"Computer Privacy in Distress"
Wired News (01/17/07); Granick, Jennifer
Recent court cases have brought the question of computer privacy into
the spotlight, as it pertains to the Fourth Amendment's protection
against unreasonable search and seizure. Recent cases have proposed
that border agents can search PCs of individuals crossing the border,
without reasonable suspicion or a warrant.
Though "routine" searchers are allowed to take place without reasonable
suspicion, no court has directly addressed the question of whether
searching a PC at the border is a routine or non-routine search. Due to
the amount of private information on PCs, the length of time searches
take, and the probability of finding contraband, courts may rule that
reasonable suspicion is needed for such searches.
U.S. v. Zeigler, heard in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has
stated that employees of private companies have no reasonable
expectation of privacy, meaning no Fourth Amendment rights, concerning
their workplace computers. Unless defense attorneys' requests for a
rehearing are granted, the government could walk into an office without
cause or a warrant and search the entire contents of the computer of any
employee.
The 9th Circuit is also trying to figure out a way to make sure
authorities get the information they need without accessing or
disturbing private, unrelated material that may be on the same disk
drive. For example, in prosecuting United States v. Comprehensive Drug
Testing, the government obtained warrants and seized databases
containing drug test results for the 10 baseball players suspected of
taking steroids, as well as the test results for hundreds of other
athletes, and despite a lower court ruling that said the government must
return the unrelated information, the 9th Circuit upheld a government
appeal. This case shows that warrants must not only state what
authorities can seize, but what they may not access on these seized
machines.
Courts, and possibly Congress, have a complicated road ahead in crafting
a computer privacy compromise that is supported by both privacy
advocates and investigating authorities.
<http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,72510-0.html?tw=wn_index_18>
Show replies by date