Does the Fourth Amendment cover 'the cloud'?
 

An interesting article by James Urquhart on News.CNET discussing the 4th amendment's guarantee of a right to privacy and how it should apply to data in cloud storage. I say should, because as is often the case, the law is fairly far behind the technology so there is not much or any precedent on some of the issues.

Big Business has more interest in your information than the government does, and storing that information on commercial servers gives them easy access to it.

While I agree that BB is very interested in data mining, I have no problem with that if it's statistical, i.e., it doesn't link to me directly. What the article is talking about though is whether your expectation of privacy for data you store somewhere, encrypted or not, is guaranteed by the Constitution's proscription against unreasonable search/seizure/violation of privacy.

I don't doubt that Big Business does data mining. I have no problem with that either, but Big Business has already demonstrated a desire to go much further than that. People have lost their jobs for postings they made while off the clock, personal emails have been used against them, etc. The government's interest is a convenient distraction.

I am not the least bit sure the 4th amendment even covers unreasonable search and seizure. For example, it is now lawful to set up road blocks and check for drinking drivers.... that is, search without a probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed.

Daily, I read in the paper where people are arrested for drugs because of a minor traffic violation.

Currently posted on my home town's web page:

None of these would indicate to me a probable cause for the police to have the right to search a vehicle. Still, that is what they do.

My take is there is no right to privacy as far as the 4th amendment is concerned, at least not outside the home.

I'm not sure about the 4th Amendment, AEH, but here in Canada it is lawful to set up road blocks and check for drinking drivers (or inspection stickers) provided that they check every car -- they cannot single them out. Further, cases are often lost in court if the Judge deems the search that resulted in the prosecution as having been unjustifiably invasive, e.g., your case of failing to signal might get you a citation here, but not a search unless the car reeked of booze or marijuana, for example, a gun was visible to the officer, or there was an open bottle of booze in sight.

It's legal to set up road blocks in the US because you don't have a right to use public roads. You have a license to use them, and the terms of use are set by the state.

Same here, but isn't that saying it is okay to do a search and seizure without probable cause as long as you violate everybody's rights equally? We're going to search every house in the neighborhood.... starting with yours?

How about.... "We are looking for people who have communicated with suspected terrorists. Using the DWI road blocks as precedent, we will search all data stored on xxxxx."

My sense is the right to privacy is nebulous at best. Extending it to data filed on a machine outside your home cuts the line a little closer. If the govt, police, FBI, etc., ask for it, they will eventually get it. The test will be whether or not they can use it against you in court.

Yes, I think the computer/internet age significantly downgraded what little expectation of privacy we may have had before.

The protection from illegal search and seizure only applies when you are not in public?

It isn't a search. They can stop you to check your condition to drive, just as they would to check the condition of the vehicle. Take that ability away and they would have to get rid of the weigh stations for truckers too!

Note that they can't stop you if you're on a private road. It's the fact that you're using public roads that grants them the right to make safety stops.

I think that's it, AEH. I'm willing to bet that if a fugitive was loose in your neighborhood, the police might well enter every house to look for him. I think we all give up some rights to privacy in favor of the good of the community in those instances. The question then becomes: "If the police want to enter your home and you say no, can they force you to let them in without a warrant? I think probably not.

This Techdirt article raises an interesting point about privacy and security: "China Google Hack Shows Security Gaps... Or Issues In Online Surveillance Apps?"

I think what that says is there is no real security OR privacy... not from govt or from anybody else. Both are a myth. Scary isn't it? Course I have nothing to hide so what the heck, let 'em go for it. (Too old to get into too much trouble.)

Back to the 4th amendment..... Heaven knows I am happy the police are doing everything they can to get the drunks and druggies and overweight trucks off the road. Still, I worry about their "techniques" slowly infringing into a semi-police state where they can pull you over and search your vehicle (and you) for no reason.... or just for intimidation. (Or to stay on task... search your online stored data.)

I was stopped at a red light a while back when the police pulled up beside me and motioned for me to roll down my window. I did. The officer said, "Sir, did you know your right brake light was burned out?" I thanked him and got my tail light fixed 10 minutes later. That's the way a burned out bulb should be handled... and I think most police officers would handle it in just such a non-confrontational manner.

Now, if I had long hair with a pony tail and beard, was driving a low-rider late at night, or had some other thought to be high risk characteristic, would the officer have handled it the same way? Would sure like to think so, but after reading the stuff I posted earlier, I just don't know. The expectation of privacy is slipping.

Many years ago now (like 50, perhaps) my brother and I staggered out of a dance in a cloud of rum fumes and were heading for my car when the cop on the beat stepped up to us and said: "Both of you give me your car keys. You can walk home and back to get your keys in the morning at the PD desk." Good way to handle that; not sure it would have gone down like that today, but if you think about it, all he did was to prevent a crime and perhaps save some lives. The uphill walk home and walk back in the morning didn't do us any harm either.

