I upvoted you because I believe you made a cogent argument, but I respectfully disagree.
I would argue that it's only relatively recently that people have started to associate an internet connected machine with the potential for a lack of privacy.
People have begun to realize that making a secure device is difficult, but that doesn't mean they don't expect some degree of privacy.
Most certainly don't expect that connecting their laptop to Wifi that they control and pay for automatically reduces the privacy of things contained on their laptop, and only on their laptop to zero.
Further, the expectation is that security and privacy is a feature that all (well, most) companies are actively working to improve, and therefore a fluid definition of an expectation of privacy is dangerous, I think.
Well with or without the upvote, thanks for the reply. I am a lawyer and OP is a lawyer, and ultimately whether anyone disagrees with the judges ruling, I shouldn't be downvoted because I played devils advocate with OP and legally I agree with the ruling. It is law, as OP hints I acknowledge this Judge may very well be overturned at some point, and I even gave an example where I would agree with him being overturned, so the downvotes without replies are bizarre.
>People have begun to realize that making a secure device is difficult, but that doesn't mean they don't expect some degree of privacy.
I totally agree and just think a lot of people in the thread don't understand 4th Amendment law and are conflating 4th amendment analysis of reasonable expectation of privacy with the separate right to privacy.
The Judge's ruling is very limited: In a criminal case the Gov can introduce evidence of a crime they collected from a device connected to the internet they obtained without a warrant.
My point is, even if the Judge said the introduction of said evidence violates the 4th Amendment and should be suppressed...legally such a ruling would still be limited and have no effect of the Gov's actual efforts to collect all that data without a warrant. The only practical effect such a ruling would have is that once the Gov has evidence of a crime then they will obtain a narrow search warrant or alternatively (as I mention above) introduce the evidence as collected by a non-Gov 3rd party (not subject to 4th Amendment protections).
>Further, the expectation is that security and privacy is a feature that all (well, most) companies are actively working to improve, and therefore a fluid definition of an expectation of privacy is dangerous, I think.
Yes, fluid definitions can be dangerous, but it can also be the most beautiful and powerful thing about the law. One such example separate but equal being defined constitutional in Plessy v Ferguson, then being redefined as unconstitutional in Brown v Board.
> Yes, fluid definitions can be dangerous, but it can also be the most beautiful and powerful thing about the law. One such example separate but equal being defined constitutional in Plessy v Ferguson, then being redefined as unconstitutional in Brown v Board.
That is certainly a good point, however I guess I'm projecting my bias by presuming that this particular ruling should have skipped over the Plessy v Ferguson equivalent and landed immediately on Brown v Board.
I think a reasonable expectation of privacy should be the goal for everyone manufacturing hardware and developing software, especially as the world gets more and more connected.
The fact that it's not a reasonable expectation for a layman is a black mark on our industry (software and hardware), and is something we should work to change (by actually making secure software).
[Edit:] furthermore the fact that DoJ etc are sitting on zero-days, thus decreasing (by not increasing) the security of our systems is most definitely a negative contribution to this fight.
I would argue that it's only relatively recently that people have started to associate an internet connected machine with the potential for a lack of privacy.
People have begun to realize that making a secure device is difficult, but that doesn't mean they don't expect some degree of privacy.
Most certainly don't expect that connecting their laptop to Wifi that they control and pay for automatically reduces the privacy of things contained on their laptop, and only on their laptop to zero.
Further, the expectation is that security and privacy is a feature that all (well, most) companies are actively working to improve, and therefore a fluid definition of an expectation of privacy is dangerous, I think.