Database Records and "In Plain Sight" Searches 154
chriswaco writes "A federal appeals court ruled that database records are not 'in plain sight' when other records in the same database are subpoenaed. The case involved Major League Baseball drug test results, but the implications are far wider."
Makes sense to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the whole point of warrants to begin with. They get it on some technicality, then go on a fishing trip. This applies to private companies as well as governments by the way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The "P" in HIPAA stands for Portability, not Privacy.
-Rick
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:5, Interesting)
And the "A" stands for "Accountability" (which refers, in large part, to 'accountability for use of personal information'.) The major regulatorions under HIPAA include the Privacy Rule which controls use and disclosure of protected health information (PHI) by covered entities, the Security Rule which covers the required protection of electronic PHI held and communicated by covered entities, and the Transactions and Code Sets rule which establishes standards for how insurance-related transactions are conducted in electronic media. The first two of those rules are directed at protecting privacy.
HIPAA isn't all about privacy, but privacy protections are an important part of it (they were incorporated largely because privacy fears were one of the reasons people were resistant to the rest of the pieces aimed at acheiving efficiency by promoting and standardizing use of electronic transactions for health insurance billing and related activities.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And sarbanes Oxley is defined as a pain in the ass for all the IT people.
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:5, Informative)
On the Privacy rule, from HIPAA's own web site:
Who Is Not Required to Follow This Law
Many organizations that have health information about you do not have to follow this law.
Examples of organizations that do not have to follow the Privacy Rule include:
* life insurers,
* employers,
* workers compensation carriers,
* many schools and school districts,
* many state agencies like child protective service agencies,
* many law enforcement agencies,
* many municipal offices.
Once your employer has your health information, they are not bound to the Privacy Rule.
I'm not saying HIPAA is all bad, but a lot of people have the misconception that the "P" in HIPAA stands for Privacy and that HIPAA is designed solely to protect them. Neither of which is true.
-Rick
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
HIPAA isn't an entity, and doesn't have "its own web site". You appear to be referring the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights web site about HIPAA.
OTOH, the privacy rule prevents them from getting the information without your consent from your insurer or provider. But, yes, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) applies al
Re: (Score:2)
HIPAA isn't an entity, and doesn't have "its own web site". You appear to be referring the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights web site about HIPAA.
Don't be a pedantic ass.
disturbing number whose jobs are touched by HIPAA, think that the acronym pronounced 'Hi-pah'
Can you cite an authoritative source regarding the correct pronunciation? Only use official DHHS or Congress websites, please. Otherwise, again, quit with the pedantry.
The bigger problem than believing that HIPAA is focussed on "privacy" (which HIPAA rules actually do to a considerable extent) is mistaking the scope of their applicability; It's not that people get the "P" part wrong that misleads them as to the impact of HIPAA, but that they don't appreciate the significance of the "HI" part -- that HIPAA is focussed on health insurance industry, and has little impact outside health care and health insurance industry, even where it concerns health information.
Good point. Unfortunately, though, the scope is far too narrow with too many holes.
Re: (Score:2)
He's correct. If C-Span has video archives you could go back to when it was being debated and listen to the authors of the bill pronounce it that way. Of course websites aren't going to tell you how it's pronounced, it's irrelevant to what they are trying to tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
HIPAA isn't an entity, and doesn't have "its own web site". You appear to be referring the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights web site about HIPAA.
What is this, the second grade? You're going to go off on some completely unimportant minuscule semantic that holds no value in the topic of debate? What's next, you'll refuse to debate based on the presence of koodies on your opposition?
IME (and I work directly with HIPAA rules a lot) more people, including a disturbing number whose jobs are touched by HIPAA, think that the acronym pronounced 'Hi-pah' is spelled HIPPA and have no idea what any of the letters stand for.
IME (and I worked for a company dealing with specific health services) more people make assumptions about the privacy of their medical information with out knowing how it is protected, how it is shared, and who has access to it. I would venture a guess that the vast majorit
Re: (Score:2)
A reference to a website should either be a clear and accurate description or a hyperlink; I wasn't "going off" on anything, if anything the clarification to make a meaningful reference to the source of the information reinforced the credibility of the information taken from it rather than attacking it.
From a technical standpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
SELECT Results, TestingLab FROM SteroidTests WHERE LastName = 'DiMaggio' AND FirstName = 'Joe' does not mean that SELECT * FROM SteroidTests is in plain sight.
