Ends don't make a means.  After reading everything he indeed legal if he truly made efforts to return the laptop which i question.  Lets say that is correct we have to question the motivation.  If he made copies knowing what they contained because he was against it, its breach of privacy.  The fact that the breach of privacy occurred first should render all further evidence moot. If cops illegally search your house and find a dead body that dead body should never be used to convict you of any crime.

Flip the coin over. Add your feelings for Trump. You still singing the same tune?

Also, as an IT guru (OmniGuru), he should know that it's permitted for an IT professional to access the information on any system under their control.  it's LITERALLY what we do.

I've had access to SO MUCH classified data, always at the level my clearance allowed, but I have no "need to know".  We can't work with a blindfold on.

Who did anything illegal?  I would say Hunter #1 dropped off a PC with what looked like child porn, #2 failed to PAY the shop owner for the services he provided (that's called "theft"), and #3 abandoned the laptop which forced the owner to take possession of the ABANDONED PC.  Giving the PC to the FBI ensure the owner will never be reimbursed for the time and materials he expended on this contracted job.

If the laptop was ILLEGALLY retained, why didn't anyone call the Cops to have it returned?  Any ideas on that one?

As for "a court would not allow this as evidence," that's so stupid.  Evidence that was abandoned by the owner is no longer their property.  It's perfectly legal for Law Enforcement  to sift through a suspect's trash cans at the curb without a warrant.  The trash was not on private property, and the owner of the trash surrendered ownership and control over the trash as soon as he sat it by the curb for pickup. 

The laptop is no different.  The laptop was voluntarily given to the repair shop for repairs, and subsequently abandoned.  If Hunter has walked in after a month and paid the bill, he may have gotten his laptop back. 

We aren't talking about a Pawn Shop who makes money by selling collateral used for loans that never get repaid.  He's making his money on repair services.  He's not likely to illegally keep a laptop for its resale value.

They are not related like that at all. That would be like if you took your classified laptop to get repaired for some reason and the tech there snooped.  Its a private matter.  Not work.  When I go to work I know there's no privacy I am not using my own equipment or network.  When I am at home I expect privacy.  When I engage a business to fix my laptop I expect privacy.  Its all about motive not the end result.  I admit in this case technically everything is legal assuming he actually made effort to return the laptop.  It can be used as evidence.  From the information I read. Though the way it was gathered in the first point was very unethical.  He should of not looked at the data in the first place,  Clearly at that point he was snooping, he was not in good faith testing to see if things worked. If he waited till after it was his property then that's fine. 

Flip the coin over. Add your feelings for Trump. You still singing the same tune?

Yes.  I dont like biden you all forget.  I dislike him almost as much as trump.  Though I do indeed dislike trump more.

If they came out with a similar situation on trump proving that he took bribes I would have the EXACT same outlook.  The way they gathered the information was incorrect.  I would personally not hold it against him.

Why are you making up defenses that Biden’s team isn’t utilizing? You don’t find that 

You're a poor example of an IT guy.

When I transfer files to a new drive, I not only do comparisons to ensure everything copied, but I also log in as a regular user to make sure permissions are properly set.  That requires actually opening files under each directory that the users need to access.

It does the user no good to have a PC which only a SysAdmin can access or edit.

Duh.

You do under the context of a work environment.  I do the same.  If I know all data belongs to the company.  If its a personal laptop I would never do that without permission.  There's expectations of privacy in different situations.

They are not related like that at all. That would be like if you took your classified laptop to get repaired for some reason and the tech there snooped.  Its a private matter. Not work.  When I go to work I know there's no privacy I am not using my own equipment or network.  When I am at home I expect privacy.  When I engage a business to fix my laptop I expect privacy.  Its all about motive not the end result.  I admit in this case technically everything is legal assuming he actually made effort to return the laptop.  It can be used as evidence.  From the information I read. Though the way it was gathered in the first point was very unethical.  He should of not looked at the data in the first place,  Clearly at that point he was snooping, he was not in good faith testing to see if things worked. If he waited till after it was his property then that's fine.

I can speak from experience that that’s NOT how it works.

I can speak from experience that that’s NOT how it works.

That's not a literal example, you would never allow a classified laptop to get repaired by non certified people...semantics.  I was relating it to private data.

Ends don't make a means.  After reading everything he indeed legal if he truly made efforts to return the laptop which i question.  Lets say that is correct we have to question the motivation.  If he made copies knowing what they contained because he was against it, its breach of privacy.  The fact that the breach of privacy occurred first should render all further evidence moot. If cops illegally search your house and find a dead body that dead body should never be used to convict you of any crime.

Sorry, but your legal training and deductive reasoning skills are ridiculous. 

There was never an illegal search.  Ever.  The new owner of the laptop surrendered it to the FBI.. FBI did not conduct an illegal search for the laptop.  If Hunter wanted privacy, he should have used full disk encryption.  Every organization with sensitive or personal information in need of protection knows to use those encryption programs.  In fact, there are free versions available.  Giving someone an unencrypted drive in no way offers an expectation of privacy.

