This kind of story makes me feel all icky inside, because I know that the rights of individuals should be respected, no matter how sick they are. Such is the case with Kenneth Sodomsky who in 2004 brought his computer into Circuit City to have a DVD Burner installed. While they installed the drive and the software that comes with it, the techs test to see if it works. While doing the testing, (for some reason) the Circuit City tech pulled up an Windows XP search box and scanned the users hard drive for video files to ensure that the drive was working properly. The tech found a file containing child pornography on the computer, contacted the police and Sodomsky was arrested.
Sodomsky said that his privacy was violated, and a lower court agreed with him. But an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court said that because he voluntarily turned his computer over to the techs, and the search was "routine", no laws were violated in discovering the file.
Now why would Circuit City need to do a "routine" search for video files to install a DVD burner? I can't tell you how many burners I've installed on many different OS platforms, and not once did it require, need, or want you to do a search for video files on a hard drive. There is no reason to do this search, unless the tech wanted to see if there was some porn that he didn't have in his own collection. This is why you should install your own hardware components yourself.
Now don't get me wrong, I think Sodomsky should burn in hell, but why is Circuit City "routinely" violating privacy every time a customer brings in a computer? Why are they searching computers for video files if that isn't required? And how stupid are the lawyers if they don't ask someone if this is necessary or required to install a DVD Burner.
Morons all around!!!
Court: Privacy no defense when Circuit City finds child porn [Ars via Crunchgear]
1 comment:
Even if it were a necessary search (and I agree, it was not required), it seems Circuit City could have used a standardized movie file to determine if the device was actually functional or not. At least that way you have a known file with no problems in it, and any issues are easily reproducible for troubleshooting purposes.
Ah, but they weren't really testing the system then, were they?
Post a Comment