We love the EFF, and they can practically do no wrong. The SSD Project is just another stand-up example of their public service. Keep up the great work!

RTFA: https://ssd.eff.org/

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has created this Surveillance Self-Defense site to educate the American public about the law and technology of government surveillance in the United States, providing the information and tools necessary to evaluate the threat of surveillance and take appropriate steps to defend against it.

Surveillance Self-Defense (SSD) exists to answer two main questions: What can the government legally do to spy on your computer data and communications? And what can you legally do to protect yourself against such spying?

After an introductory discussion of how you should think about making security decisions – it’s all about risk management – we’ll be answering those two questions for three types of data:

First, we’re going to talk about the threat to the data stored on your computer posed by searches and seizures by law enforcement, as well as subpoenas demanding your records.

Second, we’re going to talk about the threat to your data on the wire – that is, your data as it’s being transmitted – posed by wiretapping and other real-time surveillance of your telephone and Internet communications by law enforcement.

Third, we’re going to describe the information about you that is stored by third parties like your phone company and your Internet service provider, and how law enforcement officials can get it.

RTFA: http://www.freep.com/article/20090115/NEWS07/90115…

A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that drug evidence found during an unlawful arrest arising from a computer error about a warrant could be used at trial against the defendant.
Advertisement

When police mistakes that lead to an unlawful search arise from “negligence … rather than systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements,” evidence need not be kept from trial, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 5-4 majority in the case from Alabama. He was joined by the four other conservative justices: Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The four liberal justices – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer – dissented. They said that because the search violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the evidence should have been excluded.

“The most serious impact of the court’s holding will be on innocent persons wrongfully arrested based on erroneous information carelessly maintained in a computer database,” Ginsburg wrote for the dissenters. She cited findings from the Electronic Privacy Information Center that government databases are rife with errors.

The Roberts majority focused on the societal costs of excluding drugs and other evidence seized. The court enhanced officers’ ability to use evidence by arguing that an unlawful arrest was not reckless or deliberate.

Oooooookay. At least we can put an end to the argument, “if you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.”