tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post3826081207360126947..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: Can you trust your network?Susan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1579845552896620402007-02-20T14:23:00.000-05:002007-02-20T14:23:00.000-05:00Susan, You passed on the most applicable point of ...Susan, <BR/><BR/>You passed on the most applicable point of your whole exercise -- vector hopping thru the P2P network. Try this out, using the Gnutella protocol:<BR/><BR/>The police on Host A, I Host B and a third Host C. They make a query for porn file X. Now this request for the file gets propigated thru the network. For argument's sake, lets say that the File X is on Host C but the closest Host A vector is Host B. When the officer made the request the file will traverse Host C --> Host B --> Host A. From the police's perspective the last traveled IP was Host B and wrongly ID'd for criminal purposes. Yet Host B was only the conduit. Host C was the source of the file. <BR/><BR/>That is the whole point of many P2P networks -- their anonymous nature. Some of the P2P programs do vector transfer of files automatically. Other programs require you to set a parameter to permit your computer to be a vector. <BR/><BR/>Susan I think you identified the wrong point for a defense. There is a body of case law on the books I believe that exempts someone like a Verizon as an ISP from criminal prosecution so long as they move to correct/eliminate the offending materials related to that account. Being merely a conduit they cannot be held liable for what traverses their servers only the content that remains on it. I would therefore hold that the same defense could be made that a P2P computer acting only as a conduit is functioning as an ISP and may only be held criminally liable to the extent that they do not act in due course to remove the materials. And generally traversed files do not remain on the Host acting as a conduit except maybe as a temp file. (Which I guess would beg the question, is the temp file hosting or planted evidence?)<BR/><BR/>One last observation, what happens to the 4th Amend privilige if all access by anyone is prefixed by "Use and viewing of files on this device are considered private materials and not public domain." or similiar? Does such a notification of a 'locked door' oblige the officer to now officially cease any search and obtain a warrant to go further? <BR/><BR/>Something to ponder....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-61361545239706669812007-02-19T18:59:00.000-05:002007-02-19T18:59:00.000-05:00I'm curious, what you've cited here seems to hold ...I'm curious, what you've cited here seems to hold under law, what would this mean if a Federal Agent was able to access an online video feed (or, alternatively, access an online computer and activate a camera feed) that depicted it's owner performing illegal acts? The next step would be, what if (in either case) the camera had accessible controls that the agent manipulated in order to gain a view of an illegal act? Presumably, the 4th amendment continues to guarantee a "reasonable expectation of privacy" even in the technological age. Would data recorded from a camera in any of the above situations be legit in a court of law? <BR/><BR/>One requires a warrant to tap a phone, does the same apply to sticking a video camera in someone's window (to carry your metaphor)? If not, what does this mean for the general evolution of technology in the home? Apple computers have a function that allows the desktop to be viewed remotely, if active, does recorded information from there count as freely available as well, even if it was only intended for the user. If the users intent is not public release, even though it ends up that way, how can that be dealt with? With the road warrior type of business person they could reasonably claim that, by keeping connected, the walls of their home are extended into cyberspace, a sort of private public space. To bring the question to an even stranger level, what about Private public areas in virtual worlds, such as Second Life. By creating a piece of virtual property and erecting digital walls and privacy filters this would seem to be situational similar to a home, but the data is stored outside of the user's direct control. If one of these protected virtual spaces were suspected to contain illegal information would the police have to get a warrant for the properties' owner, or for the company that hosts the space?Aram ZShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06630524810873725538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-48131526379271878612007-02-19T18:19:00.000-05:002007-02-19T18:19:00.000-05:00If I link my computer to a network, have I lost an...<I>If I link my computer to a network, have I lost any Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in the contents of my hard drive?</I><BR/><BR/>You answered your own question. It isn't the placing of the (hypothetical) pot plant on the table that makes it public, it's the opening of the window. You can certainly be attached to a network and only intend to participate in communications initiated by you. <BR/><BR/>If the popo has to find a way around your firewall, or guess the password on your fileshare, it's very different than if you publish the contents of your hard drive for everyone to see. And clearly the police in these cases understand the distinction, since they freely downloaded the files that were in the shared directories (in front of the open window), but obtained search warrants for the remainder of the hard drive.Spothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11958545847682598080noreply@blogger.com