Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Over Computer Tech's Right To Search Your Computer

from the older-ruling-stands dept

A few years back, we wrote about the case where a guy was arrested for possessing child pornography after techs at Circuit City found child porn on his computer, while they were installing a DVD player. The guy insisted that the evidence shouldn't be admissible since the techs shouldn't have been snooping through his computer -- and a lower court agreed. The appeals court, however, reversed, noting that the guy had given Circuit City the right to do things on his computer -- including testing out the newly installed software (which is how the tech claims he found the video). The guy appealed to the Supreme Court, who has declined to hear the case, meaning that the ruling stands for the time being. So, basically, if you hand your computer over to someone else for repairs, at least in some jurisdictions, they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer.

102 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Woman Sues Yahoo Because Search On Her Name Links To Porn And Malware

from the and-now-it'll-link-to-bogus-lawsuits dept

Eric Goldman alerts us to the latest questionable lawsuit against a search engine -- this time involving a woman suing Yahoo due to her unhappiness concerning search results on her own name. You have to read Goldman's full description of the case -- I can't do it justice -- but the woman appears to claim that she's an important figure and the only one in the world with her name (Beverly Stayart or Bev Stayart), and was greatly upset to find that when she searched on her name, there were links to questionable sites -- some of which showed adult videos or had her antivirus software warn her of malicious attacks. It's unclear why the woman thinks she owns the rights to all search results on her name, but it seems quite likely that Section 230 safe harbors should protect Yahoo from any sort of liability. Of course, with articles like this one and Goldman's, it seems likely that search results will show plenty of other links now as well.

57 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Mixed Decisions Concerning Police Searches Of Your Mobile Phone On Arrest

from the legal-or-not? dept

A year ago, we had a lively discussion around here concerning the legal question of whether or not police could search your mobile phone if you are stopped for a traffic violation. It seems that the question is far from settled. Declan McCullagh details two separate lawsuits in which judges came to opposite conclusions about the rights of police to search mobile phones or other devices on persons being arrested. It's clearly allowed to search through physical belongings -- but when it comes down to digital belongings, it's not at all clear. It comes down to the same issue being debated concerning laptop searches at the border. Traditional law concerning such searches assumes that what you have on you is stuff you purposely chose to bring on that trip. However, in a digital age, where your devices "keep everything" the opposite is true. You automatically bring everything and only exclude that which you purposely choose to leave out. Thus, the old laws don't really make much sense and could lead to some dangerous and highly questionable scenarios. Hopefully, the courts will recognize this before too long.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Not Quite The Full Story On The Environmental Impact Of Google Searches

from the think-it-through dept

It appears that one of the big stories over the weekend was some research that apparently explained the carbon footprint of a Google search. Basically, each search is the same as boiling a cup of tea. Of course, what's left out of the article is the fact that this is rather meaningless unless compared to what the alternatives are -- and whether or not those searches also end up increasing or decreasing carbon footprints in other ways. So, if by doing searches on Google, I don't need to drive all over town to find information or buy something -- then that would be a net positive. If a Google search helps me gain additional information that later lets me decrease my carbon footprint, that's also a net positive. Alternatively, doing Google searches could also increase my carbon footprint by making me do something else -- but looking at just the carbon footprint alone seems a bit meaningless. Furthermore, this seems to be taking a (mostly) fixed cost and assuming it's a marginal cost, which leads to some dangerous thinking. Yes, if fewer people did searches, Google wouldn't need so many computers, but not doing a search isn't going to suddenly save on the carbon footprint. Update: The author of the study is pretty surprised about how much attention the study is generating, noting that the original article took the results totally out of context. The study itself never even mentions Google (or cups of tea) at all. In fact, he suggests that whoever wrote the article had some sort of axe to grind with Google.

38 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Bills Introduced To Protect Laptops At Border Searches

from the restoring-the-4th-amendment dept

As was widely expected following earlier statements from politicians such as Russ Feingold, legislation has now been introduced that would curb Homeland Security's ability to randomly search laptops at the border, instead, requiring them to have a "reasonable suspicion" of illegal activity before they can search or copy a hard drive. This would be a huge step forward in terms of reasonable levels of privacy at the border. While defenders of the random search program claim that it's necessary, they give little proof. You can tell because their arguments could equally be applied to searching a random person on the street as well, as they just give vague platitudes about protecting the country from harm. Yet our country has privacy rights and probable cause for a very good reason. It's nice to actually see some politicians standing up to make sure that Homeland Security live up to those ideals.

66 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Making Google Products Easier To Use Is Not 'Encouraging Stealing'

from the it's-called-efficiency dept

Recently, Google Docs unveiled a number of new features including a built-in way to use Google Image Search to find pictures to complement written documents. Many people already use Google Image Search to find suitable graphics, regardless of the owner or copyright status, but this streamlining has some people calling foul. Under a provocative title suggesting that Google is "encouraging schoolchildren to steal photos," Steve Rubel continues to propagate the confusion between theft and infringement. No matter how many times we explain it, people just don't seem to understand that copyright infringement is not theft. Theft involves the removal of a rival good whereas copyright infringement makes a copy, leaving others' use uninhibited. Although the suggestion of expanding Google's Creative Commons filter is a welcome one, I doubt users who want to only use properly licensed content will fail to do so because of Google Doc's new feature. And those who want to use copyrighted images will do so whether or not they have to simply right click or open a new tab and search. All Google is doing here is making its perfectly legal features work better together. That's about efficiency, not "stealing."

Kevin Donovan is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Kevin Donovan and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

DHS Reveals Policies For Searching Laptops At The Border: Anything Goes

from the privacy-schmivacy dept

After courts repeatedly have ruled that border patrol customs agents can look through your computer hard drive, or even confiscate your computer, with no reasonable cause whatsoever, pressure from groups like the EFF have convinced Congress to investigate. As part of this process, the Department of Homeland Security has revealed its policies for border searches of electronic devices, and as you'd imagine, the policies are basically: "border patrol can do whatever it wants."

It does not need any reasonable cause. It take away your laptop for as long as it wants. It can copy the contents of your laptop and even share it with both other federal agencies and private entities for "language translation, data decryption or other reasons." Other reasons seems a bit broad.

We already explained how ridiculous the defense of this police was last month, by noting that it's not as if stopping this content at the border will actually prevent it from getting in the country. At that time we also pointed out how silly it was for a DHS supporter to claim that reasonable cause shouldn't be necessary because that's just not practical. That guy was unable to explain why it is practical throughout the rest of the country not to randomly search laptops, but at the border, suddenly it's not. However, this article now includes another defense from a customs official, saying that these searches "do not infringe on Americans' privacy." How do we know? Apparently, we just have to trust the DHS.

Luckily, this appears to be getting some attention from Congressional representatives who find the whole thing troublesome. The article notes that legislation to stop such searches will be forthcoming soon.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..