(15th entry)
Snowballing: that is what I think.
Last time, I wrote about the possibility that incriminating shots from Google street view cameras be made admissible in evidence despite being fruits of the proverbial poisonous tree. Now, I write about how at least three US circuit Courts of Appeals ruled on the issue of whether or not search warrants need to be procured to scour P2P files and activities.
Particularly, I would like to blog about the case of the pedophile who was sentenced to imprisonment after federal agents found pictures and videos of child pornography in his computer and in his house. The argument against illegal searches was raised simply because the computer and the house were searched without a search warrant. Magnifying the fact that the accused did not switch Limeware's share feature off, the courts decided in favor of the admissibility of the photographs and videos, saying that the accused "was clearly aware that Limewire was a file-sharing program that would allow the public at large to access files in his shared folder unless he took steps to avoid it."
While the result, of teaching a psychotic pedophile a lesson, is desirable, I think that there should be protocols (up to a certain degree) to ensure that the rights of the accused to a reasonable expectation of privacy over his downloaded files are protected. Pedophilia is just one of hundreds of felonies that the State, with all its resources, can prosecute against a person. Files depicting child pornography is just one out of the million kinds of files that people can download through P2P and store in their hard drives.
Keeping in mind the objective of procuring a search warrant--to eliminate fishing expeditions by law enforcers--I find it hard to agree to the ruling of these appellate courts. Yes, I agree that keeping the share feature on allows the general public to access one's files. However, I do not see how "public" would be made to include investigating or arresting officers. Consenting to share one's files does not equate to consenting (incriminating, actually) to illegal searches.
The right against illegal searches and seizure has evolved and is still changing. The definition of searchable personal space is still limited to the area where an accused could immediately dispose the corpus delicti. Up to this point, there is no need to widen the space where police officers can validly search with or without a valid warrant.
When I wrote "snowballing" I did not mean that the two related news I blogged on are starting a snowball against privacy rights and the rights of the accused. What I referred to is the size of the areas that the legislature need to cover to keep up with the exponential growth of technology. They say technology, I say policy.
1 comment:
i guess the more important thing to note is that people must be aware that every move when using the internet can be monitored since it is all streamed using data. these data can easily be manipulated in any way. in other words, there is always paper trail in the internet. so, just like any potential criminal, beware! since, in current laws, almost all of us are criminals (as pirates that is).
Post a Comment