4 ms·

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

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

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.