
If a Best Buy technician is a paid FBI informant, are his searches legal? - tuna-piano
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/if-a-best-buy-technician-is-a-paid-fbi-informant-are-his-computer-searches-legal/2017/01/09/f56028b4-d442-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html
======
droithomme
The FBI is acting in bad faith. If this is found to be permitted, then search
warrants are no longer necessary in many situations since the police can
simply hire anyone who is not a LEO to conduct a warrantless search on their
behalf.

Given that the file in question was in the deleted free space, the technician
didn't just stumble into it accidentally and then report it. He went looking
for it to begin with. And he was searching for such files because he was paid
to do so.

~~~
Someone1234
Why has law enforcement suddenly become allergic to warrants? Warrants used to
be a rather boring, but important, process that police had to fulfil to show
that they had even a very flimsy case.

Now it seems like law enforcement and politicians who serve their whims are
outright pushing to remove the warrant requirements from as much as possible.
But why now? Warrants aren't new and the landscape hasn't changed that much,
why are law enforcement suddenly pushing so hard on this?

Is this just a general theme on the broader problem of police oversight (or
lack thereof)? This is one of the few areas of actual oversight left
(judicial) so they're trying to remove that too.

~~~
jstanley
The landscape has changed hugely since 50 years ago. Individuals now have a
lot more power than ever before thanks to the proliferation of technology, and
individuals who want to subvert the aims of the state have a greater chance of
doing so than ever.

The state is beginning to recognise this and is taking steps to try to claw
back some power.

~~~
btilly
_The state is beginning to recognise this and is taking steps to try to claw
back some power._

My perception is opposite. Over the last 20 years we have gone from a fairly
free country to what feels like a police state with the most effective
surveillance in history.

Are you actually familiar with, for example, the extent of Snowden's
revelations? What an erosion of liberty the Patriot act is? Or how unusual it
used to be to see armed security guards in random office buildings?

~~~
jstanley
Yes. These measures are being taken _because_ individuals are getting more
powerful. In the long run, I don't think the state is going to succeed, but it
will be an arms race for a while.

~~~
btilly
Can you offer evidence for your theory?

My theory is that the state took advantage of the combination of panic over
terrorism and falling costs of data storage to put their dreams into action.
The threat that they purport to be protecting against isn't real. The threat
that the state poses, sadly, is.

As evidence I can point to the fact that dramatic increases of power increased
after 9/11\. Much of which was spent in security theater and clear power grabs
with proven ineffectiveness. ( _cough_ TSA *cough) Anyone who was around in
tech knows about the dramatic drop in costs for data storage, and knows how it
has driven big data in general.

------
koolba
This is interesting:

> The search of Rettenmaier’s hard drive has a further wrinkle. The image was
> located on “unallocated space,” which is where deleted items reside on a
> computer until they are overwritten when the space is needed. Unallocated
> space is not easily accessed — it requires special forensic software.

> Prosecutors said that the Geek Squad technician who searched the unallocated
> space was merely trying to recover all the data Rettenmaier had asked to be
> restored. Riddet argued that the technician was going beyond the regular
> search to deleted material to find evidence the FBI might want.

It's not difficult to recreate files that have been deleted but not fully
wiped from the disk. But it's also not trivial. If the Best Buy techs are
finding things in those regions of the disk then that means they're explicitly
looking at what's there. It's not just a matter of, " _Hey the desktop
wallpaper of this guy 's laptop is kiddie porn, I should report this!_", these
guys are actively searching people's computers on behalf of the Feds.

~~~
finid
_these guys are actively searching people 's computers on behalf of the Feds._

Seems so, and $500 is a good incentive for a Geek Squad worker.

~~~
gist
Statistically, and with $500 as a reward, it seems plausible that a technician
from time to time might plant something to collect the bounty. I would wonder
what the 'chain of custody' is and/or the specific techniques used that would
prove this was not possible. After all from what I read they aren't even
looking for corroborating evidence just parts of files w/o knowledge of how
they even got there.

~~~
fjdlwlv
It's a valid concern, but on the cases I have seen, convictions don't come
from one piece of evidence, the initial evidence leads to far more.

