DescentBB

Read it here: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/ ... 217,00.htm

What do you guys think of this?

I think this guy is a complete idiot for trying to claim 4th ammendment rights. The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not, in my opinion, extend to materials provided for you to use at your job. Those materials are provided by your employer for you to do your job with, not for personal affairs. It's simple. It's not his property, so he cant claim 4th ammendment rights over it. It's clearly his employers perogative to employ those rights, and they waived them in order to cooperate with a child porn investigation against this moron.

This dummy got what he deserved, and I dont think anyones rights were violated, wouldn't you guys agree?

Agreed. He has no expectation of privacy if the computer didn't belong to him. The rightful owner of the computer does, but they waived it in order to help with the investigation. Good call.

Dedman wrote:Agreed. He has no expectation of privacy if the computer didn't belong to him. The rightful owner of the computer does, but they waived it in order to help with the investigation. Good call.

x2 here

Consider the alternative: regardless of who owns the computer, any user of that computer could object to the search and that would require a warrant.

What would happen if a friend came and visited you one day, and was looking for kiddie porn or communicating with his terrorist buddies? He used the computer, so he can object to it being searched with your permission but without a warrant, right? Even though it's your computer, he could claim his own privacy rights are being violated for something he did with your computer... that would be stupid.

So yeah, definitely a good call. Permission from the owner of an object should be adequate.

Dedman wrote:Agreed. He has no expectation of privacy if the computer didn't belong to him. The rightful owner of the computer does, but they waived it in order to help with the investigation. Good call.

Yep, good riddance on Jack Leck.

On a side note, I wonder if World Peace Ambassadors works with the United Nations. It seems like rape and human trafficking are part of UN procedures nowadays. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Dec15.html

KlubMarcus wrote:It seems like rape and human trafficking are part of UN procedures nowadays.

That is like blaming Bush for Abu Gareb.

Dedman wrote:Agreed. He has no expectation of privacy if the computer didn't belong to him. The rightful owner of the computer does, but they waived it in order to help with the investigation. Good call.

x3 - I think we're all pretty much agreed there.

For purposes of continued discussion, though, what do you guys think about this situation:

The computer I normally use at home is technically owned by my brother, although I've had it for over three years now. I've re-installed the OS a couple of times, and almost everything on it is mine. When my brother is over at my house, he uses it on occasion, but he normally asks permission, since he considers it mine for all practical purposes. I even have to log him in, since he doesn't know any of the passwords anymore.

So, would it still be strictly a matter of ownership in that case?

(Personally, I still think it should be based on the permission of the owner, but I'm just curious to see what you guys think.)

Your question, really, is whether it's a matter of "technical" ownership or "practical" ownership. That is, he has the receipts but you have the item in question.

I don't know how the law could account for "practical" ownership. If a couple divorces and one partner takes the computer and uses it for a year, but the other was the one who paid for it, who does it belong to? If someone lends you a computer "for a while" and "a while" turns into months or years, who does it belong to? The only thing the law can really do is deal with the technical owner. If they bought it, and it was never explicitly sold or given as a gift, it's theirs. If your brother "gave" you the computer, it's yours now, but if he "lent" you the computer, it's still his.

Either way, the technical owner of the system has the final say, even if someone else has practical ownership of it.

KlubMarcus what has that link got to do with anything in this thread?
that's not a side point

I think we need an attorney's opinion on this...

roid wrote:KlubMarcus what has that link got to do with anything in this thread?
that's not a side point

I don't think anything he posts has anything to with the thread topics. Even the threads he starts don't make any sense.

Top Gun wrote:

roid wrote:KlubMarcus what has that link got to do with anything in this thread?
that's not a side point

I don't think anything he posts has anything to with the thread topics. Even the threads he starts don't make any sense.

X2

Where is that Bozo image at ...

Dedman wrote:Agreed. He has no expectation of privacy if the computer didn't belong to him. The rightful owner of the computer does, but they waived it in order to help with the investigation. Good call.

For the most part true. There is a detail not addressed the makes this completely OK.

Article wrote:US police do not need a search warrant to examine an employee's computer for incriminating files, a Washington state appeals court has ruled.

This is a Business computer and most Net Admins are more than willing to cooperate with cops in matters like this. Also, is you check most ISP EULA's there is a clause in there that pretty much gives Fed's the go-ahead on checking and "sacking" your system where "due cause" applys.

This is not only "not his", it;s not even privetly owned. ... possibly PWND tho!

One thing the article does NOT mention is whether or not the business involved said OK. I assume it did as they are not mentioned as a "victim". Also, this is FILE seizure, not the whole computer. ..Like they did that kid's in Gresham Oregon that hacked into NASA's D-base a year or two ago. ... that was just across town from me.

KlubMarcus wrote:

Dedman wrote:Agreed. He has no expectation of privacy if the computer didn't belong to him. The rightful owner of the computer does, but they waived it in order to help with the investigation. Good call.

Yep, good riddance on Jack Leck.

On a side note, I wonder if World Peace Ambassadors works with the United Nations. It seems like rape and human trafficking are part of UN procedures nowadays. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Dec15.html

Markus, how is that "side note" connected to anything in this thread previous to your post? And why did you deem that side note worthy of you ressurecting a 20 day-dead thread?

I think a thread division/lock would be in order. We all seem to be in agreement regarding what I posted about some 3 weeks ago.

I think Markus needs a severe talkin' to by some of the admins.

That is like blaming Bush for Abu Gareb.

Wrong! Bush wasn't at Abu Ghraib. The UN personnel were there doing the rapes in person. Nice try, you can do better next time.

roid wrote:KlubMarcus what has that link got to do with anything in this thread? that's not a side point

It is now!

i beg to differ.

your little TROLL got 1 small bite.

★■◆● off

(or learn the few rules we have)

Stop trolling and performing thread necromancy.

Damn, youre like a conservative version of Zuruck, only three times as zealous.

Where's Lothar with his "evil moderation of doom" when you need him?

Sorry, Top Gun, I was busy congratulating the Fadhil brothers over at Iraq The Model. But, no fears -- I'm here to slay the Trollish Necromancer.