Especially since large databases keep track of more and more things (like your credit cards, names, address, ssn, what you last purchased, credit scores, ...) legitimate seizures of data should be severely limited by the judges issuing a warrant. Right now the feds can get away with: "Judge, this terrorist location is stored in this companies database, let's seize all the database servers of the company" and the judge not understanding how records are stored or how databases work practically gives a warrant for all the data the feds can find including 'collateral' records.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, according to the wired article, this wasn't about a database, it was about a excel file. I think since "in plain sight" is not in the constitution; it is a interpretation of the Constitution that clearly shouldn't apply to computer data (and thats the only justification I can think of for this ruling.) If we assume we have one row for each name, and we have 10 names to look for, sorted by last name, if those 10 names are each on different pages, we then have 10 pages * 30 results per screen, so ~300
Re: (Score:2)
Just read this somewhere else... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yeah, a much better article on Wired! [wired.com] Despite the bad link and very short summary, it is still an important issue. They key is that they say "Ideally, when searching a computerâ(TM)s hard drive, the government should cull the specific data described in the search warrant, rather than copy the entire drive, the San Francisco-based appeals court ruled. When thatâ(TM)s not possible, the feds must use an independent third party under the courtâ(TM)s supervision," So basically, they had a warrant for 10 drug results, but happened to find 104 results, and took them all. This ruling is a good one in my eyes. Now, they keyword I see there is "ideally", which seems to mean it could be stretched both ways by a smart lawyer, but still overall good stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But I agree with the quoted laywer in teh Wired article. I doubt the ruling would survive scrutiny of the SCOTUS with it's current makeup.
The dangers of screening tests (Score:5, Insightful)
The salient facts of the matter were that:
1. A group of people took tests, the results of which were guaranteed to be confidential.
2. The government subpoenaed some of the test results.
3. Investigators collected substantially more test data than the subpoena allowed, stretching the "plain sight" doctrine to the breaking point to do so.
4. Investigators leaked the test results to others.
5. The people who took the tests suffered adverse employment consequences, years after the tests were taken.
Exactly that same sort of thing could happen to you. Let's imagine. Five years ago you tested positive for THC when a random test was required the day after you were, uncharacteristically, at a party thrown by an old friend where there was a great deal of smoke in the air (You don't remember inhaling). Your employer sent you through the spanking mill for the next year and there were additional tests and you were forced to endure flash presentations on drug abuse against your will. You figured that was the end of it.
Little did you know that the Anytown Police Department happened to hang onto a list of positives they got from ABC Testing and Compliance Services (where you took the test) as the result of an unrelated investigation into a person you do not know. The list was leaked via a cop's wife to the local Human Resources Disucssion Group that meets every 2nd Wednesday at the Perkins. And guess what? Now you can't get a job in Anytown and you don't know why.
The ruling at issue is a step in the right direction, because it helps plug one of the holes through which some of this data gets out. If you don't care, you should -- unless you have nothing to hide.
Re: (Score:2)
do not take these tests. ever.
nothing good comes from volunteering to be 'examined' for things that nature deems are perfectly normal.
if enough people took a stand as refuseniks, then change would happen.
any pre-employment papers that say I have to be tested, I cross those lines out. some employers are ok with you refusing it and those that aren't, well, that's tell about THEIR priorities, isn't it? don't work for them. just say no (lol).
Re: (Score:2)
do not take these tests. ever. nothing good comes from volunteering to be 'examined' for things that nature deems are perfectly normal. if enough people took a stand as refuseniks, then change would happen. any pre-employment papers that say I have to be tested, I cross those lines out. some employers are ok with you refusing it and those that aren't, well, that's tell about THEIR priorities, isn't it? don't work for them. just say no (lol).
That's a valid strategy if you're willing to constrain your universe of employers to startups and other smaller employers that are not in a highly regulated business. I went for 15 years without having to take a drug test. Then the economy tanked and I had to take a job with one of the companies you read about in the newspaper, and so I got to piss in a plastic cup for them under the supervision of some minimum-wage nursing school dropout. Or welch on my mortgage. It was, frankly, an easy choice to make
Re: (Score:2)
Public Universities don't seem to be requiring drug tests for employees yet. They can be a nice place to work.
Sure, if you don't mind not being paid much. And, if you don't mind the fact that there are almost no job openings that pay a living wage...
