I saw a different story today about a judge's ruling that sniffing open Wi-Fi networks is not considered a wiretap.[1]
The implications therein could be far-reaching, should this precedent be applied to other, similar areas:
- Are civilians now responsible for their own security if they value their privacy?
- Does this overrule "unauthorized network access" in the criminal code?
- Would an administrative subpoena, such as those in the OP's story, allow offensive cracking into civilian or corporate networks?
Technology is changing, and the combination of warrant-less data gathering and invasive networking is sometimes frightening.
Bruce Schneier had an interesting quote on the subject from his book Secrets & Lies: "It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
> Does this overrule "unauthorized network access" in the criminal code?
If you steal your neighbor's car, sue them for wiretapping, and the judge rules that you did not commit wiretapping by stealing the car, that doesn't mean stealing cars is now legal. It just means they sued you under the wrong cause.
> If you steal your neighbor's car, sue them for wiretapping,
> and the judge rules that you did not commit wiretapping by stealing
> the car, that doesn't mean stealing cars is now legal.
What if you're storing cash from a bank heist in the trunk of your unlocked car, and a policeman, realizing it's unlocked, checks it without a warrant?
I think that's closer to the situation I was trying to describe.
A local policeman is different than a Federal agent.
Basically, in most situations, an officer needs your consent or a warrant to enter your trunk. (there are exceptions) Evidence gets thrown out of court all of the time when the cops overstep.
The difference with the Feds is that lying to an FBI or other agent is a serious crime in itself, and Federal officials get broader latitude to bend the ruled if they are acting in "good faith".
So if you tell the agent that you don't have contraband in the trunk, and you do, you had better hope that you have some valuable information, becuase otherwise you're getting convicted of a serious felony.
Moral: Don't have any association with drugs (or bank robbers) or people associated with drugs, and don't talk to cops.
The implications therein could be far-reaching, should this precedent be applied to other, similar areas:
- Are civilians now responsible for their own security if they value their privacy?
- Does this overrule "unauthorized network access" in the criminal code?
- Would an administrative subpoena, such as those in the OP's story, allow offensive cracking into civilian or corporate networks?
Technology is changing, and the combination of warrant-less data gathering and invasive networking is sometimes frightening.
Bruce Schneier had an interesting quote on the subject from his book Secrets & Lies: "It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
[1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/sniffing-open-wif...