0
36

[–] E-werd 0 points 36 points (+36|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You have so no expectation of buoyancy when you use a lifevest.

0
6

[–] Fullmetal 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Especially if you bought your life vest in northern Africa.

0
20

[–] notaniceman 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

You have no expectation of movement when you use a car.

2
-2

[–] Bobsentme 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Let's say we're friends. I walk into your house with a giant bag of weed in my arms after walking through your neighborhood. Someone calls the cops and says "There's a giant bag of weed in there!"

While I DO have an expectation of privacy inside your house, the fact I was seen and recorded carrying a giant bag of weed around the neighborhood sort of removes my ability to scream about the cops violating my privacy.

0
14

[–] carlip 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

You have no expectancy of a bite of food when you use a fork.

0
1

[–] thrus 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

and usually when I don't get the food it becomes public since I dropped it on my shirt leaving a nice big mark.

0
12

[–] jaceame 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

You have no expectancy of not getting aids when wearing a condom.

3
11

[–] SlavicScum 3 points 11 points (+14|-3) ago  (edited ago)

You attempt to maintain your privacy using Tor. That's not all you need to browse anonymously.

Selling drugs online or accessing child porn is tantamount to forfeiting your rights in the eyes of the law because you're in the act of felonious deeds, sometimes federally. If you don't use excess precautions to maintain your privacy on top of Tor then I honestly don't think you should really expect to be private were the right groups pursuing you. It even says so on the homepage when you open your Tor browser. There are ways to protect your IP address.

People who in any way participate in any manner of creating or consuming child porn are degenerates that I despise. He knew the risks, the LE are on Tor and they know what's going on but obviously they don't have the resources to bring the whole thing down so they poach the worst and the most stupid.

Sorry for the rant, but I utilize Tor regularly and it would be awesome if there wasn't a shit load of child porn. I just want drugs without feeling like I'm in cahoots with the foul humans who enjoy child porn.

0
14

[–] deltasly 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You're not wrong in some ways, but would you feel the same way if it was a marijuana dealer?

Or someone pirating movies?

What about a Japanese during WWII when we (the US) were locking them in camps?

Remove as much emotion as you can. This sets a fucking precedent!

Edits for stupid autocorrect

0
5

[–] FriedFood100 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Selling drugs online or accessing child porn is tantamount to forfeiting your rights in the eyes of the law because you're in the act of felonious deeds, sometimes federally.

If they have probable cause to believe you are doing so and it generally requires a warrant before search and seizure takes place.

If you don't use excess precautions to maintain your privacy on top of Tor then I honestly don't think you should really expect to be private were the right groups pursuing you.

That's hogwash, and your thinking would set a terrible precedent for stripping away privacy rights much more than they already have been.

Using Tor demonstrates way more intention of privacy than just about anything. You should review the SCOTUS case 'Katz v. United States' where Katz used way less effort & technical means to maintain his privacy, and it was considered that he had an "expectation of privacy."

Anyways, this case wasn't really about the legal test 'expectation of privacy' it was about rule 41(b), which prevents judges from authorizing searches and seizures outside of their district.

See:

Michaud tried to suppress the evidence against him, arguing that because the server was located in Virginia and he was in Washington, the warrant for the NIT had violated Rule 41(b), which prevents judges from authorizing searches and seizures outside of their district.

But US district judge Robert J. Bryan denied the motion, noting that while the warrant technically violated the rule, a higher court's interpretation provides an exception for when the information sought could have been discovered by “other lawful means."

The judge appears to have not demonstrated at all how "other lawful means" would have achieved the same discovery.

0
0

[–] JamesRussell 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

What is used with tor for extra privacy? Kinda new to the whole tor thing

2
-2

[–] voNIKONov 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Amen. I just want some amt but I've never done the tor thing because of those that want to look at kiddy bits that seemingly populate the protocal.

0
9

[–] teatime 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

0
5

[–] ghotioninabarrel 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Seems we need to give judges exams to determine what cases they are competent to judge.

Having a judge who doesn't even have a layman's understanding of a subject (in this case technology) judge anything based on it is ridiculous.

Or maybe switch from single judges to panels with different specialties for complex cases.

(Almost) anything is better than this.

0
4

[–] FriedFood100 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Chris Soghoian, a top privacy technologist at the ACLU who provided testimony in the case, was equally confused by the argument.

“As far as I can understand, [the judge] is saying that the gov violated Rule 41 by hacking Tor users outside the state of VA, but no harm no foul because it only got IP addresses, and that isn't a big deal, because the government would have found another way to learn those IP addresses. And then he doesn't explain how that would happen,”

Well said, if this article is correct. If this article is correct, then this judge did not justify his ruling with proof or even evidence, and that is anathema to the purpose of our court system.

1
0

[–] Foobarbaz 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

then this judge did not justify his ruling with proof or even evidence, and that is anathema to the purpose of our court system.

Which opens it up for appeals. This is how our system works, like it or not. Usually when Judges take stands on something as significant as this they make very thorough statements for their reasoning and back it up with any history with it -- this Judge did it but in a way that would allow the defense to go to appeals and say the Judge entirely misunderstood what was going on and here's why.

The problem is you can't expect a Judge to know everything about *everything -- that'd be idiotic. You can't expect a panel of Judges or even a set group of Judges for each area of expertise for everything in existence that can find itself in court. Further, it'd be laughable to expect them to do their job and stay on top of new stuff coming out.

That's what prosecution and defense attorneys are for -- to articulate the situation to the Judge. Along the lines the defense failed, somehow, to communicate in a language the Judge understood to get the point across.

I might be able to guess how the Judge came to the, wrong, conclusion though. TOR is just layers and stuff passed around. It's possible and, indeed, has been shown in the past that TOR is traceable, that his IP address could have been deduced given time. TOR is simply one level of security one should use.

The problem here is that's tantamount to saying that since you didn't lock your doors at night you have no expectation of privacy since you knew better.

I can see how the Judge got mislead. Judges tend to be older and not very tech savvy, so defenses attorneys need to be VERY diligent in talking to Judges to make sure they have an understanding.

Either way, this probably has a wide open door for appeals...

Digging deeper the Judge was confused and here's a quote from a linked article inside:

The word “hack,” is never used, and neither is “malware” or “exploit,” for that matter. Instead, the procedure of malware being downloaded to a target's computer is largely obfuscated in vague terminology.

Referring to NIT. So let's be clear: The conversation between the Judge and everyone else was likely vague. This is why I hate ELI5 on things complicated and multi-layered. At some point I have to assume a basic knowledge or build you up to that basic knowledge to begin even to communicate the start of what I'm about to speak. (e.g. How do magnets work? - Feynman).

I dunno.. I'm not sure I trust this story much. There seems more than meets the eye. When the ACLU dude is confused -- I bet there's more to this and we'll find out later.

0
0

[–] FriedFood100 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Just because there can be a "do over" through appeals does not in any way excuse this judge making a ruling without explanation, and the lack of explanation looks to be because of ignorance. He should have passed the case off or took more time to understand it or at least provided a sound explanation on his ruling.

load more comments ▼ (7 remaining)