Your typical large corporation employs tens of thousands of people averaging in the 80th percentile of national incomes or better. A typical Public University might employ hundreds or maybe a thousand people - and despite often having fairly advanced job quali
Re: (Score:2)
Five years ago you tested positive for THC when a random test was required the day after you were, uncharacteristically, at a party thrown by an old friend where there was a great deal of smoke in the air
Or had eaten some poppy seed cake, which can cause you to test positive for heroin. Some ulcer medications will cause you to test positive for THC.
Re: (Score:2)
I have mod points, but will refrain from moderating any other comments in this discussion and post a reply instead, because you've nailed it. Wish you could be modded +6
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"See, and I've worked for the Military, the State of Idaho, and currently a software company. They all required drug tests to start and the military tested regularly (nearly every month). All of the employers have in the contract that I could be tested at any time with or without reason. My current employer also states that if I am ever convicted of drug use or I test positive, that it is grounds for immediate termination. So, I'm not sure where you live; Amsterdam?"
I live in New York City. Before that, Bos
Re: (Score:2)
See, and I've worked for the Military, the State of Idaho, and currently a software company. They all required drug tests to start and the military tested regularly (nearly every month). All of the employers have in the contract that I could be tested at any time with or without reason. My current employer also states that if I am ever convicted of drug use or I test positive, that it is grounds for immediate termination. So, I'm not sure where you live; Amsterdam? And yeah, I have known people being termin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not a teeny minority. IBM, all the banks, all financial firms, most manufacturers, most construction jobs, all transportation jobs (truck drivers) require drug testing and often background checks. I had to take a pee test when our small software company got bought by one of the fortune 500. When I got a job offer with IBM years back, I had to take a drug test. It's pretty common.
Seems like there's another problem here... (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article:
So the question is, why isn't the players' union suing Major League Baseball for breach of contract? Anonymous and confidential is not the same as identifiable but confidential; if the results actually had been anonymous as promised, this breach never could have happened.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the article:
So the question is, why isn't the players' union suing Major League Baseball for breach of contract? Anonymous and confidential is not the same as identifiable but confidential; if the results actually had been anonymous as promised, this breach never could have happened.
In order to administer the program, which included retests, MLB had to retain some information about the identity of each person tested. A promise that information will remain anonymous is not a promise to destroy all information relating to identity.
You can't win a lawsuit alleging that someone permitted law enforcement to conduct a search in compliance with a valid federal subpoena.
You can't win a lawsuit against a newspaper forcing them to identify anonymous sources.
You can't win a lawsuit agains
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, actually, it kinda is. That's what anonymous means.
There are protocols that could allow for retesting without the testing or collecting parties needing to know anything about the identity of the party being tested. The simplest one I can think of off the top of my head: randomly issue a sheet of identically numbered labels to each participating player, without tracking which player
Why player's union isn't suing? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're suing over the loss of confidentiality. As near as I can tell, the fact that the loss of confidentiality was able to have any effect on them at all is because there never was any of the promised anonymity. The government is not the only party who did something wrong here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Again, the warrant should only give MLB an out on the promise of confidentiality. "Anonymous and confidential" means anonymous AND confidential. They're two different things; you can't say "this is anonymous because we'll just never tell anyone whose name is attached to it." That's just confidentiality. The only way it's anonymous is if nobody - not just "nobody but a privileged few" - can determine whose it is.
That's the whole point of "anonymous and confidential": if the confidentiality is breached, eithe
in general, i agree with the ruling (Score:2)
but in this specific case, i would rather these assholes using steroids and destroying the sport of baseball be exposed and embarrassed
the rule of law is important
the rule of moral behavior is more important (especially since law and morality are often in conflict, unfortunately)
outing steroid abusers who are destroying a national pasttime by making it more about artificial enhancement rather than natural skill, and convincing impressionable boys to inject themselves with drugs which put their health in jeo
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly such systems of government (where the individual is subservient to the state) have existed and still do, and there are those who want to restore them, often but not exclusively in the name of religion. A lot of blood has been shed over the last three
And that was a nice ad-hominem attack (Score:2)
Because you certainly didn't negate anything he said.
The danger with ignoring the rule of law when it seems expedient to do so is, you can always come up with a reasonable-sounding excuse for why it's OK this time. Pretty soon, it's OK all the time because someone can come up with a justification, any justification, for bypassing the rule of law. If you can ignore a law so you can get the scoundrels of the hour, then you can ignore a law meant to protect the average citizen from abuse by society or powerf
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with your sentiment regarding destroying the game, I disagree that it's the actual steroid abusers who are most to blame for it. To me, those most culpable are the representatives of the Commissioner's office and the MLBPA (basically, Bud Selig and Donald Fehr.) I believe that those people have done a masterful job of making the dirty players the scapegoat to hide their own complicit actions.