But even a dead end investigation (from a mistaken or false pretenses) can be
a large burden on the accused

------
rayiner
This is pretty clear cut and I hope it gets decided the right way. The 4th
amendment doesn't apply to private actors acting of their own accord, but
_does apply_ to private actors acting as agents of the government. The
payments make this a slam dunk--the Best Buy employees were working as agents
of the FBI and any searches they did require a warrant.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
But where does that put 'mandatory reporters'? Many folks in a position to
observe children are required to report signs of abuse. Are they 'agents of
the government'? I imagine this complicates their job e.g. health care where
they ask very personal questions.

Also, no warrant would be required to perform a search _when requested by the
citizen_ , right? "Please, officer, look in my trunk!"

~~~
nl
Mandatory reporters aren't conducting searches.

 _Also, no warrant would be required to perform a search when requested by the
citizen, right? "Please, officer, look in my trunk!"_

No, of course not. (Actually, I believe that accepted doctrine has changed
since "99 Problems" was written and a locked trunk is no longer safe from
warrentless search.)

~~~
jermaustin1
At least the last time I was searched (11 years ago), it was still "requested"
by the officer, so I'm assuming I could have said no and he would have had to
get a warrant, etc, but he let me know that he could either search my truck or
ticket me for my tire hitting the white line (which may be illegal, or may not
be, I don't know).

Had I been smarter, I would have taken the ticket and fought it in court, but
as a scared 18 year old, I allowed myself to be cuffed, placed in the backseat
of a cop car while he tossed my truck. He had ever opportunity to plant
anything he wanted, and thankfully he wasn't too corrupt of an officer - other
than coercing an illegal search.

That is why I have a slight anti-police bias. I have family in the force, so I
try to be respectful of police, and I know plenty of amazing police officers,
but there are a lot of bad apples that spoil the bunch.

~~~
jmcdiesel
I was "asked" to exit my vehicle by no less than 6 officers pointing their
service pistol directly at me and yelling at me...

I was walked backwards, hands on head to a police car and cuffed, thrown down
on the hood and very physically frisked (ever had someone literally pull your
balls down ... yeah)

I stood with my hands behind my back for 10 minutes sitting on them, very
painfully (i am a big dude, but i was larger then, over 420lbs (this plays
into the story later)

I was talked to like i was trash while officers begin looking through my
truck, throwing everything out of place...

...

Want to know why this happened? Because 10 minutes earlier someone robbed the
store i was driving behind. His description was a SKINNY male (the word
"skinny" was specifically used) with dark hair and a beard. Even through the
window of my truck, if you could tell i had a beard, you could tell i wasnt
skinny. I was of course let go... but basically my truck was ransacked, left
completely a mess, and I was left feeling rather victimized (its not a good
feeling knowing 6 guns are loaded and pointed at you with no safety on... its
a lot more impactful than you think before it happens to you) ...

At the end of the day, any one with common sense isnt going to think the
person who (on foot) robbed a store is going to drive right by the store,
surrounded by police officers, 10 minutes later... and i didnt even match the
description... yet somehow their warrantless search of my vehicle and self
were totally legal and fine...

These were just assholes who wanted to get all hopped up on being the hero
that day...

Oh, and at the end... the whole thing ended with the last words of the cop
being "you're lucky we arent citing you for your license plate light being
out" ... thats how cold cops are, thats what law enforcement is in America...
its a bunch of losers who get handed power (because what kind of person seeks
out power through a badge and a gun) and in turn, look for every opportunity
to use said power in extreme ways to get their kicks...

Warrants are just peices of paper... intimidation is the way of the police
now. That's their preferred method of getting what they want

~~~
jermaustin1
You know what always left me the most pissed about the whole thing. My truck
being left a complete trashed mess. It took me 15-20 minutes to get it back to
90% organized.

I had tapes and CDs (remember those) thrown out of their cases, my clipboard
for work was broken, my flashlight was opened and the batteries thrown about.

Had he been respectful of my things, it would have just been a laughing matter
about how I used a "drug dealer's" driveway to turn around, but instead he
ripped apart my truck looking for god only knows what, just to drive off
without helping put anything back in its place.

------
reverend_gonzo
If the Best Buy employee is paid for a successful find, what's to prevent an
entrepreneurial employee from placing his own images onto a computer?

~~~
minikites
And it's not like we haven't figured this out already:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect)

------
xntrk
Hasn't chain of custody been broken then? How can we be sure that the Best Buy
tech didn't put illegal images on the machine.

