
EFF Asks Mass. High Court to Require Clear Limits for Searches of Devices - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/eff-asks-massachusetts-high-court-require-clear-limits-allowing-searches-digital
======
Drdrdrq
While the cause seems legit, I wonder if this case is appropriate for it? The
evidence seems pretty damning... Or am I missing something?

~~~
burkaman
Well, if you think a particular practice is illegal, you should think it's
illegal all the time, even when it's used against people who are clearly
guilty. This is somewhat comparable to the ACLU defending the KKK. Everybody
has rights, and you legitimize your cause when you fight for everyone, not
just when it's comfortable.

And more practically, a case with the right details does not appear in a state
supreme court very often. EFF wants to set a precedent, so they need to take
whatever opportunity presents itself.

~~~
bsimpson
Seems to me like there are two angles to it:

\- Yes, the law should apply equally to the guilty and innocent: the KKK has
the right to free speech, and this asshole has 4th amendment rights requiring
a warrant before his effects can be searched. According to the article, there
was one.

\- If you want to make an argument about nuance, do it in a venue where nuance
is appropriate. This guy got caught murdering his wife, using evidence
obtained from a warrant. The EFF is arguing that the warrant should have been
more specific. Perhaps, but this is the wrong case to try to establish that
precedence on.

It's human nature to want justice, and letting someone off on a technicality
is an affront to justice. If everyone knew that this technicality existed,
it's a reasonable defense to use. However, to argue for the existence of a
technicality where one doesn't already exist flies in the face of our
fundamental desire for the world to be a fair place. I suspect that makes it a
much harder case to win, because at the end of the day, someone's going to be
thinking "but it let THIS ASSHOLE off? No, that's not OK."

~~~
burkaman
I understand that position, but I think the practicality argument is important
here. These kinds of cases don't appear in Supreme Courts very often, and
furthermore if EFF doesn't intervene and the conviction is upheld, that sets a
precedent going the other way. Every chance they ignore makes their future
chances much more difficult.

Also, I don't think he'll be "let off" regardless of what happens. He's been
in jail for 12 years, and if successful here he'll get a new trial, not be
immediately released. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the case against him is
still fairly strong without the laptop evidence, which was circumstantial like
everything else.

~~~
wallace_f
Perhaps there is a better case for this precedent to be made -- I don't know
-- but if not, in addition to the points you made, I wonder would one
similarly not argue for other due process rights in cases where the defendant
was clearly guilty?

To me, questioning the EFF's decision here should be done in the context of
the historical precedent of the past court cases where due process rights have
been fought for.

~~~
burkaman
Well, there is some wiggle room here because the EFF is a private organization
with no duty to defend anyone, and the defendant already has adequate
representation. Everybody has the right to a defense lawyer, but nobody has
the right to a nonprofit helping out, that's a privilege. To put it another
way, I support the ACLU defending the KKK, but I probably wouldn't support an
organization dedicated solely to defending KKK members, even if they always
operated within the law.

That said, I still agree with EFF's decision, but I can see both sides.

~~~
wallace_f
Respectfully, I think you missed my point. I don't disagree with anything
you've said here.

