On 6/24/2016 8:39 AM, Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:19 AM, grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.eff.org/files/2016/06/23/matish_suppression_edva.pdf
<https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/06/23/2040255/federal-court-the-fourth-amendment-does-not-protect-your-home-computer>
The judge's logic is pretty amusing and shocking at the same time:
basically, because of all the malware and software vulnerabilities in the
world, as soon as you connect your computer to the internet, you have no
reasonable expectation of privacy because your computer is probably going
to be hacked by someone, and if it just happens to be the FBI who hacks
your computer, you should have expected that.
By that logic, when people go to Walmart & there's a very real chance
their car may be broken into, or they might get pick pocketed, then LEAs
shouldn't need a warrant or even probable cause to search their person
or car?
Oh, wait... but they do need a warrant or probable cause in those
cases. I fail to see the difference. Going on a "public" internet w/
some dangers is no different than going any other public place.
Appears they're trying the old "boil a frog" trick.
Just take away some constitutional rights - in one specific area. They
won't put up too big a fight. Many will be too busy watching The
Bachelor to notice. Later on, we can expand it to searching cars &
houses w/o a warrant (burglars could break into your house - you
should've expected that).
--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