Steroid use rose to prominence as baseball was recovering from the strike. Those in charge of the leagu
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The "in plain sight" doctrine came about as a result of an old Supreme Court case. What it boils down to is, if the cops execute a search warrant or other lawful search, and they happen to spot evidence of another crime "in plain sight", they can use that evidence to arrest and charge someone. Say the cops are checking your motel room for an escaped prisoner. They can't go rifling through your bag looking for drugs once they've searched the room. But, if you have a meth lab set up in the room, they can get you for that.
The same thing with this database search. Databases can be any arbitrary size : a database could have records on every citizen in the United States. If the cops were given a warrant to check on the records of a specific citizen, the rest of the database should be off limits. Otherwise, there's no real limit to the games the cops could play, and they would effectively have the power to investigate every citizen in the United Stats for a crime at all times. What if the "database" contained the banking records of every citizen in the U.S.?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly the "in plain sight" is not the constitution, it was a ruling relating to a search for items that were likely to be intentionally hidden, not ones intentionally indexed cross referenced and precisely defined. IE the case of finding kiddie porn while searching for production of false identification cards, on a PC makes some sense as a "in plain site" find, since they needed to be "look around" for things that were likely to be hidden among other images. Finding Alex Rodriguez results while searchin
Re:Is it just me or..... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is just me or did I miss the part of the US Constitution that said Congress shall have the power to ensure the integrity of Major League Baseball? I can't be the only one that finds it absurd that our Government is devoting resources to outing cheating athletes. Surely there are more pressing issues for them to worry about?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather them screw up the game of baseball than everyone else's lives. Unfortunately they opted for doing both.
Neither branch of government has respected the Constitution in its original intent. If people want to keep their freedoms and liberties they'll have to do it themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt they were interested in "cheating" athletes. They were interested in athletes who were doing illegal drugs. The difference is that cheating my involve legal substances, and I doubt the government was interested in those. Instead, they were looking for drugs in their systems that the athlete in question probably did not have a legal prescription for, including controlled drugs that one cannot get via prescription.
And the court said, "That's fine, but to go searching for it in these computer
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Baseball is also something that greatly affects many Americans (congressmen included). I think they'd be remiss if they ignore these illegal acts coming from an American icon (the league).
Lastly, the Federal Government is pretty big and has a lot of people working for it. Yes there are more pressing issues to worry about, but rest assured they can worry about th
Re:Is it just me or..... (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. government has granted this league monopoly status
No, they granted it an exemption from the anti-trust laws. There's no law stopping you from starting your own baseball league to compete with the MLB.
Baseball is also something that greatly affects many Americans
No it's not. It's something that a great many Americans (myself included, Let's Go Mets!) enjoy watching but it doesn't "greatly affect" you unless you are unlucky enough to get killed by the police [wikipedia.org] while celebrating the victory of your favorite team.
Re: (Score:2)
Baseball affects me?
I'm not even sure what baseball is. Why I am I paying to subsidize this?
Re: (Score:2)
Baseball is the game where you dunk the puck through the hoop, and then run home, right?
Football I'm more sure of - that's the game where a bunch of millionaires try to catch a dead pig.
We're paying to subsidize things that the majority likes because we're in a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely there are more pressing issues for them to worry about?
I would much rather our Federal Government waste their time and my money investigating MLB, as opposed to to wasting their time and my money improving healthcare, out failed/failing companies, saving every single last banker, and figuring out new ways to let illegals vote for them.
I have my conservative HOPES, and they can keep the socialist CHANGE.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The King Can Do No Wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The government is investigating illegal use of a regulated substance. I agree the constitution doesn't include provisions for the FDA or other federal drug legislation, but unfortunately the supreme court sort of gave up on the constitution back around the '20s.
Re:Is it just me or..... (Score:4, Insightful)
in government, when you can't be EFFECTIVE, yet you are asked 'what are you doing with your time' its shit like this that keeps the burrocrats (sic) 'busy'.
clearly, they don't want to touch any 3rd rails (real issues that need real attention yet will get them unelected next go-round). so they go for easy fruit.
pathetic.
I have zero respect for lawmakers, judges and those in the position of power. lately, all 'understandings' of things technical make me puke. legal guys are worse than children in how illogical they really are, once you look close enough.
So when was the last time you went to your rep's office and told them about yourself?
