[Logical me]

Freedom in America? Ha Ha Ha. Going Going Going Gone by dribble.

[NormsRevenge]

Bush1 appointee.. 1992

[Don Corleone]

Trickle down dictatorship!!!

[ClearCase_guy]

Can I hack into a government computer and download their stuff? How about a bank’s computer?

If not, why not? They have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

[Rurudyne]

Do games and internet on one computer and anything important on another not on line.

[JimSEA]

They need a warrant to tap my phone but not my computer? Venezuela here we come.

[hattend]

The FBI did not need a warrant to hack a US citizen's computer, according to a ruling handed down on Tuesday by Senior US District Court Judge Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.

Do this judge's first. Put some kiddie porn on it.

[BenLurkin]

“Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example...If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

— Justice Louis D. Brandeis, from his dissent in “Olmstead v. United States”, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)

[abclily]

I was under the impression that Windows 10 erased all privacy.

[MarkL]

Obama complained that the Constitution was a document of “negative rights,” because it limited what the government could do.

Obama’s solution? Ignore the Constitution, but he really doesn’t need to, what with judges like this.

Mark

[Swordmaker]

US Federal Judge rules that FBI does not need a warrant to hack into your computer and search it remotely. . . because you do not have an expectation of privacy because hackers can hack into it. Isn't that the same as ruling you don't have an expectation of being safe in your house from government intrusion without a warrant because burglars and other criminals can break in and rifle through your papers? Uh, yeah, it is. — PING!

Judge Rules Expectation of Computer Privacy
Does Not Exist!
Ping!

The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me

[GuavaCheesePuff]

Big brother is always watching. Not a surprise.

[MarkL]

"The rise of computer hacking via the internet has changed the public's reasonable expectations of privacy," he wrote. "Now, it seems unreasonable to think that a computer connected to the web is immune from invasion. Indeed, the opposite holds true: In today's digital world, it appears to be a virtual certainty that computers accessing the internet can -- and eventually will -- be hacked."

This is akin to a judge ruling that because some people who know how to use lockpicks can break into your house, you have no reasonable expectation that locks will keep people out of your home, so government agents can just break into your home any time, on their slightest whim.

The fact is that if someone has gone to the trouble to attempt to be secure on the Internet, then the government, with it's unlimited resources, must NOT be allowed to "hack" into systems without a warrant.

The simple fact is that governments, given their resources, are far more capable than the vast majority of "script kiddies" who do most of the hacking. And this judge just gave them the go-ahead.

Mark

[Fresh Wind]

Well, now we have the latest release of the US government’s “privacy policy”. The old version, issued in 1789, is no longer in effect.

[Pontiac]

"The rise of computer hacking via the internet has changed the public's reasonable expectations of privacy," he wrote. "Now, it seems unreasonable to think that a computer connected to the web is immune from invasion. Indeed, the opposite holds true: In today's digital world, it appears to be a virtual certainty that computers accessing the internet can -- and eventually will -- be hacked."

Homes are broken in to everyday, no one should have the expectation that their home and property are safe. No one should expect that their property is theirs.

Hacking is illegal. What is illegal for and individual is illegal for government.

Just because my computer is connected to the internet does not put contents of my computer in the public domain. My computer is still in my home and my home and its contents are immune from unreasonable search and seizure.

It the FBI wants to search my computer they need a warrant.

[EagleUSA]

When you get down to it, across the board, your personal information on the internet is ALREADY collected and sold to the information marketplace. Anyone who thinks there is ANYTHING private about the internet, forget about it. Your computer content, your traffic, is hacked by the internet service provider and SOLD. It is a huge market and this was the big reason behind Windows 10 being a platform for taking your information — there is HUGE money to be made by selling it. Add to this, your cell phone, traffic, location information — everything you buy in a grocery store or any store if you give them a “membership” number — your credit card transactions -— I could keep going.

*** NOTHING IS PRIVATE *** and it is all public.

[Marcella]

An extended family member works for the agency that starts with n, then s, then a - can you say telephones/and maybe now computers? I am very careful with the title I give emails so they won't be suspect titles. I am careful to disguise govn. agency names that are designated by capital letters.

I knew we were in trouble when Obama’s agency began being able to turn off our TVs and radios. I bought a fancy battery radio that picks up short wave. Should TVs and radios be shut off, they can't shut down messages sent by short wave. I checked that out before I bought that radio.

[iontheball]

So now the circuitous argument goes something like this. The FBI is tasked with keeping the Internet secure. For whatever reason, through incompetence, laziness, deliberateness, etc., they admit their failure to do their job. This failure has now destroyed a citizen's 4th Amendment secured right to reasonably expect privacy in the Internet. Now that the FBI has destroyed the right by shirking their duty, they become the beneficiaries and are free to join the criminal hacker crowd to hack your system at their pleasure. What is wrong with this picture - the stupid judge's rationale, or the FBI’s self-fulfilling actions, or both?

[TigersEye]

They may not need a warrant but they’ll have to have a PayPal account.

[Bryan24]

“The rise of computer hacking via the internet has changed the public’s reasonable expectations of privacy...”

That judge should be impeached and removed from the bench.

1. A judge rules on the law, not on the public’s expectation. That is squarely in the domain of the legislature, not the courts.

2. Does this judge not even understand that hacking is ILLEGAL? And this illegal activity violates several of the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights? So, since hackers are routinely violating the rights of individuals, as a matter of law and precedent, we will extend that right of violation to the State?

The reasoning of this judge is insane.