I'm not sure I completely agree. If my house is on a busy public road, I have no expectation that people won't see it, see who's coming and going, possibly even see things through open windows, etc. I probably would not walk around naked in front of the windows or outside, etc. I'd probably be more concerned about keeping doors and windows locked, or I might install a security system, because I know there's a higher risk of someone breaking in.
If my house is a mile off any public road on a private drive, surrounded by trees, I have a different expectation. I might be more comfortable sunbathing nude, etc. being fairly sure that I'm in a private setting.
If I have a computer and it's not on any network, or only on a private network that I fully own, I expect it is private. At least as private as any papers I have in my desk.
If I use that computer to connect to a public network and access public resources, I have less expectation. I know that at minimum, the resources I access will know that I have done so. I know that it's possible for others on the network to see my traffic. I have exposed my computer to the outside world, and with that comes foreseeable risk, just as I take on foreseeable risks when I do anything else in the outside world.
So I think I agree that by using the internet, I have some reduced expectation of privacy. I think I agree that warrantless monitoring of my activities on the network, e.g. tracking IP addresses and what sites I connect to, etc. is probably OK, just as anyone can follow me around in public and see what places I visit without needing a warrant.
I don't think I agree that this extends into actually invading and searching my computer from the network, even though it may be possible to do that. I think this is like arguing that a warrant is not needed to enter my home and read my mail, on the basis that the correspondence was transported over a public network (the postal service). Or to listen to my phone calls because I'm using the public telephone network. So on that point the judge did go too far and I'd expect that to be overturned on appeal.
So I think there is some rational argument here, but that it went too far in its conclusions.
If my house is a mile off any public road on a private drive, surrounded by trees, I have a different expectation. I might be more comfortable sunbathing nude, etc. being fairly sure that I'm in a private setting.
If I have a computer and it's not on any network, or only on a private network that I fully own, I expect it is private. At least as private as any papers I have in my desk.
If I use that computer to connect to a public network and access public resources, I have less expectation. I know that at minimum, the resources I access will know that I have done so. I know that it's possible for others on the network to see my traffic. I have exposed my computer to the outside world, and with that comes foreseeable risk, just as I take on foreseeable risks when I do anything else in the outside world.
So I think I agree that by using the internet, I have some reduced expectation of privacy. I think I agree that warrantless monitoring of my activities on the network, e.g. tracking IP addresses and what sites I connect to, etc. is probably OK, just as anyone can follow me around in public and see what places I visit without needing a warrant.
I don't think I agree that this extends into actually invading and searching my computer from the network, even though it may be possible to do that. I think this is like arguing that a warrant is not needed to enter my home and read my mail, on the basis that the correspondence was transported over a public network (the postal service). Or to listen to my phone calls because I'm using the public telephone network. So on that point the judge did go too far and I'd expect that to be overturned on appeal.
So I think there is some rational argument here, but that it went too far in its conclusions.