What if the plumber is repairing, say, your toilet and finds a bunch of unlawful pictures hidden in there?
What if you call a plumber to repair your hot water system, and the plumber then uses a drain inspection camera to search all your plumbing, and everything connected to it, for unlawful pictures?
I'd argue that there's a moral one /assuming it falls in to your observation/.
There is /not/ a moral obligation to actively go looking for and judge someone as a normal individual. Rifling through another's possessions without probable cause is already wrong for actual law enforcement, let alone normal people.
I guess what I'm saying is, if in the course of normal actions I do something (like opening the web browser and the default tiles are... or the background of the desktop is) and it's obvious that this is something the individual went of the way to see / keep, that's one thing.
If it's some BS ad that probably got pulled in via automation that's another question. Once you pull in individuals politically motivated to be 'tough on crime' for re-election or future offices/career developments it's likely going to be at least a major hassle even if they're actually innocent of the intent to commit a crime.
This could still be a grey area. Obviously pornography of young children could be identified by most people 99% of the time, the 1% being bizarre situations like mistaking a collection of cherub images for child pornography. But what about when the 'child' looks like a junior or senior teenager and so it's ambiguous as to weather they're of legal age or not? Is someone morally obligated to report potential child pornography in such a situation? A false report, even an accidental one, could cost an innocent person their freedom or a lot of money to preserve their freedom.
>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.
> 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.
There is generally an obligation to report child pornography, child sex abuse, and so on. Absolutely, and rightly so.
There is no obligation to search. But if you consented to a technically-unnecessary search and the tech has an incentive to do that search...
The only real question is whether the techs here were government actors. If the government pays them for the actions that nets them the evidence needed to convict, then I'd say the tech is a government actor indeed.
People still get "compensated" for reporting to the authorities a sighting of a [wanted] criminal, so long that it leads to the capture of said criminal. This could be a similar case. If the device was turned in for a hard drive migration, for instance, and the employees stumbled upon this nightmarish content, I see nothing wrong with them (the employees) reporting it to the authorities. As a result, the authorities could have paid them [individually] a bounty.
is this true? is there a legal obligation?