Re:Home Computers Connected to the Internet Aren't Private, ...
by ominous on Thursday June 30, 2016 @05:02AM
(#12007362)
A federal judge for the Eastern District of Virginia has ruled that the user of any computer that connects to the Internet should not have an expectation of privacy because computer security is ineffectual at stopping hackers.
"(...) the court FINDS that any such subjective expectation of privacy—if one even existed in this case—is not objectively reasonable."
Re:Home Computers Connected to the Internet Aren't Private, ...
by mirimir on Thursday June 30, 2016 @04:17AM
(#12007221)
This is a dangerous ruling, for sure.
But the problem is that most home computers connected to the Internet are in fact not private. Sure, the defendant in this case was using Tor. But the fact that NIT pwned him tells me that he was working in Windows. Probably with just Tor browser. And obviously not with any protection against non-Tor Internet connectivity. The Tor Project ought to warn users about these issues.
Re:Home Computers Connected to the Internet Aren't Private, ...
by surge on Friday July 01, 2016 @08:54AM
(#12015573)
From an OPSec perspective, yeah, you shouldn't expect that your location couldn't be compromised somehow, even with countermeasures. So in some sense they're right, in a legal sense is where its a bit scary.
Re:Home Computers Connected to the Internet Aren't Private, ...
by mirimir on Thursday June 30, 2016 @04:24AM
(#12007240)
Well, we know that the NSA pwns sysadmins.
More generally, the ruling seems inconsistent with CFFA. So websites could freely compromise users, even more than they already do. And perhaps vice versa. Although there's arguably a distinction between home computers and commercial ones.
"(...) the court FINDS that any such subjective expectation of privacy—if one even existed in this case—is not objectively reasonable."
Some days are more dystopian than others.
Also, see the EFF statement: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/federal-court-fourth-a...
There is then no intellectual property more so, because anyone can crack DRM.
I like this ruling. It is delicious dumb precedent.
Also it would imply that you needed a licenced for public screening of any content played on a PC connected to the Internet.
But the problem is that most home computers connected to the Internet are in fact not private. Sure, the defendant in this case was using Tor. But the fact that NIT pwned him tells me that he was working in Windows. Probably with just Tor browser. And obviously not with any protection against non-Tor Internet connectivity. The Tor Project ought to warn users about these issues.
Privacy policies?
Could this be used as a defense for an attacker?
More generally, the ruling seems inconsistent with CFFA. So websites could freely compromise users, even more than they already do. And perhaps vice versa. Although there's arguably a distinction between home computers and commercial ones.