~~~
roel_v
'Chain of custody' only starts on seizure. There are no 'chain of custody'
issues either when a drug lab is dismantled - sure, some guy in a ski mask
might have broken into that garage the night before and put all that stuff
there, doesn't make it a chain of custody issue. More similar to the OP, when
an electrician finds a mj plantation when doing routine network maintenance
(replace a meter, maybe), there is no chain of custody problem either.

~~~
valarauca1
So then it is on the FBI to prove _beyond a reasonable doubt_ that the files
were placed on the computer _by the owner_. Not by the technician.

Which in court will effectively end up being _computer forensic expert_ vs
_computer forensic expert_ lecturing a jury of people who don't understand
computers.

~~~
roel_v
Sure, but (unless I'm misreading your undertone) what's the problem then? When
the police find a bloody knife on somebody's kitchen table and the blood
matches that of the victim that bled out outside, they also have to prove that
it's the owner's. Everybody in this thread is up in arms how there is no way
to 'prove' the files were the owner's, like it's some sort of special case
that no lawyer or judge ever had to consider before. There's nothing special
about the 'evidence' angle of this issue.

~~~
valarauca1
The main issue is things get pretty harry around computers. Primarily because
you can modify the state of a computer without physical entry.

For example if I plant murder evidence in your home either myself, or an
associate of mine must of physically entered your residence. We likely came
into contact with the physical item, handling it, etc. Furthermore the
associate if caught is _very_ likely to roll on me.

For computers none of these are true.

I could automate placing child-porn on THOUSANDS of computers. If done
properly there would be little to no evidence the owner did not do this
themselves.

I could plant child porn in your computer _while_ I'm _pretending_ to be
somebody else (IP + MAC + login location + OS + credentials, etc.) so even if
the CP was _proven_ to be planted it is traced to somebody else and they
prosecuted.

There is no parallel to this in the real world. The game theory of bribing
somebody to do your dirty work is far far messier then a bot. Computers offer
ways of hiding that make the physical world laughable.

~~~
roel_v
Yeah, no. I know that us 'computer people' like to think that it's different
but it's not. Anything you do digitally leaves traces. Sure, 'if done
properly' (like if you're some sort of Mission Impossible or CSI: Cyber style
'hack god'), anything is possible. But that's the same for physical break ins
- if you do it 'properly' you can frame someone else, too. No sure why you
think the 'associate' scenario would be different between digital and physical
either; why would a computer tech not 'roll on you'?

This discussion is in the context of evidence. People are insinuation that
somehow digital crime is different because you can't 'prove' one thing or the
other, because anything could be faked (that's the gist of the argument). My
point is that this is vastly ignorant of the hundreds of years of experience
dealing with such uncertainty in the judicial system. Sure, it's not
statistics and it's not 'logic' the same way 'we' (i.e., quantitatively,
closed-system oriented people) interpret those terms, but that doesn't mean
we're now somehow in a completely different world. Put differently, the STEM
mindset doesn't have a monopoly on 'the truth', as much as we like to think we
do.

------
Nrsolis
Something I'm sure is missing from this discussion is that there is a specific
legal duty to report anything that constitutes child pornography to the
authorities.

The NCMEC is the clearinghouse for this sort of information and my former
employer had regular training on what our legal responsibilities were with
respect to this.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A)

I can't be certain about this case, but I'd suspect that this was somehow
wrapped up in the reporting requirement and things went off the rails after
that.

~~~
Bartweiss
The initial reporting suggests that abandoning this reporting requirement is
basically the problem here.

Specifically: the (good) reporting requirement holds that discovered content
must be reported. The new setup effectively pays bounties for anything
discovered, and there's a lot of concern that it will prompt fishing
expeditions without cause. It also blurs the lines of private search since
it's possible to put bounties on other content without a reporting
requirement.

And, of course, the FBIs initial filings in the case appear to have
systematically tried to hide that this was anything other than normal
reporting.

~~~
ensignavenger
It also taints the evidence- how can the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the files weren't planted their by the technician in order to
collect the bounty?

------
edwhitesell
This article isn't about searches; it's about the technicians reporting
something they happen to see in the course of their business relationship with
the customer. I don't see how this is any different than a CI reporting
information to LEOs on crimes "in the street".

In other words, a warrant is still required before LEOs can look for
information themselves to persue charges.

