Hacker News Reader

Comment by snomad | Hacker News Reader

Shortly after it quotes him as saying

>We have a moral and, in more than 20 states, a legal obligation to report these findings to law enforcement,”

With that specific number, I am guessing it is indeed a requirement.

I really wish we could get some clear 4th amendment boundaries for the digital age. On the surface, I am ok with this. But paying the Geek Squad techs seems to undermine the whole point of the thing.

I don't particularly find a FBI-company party in 2008 relevant to this story. Just hopeful dot-connecting.

View on HN

> With that specific number, I am guessing it is indeed a requirement.

I'm guessing here, because the language is ambiguous and the relevant states & laws are not mentioned, that the legal obligation exists if you should find suspected child pornography you must report it to the relevant legal authority. I highly doubt the law states something along the lines of if you're a computer repair technician you are legally obligated to run these forensic tools to local clandestine or non-hidden photos that may be child pornography. The former I could see an argument being made that failing to report could make you criminally complicit or even an accessory to the crime. The latter, I see as possible 1st or 4th amendment violations to the US Constitution (1st amendment violation in that it's possibly compelling speech, and for the 4th, the DOJ compelling a warrant-less search. By virtue of offering the bounty in this manner, it could be argued Best Buy is effectively acting as a page contractor of the DOJ).

Obligatory, I am not a lawyer. I'm merely speculating on possible legal arguments.

Morally, I'm torn on this. On one hand, I find child pornography morally reprehensible, yet on the other hand, I want these scum bags thrown in a dark, dank prison. In the end, I think, however, that this should constitute a 4th amendment violation. If this is to stand, what's the rate to be for the government to get anything they want to know about me? $100? $.01? gratis? any IRS inquiries to disappear? I think we need to revisit the 4th amendment to give explicit protection to data held by an external party.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

I totally agree. I feel the same way about Tor. On one hand people who fight oppressive regimes use it for privacy, but on the other hand people are using it to distribute disturbing content.

What if we change or broaden the transport mechanism? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't have such conflicted feelings about https or flash drives which are also used to distribute this content.

True, but again that is a bit different. The feds could simply seize the tangible flash/hard drives. The conflict regards the law and how encryption is handled. Of course law enforcement should go after these people and take down this content. I've never heard of plain HTTPS servers used to do this, though; it's a scary world...

I believe they're showing that Best Buy has intent to work with the FBI beyond what they say, and therefore can't be trusted regarding their public statement. It isn't enough to draw any conclusions, of course, but should cast doubt that they're being honest in their public statement. The average person probably already assumes they aren't being honest, but a journalist needs a reason to have such a doubt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com