"Hello, I'm a constituent, and I'd like to talk to [ my rep ] about technical issues being proposed / in the news / reflecting the upcoming election.
"I represent a group that [ tech tech tech ], and I wanted to let you know about services we can provide for you. You're an expert on government and the law, and sometimes you'll hear about technical bills. Some things proposed may be impossible, or split very fine hairs on details that you don't have the time to devote to total research. If there are ever questions we can answer for you, we're here, for you, as a resource, to provide a high-level summary."
Since you're complaining on /., I'd say you're a slacktivist who has never done such a thing. Do you even know your rep's name?
Re:Is it just me or..... (Score:4, Informative)
Do you even know your rep's name?
Maurice Hinchey and he doesn't give a damn what I think because my political views do not align with his own and his district is so gerrymandered that he only has to worry about what his supporters think.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Welcome to 70% of the districts in the US. They're all gerrymandered one way or the other. Most of them don't even give a crap what their "supporters" think, because the votes that keep them in office are not "supporters", just idiots who vote based on whether they see that "R" or "D" next to the name.
And it won't change, because that 70% would never vote to outlaw gerrymandering, or anything else that threatens their power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is it just me or..... (Score:5, Informative)
>>>"Hello, I'm a constituent, and I'd like to talk to [ my rep ] about technical issues being proposed / in the news / reflecting the upcoming election.
>
Several times. They just don't listen. For example I spoke to my Senator about the DTV conversion, and how the power levels were set too low for VHF channels 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13 such that they could not be received with the indoor antennas most viewers use. He thanked me and then promptly did nothing.
Next I talked to him about Comcast's monopoly and how it is working to "lock up" television programming (cable shows) behind walls, such that only Comcast subscribers could access them, but not Verizon subscribers (like me). He gave told me he supports net neutrality and that's why he's not going to interfere with Comcast's running of its business and he sees nothing wrong with the practice. (Huh?) I later checked and found he gets million from Comcast in contributions.
And of course I've witnessed what's happening with the townhalls, where he basically told the people he's not listening to their cries to "leave my healthcare alone". He's taken a Nixon-like tactic of saying there's a silent majority and he's serving them. (I would argue if such a majority existed, it should speak up not be silent.)
Democracy doesn't work if the reps refuse to hear what we're saying.
Re:Is it just me or..... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. From TFA:
If the cops subpeona records looking for Cowboy Neal's crhacking somebody's porn server, thay can't use evidence of Cnik70's use of illegal hamburger buns that they find in that database.
It is relevant.
OffTopic - Re: Sig (Score:2, Informative)
The threshold for your abacus is 24601^911th beads.
Re:Is it just me or..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Computer related.... check.
Privacy related..... check.
Does it matter?..... check.
And out of curiosity where is your line between pandering and providing a real service to your users?
Re:Is it just me or..... (Score:5, Funny)
is it just me, or does anyone else have a mental image of Barney Fife cocking his hat, scratching his head trying to cobble together a SQL select statement?
"Gee Andy....How do you create an Inner Join again?"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think you forgot barney reaching for his one bullet from his shirt pocket (assuming Andy let him have it back) because this is serious police work.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is it just me or..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they weren't searching the physical premise where these 10 players reside... nor any virtual equivalency. They were searching third party records of drug tests performed on these 10 players. The closest pre-digital analogy I can come up with is bank records. If it was 1909 and the police had obtained a warrant to search my bank records, would that give them the right to also peak at yours that are stored in the same filing cabinet at the bank?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that to look through bank records they would have required a warrant. By getting a warrant it gives them a laser pointer vision of what they can use in a court of law. Meaning if they seen something in someone else's bank records they would not be able to use it... in theory. Although corrupt officers could very easily use it as a starting point for an investigation.
In reality what should happen is a supeona because we're assuming the bank is NOT involved in a cover up at this point. The bank would t
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me that if the cops subpoena my (paper) records, the bank is obliged to give them my file. I don't think they are any obligation to not let the cops go into that filing cabinet to find my file - and then any others that happen to be there. Now, if the cops had appropriate evidence, they might be permitted to specifically look for other files held by the bank. In that case, the "in plain sight" clause might come into play.
But surely that's the key difference between a subp
Re:Is it just me or..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Too often that means "reasonable because the cops can snoop around and violate the privacy of other people, regardless of whether those other people don't want that like I do." I'll give an analogy that involves only physical evidence.