If the FBI were really asking Best Buy to search everything they work on for
illegal/contraband items, that would be entirely different.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> This article isn't about searches; it's about the technicians reporting
> something they happen to see in the course of their business relationship
> with the customer.

If I witness a hit-and-run, will the local police department pay me for it? If
I wave a traffic cop over to an illegally parked car, do I get a cut of the
fine the driver pays?

~~~
edwhitesell
I've heard of local PD paying for tips/information on things like petty crimes
and misdemeanors (though, maybe not parking). I have no proof of such a thing,
but I can't see why they would not do it if circumstances allow.

> If I witness a hit-and-run

IANAL, but I suspect that's the important distinction. You witnessed
something, you didn't search for it. Just like these Best Buy technicians
witnessed the illegal/contraband items.

~~~
funkymike
I think that the issue comes in when people have the option of both plain
sight and searching. For example if an electrician is paid by the local PD to
report drug paraphernalia they now have an incentive on future calls to poke
around where they don't strictly need to be. How do you know whether they
conducted an illegal search (as an agent of the government since they are paid
if they find something) vs. saw it in the regular course of their duties? To
me that is the key. The person is already in a somewhat privileged position,
not just standing on a street corner with their eyes open. The payment creates
a conflict of interest, thereby making anything they find suspect.

~~~
edwhitesell
I agree with you... What I'm saying is even with someone reporting information
from a "privileged position", the Police _still_ need a search warrant to gain
that knowledge in a way they could charge someone with a crime.

If Police want to move forward with charges based on information from a paid
CI alone, they are certainly able to do so. However, I doubt it happens very
often because they know they need evidence collected via the correct legal
process.

------
6stringmerc
As a political independent, one very concerned with personal privacy, yet also
with conduct in society as a whole according to rules / laws / expectations, I
think here's the crux of the argument:

> _The case raises issues about privacy and the government use of informants.
> If a customer turns over their computer for repair, do they forfeit their
> expectation of privacy, and their Fourth Amendment protection from
> unreasonable searches?_

This would be a good piece for the legal eagles on here to mull over I think.
In my view, a business transaction should be defined; in the way First
Amendment doesn't mean diddly on Twitter, Fourth Amendment doesn't apply in a
private party exchange that is open ended.

> _Best Buy searching a computer is legal — the customer authorized it, and
> the law does not prohibit private searches. But if Best Buy serves as an arm
> of the government, then a warrant or specific consent is needed._

Well how about that! Pretty clear cut, except for the interjected of OOOOH BUT
WHAT IF GOVERNMENT angle. If an Electrician stumbles upon a drug lab after
being hired by a private party, then reports the crime and is potentially
compensated, do I have a problem with that? The Electrician was functioning as
an Electrician, not as a government agent. I'm actually kind of okay with
private citizens having concerns about inheriting illegal activity knowledge
and being, well, powerless. That leads to vigilantism maybe?

I'd like to think, hard as it might be from time to time, that the justice
system will function as intended, and this is a Defense Attorney holding a
deck of cards that pretty much all allude to guilt, so attacking the source is
a reasonable move. Get the evidence thrown out, right? Except I don't think
it's so easy in this case. Maybe when somebody starts going door-to-door
offering computer repair services but really are just on the payroll by an
LEO, yeah, a line has been crossed. Hm.

~~~
mikeash
I think it comes down to whether these people are acting on their own
initiative or whether they're being told to do this stuff beforehand.

To take your electrician example, I have no problem with the scenario you
present. Where I'd have a problem is if the police set up a program to recruit
electricians and ask them to keep an eye out for illegal activities, and
promised them payment if they find stuff.

Protections against illegal searches can't be this easy to work around,
otherwise what would be the point of having them? If this was sufficient to
satisfy the 4th Amendment, then any time the police wanted to search a house,
all they'd have to do is, say, contact a local utility and have one of their
employees pretend to check the property and report back all the illegal stuff
they saw. (And I'm sure someone will post a link to a story about police doing
exactly that.)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> And I'm sure someone will post a link to a story about police doing exactly
> that.

I'm pretty sure it's been done, yes (though I don't have a case that I can
cite). What's more interesting to me, though, is that it's not done _all the
time_.

Why isn't it? I suspect because the courts take a dim view of this kind of
stunt (again, I don't have a case to cite). But in the current climate, if
this would pass muster with the courts, wouldn't the police do it frequently?
Frequently enough that we'd hear about it somewhat regularly?

