To anyone in the states studying law.

[SquareHead]

I work at a hotel. Tonight for the first time I have heard something from a guest that makes me think. He had complained because our hotel only offers 'wireless' internet access. He was extremely upset and said that if he used anything other than 'wired' internet access he forfeits his 4th amendment rights. I'm not sure if he was aware or not (the clerk that spoke to him knows nothing about these issues) , our network for guests is open and unencrypted. Now I have been researching this one to see what the hell he was thinking.

As far as I was aware, the 4th amendment when applied to today's technology is still open to interpretation. For those of you studying law, do you find his fear rational?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

From what I can gather about this, (remember I have no law background at all), any person / agency acting on behalf of the government would have to show probable cause to even try and probe into his computer. The fact that he would be on a public, open, and unsecured wireless connection should not give them any less restrictions regarding this should it?

Second, this guy must either be a lawyer or a criminal, or both.

[Nightcrawler]

I'm no law expert, but why is this even an issue? I mean, the guy has a CHOICE of whether or not to use the hotel's services. Nobody is forcing the guy to put his computer on that network. Secondly, I don't think it has anything to do with unreasonable search and seizure. You're right, nobody is going to perform any searches legally without being law enforcement, and having probable cause or court order.

I'm interested to know if there's anything substantial behind this as well. I doubt it. Any lawyers on our board?

[creaothceann]

Second, this guy must either be a lawyer or a criminal, or both.

Maybe he had previous experiences related to that law.

[PHoNyMiKe]

obviously this guy knows nothing about the world wide web, such as the 69th amendment: you do not have a right to the internet at all places and all times. service may not be available in all areas. any information transferred from the internet is susceptible to random searches an ip address logging.

as nightcrawler said, he doesn't have to use it. there's a lock on his hotel door, and cops can't come in a search without a warrant. using the wireless internet is his option, just as inviting a bunch of thieves into his hotel room.

[adventure_of_link]

Any lawyers on our board?

Joe Camacho is a lawyer in training

[Deathlike2]

I doubt there's a difference between wired+wireless connections in terms of "government data tapping".

[funkyass]

this guy has his tinfoil hat on too tight.

he's not a criminal, nor a lawyer, probably either drunk or a nut.

[SquareHead]

Well I didn't hear anything else about it, so I don't figure he raised any more of a fuss. That goes for saying though, until next week when I hear something more insane, this was the strangest complaint about our internet I have heard yet.

[LobStar]

Any lawyers on our board?

Found one!

[adventure_of_link]

good to know the objection site is going lightning fast again

[DataPath]

Anything he can do over SSL should be "casually secure".

If you look, you can probably find free web proxies with SSL you can use that basically give you a secured link at least to their proxy.

Doesn't mean there isn't some secret room in an AT&T data center where they might be watching traffic going in and out of the proxies, correlating the data bursts, and identifying which data is going to whom.

[Joe Camacho]

The American 4th ammendment is the base of due process, and in the same time it protects privacy. But it has nothing to do with the case described.

If he is doing something against the law, I guess that there is already an investigation in hand, so it will be backed by a warrant. If it isn't, then any evidence found will be useless in court, "Fruit from the poisonous tree" defense.

Between you and me, I bet the dude had an old laptop without a wireless card.

A wired connection can still be hacked, isn't it? So there you have it.

[SquareHead]

So this morning a story hits the front page of our local newspaper. And whose name was on it but our complainer. What slays me is that he was some sort of big businessman wanting to relocate said business out here. But the relevant part is in the article that mentions a raid on said person's house and business by the ATF, US Customs, and the IRS, for a whole list of fun things like:
alleged drug smuggling, exporting weapons illegally, and money laundering.

It seems nothing came out of these raids (article mentions legal documents that support his innocence) , but this explains so much now.

[Deathlike2]

Lucky you.

[corronchilejano]

Could we get a scan of such papers? If it contains pic, that'd be awesome too.