Hacker News Reader

Comment by edwhitesell | Hacker News Reader

This article isn't about searches; it's about the technicians reporting something they happen to see in the course of their business relationship with the customer. I don't see how this is any different than a CI reporting information to LEOs on crimes "in the street".

In other words, a warrant is still required before LEOs can look for information themselves to persue charges.

If the FBI were really asking Best Buy to search everything they work on for illegal/contraband items, that would be entirely different.

View on HN

> This article isn't about searches; it's about the technicians reporting something they happen to see in the course of their business relationship with the customer.

If I witness a hit-and-run, will the local police department pay me for it? If I wave a traffic cop over to an illegally parked car, do I get a cut of the fine the driver pays?

I've heard of local PD paying for tips/information on things like petty crimes and misdemeanors (though, maybe not parking). I have no proof of such a thing, but I can't see why they would not do it if circumstances allow.

> If I witness a hit-and-run

IANAL, but I suspect that's the important distinction. You witnessed something, you didn't search for it. Just like these Best Buy technicians witnessed the illegal/contraband items.

I think that the issue comes in when people have the option of both plain sight and searching. For example if an electrician is paid by the local PD to report drug paraphernalia they now have an incentive on future calls to poke around where they don't strictly need to be. How do you know whether they conducted an illegal search (as an agent of the government since they are paid if they find something) vs. saw it in the regular course of their duties? To me that is the key. The person is already in a somewhat privileged position, not just standing on a street corner with their eyes open. The payment creates a conflict of interest, thereby making anything they find suspect.

I agree with you... What I'm saying is even with someone reporting information from a "privileged position", the Police _still_ need a search warrant to gain that knowledge in a way they could charge someone with a crime.

If Police want to move forward with charges based on information from a paid CI alone, they are certainly able to do so. However, I doubt it happens very often because they know they need evidence collected via the correct legal process.

In the long run there's likely not much difference. Except there are usually rules and procedures involving a CI. As long as they are following the same rules then I would imagine the practice would be allowed.

It'll just as likely kill the business model if it becomes common knowledge that they search for stuff through your hard drive you thought you deleted and possibly make it public.

After all, there are personal security problems with all this. Identity theft being a simple one, having your personal stuff made public is another.

Never mind the fact that there have been CIs that just made stuff up to get paid.

"in the street" is public. And the implication is, the technicians aren't just seeing things "in the course of business", but actively looking for them.

What is a CI? I assume LEO is Law Enforcement Official. Thanks.

CI: Confidential Informant LEO: Law Enforcement Officer

Reply on news.ycombinator.com