# Best Buy Geek Squad geeks being paid FBI informants **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 10, 2017, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835 "2017-01-10T21:20:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/21 "2017-01-11T02:40:13Z")
Just a note from someone who used to do very similar work (though not for BB) - company policy explicitly forbade us from digging too deeply into private files. We were explicitly told not to dig, but if something were to appear in our cleaning, we were to absolutely report it. Sometimes, when ferreting out an infection, we would come across somewhat less-than-savory files- sometimes that was on display from log-on. I had customers come in with straight up porn on the desktop and others that simply shut slammed the lid down when things went wacky. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/22 "2017-01-11T02:42:49Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > So if the FBI agents just dressed up like Geek Squad crew and showed up before the real guys, that would be fine? > > Could the DEA put some plumbers on the payroll and ask them to poke around the rest of the house looking for grow ops? How is this different than LE dressing up as a Pawn Shop crew? How is this different from a CI going into a drug house? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/23 "2017-01-11T03:04:30Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > What Constitutional Right protects kiddie porn? And the government isn’t randomly searching all computers. Constitutional rights ate constantly balanced against the greater good. The government doesn’t need a search warrent to search your financial records in an audit. I think you are missing the point. The rights aren’t there to protect kiddie porn. The rights are there to protect me, and to a lesser extent, you. I’m innocent and enjoy my rights. I don’t know about you. Would it be OK for the Feds to tap your phones to see if you are talking about sharing kiddie porn? If they knock on the door and say they are going through your PC to look for kiddie porn? (sans warrant, of course. Because if they warrant, that means they had a _reason_ to search) > [@](#): > > ``` > If an exterminator you hired to catch rats found a woman you had imprisoned in your basement, would you agree that that would be probable cause for the police to enter your home to investigate? > > ``` What if the exterminator picked the locks on your storage cabinets? Invasion of privacy? You betcha. Illegal, oh yeah. So, this guy is searching computers for kiddie porn. He does it so often, he has a _relationship_ with the FBI. I suspect he searching all of them. So he can get paid if finds some. How many do you think had a _reason_ to suspect he might find some on? We have a right to free of searches. LE needs a reason to violate that. A good enough reason to convince a judge that maybe something was up. Our predecessors found that pretty important. If they don’t have that reason, they cannot search. And they cannot pay others to do it _for them_. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/24 "2017-01-11T04:17:37Z")
Do you want to know what the law is, or announce what you believe the law should be? As it now stands, the case law with respect to hard drives (and phones) has mostly tracked with the case law regarding physical places – that is, it’s treated the hard drive as a single place, and applied the same plain view exception to the warrant requirement that has long been the rule for physical searches. If I were to guess, I’d hazard the guess that your instinct is responding to the fact that a search of an electronic device is more akin to a general search of a place, not a search particularized to a given object or area. Because we are conditioned to expect that searches are premised on probable cause and limited in scope, the search of a 1 TB hard drive raises the spectre of general snooping as opposed to a plain view-type glimpse that’s limited in duration and area. But despite the fact that some cases have begun to develop distinctions between digital and physical scopes, the fact remains that there is no solid, bright-line delineation in case law that sustains the distinction I suspect you’re unconsciously applying. In any event, the rule is: a search is reasonable if it does not violate a privacy interest that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. In general, what you willingly expose to a third party is removed from the expectation of privacy that it might otherwise enjoy. I will be happy to answer additional questions about what the law currently is. I have no particular opinion about what the law should be. ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/25 "2017-01-11T05:36:16Z")
time warner has/had a cya in your user agreement that pretty much says if theres signs of anything illegal in my home jurisdiction that they find on my computer when they fix modem issues they can and will investigate it and inform the proper authorities … although my tech was interested In my 50 gigs of emulators and roms namely because I had a ti99/4a prog with hunt the wumpus but he said that they mainly go after underage porn, viruses,hacking tools and things like signs of running id/bank fraud ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/26 "2017-01-11T06:43:15Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > What Constitutional Right protects kiddie porn? And the government isn’t randomly searching all computers. Constitutional rights ate constantly balanced against the greater good. The government doesn’t need a search warrent to search your financial records in an audit. The constitution protects me from illegal searches. (It also protects you.) it’s spelled out in plain text. And having actual police, or “unofficial” agents of the government, searching without a warrant is a violation of the fourth amendment. But oooh! kiddie porn! Well, then, shitting on the constitution is OK. Kiddie diddlers are bad dudes. The worst of the worst. They should be [shot on sight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), amirite? ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/27 "2017-01-11T07:07:43Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > The constitution protects me from illegal searches. (It also protects you.) it’s spelled out in plain text. And having actual police, or “unofficial” agents of the government, searching without a warrant is a violation of the fourth amendment. > > But oooh! kiddie porn! Well, then, shitting on the constitution is OK. Kiddie diddlers are bad dudes. The worst of the worst. They should be [shot on sight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), amirite? The government does not need a warrent for all searches of our personal property… Baggage at airports Our bodies and backpacks upon entering government buildings Our bodies and automobiles entering the country at the border Clearly our fourth amendment rights are balanced by the general welfare. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/28 "2017-01-11T07:36:08Z")
All the examples you give involve the searchee doing something involving a particular risk in respect of which a search is said to be warranted. The BB situation doesn’t involve the searchee doing anything at all other than the owning a computer. There is simply no correlation between one needing to give one’s computer to BB to fix and the likelihood that one’s computer will have kiddy porn on it. If BB’s conduct is OK by you, then logically you must think that the government should be able to search any computer anywhere at any time for kiddy porn. After all, there is no particular reason to single out people who have their computer fixed by BB, is there? People whose computers don’t need fixing (or who fix their own computer) have no reason to be exempt. So what you are saying is that there should be no right to privacy about anything on any computer anywhere at any time because kiddy porn? Correct? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/29 "2017-01-11T07:44:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In any event, the rule is: a search is reasonable if it does not violate a privacy interest that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. In general, what you willingly expose to a third party is removed from the expectation of privacy that it might otherwise enjoy. I can’t speak to the caselaw and from what you are saying there isn’t caselaw to clarify. However, I think it is a massively dubious proposition to say that giving your computer to BB to fix constitutes willingly exposing to BB what they don’t need to see to fix the computer. And even more so when it comes to deleted material in unallocated space on the hard drive. To me, that’s like saying if you ask your electrician to fix the light in your office, you have willingly exposed to him what he can learn if he goes through your shredder bin and glues the shreds back together. It’s absurd. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/30 "2017-01-11T07:56:26Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > All the examples you give involve the searchee doing something involving a particular risk in respect of which a search is said to be warranted. The BB situation doesn’t involve the searchee doing anything at all other than the owning a computer. There is simply no correlation between one needing to give one’s computer to BB to fix and the likelihood that one’s computer will have kiddy porn on it. > > If BB’s conduct is OK by you, then logically you must think that the government should be able to search any computer anywhere at any time for kiddy porn. After all, there is no particular reason to single out people who have their computer fixed by BB, is there? People whose computers don’t need fixing (or who fix their own computer) have no reason to be exempt. > > So what you are saying is that there should be no right to privacy about anything on any computer anywhere at any time because kiddy porn? Correct? I generally agree unless the porn is detected without any overt searching. If a person has kiddie porn as a screen saver or saved in a visible file labelled as such then that should be fair game. ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/31 "2017-01-11T07:59:33Z")
Everyone hates kiddy porn, but it makes me wonder what else those BBGS techs were passing on to the FBI. Multiple copies of the Koran & other Islamic literature? White supremacy pamphlets? Instructions on how to grow marijuana & other stuff? Perhaps stuff that’s legal but the techs have a personal bias against, like gay marriage / transgender / interracial stuff. The FBI is renowned for profiling people without cause. Granted, I’m more concerned about them messing with my Minecraft saves and browser settings, but nor do I want anyone looking through my folder of serial killer mug shots and murder scenes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/32 "2017-01-11T10:09:12Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > The constitution protects me from illegal searches. (It also protects you.) it’s spelled out in plain text. And having actual police, or “unofficial” agents of the government, searching without a warrant is a violation of the fourth amendment. No. Wrong. The Constitution forbids only unreasonable searches. There are a number of searches which are warrantless but still reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/33 "2017-01-11T10:15:34Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I can’t speak to the caselaw and from what you are saying there isn’t caselaw to clarify. However, I think it is a massively dubious proposition to say that giving your computer to BB to fix constitutes willingly exposing to BB what they don’t need to see to fix the computer. And even more so when it comes to deleted material in unallocated space on the hard drive. > > To me, that’s like saying if you ask your electrician to fix the light in your office, you have willingly exposed to him what he can learn if he goes through your shredder bin and glues the shreds back together. It’s absurd. Except that the customer in this case was asking Best Buy to reconstruct his data - to search the shredder, so to speak: > [@](#): > > The technicians at the store told him he had a faulty hard drive. If he wanted to retain information from the hard drive, he would need the Geek Squad’s data recovery services in Kentucky. > > Rettenmaier signed a service order that prosecutors argue “waived any right to raise a Fourth Amendment claim” because it contained the admonition: “I am on notice that any product containing child pornography will be turned over to the authorities.” Can you explain how you analogize that to an electrician fixing a light and then searching the shredder? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/34 "2017-01-11T10:21:50Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > The government does not need a warrent for all searches of our personal property… > > Baggage at airports > > Our bodies and backpacks upon entering government buildings > > Our bodies and automobiles entering the country at the border > > Clearly our fourth amendment rights are balanced by the general welfare. The test is not “the general welfare.” Airport and government buildings searches are generally a matter of consent: that is, you may decline the search by not entering the building; you don’t have a constitutional right to enter a government building free from searches. The border search is related to the sovereign right to inspect border crossings. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/35 "2017-01-11T13:31:31Z")
I’m curious about how this will affect BBGS business. I have no child porn on my computer, but I do have stuff that I consider personal. If I need work done on my computer tomorrow, Best Buy will not be on the list of places I’ll consider. (They were pretty far down the list previously, granted) ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/36 "2017-01-11T13:57:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Except that the customer in this case was asking Best Buy to reconstruct his data - to search the shredder, so to speak: This is true, and they did warn in the agreement. And it’s a characteristic of the major OSs that even when working normally they leave file shrapnel all over the Hard Drive so if you are trying to rescue your data you have to look at everything. And nevermind kidpr0n, if you are doing anything compromising or grey-area you’re better off using a strong-encrypted partition and FREQUENT full external-drive back-ups so if your main unit goes on the fritz you can just destroy it. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/37 "2017-01-11T14:34:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. Wrong. > > The Constitution forbids only unreasonable searches. There are a number of searches which are warrantless but still reasonable. Curious how you omit mentioning what types of warrantless searches are legal. Perhaps because none apply to this discussion? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/38 "2017-01-11T15:31:23Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > Curious how you omit mentioning what types of warrantless searches are legal. Perhaps because none apply to this discussion? To the contrary, two types of warrantless searches, reasonable and thus permissible by existing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, have been mentioned above: a search by plain view when the searcher is legally in a position to observe the area in question (post #24); and consent searches in which the person with a cognizable privacy interest gives assent to the search (the link in post #1, relevant text quoted by me in post #33). Are you still curious about the details associated with these exceptions? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/39 "2017-01-11T17:53:36Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > The constitution protects me from illegal searches. (It also protects you.) it’s spelled out in plain text. And having actual police, or “unofficial” agents of the government, searching without a warrant is a violation of the fourth amendment. > > But oooh! kiddie porn! Well, then, shitting on the constitution is OK. Kiddie diddlers are bad dudes. The worst of the worst. They should be [shot on sight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), amirite? Child Molesters are indeed evil. But Kiddie pron is often 4th hand or even further removed. ---
**Author:** ![Daylate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@Daylate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daylate)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835/40 "2017-01-11T17:59:00Z")
Remnants of files left after deletion is really no problem. There are a bunch of programs out there (some free) that will overwrite free space with a random pattern of 0’s and 1’s, permanently removing any leftover stuff from a drive. Some of these programs will overwrite the drive as many as 35 times. This will make any sort of file retrieval an impossibility. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-buy-geek-squad-geeks-being-paid-fbi-informants/776835.md?page=3)