wired.com — Can an elderly father give police permission to search a password-protected computer kept in his adult son's bedroom, without probable cause or a warrant? In April, a three judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said yes.
May 23, 2007 View in Crawl 4
tech42erMay 24, 2007
@chandonThree things for everyone making a big stink about the child porn:1. Forget this is child porn. The issue here (in the Wired article) is digital privacy.2. Good point. The AOC is a joke. I mean, I can understand not wanting a 12-year old and a 37-year old to have sex or be filmed having sex or anything, and I can understand if you dont want a little girl engaging in pornography, but when you charge teens for child porn because they have pictures of themselves or when 2 1 year olds can legally have sex but not legally film it, it's absurd. Of course, it's also absurd to charge a 16 year old as a sex offender because he had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. And then it's legal if they're 17 and 16, and it becomes illegal AGAIN when they're 18 and 17. The AOC laws are just insane, a testament to how the general public has been tricked into "protecting the children".3. Chandon, you're probably right that some groups use the specter of child porn to try to demonize regular porn.
tech42erMay 24, 2007
Wrong! Don't make exceptions to the laws.
therfidsMay 24, 2007
@ InstaaHis addiction hurts people because of basic supply and demand. If there is a demand for a product, in this case child porn, there will be a supply. His addiction along with that of others creates the demand. Business 101.
pjbonovoxMay 24, 2007
One word : Encryption.
linearladMay 24, 2007
There was no consent to search the contents of the computer. Just like the police who “knew” the computer was full of illegal material, you, sailor, seem to have an enormous capacity to arrive at conclusions with little to no information to support your suppositions. I am disinclined to argue with you. Debasement is a poor substitute for intelligent conversation.
gandalf999May 25, 2007
I think someone may have mentioned it earlier, but here goes.The article didn't seem to mention who owned the computer. Assuming the computer belonged to the son, then even if the father owns the house he has no right to give consent to search a locked computer which he doesn't own. This would be similar to the owner of a storage space company giving consent for police to search your storage area. As for those of you who wish to argue about him living at home....the agreement could easily be argued as receiving rent of the room in exchange for the service of taking care of his father.How does one protect a home computer from intruders? Is it done by locking it physically in a cabinet or similar device? Not normally. So utilizing a program that doesn't even check for a standard lock (even sucky ones would still require a warrant for police to search a locked cabinet) bypasses the intent of the law. To me, it seems like the police essentially came in with a crowbar and didn't even 'notice' the 'lock' that was on it. The argument of ignorance never worked as a defense for someone doing something illegal, so why should it work for police?Now on to what plenty of folks like to argue over...the creep deserves what he'll eventually get. I completely agree that this guy needs phsychological help, and jail time (and a large burly bunkmate named Bubba). The interesting thing to note here is that since the police know (even if they can't use it against him) what he's doing and the word is now out....he's going to be on everyone's blacklist. Everyone will be watching him, and waiting for him to slip up. When he does (and he will) his hindside will be completely nailed to the wall.
rdivilbissJun 2, 2007
The court documents established the home was owned by the father, the son paid no rent, the son's room was open to all members of the household, the e-mail address used was the father's, the IP account used and the Internet service belonged to and were paid for by the father.At that point in time, it was reasonable for the investigators to believe the father had the right to give consent. After the investigators discovered evidence of a crime the father asked them to stop their search, which they did.They called to son who came to the house and gave knowing consent to proceed with the search.No forth amendment violation here. He did the crime, gave permission to search, and confessed.
robertritzAug 28, 2009
@DivisibleByZeroYou have a very good point. The law today does not place a burden on police to check to see if something is password protected on a computer, or to ask the person giving authority if they actually have control or access to the device. This needs to be changed to reflect the idea that computer files are just as real as paper files.
robertritzAug 28, 2009
The cops in this case apparently never booted into windows, and instead booted using special software. Your warning would not have stopped them.
tannpopoOct 23, 2009
I know how to unlocker his computer <a class="user" href="http://www.resetwindowspassword.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.resetwindowspassword.com/</a>just a little tool can do that.but can you unlock his mouth or his brain?????