[tor-talk] US Federal Court: The Fourth Amendment Does Not Protect Your Home Computer

[Joe Btfsplk]

Seems that saying "the decision is bad news for privacy" is an 
historical understatement.  It's more like burning the Constitution & 
shooting the ashes out of the solar system.
"We don't need no stinking warrant."
I have doubts that sending scolding emails or petitions will in any way 
change minds of the powers that be, intent on ignoring the Constitution.
It may be the type situation that needs boots on the ground to bring 
change.  People in significant numbers aren't willing to do that, pure & 
simple.  Too many good shows on TV or fun computer games.

Questions in general:
1) Is anyone aware of court rulings or scheduled for a vote - in the 
U.S. or other "free" nations, saying citizens in their homes, not named 
as suspect in any particular crime & with no warrant issued, have no 
reasonable right to privacy - _in general_?  (IOW, the Constitution is 
invalid).   I don't see why it should stop with computers, other than 
maybe no laws exist that explicitly include personal computers under 
right to privacy?

2) Does that ruling or any related documents claim no right to privacy, 
if reading documents on a computer - not transmitted over the internet 
and / or not using any public network; even electronic book readers; 
which TV shows are watched, radio stations tuned in? Or is it only if 
you "go on the public internet?"

3) Meaning for example, authorities could use various technologies to 
monitor & record *face to face* conversations of persons not named as 
suspects in any crime (esp. felonies)?

4) What about privacy for communications between *citizens* of free 
nations & their medical doctors, lawyers, clergymen, etc, whether or not 
using "encrypted / anonymous" methods; that took place entirely inside 
your home, in their office or by any form of communication, including 
postal mail?
Or privacy for computer stored, hand typed notes on doctor / lawyer / 
clergy conversations (NOT transmitted over the internet)?  In that case, 
is there any difference between storing it on a computer or in a journal 
in a desk drawer?
Some of this type data might be excluded in court trials - or not, 
unless persons are declared "enemies of the state".

5) What about written, photographic or sound recordings - not stored on 
a computer?
Why not INCLUDE landline / cell telephone, VOIP, postal mail, personal 
hand written or typed notes, conversations between spouses in the types 
of records or info not requiring warrants?


On 6/24/2016 1:19 AM, grarpamp wrote:
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/federal-court-fourth-amendment-does-not-protect-your-home-computer
> 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 EFF reports that a federal court in Virginia today ruled that a
> criminal defendant has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in his
> personal computer (PDF), located inside his home. The court says the
> federal government does not need a warrant to hack into an
> individual's computer. EFF reports: "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.) But the decision underscores a broader
> trend in these cases: courts across the country, faced with unfamiliar
> technology and unsympathetic defendants, are issuing decisions that
> threaten everyone's rights.