# Decision: Government needs no warrant to gather information from your home computer **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 24, 2016, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-government-needs-no-warrant-to-gather-information-from-your-home-computer/758249 "2016-06-24T16:24:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2016, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-government-needs-no-warrant-to-gather-information-from-your-home-computer/758249/21 "2016-06-26T03:36:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **Bricker** , I don’t quite follow why the judge went on for so long about “even if the FBI didn’t have a warrant” when in fact they did. Why so much time on the counter factual? Judicial economy. If an appellate court overturns his ruling that the warrant was valid, they don’t have to send the case back for additional fact-finding; he’s already made the requisite findings to address the situation. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2016, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-government-needs-no-warrant-to-gather-information-from-your-home-computer/758249/22 "2016-06-26T07:36:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The judge’s answer to that seems to be that because the Internet in general and Tor sites in particular are rife with hacking and malware, any claim that someone expects their IP to stay private is being unreasonable. I can’t understand how that can possibly hold up to scrutiny. Hacking is itself illegal, as is most malware that bypasses anonymity attempts. Even the malware that isn’t illegal is covert. This reasoning seem comparable a judge saying that, since mail in Buttfuck Idaho is so often stolen, anybody living in Buttfuck Idaho has no reasonable expectation of privacy for mail they send or recieve. And even if we ignore the thefts, Buttfuck is fill of nosy neighbours and loose lipped postmen. So the police don’t require a warrant to search mail in Buttfuck. Anybody claiming that they expect their mail to be private in Buttfuck is being unreasonable. I just can’t see how this is a defensible argument. The judge is basically saying that, even if you take all reasonable steps to protect your privacy, if those steps are commonly overcome by criminals, no right of privacy can exist. Sure, I locked all my doors and windows, but since criminals in this neighbourhood so often break into houses anyway, my claim that I expect the the contents of my house to stay private is unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2016, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-government-needs-no-warrant-to-gather-information-from-your-home-computer/758249/23 "2016-06-26T07:59:00Z")
> [@akennett](#): > > Of course the government shouldn’t need a warrant to search computers. After all, there was no such thing when the founders wrote the Fourth Amendment. Clearly they could never have conceived of such devices carrying a high capacity of data and able to process it at such speeds. Kudos for such a trenchant post. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2016, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-government-needs-no-warrant-to-gather-information-from-your-home-computer/758249/24 "2016-06-26T15:22:31Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I can’t understand how that can possibly hold up to scrutiny. Hacking is itself illegal, as is most malware that bypasses anonymity attempts. Even the malware that isn’t illegal is covert. > > This reasoning seem comparable a judge saying that, since mail in Buttfuck Idaho is so often stolen, anybody living in Buttfuck Idaho has no reasonable expectation of privacy for mail they send or recieve. And even if we ignore the thefts, Buttfuck is fill of nosy neighbours and loose lipped postmen. So the police don’t require a warrant to search mail in Buttfuck. Anybody claiming that they expect their mail to be private in Buttfuck is being unreasonable. > > I just can’t see how this is a defensible argument. The judge is basically saying that, even if you take all reasonable steps to protect your privacy, if those steps are commonly overcome by criminals, no right of privacy can exist. Sure, I locked all my doors and windows, but since criminals in this neighbourhood so often break into houses anyway, my claim that I expect the the contents of my house to stay private is unreasonable. But the privacy interest here is only the IP address. I certainly agree that the argument doesn’t extend to the actual data on the computer or (in your example) the contents of the letters. It’s just where they were addressed. ---
**Author:** ![wintertime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c68b51/32.png) [@wintertime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wintertime)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2016, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-government-needs-no-warrant-to-gather-information-from-your-home-computer/758249/25 "2016-06-26T15:54:19Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > This reasoning seem comparable a judge saying that, since mail in Buttfuck Idaho is so often stolen, anybody living in Buttfuck Idaho has no reasonable expectation of privacy for mail they send or recieve. And even if we ignore the thefts, Buttfuck is fill of nosy neighbours and loose lipped postmen. So the police don’t require a warrant to search mail in Buttfuck. Anybody claiming that they expect their mail to be private in Buttfuck is being unreasonable. I think the decision rather means that you have no expectation of privacy for the address that you wrote on the outside of the envelope to let the postal service know where to take the letter. By willingly communicating the address openly, you surrendered the expectation that the address itself could stay hidden from anyone but the recipient. The contents of the letter can still only be read with a warrant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-government-needs-no-warrant-to-gather-information-from-your-home-computer/758249.md?page=1)