Can Circuit City techs legally peruse files?

[John.Michael.Kane]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6222794.html

Thoughts??

[popch]

If the customer really was involved in child porn - even as a customer 'only' - I am perfectly content if he's caught red- er - disked(?).

If he was stupid enough to hand over a PC containing openly illegal stuff, it's his own fault for being negligent. He would have been negligent as well had there been customer's or employer's data on the disk.

Whether the shop can or can not legally peruse files is a question for lawyers and varies from place to place.

Also, whether someone can be persecuted on the base of a random observation (even an illegal one) is a matter of local law.

[psusi]

Yes... if you drop your car off at the shop for repairs and you are dumb enough to leave a dead body in your trunk, you can bet you will be going to jail. If you wanted it to remain private, then you shouldn't have handed it over to someone.

[BDNiner]

I read this article this morning. Personally i feel that they should not be allowed to search your computer for files unless you ask them too. However none of this was explicitly stated in the contract when he dropped off the computer. He should have left instructions for them not to search his personal files. I still can't relate to how installing a DVD burner allows Circuit City to search your computer for files to burn so that they can test it. What were going to do with the burned files if there was nothing illegal once they returned the computer?

[popch]

What were going to do with the burned files if there was nothing illegal once they returned the computer?

He can try and sue them for accessing obviously private data. He might even win.

But even if he does, he will be prosecuted for owning child porn. I think and hope.

[mips]

Anybody notice the guys surname, Sodomsky?

[~LoKe]

No, that is not OK. It shouldn't be usable in court, much like if the police illegally search your vehicle (evidence found in illegal searches is admissible in court).

With that said, I hope he burns in hell.

[mips]

No, that is not OK. It shouldn't be usable in court, much like if the police illegally search your vehicle (evidence found in illegal searches is admissible in court)..

You are contradicting yourself there.

[daynah]

(deleted)

[~LoKe]

You are contradicting yourself there.

Apparently admissible is not the word I was looking for. ;)

[popch]

No, that is not OK. It shouldn't be usable in court, much like if the police illegally search your vehicle (evidence found in illegal searches is admissible in court).

With that said, I hope he burns in hell.

Burning in hell is not quite enough.

Since the the material was not found by the police but reported to them, it might be admissible.

The court could argue that protecting children from abuse was a much more important good than protecting the privacy of disks, especially when the customers could have protected his privacy by simply removing those files.

Presumably he wanted to do so, but only after writing them to the DVD.

[dasunst3r]

If they happened to see it in the course of fixing your machine, yes. Downloading your files to some sort of mega-library, no.

[Lster]

Burning in hell is not quite enough.

That isn't a thinking statement. What he did (or probably did as it hasn't been proved yet) is just utterly wrong, but causing him extreme unhappiness isn't going to help the situation at all. This sounds almost like your encouraging torture - something I hoped was left behind a while ago by society.

[BDNiner]

He can try and sue them for accessing obviously private data. He might even win.

But even if he does, he will be prosecuted for owning child porn. I think and hope.

Well since the evidence was possible obtained illegally then it would not be admissible in court. He should be tried for owning child porn but they would need more evidence. but Circuit City should also face charges for violating his privacy.

[popch]

That isn't a thinking statement. What he did (or probably did as it hasn't been proved yet) is just utterly wrong, but causing him extreme unhappiness isn't going to help the situation at all. This sounds almost like your encouraging torture - something I hoped was left behind a while ago by society.

That was a thinking statement. The thought behind it was that trading with and consuming child porn must be dealt with here and now and in a secular manner (a) to make him stop and (b) to signal to others that it is indeed an offense which you will be punished for. Provided the person is guilty, of course.

[Lster]

That was a thinking statement. The thought behind it was that trading with and consuming child porn must be dealt with here and now and in a secular manner (a) to make him stop and (b) to signal to others that it is indeed an offense which you will be punished for. Provided the person is guilty, of course.

Yes, then perhaps you didn't quite convey what you meant. I took that to mean quite a different thing to what you just said there. In any case, I agree that now evidence has been found against him, it should be used. I would say that even if the evidence was obtained illegally it should be used, but in this case I am not sure of the legality.

[psusi]

Well since the evidence was possible obtained illegally then it would not be admissible in court. He should be tried for owning child porn but they would need more evidence. but Circuit City should also face charges for violating his privacy.

Except that it wasn't obtained illegally and Circuit City did nothing wrong because there was no expectation of privacy. If he had taken steps to hide or protect the files that would be one thing, but if you leave child porn out on your coffee table, you have no expectation of privacy when you invite the cable guy in to fix your TV.

