The Fourth Amendment Does Not Protect Your Home Computer

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,004
A court has ruled that a warrant is not required for the government to hack into your computer. As noted, there seems to be a dangerous trend of people making far-reaching decisions concerning technology they don’t fully understand.

The implications for the decision, if upheld, are staggering: law enforcement would be free to remotely search and seize information from your computer, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any suspicion at all. To say the least, the decision is bad news for privacy. But it's also incorrect as a matter of law, and we expect there is little chance it would hold up on appeal. (It also was not the central component of the judge's decision, which also diminishes the likelihood that it will become reliable precedent.)
 

OlIv0rIolI

Gawd
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
634
I don't see how the 2nd amendment can protect your electronics from being officially hacked by the gov. As much as I like the 2nd Amendment, it doesn't do much in this case
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
339
The usa gov would never become tyrannical, absolutely 100.01% impossible, so get out of here with your stupid 'conspiracy theories'. Oh wait...."the federal government does not need a warrant to hack into an individual's computer" sounds just a little tyrannical, but, just a little!
 
Last edited:

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
17,281
Well if the device is full of bullet holes they can't very well hack it now can they?
Ya, but you won't know they are hacking the machine, so are you just going to start blasting all of your PC's with bullets just in case?

In the article, it says that the FBI served malware to users that transmitted back the PC's info.
What that means is that they will be allowed to put this malware on pretty much any site, get PC's infected and start hacking any machine they like.
 

pothb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
4,997
Does it protect our work computer? Can you become a lame youtuber, and make it a work computer? I'll do it right now, if that works.
 

NukeDukem

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
2,292
It's not as if the executive branch has set a precedent in using bureaucracy to selectively target political enemies... oh wait. Nevermind, Obama and the IRS nailing conservatives and Christians is just Republican fearmongering. His DOJ is on the ball. (Hillary is exempt, white cops who act in self defense will be probed).
 
Last edited:

Liger88

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
2,657
The usa gov would never become tyrannical, absolutely 100% impossible, so get out of here with your stupid 'conspiracy theories'. Oh wait...."the federal government does not need a warrant to hack into an individual's computer" sounds just a little tyrannical. But just a little.

It's been pretty clear for awhile that the government will just do what it wants, but it's been equally clear nobody will actually stop it until they're broke and hungry on the streets so it's only a matter of holding it off until it gets to that point.
 

Galvin

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
2,697
So if you witness a crime, and you're on a witness list. Expect to get hacked by law enforcement.
 

jolli

Gawd
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
773
The opinion made some sense (no expectation of privacy in a broadcasted IP) until they decided that the existence of hackers has made it such that no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a computer connected to the internet. Because hackers can do it, so too can the government!

Except why would we need a search warrant for a home ever? I mean burglars have been entering our dwellings for time immemorial...
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,634

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,169
The opinion made some sense (no expectation of privacy in a broadcasted IP) until they decided that the existence of hackers has made it such that no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a computer connected to the internet. Because hackers can do it, so too can the government!

Except why would we need a search warrant for a home ever? I mean burglars have been entering our dwellings for time immemorial...
Trying to find how they came to the conclusion....reading through this court finding...man it's fucked up....actually describing the website.

But I like this part, even though it's widely known...

Playpen operated on "the onion router" or "Tor" network. The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory created the Tor network in an attempt to protect government communications. The public now can access the Tor network. Many people and organizations use the Tor network for legal and legitimate purposes; however, the Tor network also is replete with illegal activities, particularly the online sexual exploitation of children.
If they are straight up telling you that it's the government, you might not want to use a government funded project to circumvent the government. Just saying.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,169
What I am wondering though, is don't we have laws that very specifically make it illegal to access a secure system which you do not have access to? Falsifying or modifying privileges is against the law. People have gone to jail for this....
 

Azphira

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
1,823
What I am wondering though, is don't we have laws that very specifically make it illegal to access a secure system which you do not have access to? Falsifying or modifying privileges is against the law. People have gone to jail for this....
Silly rabbit, laws are only for us, not invaders or government.
 

pothb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
4,997
Silly rabbit, laws are only for us, not invaders or government.
Haha... I remember back in the day where "invaders" weren't part of that... It seems like taht was the good old times now, compared to today.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,169
Well if you look at the 4th Amendment, it's not about WHAT they the government can look for, it's about WHERE they can look for stuff. In particular the "houses" part.

