches of people, not searches of property. Your post is high on hyperbole and fear but low on content.
    - sehugg 15y ago
      I disagree: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9177438/Border_searches_of_laptops_may_be_conducted_off_site_for_cause_court_rules_ http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9177438/Border_search...
      - owenmarshall 15y ago
        Wow, I'd better avoid all the hosting companies that repeatedly fly my data through TSA! Just because the government has the legitimate right to conduct warrantless searches under conditions {x,y,z} doesn't mean they have rights to conduct warrantless searches under any other condition, or under all conditions.
  - cstross 15y ago
    My understanding is that the CBP and immigration officers can work anywhere within 100 miles of the border ... or of any port. Which includes airports and general aviation fields capable of receiving flights from outside the USA. Which means just about anywhere. However, that particular issue is not germane to the case in point, which appears to involve the FBI rather than immigration/border patrol.
- troutwine 15y ago
  I should have made myself more clear; I was aware that digital media is covered by the 4th, but failed to indicate this or discuss the following: > The problem is that the government's strategy -- grab the hardware -- doesn't work well when the hard drive is a virtual disk that sits on a server with a ton of other virtual disks. A fine point. I assert that the government should, then, have to receive a search warrant for each individual's data on the specific piece of hardware. Consider the search of an apartment complex: getting a warrant for one residence of the building does not grant search rights for every other residence. My contention is that physical disks with many virtual disks should be treated as multiple tenant property, as indeed it is. Thank you for the comment and the citation.
  - owenmarshall 15y ago
    The metaphor falls apart a bit: the cops can search 4B for drugs without bothering me in 2A, but when everybody's data is on one disk... I would, however, imagine that the police would need a warrant to search any other virtual disk. But the seizure of those disks raises an interesting legal question. Any lawyers know the answer?
    - mapgrep 15y ago
      In the case of Pinboard, at least, they had their own machine(s), i.e dedicated servers not virtual servers or shared hosting. So at least some machines were taken the belonged entirely to people not subject to the warrant - it seems like the idea was just to take the whole rack, regardless of who else was on it.
    - troutwine 15y ago
      Law enforcement does not require a search warrant, in your hypothetical, for 2A precicesly because the search of 4B leaves the residence of 2A unmolested. I do not believe the metaphor falls apart, at all: because the virtual 'tenant' vhd0 of physical hard-drive hd0 cannot be undisturbed by the search and seizure of the data in virtual 'tenant' vhd1--and might reasonably be considered to have the data subjected search and by definition seizure--law enforcement _should_ require a warrant for vhd0 and vhd1. Going back to your hypothetical, if the resident of 3A were stuffing materials of interest into the crawlspace between their ceiling the the floor of 4B and said crawlspace could only be accessed through the floor of 4B, the interested authorities would need either the express permission of the residents of 4B for entry into their residence or a warrant for search. _That_, I assert, is a similar situation akin to the topic under discussion.

owenmarshall 15y ago

> In the United States we might start considering computer > equipment as private spaces, not unlike our residents and > vehicles. With so much of our lives increasingly digital > in nature, it's not that screwy of an idea that law > enforcement should require a search warrant for computer > equipment and storage media. That's not at all the issue. The 4th amendment has been extended to digital media: http://www.cybercrime.gov/ssmanual/index.html http://www.cybercrime.gov/ssmanual/index.html I'd be willing to bet my house that the law enforcement had a search warrant to take the data in question. The problem is that the government's strategy -- grab the hardware -- doesn't work well when the hard drive is a virtual disk that sits on a server with a ton of other virtual disks. Ultimately though, I think this isn't a question that can be solved by technical means. The solution is going to come when law enforcement can come up with a way of "confiscating" the virtual disks that doesn't open the door for claims of tampering & evidence planting.

CWuestefeld 15y ago
In a sane environment, you'd be right. But the government is going to claim that its "right" to get at the evidence is stronger than the property rights of the other co-resident users. Consider: the 4th Amendment isn't in effect when you're within 100 miles (?) of the border; the chance of smuggling, etc., is greater there, so the need to detain and search people in that zone outweighs our rights. Or, consider a case in which my buddy borrows my car, and is seen driving through an unsavory neighborhood, is stopped, and found with a big sum of cash. This gives them the "right" to confiscate my car because it was involved in drug trafficking, even though no crime has been committed, and I wasn't involved in any case.
- owenmarshall 15y ago
  Those constitution free zones only apply to stops and searches of people, not searches of property. Your post is high on hyperbole and fear but low on content.
  - sehugg 15y ago
    I disagree: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9177438/Border_searches_of_laptops_may_be_conducted_off_site_for_cause_court_rules_ http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9177438/Border_search...
    - owenmarshall 15y ago
      Wow, I'd better avoid all the hosting companies that repeatedly fly my data through TSA! Just because the government has the legitimate right to conduct warrantless searches under conditions {x,y,z} doesn't mean they have rights to conduct warrantless searches under any other condition, or under all conditions.
- cstross 15y ago
  My understanding is that the CBP and immigration officers can work anywhere within 100 miles of the border ... or of any port. Which includes airports and general aviation fields capable of receiving flights from outside the USA. Which means just about anywhere. However, that particular issue is not germane to the case in point, which appears to involve the FBI rather than immigration/border patrol.
troutwine 15y ago
I should have made myself more clear; I was aware that digital media is covered by the 4th, but failed to indicate this or discuss the following: > The problem is that the government's strategy -- grab the hardware -- doesn't work well when the hard drive is a virtual disk that sits on a server with a ton of other virtual disks. A fine point. I assert that the government should, then, have to receive a search warrant for each individual's data on the specific piece of hardware. Consider the search of an apartment complex: getting a warrant for one residence of the building does not grant search rights for every other residence. My contention is that physical disks with many virtual disks should be treated as multiple tenant property, as indeed it is. Thank you for the comment and the citation.
- owenmarshall 15y ago
  The metaphor falls apart a bit: the cops can search 4B for drugs without bothering me in 2A, but when everybody's data is on one disk... I would, however, imagine that the police would need a warrant to search any other virtual disk. But the seizure of those disks raises an interesting legal question. Any lawyers know the answer?
  - mapgrep 15y ago
    In the case of Pinboard, at least, they had their own machine(s), i.e dedicated servers not virtual servers or shared hosting. So at least some machines were taken the belonged entirely to people not subject to the warrant - it seems like the idea was just to take the whole rack, regardless of who else was on it.
  - troutwine 15y ago
    Law enforcement does not require a search warrant, in your hypothetical, for 2A precicesly because the search of 4B leaves the residence of 2A unmolested. I do not believe the metaphor falls apart, at all: because the virtual 'tenant' vhd0 of physical hard-drive hd0 cannot be undisturbed by the search and seizure of the data in virtual 'tenant' vhd1--and might reasonably be considered to have the data subjected search and by definition seizure--law enforcement _should_ require a warrant for vhd0 and vhd1. Going back to your hypothetical, if the resident of 3A were stuffing materials of interest into the crawlspace between their ceiling the the floor of 4B and said crawlspace could only be accessed through the floor of 4B, the interested authorities would need either the express permission of the residents of 4B for entry into their residence or a warrant for search. _That_, I assert, is a similar situation akin to the topic under discussion.