You may fail to be outraged, and that is your right. As you allude, the Russians had no "expected" rights, as they are not US Citizens, and were SUSPECTED criminals (innocent under US law until proven guilty).

Howsoever, as the article states, taking digital copies of the files does not constitute "seizure" under this ruling, as it did not interfere with the Russians "posessory"(sic) interest. How then would this ruling apply to other digital media (i.e. MP3s). If a digital copy, without erasing or otherwise altering/disabling access to the original, does NOT constitute possession, how then can people be charged with any form of theft of digital materials/company trade secrets? Sure, I am treading on a number of other facets here that may influence this argument, but the basic fact is the FBI acted INITIALLY without a warrant to enter someone else's computer with a sniffed password.

If *I* sniff a password on your corporate network, since your employees have no expectation of privacy there, and make digital copies of every document and database there, wouldn't you want to charge *me* with hacking or illegal computer entry/misuse under the Fabled Patriot Act? But, according to this case, "no expectation of privacy" + "digital copies with unaltered originals != possession" = NO HACKING CHARGE. In the US, unlike many other nations, trail law constitutes LEGAL PRECEDENT, and this could and will be cited by every Appeals Lawyer as precedent.

If US law makes others (non-US citizens) criminals, then the same due process of law must be followed to prove such crimes, period. That is called American Justice. If the law is inadequate in the 21st century to provide for such processes, then the law must be changed to reflect what is really needed to perform an effective job. Until such time as the laws DO reflect the digital age, they must be followed to maintain the "legal right" to prosecute under them.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/105/16271#16271