At least in my country, an officer is not allowed to just randomly pull over a vehicle for no reason and then search that vehicle. They are supposed to have probable cause; they can't just go search someoneone to see what they can find. Unless they have a dog, that is. That's right. A police dog can decide your vehicle has drugs or whatever else they're looking for and when the dog starts barking, suddenly the officer has a perfectly legal search. Yes, it would be illegal and a violation of civil rights if that officer used his hands and eyes to locate the same drugs. However, the same search performed with a dog's nose instead of a human officer's hands and eyes is suddenly legal and constitutional. Isn't that amazing, how you can take an unconstitutional act, filter it through the nervous system of the lowly dog, and suddenly it becomes legal and has the court's blessing?
Declaring additional records (i.e. those which were not specified in a search warrant or subpoena) as "in plain sight" and legal to search is worse than this. It's worse because it disposes of even the pretense that using a dog to conduct a search is somehow fundamentally different than using your hands and eyes to conduct the same search. It's like declaring everything up-for-grabs so long as the cops can get their hands on it. It's not "in plain sight", it's residing on privately owned hardware on private property. The cops confiscated it by force or by threat of force (what do you suppose a warrant or a subpoena is?) and now that they've dragged it back to their offices and loaded it up on their hardware it's in "plain sight" to them. That sure is a strange definition of "plain sight." This is something that WILL be abused, though I imagine that when this happens a lot of you are going to act surprised. The sad thing is that the surprise will often be sincere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least in my country, an officer is not allowed to just randomly pull over a vehicle for no reason and then search that vehicle. They are supposed to have probable cause; they can't just go search someoneone to see what they can find. Unless they have a dog, that is. That's right. A police dog can decide your vehicle has drugs or whatever else they're looking for and when the dog starts barking, suddenly the officer has a perfectly legal search. Yes, it would be illegal and a violation of civil rights if that officer used his hands and eyes to locate the same drugs. However, the same search performed with a dog's nose instead of a human officer's hands and eyes is suddenly legal and constitutional. Isn't that amazing, how you can take an unconstitutional act, filter it through the nervous system of the lowly dog, and suddenly it becomes legal and has the court's blessing?
The dog still has to be near your vehicle for a reason. That reason could be that you were parked in a lot where the dog was walking, but you still can't be pulled over for no reason other than to have the dog sniff your vehicle.
Now, let's take the dog out of the equation. Your parked in that same random parking lot and a cop walks by and smells the pot emanating from your car. He's been on the force for a while and has been involved with drug busts before. He knows, with no doubt whatsoever, the smell of p
Re: (Score:2)
At least in my country, an officer is not allowed to just randomly pull over a vehicle for no reason and then search that vehicle. They are supposed to have probable cause; they can't just go search someoneone to see what they can find. Unless they have a dog, that is. That's right. A police dog can decide your vehicle has drugs or whatever else they're looking for and when the dog starts barking, suddenly the officer has a perfectly legal search. Yes, it would be illegal and a violation of civil rights if that officer used his hands and eyes to locate the same drugs. However, the same search performed with a dog's nose instead of a human officer's hands and eyes is suddenly legal and constitutional. Isn't that amazing, how you can take an unconstitutional act, filter it through the nervous system of the lowly dog, and suddenly it becomes legal and has the court's blessing?
Hold on there... Anything in "plain view" of a place an officer is legally allowed to be is fair game. If you leave a bag of weed on the seat, and an officer walks by the car and sees it, he can search. If your car is emitting detectable drug particles into a place an officer is legally allowed to be, how is that any different? Would you be happier if they were using some sort of electronic detector instead of a dog?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing is the "view" in "plain view" is defined totally arbitrarily. The 4th Amendment to the constitution doesn't say anything about plain view; it just prevents unreasonable searches without a warrant. Over the years, the courts pulled this "plain view" stuff out of their asses.
I'm not criticizing them for that; they ultimately had to try to draw the line between what is reasonable vs unreasonable somewhere. So they made up something that most people think is fair. And now it's pounded into all ou
Re: (Score:2)
If the concentration is so dilute that you can't smell it, then the molecules, even if yes, they really are floating in the air, aren't in plain view. Just like if you have your drugs inside a cardboard box
Interesting point. Haven't we been told that a significant amount of US currency has detectable traces of cocaine on it?
Re:Is it just me or..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you be happier if they were using some sort of electronic detector instead of a dog?
The thing is, dog handlers know their dogs, and dogs know their handler. They are a well integrated team. And if the handler feels like he needs an excuse to search that car driven by those black lads, he can signal his dog via subtle body language cues that he should pretend he smelled something...
