Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:4th Amendment (Score 1) 189

Arguably, you could have a legitimate expectation of privacy (and therefore 4th Amendment rights) in your friend's home. If your friend has voluntarily linked his webcam to the police system, your privacy rights could be violated. Regardless, I wanted to follow up on my earlier post that a private individual likely becomes a government agent for 4th Amendment purposes if he voluntarily links his camera to a police surveillance system. "For a private person to be considered an agent of the government, we look to two critical factors: (1) whether the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct, and (2) whether the private actor's purpose was to assist law enforcement efforts rather than to further his own ends." United States v. Simpson, 904 F.2d 607, 610 (11th Cir.1990).

Comment Re:4th Amendment (Score 3, Interesting) 189

In cases where the government argues that the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply because the search was conducted by a private party, the government loses if it can be demonstrated that the private party was a de facto government agent, or acting at the behest of a government agent. Surely it would be the same with cameras?

Comment Re:Nowhere does the ruling say "hacking" (Score 1) 317

That's awfully broad.

Still, this particular blogger has plainly misrepresented the content of the Court's decision. It's beyond me where he got the notion that anyone was talking about "hacking." The tweet he links as his source doesn't use that word, and neither does the lawyer's article linked to the tweet. It's plainly not in the judicial decision. I stick with my original assessment: he's just trying to drive traffic to his sight for financial gain.

Comment Re:Nowhere does the ruling say "hacking" (Score 1) 317

Agreed with you. The only reason this is a story is because the "journalist" from TFA injected the word "hacking" into it. The apparent motive for this was to rile up a bunch of geeks who get mad when the term "hacking" is used improperly, which would drive traffic to the article. Slashdot's predictable pet peeve has been used to boost someone's revenue. My apologies for inferring the ill intent and profit motive on the part of the journalist. It's either that, or we have to assume he's a dummy who can't read.

Submission + - Ligatt Security, Gregory D Evans Compromised (

PlasticCap writes: Gregory D. Evans, the questionable information security personality, and his company, Ligatt Security International, have been compromised. The attackers obtained Gregory's inbox and other information, including the password to his Twitter account, then put that data inside a 4.5 GB 7Zip archive and created a torrent of it. You may remember Gregory from when he released a book, "How to Become the World's #1 Hacker," which largely plagiarized actual respected security researchers, their own books, and their websites.

Slashdot Top Deals

Asynchronous inputs are at the root of our race problems. -- D. Winker and F. Prosser