4 ms·

Err, you do understand how warrants work, right? You don't get one by proving someone is guilty, but by showing there is probable cause. >The standard for a s

by starwed 15y ago

Err, you do understand how warrants work, right? You don't get one by proving someone is guilty, but by showing there is probable cause. >The standard for a search warrant is lower than the quantum of proof required for a later conviction. The rationale is that the evidence that can be collected without a search warrant may not be sufficient to convict, but may be sufficient to suggest that enough evidence to convict could be found using the warrant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_States_of_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_States_of...

SwellJoe 15y ago
And issuing a warrant based on an IP address is roughly akin to issuing a warrant to search a random person on a bus, because someone who may have committed a crime is known to be on the bus. I'm simply uncomfortable with the level of the bar on probable cause with regard to IP addresses, given how little information an IP address actually provides, even when government has cooperation of the ISP to identify users of that IP during the actions in question. I'm also uncomfortable with the history of how computer seizures have been handled, and how little respect is shown in such cases. Given that seizing computers is not the same as searching a home; once a search of your home is over, it's over. With alleged computer crimes someone's business could be destroyed by the time the computers and data are returned. And, historically, it has occasionally required a lawsuit to get the computers and data returned (and the data may have been tampered with or destroyed).
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- starwed 15y ago
  (That's a terrible analogy.) I'm comfortable with using IP addresses to issue warrants -- I don't think it's a stretch to say that a reasonable percentage of the time it'll turn out to be accurate. The way computer seizures are handled is fucked up, though, totally with you on that.

by starwed 15y ago

SwellJoe 15y ago

And issuing a warrant based on an IP address is roughly akin to issuing a warrant to search a random person on a bus, because someone who may have committed a crime is known to be on the bus. I'm simply uncomfortable with the level of the bar on probable cause with regard to IP addresses, given how little information an IP address actually provides, even when government has cooperation of the ISP to identify users of that IP during the actions in question. I'm also uncomfortable with the history of how computer seizures have been handled, and how little respect is shown in such cases. Given that seizing computers is not the same as searching a home; once a search of your home is over, it's over. With alleged computer crimes someone's business could be destroyed by the time the computers and data are returned. And, historically, it has occasionally required a lawsuit to get the computers and data returned (and the data may have been tampered with or destroyed).

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
starwed 15y ago
(That's a terrible analogy.) I'm comfortable with using IP addresses to issue warrants -- I don't think it's a stretch to say that a reasonable percentage of the time it'll turn out to be accurate. The way computer seizures are handled is fucked up, though, totally with you on that.