An electronic detector may (or may not...) be more difficult to manipulate.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is you do not have an expectation of privacy in the air around you.
In fact, you could say that your emanation of pot fumes puts you in potential hot water with the EPA.
Re: (Score:2)
A police dog can decide your vehicle has drugs or whatever else they're looking for and when the dog starts barking, suddenly the officer has a perfectly legal search.
That's kind of sad. I've seen the dogs "hired" after Superferry 14 http://globaljihad.net/view_page.asp?id=528 [globaljihad.net] and they just seem more interested in finding food in baggage than bombs.
Re: (Score:2)
It's lazy, dangerous, and ineffective to force-fit physical world rules to other realms. We should insist that they throw away rules of physical evidence and create reasonable rules for digital evidence.
Which is exactly how this looks like, to me. They recognize that information in databases can be no more "hidden" than any other, but they saw that, since allowing that kind of wide searches would open up a huge can of worms as far as privacy is concerned, you aren't allowed to use them in courts without a proper warrant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The physical analogy everyone seems to be missing is if they went to the drug testing lab and asked for the person's records in question, then followed the records keeper to a room full of filing cabinets, watched him open a drawer labelled something along the lines of 'Baseball players that failed their drug test', and then forcefully took every folder in the cabinet, rather than waiting for him to find the one for which they were given a warrant.
The thing is that if they had formed the query on the databa
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is it just me or..... (Score:5, Informative)
Surely you are jesting.
The ruling is really about data and I don't think that a baseball story needs to attract a few tech geeks and lawyers to increase banner ad revenue.
Personally, I am a bit reassured that there is such a ruling, because it gives some protection against a cop obtaining a warrant to get some data and issuing the wrong sql query that brings too much data including mine (or the tech guy asked to do it that does not refine the query enough, or just give a report that has the relevant data in it and then some not relevant etc.).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Riiiiiight. You're not too familiar with subpoena are you. They deliberately make them as vague as possible so they can use them as a large net. This helps to prevent some of that abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
They deliberately make them as vague as possible so they can use them as a large net. This helps to prevent some of that abuse.
Exactly. And to that end, the entire database will be subpoena'd in the future, and not be restricted to a few specific sql queries. It'll be the same as searching a file cabinet for the results page, and finding 10 names on the page.
Re:Is it just me or..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, it's called pointing out the significant information in the article. If you think this article is about baseball, you're not paying attention.
The Appeals court specifically indicated how this ruling should be applied to cases you'd probably be more interested in, such as if Google's servers were searched.
If anything, cnn.com is pandering to its audience by focusing on the baseball aspects of a story that's really about the legal bounds of search where databases are involved; and while the court reached its conclusion via a line of logic I don't care for (essentially an appeal to force - "if I decide this way, the consequences would be harmful, so I'll decide a different way"), it is a pro-privacy conclusion that a lot of folks around here are probably interested in.
But by all means, argue that the information shouldn't be made available here because it happens to come from a case that deals with sports and I suppose you think nerds don't do sports.
Re: (Score:2)
Baseball on TV is unwatchable. In person, it is the best game to go to. When my kids get older, I will go back to watching a lot of our minor league team's games. You can get the whole family in for a few bucks. No waiting in lines. Entertainment is wonderful. You'd have a hard time coming up with a better value than that in any other US sport.
Re: (Score:2)
In person, it is the best game to go to. When my kids get older, I will go back to watching a lot of our minor league team's games.
Good idea. You can probably get great seats close to the field too ...
You'd have a hard time coming up with a better value than that in any other US sport.
Amen!
(The LA Lakers in their showtime era were a very close second. I went to game 7 in their championship series against the Utah Jazz (which they followed up with beating Detroit in 7 games for the title) and it was so cool seeing the Lakers down early in the game, the Forum quiet and then Magic getting a rebound and starting a fast break and then having everyone screaming at the top of their lungs as the Lakers caught up and went ahe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trust me, just about nobody does baseball at this point.
A baseball game in a good stadium is good fun, though expensive. I note that the LA Dodgers are #2 in average attendance so far this season. Dodger Stadium, ground level, is a wonderful place to watch a game. As is Jingu Stadium (Yakult Swallows), except Jingu is better as the Swallows are underappreciated and good seats are always available.
Get out of your mother's basement sometime, live a little. Baseball is a nerdy game. The very first computer program I ever wrote (on a hard copy terminal and save
Re: (Score:2)
I call BS. 2009 attendance data (to date) - Best are the Yankees, with a 45K per game average.
