4 ms·

I understand people who have an issue with the "grab everything" mentality. But, from a technology point of view, how else do you do it? Imagine your the FBI I

by mox1 13y ago

I understand people who have an issue with the "grab everything" mentality. But, from a technology point of view, how else do you do it? Imagine your the FBI IT guy. How long do you think it would take YOU to walk into an unknown datacenter, locate the specific computer / IP address referenced in the warrant, connect to that computer and copy just the minimum amount of data necessary to prosecute said bad guy (just his e-mail .mbox file? or is this a windows shop..grab the pst? What about backups? What about his contact list? All this just for e-mail!) Often times he probably doesn't even know the specifics of the case. Maybe just let the local DataCenter guy copy the data off for you right? Well hopefully hes honest and not involved in the crime. The fact of the matter is, it is 100x easier to walk in, grab the servers of interest and walk out. If the FBI IT guy is smart and prepared he just brings tools to remove the hard drives from the server, copy them and put them back. BUT, if theres child porn, contraband, etc. the FBI is NOT giving that computer back any time soon. Doesn't matter who owns it.

wavefunction 13y ago
So because of an overly-broad warrant, or lack of training, or vague suspicions or even the mere chance that your data happened to be stored on the same box as Criminal A, we should just allow the FBI to violate the Constitution? Reductio ad absurdum with your argument and we should just let the FBI run all internet infrastructure, because it is expedient for the FBI, it makes life easier on the FBI, and they can inspect your data to their heart's content. It is a much preferable situation to the one where an FBI agent has to do something complicated. Nowhere do I see you advocating for the innocent whose rights are infringed upon.
- mox1 13y ago
  The Constitution specifically states "unreasonable search and seizures". I did not say it should be easy for the FBI to collect. I specifically was referring to "reasonable". Again, if you were tasked with collecting this data, how do you do it reasonably? Sometimes the most reasonable thing is to simply copy the hard drives the data is living on.
  - dognotdog 13y ago
    The reasonable here does not mean what's techincally easiest or reasonable for the government, but what a reasonable violation of the suspects' or innocent people's privacy is, in light of the suspected crimes. Grabbing the servers is easy, but arguably because so much unrelated data could be on a shared server these days, it's unreasonable to just grab everything. Many other people are affected, and unrelated data is collected and evaluated later for purposes unrelated to the original collection purpose. This circumvents a reasonable expectation of privacy, and strongly shifts the balance of power from the regular citizens to the agency hording the data. Especially in light of the plea-bargaining justice system in the USA, where the data can be and is used to threaten and coerce, this is worrying. EDIT: missing word
judk 13y ago
Right, technical details aren't the real issue. Ultimately, the govt has to earn back the trust it has destroyed, or face rebellion. That's how trust works.

by mox1 13y ago

wavefunction 13y ago

So because of an overly-broad warrant, or lack of training, or vague suspicions or even the mere chance that your data happened to be stored on the same box as Criminal A, we should just allow the FBI to violate the Constitution? Reductio ad absurdum with your argument and we should just let the FBI run all internet infrastructure, because it is expedient for the FBI, it makes life easier on the FBI, and they can inspect your data to their heart's content. It is a much preferable situation to the one where an FBI agent has to do something complicated. Nowhere do I see you advocating for the innocent whose rights are infringed upon.

mox1 13y ago
The Constitution specifically states "unreasonable search and seizures". I did not say it should be easy for the FBI to collect. I specifically was referring to "reasonable". Again, if you were tasked with collecting this data, how do you do it reasonably? Sometimes the most reasonable thing is to simply copy the hard drives the data is living on.
- dognotdog 13y ago
  The reasonable here does not mean what's techincally easiest or reasonable for the government, but what a reasonable violation of the suspects' or innocent people's privacy is, in light of the suspected crimes. Grabbing the servers is easy, but arguably because so much unrelated data could be on a shared server these days, it's unreasonable to just grab everything. Many other people are affected, and unrelated data is collected and evaluated later for purposes unrelated to the original collection purpose. This circumvents a reasonable expectation of privacy, and strongly shifts the balance of power from the regular citizens to the agency hording the data. Especially in light of the plea-bargaining justice system in the USA, where the data can be and is used to threaten and coerce, this is worrying. EDIT: missing word

judk 13y ago

Right, technical details aren't the real issue. Ultimately, the govt has to earn back the trust it has destroyed, or face rebellion. That's how trust works.