6 ms·

Call Yourself A Hacker, Lose Your 4th Amendment Rights

58 points by conductor 13y ago

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Didn't think that there was much of the 4th Amendment left to lose.
anigbrowl 13y ago
No 4th amendment rights were lost. A warrant was issued, which is provided for in the 4th amendment and whose issue can be challenged in court. The 4th amendment is designed to protect you from warrantless seizures. It does not confer any right to frustrate the issuance of a warrant. Challenged does not mean 'prevent'ed it can be argued later as a matter of law that the warrant should not have been issued, and that the evidence acquired as a result is inadmissible. Courts do not have to give defendants the benefit of the doubt in matters of evidence collection because a) procedures exist to challenge the admission of that evidence at trial and b) it's a sad but true fact that a lot of people do in fact attempt to destroy evidence; where they have both motive and capacity to do so, seizure is justifiable. Spoliation (the legal term for destruction of evidence) is a big problem in litigation.
- davorak 13y ago
  >Challenged does not mean 'prevent'ed it can be argued later as a matter of law that the warrant should not have been issued, and that the evidence acquired as a result is inadmissible. This is not the case and it is called the "good faith" exception. The police officers when acting in good faith under a warrant that is latter found to invalid does not make the evidence inadmissible. Given this do you now believe there is good reason to fight back against unreasonable warrants?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Keep in mind that the whole point of the 'exclusionary rule' being discussed here it to ensure that law enforcement does maintain the Fourth Amendment rights of a suspect by going through the due process procedures needed to obtain a warrant before conducting a search and/or seizure. The whole point to the 'good faith' exception to the 'exclusionary rule' is that in such a case, the detective had complied with the Fourth Amendment, the issued warrant passed some "smell tests", etc. Therefore it doesn't make sense to automatically "punish" the government (and society) and let people go free under the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' principle, since law enforcement wasn't the one at fault in that scenario, but rather the judge who issued the warrant. However, the 'good faith' exception is a possibility, not a mandate. The appellate judge can certainly decide that the evidence obtained under a warrant which is later deemed inadmissible should be excluded completely. All that the 'good faith' exception means is that the appellate judge doesn't have to exclude all that evidence; rather they can exclude what they deem essential toward meeting the interests of overall justice and fairness before remanding the case back to trial. Either way, fighting back against "unreasonable warrants" is almost axiomatically a good idea; I don't think anyone wants "unreasonable warrants" floating around in the justice system. I find it hard to feel too bad for people who really committed a serious crime and left evidence to that effect though. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the innocent from the government; that it also gives shielding to the guilty is the price that society has to pay, but that doesn't mean you should rely on such a shield being present if you commit a crime :P.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    That's a good point, but there's no question here of police going on a fishing expedition. By definition, an invalid warrant is subject to the good faith exception because it's reasonable. Here, there doesn't seem to be any question about the defendant being in possession of the information they're alleged to have taken. I find nothing unreasonable about the warrant here.
tptacek 13y ago
The Digital Bond blog, which covers the computer security subfield of SCADA assessments, is spinning this story pretty hard, which I think you'll see pretty quickly if you skim the actual court order. What's happening here is that Cory Thuen, a former developer of a network security product called Sophia at a company called Batelle, was fired (he did not "leave") apparently after it was determined that he was making a personal copy of Sophia called Visdom that he planned on open sourcing. When Thuen went on to start his own company to release Visdom (Southfork), Batelle sued for copyright infringement. Two things are happening at this point in the story, if I'm following it right. First, Batelle has prevailed in a preliminary injunction ordering Thuen to take down Visdom. It did so by making a showing that convinced the court it was likely to prevail in its suit, and that argument included admissions from Thuen that he had copied at least some of Sophia. Next, Thuen is being ordered to comply with discovery in the suit. Hard drive images are standard ESI evidence in cases like these; it is not at all weird that a court would order an image of a hard drive. The idea that an adversary in a civil proceeding might get access to content like this isn't at all weird; it's a basic result of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are two wrinkles to this case: First, the court ordered that Thuen be served with the demand for his computer without prior notice. According to the order, this is something that the court can do in extreme situations to prevent evidence from being spoiled. The reasoning the court used here is janky: Thuen claimed to be a "hacker", and the court hung its assessment that he might be likely to blitz his hard drive on that. Second, the court order escrows the hard drive image with the court, allowing Batelle's forensic expert to image the drive but not examine that image; the court hasn't yet determined what access Batelle will have to the image, but is instead taking steps to ensure that the image is available should it be needed. Once again: hard drive images are not an unusual product of civil discovery. You do not have a "4th amendment right" to avoid civil discovery. The "hacker" thing is facially ridiculous. But contra Digital Bond's claim, "hacker" didn't enable the hard drive imaging to occur; that was going to occur during discovery no matter what. Instead, "hacker" changed the prior notification procedure used to obtain the image.
- everyone 13y ago
  Why is it not standard practice for people who work in security or anything remotely contentious to keep their work OS, programs, data and so on, on a usb stick that you can just hide somewhere when you are not working on it?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
vampirechicken 13y ago
From now on I'm going to refer to myself as a judge.