You walked uphill both ways? My father used to do that to get to school and back, but in the snow. Or so he told us. :D

It was a strange little town, CWT; :D

.
Wow, I’ve never thought of that as unreasonable search & seizure. Here in Norway it is standard procedure to occasionally set up check point and pull people vehicles off the road randomly, whether to have drivers exhale into a breathaliser or check that the tires are legal and suitable for the season (no summer tires when there is snow; no studded tires long past the snowmelt).

Somehow I don’t find that unreasonable, because it has a strong preventive effect, although I do see your point.
.

Nova,

You want to get your mind blown away, google search (or other search engines) on what Eric Schmidt has been saying and been quoted about personal privacy and computing, and Google is kind of leading the way on 'cloud computing.' In fact, oddly enough, bing - Microsoft's search engine, has better privacy practices than google.

Patriot Act gave up a lot of things on the 4th, and defines certain things you don't have a right to in the name of home land security, which isn't really defined that well.

Would you feel the same way about searching every customer in a busy department store.... because, you know, shoplifting IS a problem? (Okay, every customer leaving the parking lot of a department store.)

Actually, I don't have a big problem with DWI road blocks other than they just shouldn't be doing that... and they shouldn't be searching stopped cars on a whim, either, even if they are guilty of DWI or not wearing a seat belt.

They already "search" all shoppers!
 

.
A drunk driver is a threat to my life. In the USA close to 20,000 people are killed every year because idiots don’t have the sense to refrain from getting behind the wheel when they’ve had a drink or three or six.

That’s not counting the number of people that are maimed or suffer serious injury.

Preventive measures against drunk driving like roadblocks/tests, or the random tests that I described, really cannot compare to searching customers in a busy department store. Come to think of it, today all customers are searched on the way out of department stores and supermarkets -- electronically, through tags places in merchandise.

On the other hand, profiling drivers (say, drivers of American pickup trucks or French cars) would be unreasonable. ;)
.

I am not a fan of "what if" laws. Look freedom can be messy, and it is the price we pay for freedom. Drivers drive drunk, people steal, bad things happen to good people and so forth. That is the price for living life. I would rather have my freedoms and protections from the government rather than have to a whole lot of freedoms sacrificed for very little in return of making any kind of difference.

Vis-à-vis surfing privacy from Google, have a look at GoogleSharing; a proxy specific to Google. Of course, their "solution" is only valid if you believe that they won't make use of your surfing habits. :eek:

well here you go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpfa4sH4Dpk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew

It is a matter of degree, of course. How much must we give up before it is too much?

Guess I am a little paranoid. Don't know why; I have never experienced anything from the police other than courteous and professional service.... and I've never been stopped at a DUI checkpoint, probably because I go to bed early.:)

As for the govt searching computer files and or monitoring international email etc., I am okay with that. It does not inconvenience anyone. But, before they prosecute, I would still expect them to come up with a probable cause for doing the searching.

Eh my experience with Police is mixed. When I have needed them, like filing reports or what not they have for the most part been nice. I had my license plate stolen, but I had no idea where. I figured it most likely happened at work, so I went to the school cop (I work in academia) and asked to file a report so I could get it reported stolen and go get a new license plate for my car. He said since I did not live in that county he couldn't file a report. In fact I went to two other police stations, because the other one near the DMW, which is in my county told me it had to the city I lived in. Yeah, so it looks like no one wanted to do their job to me....

I also once had a cop tell me I had no rights. I was younger, just in midtown for the first time and going to lots of house parties and what not. 2 cops strolled right into a house with out asking permission. I told them they could not enter the private property with out permission or a warrant via constitutional rights. One of the cops told me I had no rights..... They entered the house illegally but found nothing but booze, which is legal and left. I wonder what would have happened if they found something other than booze? Probable cause is a shaky line.

I'd rather have my privacy and freedoms and live with the down sides they create rather than have a big brother always looking over my shoulder denying me my freedoms and at the end of the day what does that accomplish? Does crime go down? Do people behave better? Does it improve overall quality of life? The answer to all those questions is, no it does not. All it does is takes away rights of citizens and puts them in the hand of the government. It's like a line of lyrics from a Punk band called Stiff Little Fingers, "They take away our freedoms, in the name of Liberty!"

I think most of us agree with and share your concern. Still, there is a public interest that must be protected, too. Guess I don't know exactly where the line is on that, but for sure (my opinion) they should never be able to collect information for a criminal prosecution without probable cause and a court issued warrant where appropriate.

For example, I mention in an email to an overseas friend that I made a nice profit on that antique car I sold..... then the next week, IRS is wanting to know why I didn't report that income on my tax return and is charging me with tax evasion and has frozen my bank account.

There definitely needs to be a hard, undisputed line somewhere. I hope we find that line and soon.

The much more likely scenario: you get deluged with spam emails about insuring that antique car, finding parts for it, and offers to sell it for you. Let's not forget about your company, which will decide that since you had enough money to invest in an antique car you can take a pay cut.