Home Computers Aren’t Private: Virginia Judge Rules Against Fourth Amendment

(Update; 7/12, 4:00 pm): The FBI used malware to infiltrate the site and obtain all of the user information. This could very well mean that evidence may be dismissed, and the FBI’s practices called into question. Further updates may warrant.

A recent decision by a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia has stipulated that personal computers in one’s home are not so private after all, citing a commonly used phrase in Fourth Amendment cases: “no reasonable expectation of privacy.” The details of the case, which we’ll get into in just a second, make it clear that as long as the ends justify the means, it does not matter what the process to get to that end was. Even if that process was blatantly unconstitutional.

This ruling stems from the FBI’s infiltration of a website called Playpen, which is a horrifying name for what the FBI called the “largest remaining known child pornography hidden service in the world.” In order to catch the people who were visiting this site regularly, they allowed it to operate for two weeks while it had control of the servers. While doing this, they accessed thousands of IP addresses from those who were accessing the site. The court ruling was in the specific case of Edward Matish, Jr. The judge stipulated that his constitutional rights were not violated, and a criminal case will commence this fall. He is charged with four counts each of accessing and receiving child pornography. However, it is not far-fetched to surmise that this Virginia ruling could make its way to the Supreme Court.

What is the Fourth amendment?

The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” As this right relates to the case at hand, it has been established for many years that computers fall within the realm of the constitutional right provided by the Fourth. Now, the problem with this case isn’t exactly with the FBI’s actions; they appear to have conducted their investigation well within the manner the law provides them. The problem is with the judge’s ruling, and the wording of his ruling in particular.

The FBI obtained a search warrant, and they obtained it lawfully. However, Judge Henry Morgan went so far as to say that the warrant was unnecessary. He also said that a person using their own computer, in their own home, that they paid for, does not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Judge Morgan’s reasoning behind this was that a computer can be hacked, so one shouldn’t expect privacy. So just because a computer is not “immune to invasion,” this means that a person should allow it to be hacked and your searches spied on by the government. A home is not immune to invasion either, but it still has protection against being unlawfully invaded.

Technology and privacy

The internet, email, Facebook, smart phones; with each successive invention comes an increased importance placed on privacy. No one wants their messages to their family or spouses being read, no one wants their location tracked, and we’re guessing no one wants their search history read unless there is probable cause. The ruling here, saying that a search warrant was unnecessary, completely removes an essential part of due process. Technology, despite its continued presence for the past two decades, is still a relatively new concept when it comes to lawmakers. But there have been quite a few cases decided in regards to technology and privacy.

In the annual review of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedures this year, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal judge can issue a search warrant on any computer anywhere in the world, whereas before only federal magistrate judges could issue a warrant within their own jurisdiction. Congress does have until December 1 to block or allow the decision, so the results of the election could certainly play a heavy role in that. Many have called it an affront to civil rights and privacy, with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon saying he’ll propose a bill to reverse it.

The case of Riley v. California(2014) brought the issue of the police searching cell phones to the forefront. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the police must have a warrant in order to conduct these searches on people they arrest. Approximately 12 million people are arrested every year, and the fact is, most of them are non-violent and relatively minor; drug possession, shoplifting, etc. Chief Just John Roberts opined that cell phones, ” are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.” So the Supreme Court seems to understand that technology and privacy are two sides of the same coin, but judges in the lower courts appear to disagree in this regard.

Child pornography is just about the worst thing a person can be involved with in any way shape or form. Anyone who is involved in it should be locked away in a padded cell forever or worse. But when rights are taken away from criminals, even the horrifying ones, they are concurrently taken away from all citizens. The rights afforded in the Constitution are there to protect all citizens at all times, not just a few when it’s convenient.