58 points by conductor 13y ago

Didn't think that there was much of the 4th Amendment left to lose.

No 4th amendment rights were lost. A warrant was issued, which is provided for in the 4th amendment and whose issue can be challenged in court. The 4th amendment is designed to protect you from warrantless seizures. It does not confer any right to frustrate the issuance of a warrant. Challenged does not mean 'prevent'ed it can be argued later as a matter of law that the warrant should not have been issued, and that the evidence acquired as a result is inadmissible. Courts do not have to give defendants the benefit of the doubt in matters of evidence collection because a) procedures exist to challenge the admission of that evidence at trial and b) it's a sad but true fact that a lot of people do in fact attempt to destroy evidence; where they have both motive and capacity to do so, seizure is justifiable. Spoliation (the legal term for destruction of evidence) is a big problem in litigation.

davorak 13y ago
>Challenged does not mean 'prevent'ed it can be argued later as a matter of law that the warrant should not have been issued, and that the evidence acquired as a result is inadmissible. This is not the case and it is called the "good faith" exception. The police officers when acting in good faith under a warrant that is latter found to invalid does not make the evidence inadmissible. Given this do you now believe there is good reason to fight back against unreasonable warrants?
- mpyne 13y ago
  Keep in mind that the whole point of the 'exclusionary rule' being discussed here it to ensure that law enforcement does maintain the Fourth Amendment rights of a suspect by going through the due process procedures needed to obtain a warrant before conducting a search and/or seizure. The whole point to the 'good faith' exception to the 'exclusionary rule' is that in such a case, the detective had complied with the Fourth Amendment, the issued warrant passed some "smell tests", etc. Therefore it doesn't make sense to automatically "punish" the government (and society) and let people go free under the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' principle, since law enforcement wasn't the one at fault in that scenario, but rather the judge who issued the warrant. However, the 'good faith' exception is a possibility, not a mandate. The appellate judge can certainly decide that the evidence obtained under a warrant which is later deemed inadmissible should be excluded completely. All that the 'good faith' exception means is that the appellate judge doesn't have to exclude all that evidence; rather they can exclude what they deem essential toward meeting the interests of overall justice and fairness before remanding the case back to trial. Either way, fighting back against "unreasonable warrants" is almost axiomatically a good idea; I don't think anyone wants "unreasonable warrants" floating around in the justice system. I find it hard to feel too bad for people who really committed a serious crime and left evidence to that effect though. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the innocent from the government; that it also gives shielding to the guilty is the price that society has to pay, but that doesn't mean you should rely on such a shield being present if you commit a crime :P.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  That's a good point, but there's no question here of police going on a fishing expedition. By definition, an invalid warrant is subject to the good faith exception because it's reasonable. Here, there doesn't seem to be any question about the defendant being in possession of the information they're alleged to have taken. I find nothing unreasonable about the warrant here.

tptacek 13y ago

The Digital Bond blog, which covers the computer security subfield of SCADA assessments, is spinning this story pretty hard, which I think you'll see pretty quickly if you skim the actual court order. What's happening here is that Cory Thuen, a former developer of a network security product called Sophia at a company called Batelle, was fired (he did not "leave") apparently after it was determined that he was making a personal copy of Sophia called Visdom that he planned on open sourcing. When Thuen went on to start his own company to release Visdom (Southfork), Batelle sued for copyright infringement. Two things are happening at this point in the story, if I'm following it right. First, Batelle has prevailed in a preliminary injunction ordering Thuen to take down Visdom. It did so by making a showing that convinced the court it was likely to prevail in its suit, and that argument included admissions from Thuen that he had copied at least some of Sophia. Next, Thuen is being ordered to comply with discovery in the suit. Hard drive images are standard ESI evidence in cases like these; it is not at all weird that a court would order an image of a hard drive. The idea that an adversary in a civil proceeding might get access to content like this isn't at all weird; it's a basic result of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are two wrinkles to this case: First, the court ordered that Thuen be served with the demand for his computer without prior notice. According to the order, this is something that the court can do in extreme situations to prevent evidence from being spoiled. The reasoning the court used here is janky: Thuen claimed to be a "hacker", and the court hung its assessment that he might be likely to blitz his hard drive on that. Second, the court order escrows the hard drive image with the court, allowing Batelle's forensic expert to image the drive but not examine that image; the court hasn't yet determined what access Batelle will have to the image, but is instead taking steps to ensure that the image is available should it be needed. Once again: hard drive images are not an unusual product of civil discovery. You do not have a "4th amendment right" to avoid civil discovery. The "hacker" thing is facially ridiculous. But contra Digital Bond's claim, "hacker" didn't enable the hard drive imaging to occur; that was going to occur during discovery no matter what. Instead, "hacker" changed the prior notification procedure used to obtain the image.

everyone 13y ago
Why is it not standard practice for people who work in security or anything remotely contentious to keep their work OS, programs, data and so on, on a usb stick that you can just hide somewhere when you are not working on it?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

vampirechicken 13y ago

From now on I'm going to refer to myself as a judge.