5 ms·

I'm ignorant of the law here: This article starts off saying basically that the FBI agents distracted him long enough to steal his computer and image the hard d

by dchuk 12y ago

I'm ignorant of the law here: This article starts off saying basically that the FBI agents distracted him long enough to steal his computer and image the hard drive...is that legal? I thought you needed a warrant or something for situations like this? Or is it illegal-but-it's-ok-it's-the-FBI-shhhh?

gk1 12y ago
From my understanding, they grabbed the computer just seconds before the arrest.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
mgraczyk 12y ago
According to the author, the FBI had a warrant for the laptop at the time.
mattmanser 12y ago
They just mean they grabbed the laptop off the table before formally arresting him, i.e. they distracted him with a diversion of an argument, another agent grabbed the laptop from the table, and another agent physically detained him and arrested him. So he couldn't close the laptop and enact the encryption.
reverend_gonzo 12y ago
They already had a warrant for his arrest, as well as for the computer. They just didn't want him to be able to turn off the computer, encrypt itself, and have it become inaccessible to them.
- heywire 12y ago
  Imagine if you were the agent who grabbed the laptop, and you accidentally bumped the power button. Or if you were the forensic tech, and you accidentally triggered a reboot of some sort. No pressure!
GCA10 12y ago
A legally savvy poster in the original Ars Technica thread says it's allowed if the authorities can claim "exigent circumstances" -- basically meaning that lives were in danger or evidence would have been destroyed if they didn't act fast. Here's more on exigent circumstances via Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_... From what we've been told so far, this sounds like a textbook case of an allowable grab.
jrochkind1 12y ago
I assume they had a warrant?
jordsmi 12y ago
This is when they arrested him. They didn't sneak a copy of his laptop before returning it to him.

by dchuk 12y ago

gk1 12y ago

From my understanding, they grabbed the computer just seconds before the arrest.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

mgraczyk 12y ago

According to the author, the FBI had a warrant for the laptop at the time.

mattmanser 12y ago

They just mean they grabbed the laptop off the table before formally arresting him, i.e. they distracted him with a diversion of an argument, another agent grabbed the laptop from the table, and another agent physically detained him and arrested him. So he couldn't close the laptop and enact the encryption.

reverend_gonzo 12y ago

They already had a warrant for his arrest, as well as for the computer. They just didn't want him to be able to turn off the computer, encrypt itself, and have it become inaccessible to them.

heywire 12y ago
Imagine if you were the agent who grabbed the laptop, and you accidentally bumped the power button. Or if you were the forensic tech, and you accidentally triggered a reboot of some sort. No pressure!

GCA10 12y ago

A legally savvy poster in the original Ars Technica thread says it's allowed if the authorities can claim "exigent circumstances" -- basically meaning that lives were in danger or evidence would have been destroyed if they didn't act fast. Here's more on exigent circumstances via Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_... From what we've been told so far, this sounds like a textbook case of an allowable grab.

jrochkind1 12y ago

I assume they had a warrant?

jordsmi 12y ago

This is when they arrested him. They didn't sneak a copy of his laptop before returning it to him.