If this ruling says they can search a "computer", what is a computer? Is it anything connected to a network that isn't a cellphone? Where I'm going with this is the Internet-Of-Things. If we say it is ok for the government to search anything on a network, would it not stand to reason that they could then access anything within your house on a network? And if you are searching a device with unabridged access, whats the difference between searching for browser history stored in memory or on a hard drive versus accessing say temporary audio files of conversation stored by your Facebook app or Amazon Echo? The government isn't physically searching your house, they are simply looking at a digital fingerprint that may or may not represent things that are happening in your house.

To me, I think the "effects" word would cover this, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer. And lord knows it's already been upheld that a cellphone is not considered an "effects".
 

c3k

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
2,118
You FOOLS!!! This whole thread was created by the FBI to suss out the malcontents. Anyone who posts here will get hacked by the feds. I refuse to fall for it.

;)
 

pothb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
4,997
Pssh, stop acting like they haven't already hacked it. They might just take a harder look now.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
339
You FOOLS!!! This whole thread was created by the FBI to suss out the malcontents. Anyone who posts here will get hacked by the feds. I refuse to fall for it.
But....you posted here and I was already watching your cam before you posted. Nice matching thong and socks by the way. It really brings out your eyes.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,466
Equality is paramount and mandatory at law, perhaps they'll want to change that after thousands of government personal computers are hacked. ..
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,169
Equality is paramount and mandatory at law, perhaps they'll want to change that after thousands of government personal computers are hacked. ..
NATO has decided that a Cyber attack is enough to trigger Article 5, which is another way of saying WW3.

I find that laughable at best since the worst cyber attacks are widely considered to have been carried out by members of NATO.

 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,682
Wait. How can it be legal for them to:

" law enforcement would be free to remotely search and seize information from your computer, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any suspicion at all"

When that very act is a violation of numerous other laws (cybersecurity hacking laws)? The reason police are required to have due process is often to do things that would otherwise (without warrant) be illegal.

This just seems like a "the law doesn't apply to us" bullshit ruling. The warrant system exists as a check / balance. They should always have to have the courts sign off on a cyber-intrusion.
 

pothb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
4,997
The one thing that you can at least be somewhat relieved about this is that it wasn't the supreme court. The article writer also does not hink it'd hold up in court if appealed. So, not exactly solid stone writing, still, that means it needs to be appealed. Which I would hope it does get.
 

STrAYeR

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
439
Why would they need to hack anyone when MS has backdoors into the OS? If you think the government waits for warrants to hack someone I have some land to sell you on mars.
 
Last edited:

robble

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
6,499
Did any of you making negative comments rtfa? The cops didnt hack into computers with no probable cause or suspicion.

To me if you dowload child porn from a child porn site hosted by a sting operation then that IS probable cause to search you computer.

It's not like they were sending out phishing emails with trojans attached.
These people thought they were downloading something they knew to be highly illegal.

You buy drugs from an undercover cop? That's probable cause for an arrest and search.
 

DrLobotomy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 19, 2016
Messages
6,736
Did any of you making negative comments rtfa? The cops didnt hack into computers with no probable cause or suspicion.

To me if you dowload child porn from a child porn site hosted by a sting operation then that IS probable cause to search you computer.

It's not like they were sending out phishing emails with trojans attached.
These people thought they were downloading something they knew to be highly illegal.

You buy drugs from an undercover cop? That's probable cause for an arrest and search.
Hosting any child porn by anyone should be illegal. That is entrapment and a form of heresy.
 

pothb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
4,997
Did any of you making negative comments rtfa? The cops didnt hack into computers with no probable cause or suspicion.

To me if you dowload child porn from a child porn site hosted by a sting operation then that IS probable cause to search you computer.

It's not like they were sending out phishing emails with trojans attached.
These people thought they were downloading something they knew to be highly illegal.