[LaRoza]

Even if the circuit city techs broke into someone's home, cracked a password and searched every byte of the owner's computer's hard disk, it would not be an illegal search

The US Constitution's Fourth Amendment protects only actions from the government.

The evidence is fully admissable.

[LaRoza]

Except that it wasn't obtained illegally and Circuit City did nothing wrong because there was no expectation of privacy. If he had taken steps to hide or protect the files that would be one thing, but if you leave child porn out on your coffee table, you have no expectation of privacy when you invite the cable guy in to fix your TV.

It doesn't matter, it was not a govermental action, nor was it an action at the behest of the government.

There is no such thing as "expectation of privacy" in this case, as it has nothing to do with the case.

(This isn't a backdoor into invading rights, the government cannot ask others to search without having the Fourth Amendment come into play)

[sloggerkhan]

Anybody else wonder how searching a disk for video files is in any way connected to testing a DVD drive? That's the part that seems sketchy to me.

Remember, 'Trust No One.' You can only expect your 'privacy' to be violated if you give someone else access to your machine.

[LaRoza]

Anybody else wonder how searching a disk for video files is in any way connected to testing a DVD drive? That's the part that seems sketchy to me.

Remember, 'Trust No One.' You can only expect your 'privacy' to be violated if you give someone else access to your machine.

To test the burner, the tech wanted to burn something, in this case, a movie.

Apparently, the software searched for movies, the tech didn't rummage around, and brought up all sorts of things.

(Speaking of privacty being violated, what of the kids?, Trust No One)

[popch]

Anybody else wonder how searching a disk for video files is in any way connected to testing a DVD drive? That's the part that seems sketchy to me.

Remember, 'Trust No One.' You can only expect your 'privacy' to be violated if you give someone else access to your machine.

I do not wonder at all. They were just nosey Parkers, and the customer could make a fuss over it.

Which I would not do in his situation.

[LaRoza]

I do not wonder at all. They were just nosey Parkers, and the customer could make a fuss over it.

Which I would not do in his situation.

I don't wonder either, it was explained in the article in the court's opinion.

[sloggerkhan]

Yeah, I guess you could go about testing the burner that way. It just seems weird as a standard procedure. (What if people don't have movies on their disk? )

[FuturePilot]

Yes... if you drop your car off at the shop for repairs and you are dumb enough to leave a dead body in your trunk, you can bet you will be going to jail. If you wanted it to remain private, then you shouldn't have handed it over to someone.

Perfect example. I mean seriously. If you're sending you computer in to get repaired take your personal stuff off. It's like storing passwords in plain text and expecting no one to find them.:roll:

[LaRoza]

Yeah, I guess you could go about testing the burner that way.

It really doesn't matter why they were doing it, they are not acting as governmental agents, so even if they were stealing the computer and found it, it would be legal evidence.

(They would still be chargable though)

[lespaul_rentals]

Was the evidence legal? Technically, I believe it is, unless there is something in the contract that specifically states evidence cannot be gathered.

Was the tech doing something wrong? Yes. I admit that I myself feel curious when I'm working on a friend's computer, but it's not my place to go browsing around. The nosy tech was looking for something kinky on the guy's computer, which was flat-out wrong.

EDIT: Does anyone know if there was just that one video on the guy's computer? Or was is like 20 GB of CP?

[Tom Mann]

That was how Gary Glitter got caught in the UK. He took his PC into PC World.

[xeth_delta]

No matter how he was caught, such behaviour is absolutely unacceptable, among the worst things possible.
I think I speak for all here when I say, good he was caught and I hope he rots in jail!

[stalker145]

Thoughts??


Anybody notice the guys surname, Sodomsky?

Yeah, and here I was starting to think I was the only one to notice... LOL


No, that is not OK. It shouldn't be usable in court, much like if the police illegally search your vehicle (evidence found in illegal searches is admissible in court).

As previously mentioned, these were not law enforcement officer. Let's pretend that they were (to use your example). If you invite a law enforcement officer into your house (or computer) and he happens to see a bag of cocaine sitting on the mantle (or illegal files on your computer), then the evidence is perfectly admissible. It's called being "in plain sight".


Well since the evidence was possible obtained illegally then it would not be admissible in court. He should be tried for owning child porn but they would need more evidence. but Circuit City should also face charges for violating his privacy.