Yeah, and the LA Dodgers are #2 only a couple of hundred tickets behind. Dodger Stadium is very cool, though a pain to drive into.
I had my worst baseball experience ever there. My father took us to a game against the Braves to watch Hank Aaron play and we got to the game late and missed his early inning home run ... :-(
And my best experience taking a friend to Jingu who knew nothing about baseball, let alone NPB and pointing at Alex Ramirez and Roberto Petagine during the pregame warmup and saying I want
warrant != permission to ransack (Score:4, Insightful)
It can be called "my cat.jpg" and be the database of positive results. So, when agents request search warrants for electronic they articulate a need to search the entire media.
And unfortunately thinking like that is why they can literally tear your car down to the nuts bolts and wires at the border when doing a search for drugs. When they're done, and haven't found a thing, you know what you get? A toolbox full of tools and a space in their parking lot to try to put your entire car back together by yourself. (I know two that have had this happen to them when traveling between the USA and Canada)
By your logic they could literally tear a house down, tear apart the walls and the joists and dig up the foundation if they could suggest that a crack rock could fit in there, when searching a house on a drug warrant.
Unfortunately this is one of the innumerable examples of where the law is given overly broad power and it's left up to someone's judgement as to "how far to go" with it. Unless you have good evidence to suspect the perp has gone to extreme measures to hide something, you can't just ransack the place.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately this is one of the innumerable examples of where the law is given overly broad power and it's left up to someone's judgement as to "how far to go" with it. Unless you have good evidence to suspect the perp has gone to extreme measures to hide something, you can't just ransack the place.
The appeals court rightly decided that this violates two major constitutional doctrines: (1) Void for Vagueness and (2) Overbreadth. Laws cannot be written so vaguely as to grant the enforcer extra arbitrary power and, additionally, may not be written in such fashion as to go well beyond the scope of its original intention.
Re: (Score:2)
the problem is though, until they are appealed and overturned, they're LAW and if someone wants to abuse them, they can. (and eventually, ALL laws that can be abused, will be abused, usually with increasing frequency until someone revolts and creates change) And until enough precedence is established, they REMAIN law. and even after that they can still be challenged. Until the law itself is clarified or struck down.
Re:Actual implications (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point is that once you find said database you can only go looking in it for information that is within the scope of your warrant, ie: within that database you're searching for references to elephants your search should be limited to elephants, not major league baseball players.
If you're looking for MLB players but have a list of 10 specific ones, you should be limited to searching for those players names... if they use an alias you're out of luck and will need to convince a judge that this is so important that you need a 'john doe' warrant to search all records for evidence. Better yet just find some other specific criteria that is likely to pull up your aliased individuals records - such as a data, address, etc. that will properly narrow your results so as to exclude as many false matches as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
will need to convince a judge that this is so important that you need a 'john doe' warrant to search all records for evidence
I get the impression that you (and many others) believe that because itscommonsense to work this way, that it actually does work that way. The flaw is in the definition of "convince", whereby many assume its a difficult requirement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The decision is here [uscourts.gov].
It explicitly sets down a rule applying to *all* electronic media search warrants (though it will only apply to federal courts in the 9th circuit). The ruling's core is about the method of electronic searches and the plain sight doctrine, and eviscerates the usage of the latter for electronic media :
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea why "database records" keeps coming up; the records searched were an excel sheet.
I believe it could apply to databases as well. Excel could be considered (in a loose way) to be a database that includes the capability to format the data.
Re: (Score:2)
The ruling applies to all digital evidence (databases, excel sheets, text documents, images, whatever). I'm just wondering (a) where the summary got it from and (b) why a number of people are acting like the ruling is limited to databases, given that neither the facts of the case nor the scope of the ruling deal with them specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Major Victory (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is the system is trying to correct itself from the abuses of the Bush Administration. I wonder if this would over-ride the Patriot Act?
Interesting that you reference the Patriot Act while talking about the abuses of the "Bush Administration" but fail to mention the fact that the vast majority of Democrats in the House and all but one in the Senate voted in favor of it.
You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical that they will do any better now that they are in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Things seem to be designed such that the president gets all the inevitable problems that arise in their term placed on their shoulders (along with the ones that they caused themselves) and the party in the white house changes every 4 or 8 years.
The outrage never quite reaches the legislators, though, and they serve for decades and decades raking it in and adding
Re:Major Victory- Hollow Victory? (Score:2, Interesting)