I think if they took the cash registers too the >Starbucks lawyer would be
in court an hour later >with a motion to quash in one hand and an offer of
full cooperation in the other.
Regards, Bill Herrin
The standard, in the U.S., is "any electronic device capable of storing
data".
as this thread has moved firmly to legal opinions, i now scan it for
postings by folk i know are actual lawyers and whack the rest. if you
are a lawyer, but not well known as such, please say so right up front
in your message.
randy
PROCEDURE FOR SEIZURE OF COMPUTERS AND RELATED DEVICES
This search warrant covers and controls the procedure for searching: (1)
electronic or computer devices, related equipment or media which has been
authorized to be seized pursuant to this warrant on the basis that it is
contraband or a direct instrumentality used to commit the crime, and (2)
electronic or computer devices, related equipment or media for which
seizure has not been specifically authorized. Agents are authorized to
seize and remove from the premises such electronic or computer device,
including computer system input/output (I/O) peripheral devices, software
and media so that a qualified computer expert can accurately search for and
retrieve the data in a laboratory or other controlled environment when this
is necessary in order to search and retrieve the data or information
authorized to be searched for and seized pursuant to this warrant.
"Agents and computer experts working with agents are authorized to
seize the relevant system software (operating systems, interfaces and
hardware drivers), any applications software which may have been used to
create the data (whether stored on hard drives or on external media), as
well as all related instruction manuals or other documentation and data
security devices (including but not limited to passwords, keycards and
dongles) in order to facilitate the authorized search. In addition, if
necessary for data retrieval, they are authorized to reconfigure the system
in order to accurately search for and retrieve the evidence stored therein.
If, after inspecting the I/O devices, software, documentation and data
security devices, the analyst determines that these items are no longer
necessary to search for, retrieve and preserve the data, and if the
software, documentation and devices have not been seized pursuant to the
warrant as contraband or instrumentalities of the crime, the items shall be
returned within a reasonable time."
Example of an actual warrant:
https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf
Not a lawyer.
Not a lawyer.
than stfu with the legal crap
It amazes me how people feel free to opine on things like networking without a certification, but if you don't have a law degree, suddenly they believe you are incapable of understanding anything regarding the law.
As for "the legal crap", most of what is posted is not on-topic here. There are laws & legal implications which are operational, though. And even though I am not a lawyer, I need to understand them or I cannot do my job. My lawyer is not going to pick which datacenter to lease, even if he knows a metric-ass-ton more about indemnification than I ever will (at least I hope than I ever will - that shit is BOOOOOOOOOORING).
I appreciate people who have researched and understand the topic giving their insights - just like I do regarding BGP, MPLS, IPv6... okay, no jokes about IPv6. 
And, just like with networking topics, I do not appreciate people taking up 10K+ of their not-so-closest-friends' time with half-baked ideas from people who have not taken the time to understand the subject matter. However, I do not believe the only way to go from the latter group into the former is to pass the bar. (And if so, in what state/country? what specialty? etc., etc.)
I guess this is a long-winded way of saying: If all you have to say is "STFU", maybe you should take your own advice?
Actually, what really bugs/amazes me about that thread is that the
person whom this thread was originally about IS NOT EVEN FROM THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
CALEA, DMCA, yadda, yadda, yadda have nothing at all to do with the
original problem.
True, but false.
The original incident in Austria was being used as an argument against anonymous networks in the US or elsewhere. For US persons the relevant laws here are relevant to that followup discussion.
George William Herbert
Laws and legal ramifications are a driving force impacting design and
policy for network operations, because they have financial
implications, and finance matters. For example, if you or your orgs'
staff are denied access to your equipment or data and critical servers
are seized or offlined, while a police investigation is ongoing, due
to a breach of PII confidentiality (eg Stolen social security numbers
of staff members used by an ID thief), for example, there is possible
hardship for the org, even if you or your org fully exercised due
care and went well beyond the minimum: with a responsible
well-thought security program, and the offender is an outsider, you
might soon not have a network, due to bankruptcy.
In this case you might not have any "liability" or guilt for the
breach, but you have major costs, regardless.
Anyone, including people off the street, can have opinions about the
Law, and opinions about networks. Would you be willing to rely
some stranger off the street, with no qualifications, or positive
background whatsoever, to start recommending a new network design,
or give them a CLI with directions that they can start making whatever
changes they like to your core router?
Would you ask how to configure an AP to be secure, on a network law
discussion list?
Opinions are one thing; but a large amount of legal mumbo jumbo,
and attempting to suggest you have exactly what a court would find, or
what the exact and only issues are,
that list members can't responsibly rely on anyways (DUE to its
importance not its non-importance), is a waste of bits, and there
might be a more appropriate place to discuss law itself.
quite possibly. strangers off the street sometimes demonstrate superior insight than credentialed 'experts'. not typically, of course, but sometimes.
an essential point is how much work i want to do to assess the credibility of the comments from either source.
folks who rely on their credentials for credibility tend to lose it with me. anyone who makes a point by clearly providing a solid basis for it tends to gain it.
but i agree that clarity about the purpose of this thread would be helpful...
d/
I think one error being made here is discussing the culpability of law
enforcement per se.
That's like blaming the UPS delivery person because something you
bought from Amazon was misleading. Or praising him/her because it was
great.
One way of asserting authority over any property is making very
visible arrests and similar (shutdowns, etc.)
If you follow the Internet Governance sphere a lot of what is going on
is a frantic power grab by various players, particularly govts but
also NGOs, for control of the internet.
This is being heightened by the competitiveness involved, if one
player grabs it before you do then you LOST THE GAME!
Even when they haven't a clue (or only barely) what they're fighting
over surely they can understand that it is bad to LOSE THE GAME!
Particularly to players you don't much like or trust.
As the great VP Dan Quayle was once quoted as saying: If we don't
succeed then we run the risk of failure!*
And that these players are finally figuring out just how powerful the
internet is, at least potentially.
Yeah you can say this has been going on for (insert your own
professional life time in years which is what people do.) Heck, the
whole thing was basically started by the US Dept of Defense, end of
argument, talk about a power player!
But that's sort of like saying that people were trying to capitalize
on the internet for years before the dot com bubble of the late 90s.
It misses the point. Yes you can find examples, no you can't find the
kind of activity and earnestness we're seeing of late.
* If you try to debate, confirm, etc that quote you're a loutish bore,
it stand on its own