------
liquidise
So, would anyone care to comment on the analogous, "offline" scenario here for
a better baseline? Consider the two scenarios. Do either (both?) have legal or
moral standing?

1\. I bring a suit to the dry cleaners. I leave a firearm in the pocket. The
feds visit me to inquire about the firearm.

2\. I bring a suit to the dry cleaners. I leave pictures of child porn in the
pocket. The feds visit me about said porn.

~~~
digler999
the nuance is how big or small the "pocket" is. If your dry cleaner opens up
your suit examining every nook and cranny, even areas between the fabric which
you have no access to, then collects the dust particles and scans them in a
chromatography machine and calls the cops when they find one particle of
cocaine, they _knew_ without a doubt came from your suit, and forward the
chromatograph results to the FBI who prosecutes you for drug possession. Thats
a closer offline scenario to whats going on here.

------
nraynaud
The US is more and more looking like East Germany, everybody spies on
everybody else.

------
thedevil
Forgive the petty distraction, but did anyone notice the outdated dress code
in the picture at the top of the story? They've got people doing manual labor
in a repair shop far from customers, and making them wear white shirts and
ties.

They try to compensate for the inappropriate dress code by wearing loose and
short-sleeved clothing (they probably have to do something to hold their ties
too), but that only makes it look more awkward.

Is this common in computer repair? Is it common in the eastern US?

I had hoped we had moved past that era. Or perhaps I've become too prima donna
since I've become a developer. But the oppressive dress code hurts my soul as
much as the FBI using geeks to search for child porn.

~~~
analog31
It may have to do with the "geek squad" name and image. Historically, a short
sleeve dress shirt, necktie, and polyester pants, were considered to be the
uniform of an engineer or service tech. There was no corresponding stereotype
for women, but I remember during my summer internship in a computer facility
30+ years ago, that pretty much everybody held to a similar aesthetic.

~~~
thedevil
I can understand why they might want to project an image, even an outdated
image if, for example, their customers are older.

But who are they projecting that image to? There's no customers around and I
don't think that projected image holds the same meaning to the millenials in
the picture. To them, it sends the message that they work at a company like
Initech.

------
Lawtonfogle
So the Best Buy employees were in possession of child abuse material and even
used it to make profit? Sounds like they should be charged for abusing
children. Merely viewing it or possessing it harms children, so no excuses.
Even the FBI shouldn't be allowed to posses it.

------
akjainaj
No offence but if the Washington Post wants to convince people that computer
technicians should not be able to report to the FBI whatever they find in
their costumer's computers, they should use examples other than a doctor
having child porn in his drive.

~~~
jameskilton
Did you miss the part where the FBI is paying this technician to specifically
look for any potentially questionable material?

No-one is arguing that reporting something that you stumble upon while doing
your job is wrong. This isn't what happened here. This tech was paid to go out
of his way to search the computer for the potential of incriminating data.

Aka, this is a search without a warrant.

Also, of course the media is going to use and abuse "think of the children".
This is how politicians convince the public to accept more surveillance and
give up their freedoms.

~~~
akjainaj
I don't agree with the "search without a warrant" part, because it sounds like
they specifically were going after this doctor, when they were just looking
for whatever they could find in any consumer drive to report it.

There is also no proof that this technician was looking into unallocated
sectors of the drive just to find something to incriminate customers, since
looking into unallocated sectors is standard practice to recover missing
files.

~~~
throwaway729
_> because it sounds like they specifically were going after this doctor, when
they were just looking for whatever they could find in any consumer drive to
report it._

