“…the decision underscores a broader trend in these cases: courts across the country, faced with unfamiliar technology and unsympathetic defendants, are issuing decisions that threaten everyone’s rights.”

That’s a quote from Mark Rumold of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a California-based digital rights group, in response to a recent federal decision that the FBI did not need a warrant to surreptitiously electronically hack into a CP suspect’s computer in order to obtain evidence without first obtaining a search warranty.

That’s the problem we are facing when it comes to new technology and privacy rights, especially when the defendant is charged with an unsavory crime.

As we all have come to learn, generally, authorities need a warrant before entering and searching your private property. But what happens when they enter your property by hacking into your computer and search your files without a warrant? For the more sophisticated, such a warrant less search and seizure and invasion of privacy rights would be a clear violation of one’s rights. But if it’s done to someone that ultimately is a accused of possessing child pornography, the prevailing attitude is “ahh… well, the guy is a sex offender, who cares?”

To someone who is not as sophisticated or up to date on the technology, the inclination is to disregard the real issue in favor of the perception of punishing an unsavory character.

But we all need to care. These types of cases create some very bad precedent. One day it will be a politician who was hacked and his private online communication searched and he or she will be shouting from the rooftops about the warrant less search and brazen invasion of privacy rights and the courts will have this horrible case law to uphold.