See above regarding legality. Now, on to Circuit City's "violation": what exactly is the violation? Nothing was encrypted, any required passwords were given - consent to access this man's computer was expressly given. There is no question in that matter. With express consent, there is no violation of privacy. On top of that, if you are driving down the road drinking a beer and someone reports you to the police, is that also a violation of your privacy? You are in a public place breaking the law just as this man was in a public place in possession of illegal files.


Except that it wasn't obtained illegally and Circuit City did nothing wrong because there was no expectation of privacy. If he had taken steps to hide or protect the files that would be one thing, but if you leave child porn out on your coffee table, you have no expectation of privacy when you invite the cable guy in to fix your TV.

Right on.



I think my feelings toward Circuit City have just gone up a notch.

[mips]

I think some people are taking this privacy thing way to far.

[LaRoza]

I think some people are taking this privacy thing way to far.

+1

Hey! That is my illlegal material and I didn't give you permission to acknowledge its existance, therefore, it doesn't exist to you.

[mips]

+1

Hey! That is my illlegal material and I didn't give you permission to acknowledge its existance, therefore, it doesn't exist to you.

And please don't get suspicious when I buy all my ingredients to make drugs from one supplier. It's not for drugs, just ignore the extractor fan on the trailer home with the funny fumes ;)

[BDNiner]

Except that it wasn't obtained illegally and Circuit City did nothing wrong because there was no expectation of privacy. If he had taken steps to hide or protect the files that would be one thing, but if you leave child porn out on your coffee table, you have no expectation of privacy when you invite the cable guy in to fix your TV.

yes i agree with you there, but the videos were not out in the open, the tech had to search to find the files. it is one thing if they are on the desktop, but they were not. As far as the drink beer in your car, that cannot be a comparison. Your are in public when in your car, since it is in plain sight then you have no expectation of privacy. I am not trying to argue that the guy with child porn should be let free because that is wrong. but having someone fix a hardware problem on your computer doesn't give them the right to search through your files, whether the program did it by itself or not. just like having a dead body in your trunk and taking your car in to get an oil change. The only reason that the mechanic can go into your trunk is if there is something that causes reasonable suspicion like a bad smell or blood leaking out of the trunk. But without that he has no reason and is violating your privacy. and privacy also applies to regular people not only the government agencies.

[LaRoza]

yes i agree with you there, but the videos were not out in the open, the tech had to search to find the files. it is one thing if they are on the desktop, but they were not. As far as the drink beer in your car, that cannot be a comparison. Your are in public when in your car, since it is in plain sight then you have no expectation of privacy. I am not trying to argue that the guy with child porn should be let free because that is wrong. but having someone fix a hardware problem on your computer doesn't give them the right to search through your files, whether the program did it by itself or not.

So just because the tech might have searched a little beyond what you would like, the crime "never happened" in your eyes?

Should the tech have ignored it?

[Luggy]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6222794.html

Thoughts??

Isn't that how Gary Glitter got caught with child porn?

[John.Michael.Kane]

Isn't that how Gary Glitter got caught with child porn?

Would seem like that was the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Glitter#Child_pornography_arrest_and_convicti on

[Incense]

IMO,however if you give someone your computer, and then are upset when they find illegal content on it, then it's your own dang fault for giving them the computer with the illegal content on it. Also why can't the person in question unplug two cables, and a few screws to install their own dvd drive? You don't want someone to access your data, don't give it to them. It's really quite simple.

That being said, I'm sure there is something in the TOS that Circuit City had the person in question sign, giving them full access to the machine and the files on it. Who reads those things anyway though right?

[Zero Prime]

I'm glad that they are allowing this in court. It's not like the tech opened C drive and started looking around. A click on search and then the music and video option later and you have one screwed customer.

Compare to this. Hand me the key to your house and ask me to come in and install a computer for you. Now while I'm running cables behind your desk and a big bag of drugs fall down hidden between the desk and wall, do you scream I invaded your privacy?

[BDNiner]

So just because the tech might have searched a little beyond what you would like, the crime "never happened" in your eyes?

Should the tech have ignored it?

I am not saying that the crime did not happen. it did happen, i am arguing whether the evidence was legally obtained. it is obvious that this guy is guilty. He is in possession of illegal pornographic material. i am calling into question whether his rights to privacy were violated by Circuit City. You can't break the law and justify that it is necessary to put another man in jail. no matter how guilty that person is. Criminals get off on technicalities like this all the time. This is built into the legal system in America.

I don't believe that you sign away your right to privacy by taking your personal computer to a third party to get fixed. Especially since it was a hardware issue that did not affect the hard disk. If he wanted all his data moved to a new hard disk because his drive was about to fail then the tech would have to search through the files since he has to make a backup of all the important and personal data.