Walking into every house on a street or in a city and searching it for drugs
is still a highly illegal search. Whether or not a specific person was
targeted is entirely beside the point.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Walking into a house when the owner says "Please walk into my house and look
for my lost stuff. I'll pay you" changes the equation, right?

~~~
pavel_lishin
Not if the owner says "Walk into my house and fix my boiler", and you start
digging through his underwear drawer.

------
TACIXAT
>“There was no evidence of how the contraband got onto Dr. Rettenmaier’s hard
drive,” Riddet wrote, “and it could have gotten there before he possessed the
computer or against his will.”

Ha ha ha, no mention of his cell phone which contained ~800 images of (fully
and partially) nude girls. [1]

Another article I saw on this was claiming it wasn't child pornography because
it wasn't depicting a sexual act. While that is true on a technicality, you
still have multiple devices with pictures of underage girls. The image found
on his computer was of a prepubescent girl, which a choker on, on all fours.
[2]

I am in computer security. If you allow someone else to access your computer
(or your traffic, see: ISP) and they find something, and report it, I don't
see how that constitutes an illegal search. I had some friends on FB freaking
out about this case and the fourth amendment, I am totally fine with it. Good
on the Best Buy tech and good on the FBI. This guy had pictures of under age
girls on his devices and works in a position of power (gyno doctor). I'm glad
this has come to light and I hope he goes to prison.

1\. [http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/fbis-use-best-buy-geek-squad-
inform...](http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/fbis-use-best-buy-geek-squad-informants-
exposed-long-running-child-porn-probe-1600279)

2\. [http://www.ocweekly.com/news/best-buy-geek-squad-
informant-u...](http://www.ocweekly.com/news/best-buy-geek-squad-informant-
use-has-fbi-on-defense-in-child-porn-case-7794252)

~~~
icebraining
Is there any actual evidence of those phone pictures, besides "sources
reported"?

Also, he had photos in his unallocated space. Which could happen to you, if
someone sent you an email or link, you opened it, and immediately deleted
them. Sure, you might be aware enough not do this. Should we jail someone
because they aren't?

It's easy to forget the legal protections when it's someone we have prejudged.
Hopefully they will still be around when they come for you.

~~~
TACIXAT
Is there usually evidence provided to the public in ongoing court cases? There
is just as much evidence that the Best Buy employee was paid by the FBI. We
have what is reported in the news.

So, with the reported deleted photo, and the reported photos on his mobile,
yes, I have prejudged him. He can be innocent until proven guilty in the eyes
of the state, I am not the state though.

In this article [1] it says "prosecutors said", is that a good enough source?
If a fact is not proven in a laboratory setting and peer reviewed do you
disbelieve it?

1\. [http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-geek-squad-
child...](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-geek-squad-child-
porn-20160521-snap-story.html)

Edit: Oh, but what if someone emailed him those 800 photos, he only opened
them momentarily and then deleted them? Get your head out of the sand.

~~~
icebraining
_He can be innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the state_

Why? That's just another of those legal protections, like the 4th Amendment,
which you don't seem to care much about.

 _In this article [1] it says "prosecutors said", is that a good enough
source? If a fact is not proven in a laboratory setting and peer reviewed do
you disbelieve it?_

If a fact is claimed by the cops when they are trying to convince someone
based on nothing but a few deleted files, I sure as hell don't take it as a
matter of faith. Cops and prosecutors lie all the time, especially to the
press.

In fact, notice how they don't claim the girls in the phone pictures are
underaged? For all we know, the guy simply likes to download perfectly legal
pictures of nude 18+ girls for some file sharing sites, and happened to
mistakenly also download a few illegal pictures, which he deleted.

But regardless of facts, his life is now ruined, because many people will have
prejudge him based on almost nothing, and he'll probably never be able to
practice again even if he's acquitted.

For the feds, that's just Monday, of course.

\---

In any case, my real point isn't whether you should think he's guilty, but
that we shouldn't take away his legal protections just because we think he's
guilty, because the whole point is that they must be universal. Cases against
unsympathetic defendants are exactly what prosecutors use to further the
erosion of legal rights. For everyone's sake, don't play their game.

~~~
TACIXAT
Authorizing a third party to work on your device does not constitute an
illegal search. I would expect the exact same legal protections as he got. If
I authorize a third party service to work on my device I assume they will be
viewing the files. If I have illegal material on my computer I respect their
duty to report it.

Getting a 500 dollar payment from the government does not make you an agent of
the state. At 15 dollars an hour that would buy ~33 hours of the employee's
time. Two months later his coworker discovered the photo. Oh, and it lead to a
search that discovered more child pornography. Should there be no reward
system for crime tips?

>Authorities say they also found child pornography on a laptop, multiple hard
drives and an iPhone belonging to Rettenmaier.

Maybe all those hard drives were just mailed to him though and he was in the
process of deleting them. This is just someone trying to get out on a
technicality.

You can email the author of that article if you have questions on the sources.
Maybe he can point you to court documents.

1\. [http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-
me-0521...](http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-0521-best-
buy-update-20160520-story.html)