You buy drugs from an undercover cop? That's probable cause for an arrest and search.
One, entrapment.
Two, funny how the cops can have child porn and be fine, huh?

But, regardless, we're talking about the possibility of this type of BS because of the way the court ruled it.
 

Krab

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
231
Ya, but you won't know they are hacking the machine, so are you just going to start blasting all of your PC's with bullets just in case?

It's a retarded way of saying they are going to overthrow the government.


I look forward to seeing you guys hiding under tarps as the FBI storms your compound.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,542
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and EFFECTS, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." ... EFFECTS covers EVERYTHING past, present, and future technology will bring.

It's not rocket science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AK0tA
like this

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
5,796
This is just one of the many fights ongoing for our privacy, especially when it comes to the Internet. Generally, the corporate elite behind governments are tired of things like due process and there are incremental effects to eliminate it whenever possible, from the Patriot Act on forward. Its possible this particular decision will be appealed, but its more important that we get real privacy legislation passed in Congress so things don't hinge on the judicial climate. Note, here's another avenue for those interested - Don’t Let the U.S. Government Hack Our Computers - It has to deal with Rule 41 and basically expanding the times for when they DO get a warrant, to limitless scope!

We need to insist on a new crop of elected officials interested in protecting our privacy online. Yes, this will mean weathering the storm of being accused of being "soft on terrorists, child molestation etc.." but those are truly non-issues on a massive Internet and privacy scale and best fought with conventional police work and traditional warrants against individuals. We need to stop with this garbage pretending that because "on a computer" was not literally written in the Constitution than it isn't protected by the spirit thereof. The same protections that apply to the federal postal mail etc.. should be a minimum for people's data, regardless of if it resides on a cell phone, home PC, or their bloody fridge. It will require both social, governmental, and technical elements to establish and take back people's rights to privacy, from surveillance from corporations or governments alike, without due process and strict controls.
 

AK0tA

Gawd
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
813
I'm just glad to find that all the crap on my computer is so exciting.

When stupid people vote we get the likes of obama and now the choice of hillary or trump. It's all in God's hands and hopefully He will return soon.

Just wondering if I attached my tower to my drone and had it switch ip's every 0.0005 seconds if they could trace it?
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
7,659
Is that what happened? Did the FBI hack some guy's computer for no reason then watch him jerk off to midget porn thru his webcam? Or did they set up malware on a child pornography website that tracked people that visited the site so they could find them and prosecute them? From the article, it seems this is what they were doing.

stemming from the FBI’s investigation of Playpen—a Tor hidden services site hosting child pornography. The FBI seized the server hosting the site in 2014, but continued to operate the site and serve malware to thousands of visitors that logged into the site. The malware located certain identifying information (e.g., MAC address, operating system, the computer’s “Host name”; etc) on the attacked computer and sent that information back to the FBI. There are hundreds of prosecutions, pending across the country, stemming from this investigation.
The feds aren't sitting around hacking into random people's home computers fishing for something they can arrest somebody for. That would be totally illegal and a violation of your 4th ammendment rights. They're tracking people that visit a child porn site. I have zero problem with this. This would be no different than staking out a child pornography bookstore, running the license plates of the people that go there and then use that information to find them for prosecution.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
3,529
Haha... I remember back in the day where "invaders" weren't part of that... It seems like taht was the good old times now, compared to today.

I remember when "invaders" actually meant people from foreign lands that had attacked your nation. Not just "Americans who aren't American enough".
 

sadsteve

Gawd
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
565
Is that what happened? Did the FBI hack some guy's computer for no reason then watch him jerk off to midget porn thru his webcam? Or did they set up malware on a child pornography website that tracked people that visited the site so they could find them and prosecute them? From the article, it seems this is what they were doing.



The feds aren't sitting around hacking into random people's home computers fishing for something they can arrest somebody for. That would be totally illegal and a violation of your 4th ammendment rights. They're tracking people that visit a child porn site. I have zero problem with this. This would be no different than staking out a child pornography bookstore, running the license plates of the people that go there and then use that information to find them for prosecution.
In either case, they should still need a warrant.
 
Top