4 ms·
The slight difference is the FBI is investigating the source of the Silk Road (not illegal), vs. trying to obtain private information of folks from ATT (illegal
by res0nat0r 12y ago
The slight difference is the FBI is investigating the source of the Silk Road (not illegal), vs. trying to obtain private information of folks from ATT (illegal).
- jonknee 12y agoThere is no difference if they did not have a warrant. The FBI has the ability to break into your house, but if they do that without having a warrant they can't use anything they found against you.
- res0nat0r 12y agoI wouldn't call this breaking in, more like surveillance.
- tatterdemalion 12y agoAnd with some very obvious exceptions, warrants are required to commit surveillance that violate certain privacy and property rights.
- res0nat0r 12y agoThe thing is I don't believe the court will find this to be violating any laws.
- tatterdemalion 12y agoI think you're probably right, but the argument up-thread was that the justice system is hypocritical regarding the permissibility of actions taken by the government compared to individual people.
- Terr_ 12y agoIMO a better analogy for "just sending packets" would be entering a store and looking around, or sending a package through the mail. Why? Because it could EITHER be totally-legal or blatantly-illegal, depending on the time, place, manner, and other details. Maybe they entered during business-hours, or maybe they broke in at 3AM. Maybe the package was a gift, maybe it was an explosive.
- dimva 12y agoYeah, I think the key here is that Silk Road's IP address is public information, especially since they were able to connect to it directly, whereas AT&T users' private information is private.