I never let a hard drive/SSD out of my control.  When I sent a laptop to Dell for repairs, I replaced the boot disk with a newly imaged disk.  That ensured the disk had no private or proprietary info on it, because (1) Dell may have had to re-image the disk, (2) they may have needed to put a new disk in, or (3) they may have replaced the entire PC, disk included.

Since we had encryption on our laptops, that alone required that we re-imaged the disk.  Otherwise, it prevents Dell from accessing the disk with utilities that might be needed to troubleshoot and repair the system.

So many things Hunter did wrong.  Nothing the shop owner and FBI did wrong.

Why are you making up defenses that Biden’s team isn’t utilizing? You don’t find that 

I am not on team biden,  I dont care what his defenses are.   

That's not a literal example, you would never allow a classified laptop to get repaired by non certified people...semantics.  I was relating it to private data.

See. That’s not semantics. That’s you talking out of your arse again.

I am not on team biden,  I dont care what his defenses are.

Haha. This isn’t The Voice.

I’m just saying why are you making up defenses that the individual hasn’t used to defend themself?  At least publicly that I saw.

Sorry, but your legal training and deductive reasoning skills are ridiculous. 

There was never an illegal search.  Ever.  The new owner of the laptop surrendered it to the FBI.. FBI did not conduct an illegal search for the laptop.  If Hunter wanted privacy, he should have used full disk encryption.  Every organization with sensitive or personal information in need of protection knows to use those encryption programs.  In fact, there are free versions available.  Giving someone an unencrypted drive in no way offers an expectation of privacy.

I never let a hard drive/SSD out of my control.  When I sent a laptop to Dell for repairs, I replaced the boot disk with a newly imaged disk.  That ensured the disk had no private or proprietary info on it, because (1) Dell may have had to re-image the disk, (2) they may have needed to put a new disk in, or (3) they may have replaced the entire PC, disk included.

Since we had encryption on our laptops, that alone required that we re-imaged the disk.  Otherwise, it prevents Dell from accessing the disk with utilities that might be needed to troubleshoot and repair the system.

So many things Hunter did wrong.  Nothing the shop owner and FBI did wrong.

During the repair the shop owner admitted to looking at the data seeing what it contained, saving it to a separate location.   Why do you not talk about this?   I already said you are correct in the end that there's nothing legally wrong. Encryption is important but privacy applies to even dumb people like hunter.  I do the same,  I remove hard drives before any repair.  But we are not normal people.   Regular people don't know this but should have the same expectation of privacy in America, the land of the free. 

You do under the context of a work environment.  I do the same.  If I know all data belongs to the company.  If its a personal laptop I would never do that without permission.  There's expectations of privacy in different situations.

Bullshit.

Customers are routinely told to backup their data before leaving for repairs.  The shop cannot be held responsible for damage or deletion of the data. 

Again --privacy is the customer's concern.  Once the PC is out of their control, they have no choice over who sees what. 

See my post on encryption.  if it's not an encrypted drive, then there's no expectation of privacy regarding the repair shop.  As long as the shop doesn't give it to a 3rd party illegally, privacy is a nonissue.  For example, if there are files that a business competitor can use, giving the data to that company would be grounds for a lawsuit, but it's not criminal.

Haha. This isn’t The Voice.

I’m just saying why are you making up defenses that the individual hasn’t used to defend themself?  At least publicly that I saw.

I have no interest in defending Biden or his kid though.  I just don't like how this happened.  Ethically, I am pro privacy and freedom.  Regardless of who and the outcome.  Like I said before if they got dirt on trump through unethical means I wouldn't support that either, even if I don't like the guy either.

Bullshit.

Customers are routinely told to backup their data before leaving for repairs.  The shop cannot be held responsible for damage or deletion of the data. 

Again --privacy is the customer's concern.  Once the PC is out of their control, they have no choice over who sees what. 

See my post on encryption.  if it's not an encrypted drive, then there's no expectation of privacy regarding the repair shop.  As long as the shop doesn't give it to a 3rd party illegally, privacy is a nonissue.  For example, if there are files that a business competitor can use, giving the data to that company would be grounds for a lawsuit, but it's not criminal.

Now take off the IT hat.  Do you think your mother would do the same?  If she got a laptop repaired.  Should your mother have a reasonable degree of privacy, even though she isnt tech savy?   Privacy must be held  up from both sides.   You cant only say its the customer and not the other side.  Both sides must work.  Its a double layer of protection.  If the customer fails, the other side should also work to protect their rights.

You do under the context of a work environment.  I do the same.  If I know all data belongs to the company.  If its a personal laptop I would never do that without permission.  There's expectations of privacy in different situations.

And the repairman was in his work environment.  Until the laptop was abandoned, I'm sure he respected the owner's data and kept it to himself -- except for the evidence of criminal activity which he has a duty to report to authorities.

Did you know people have been arrested based on reports from 1 hour photo developing labs?  They have busted all kinds of criminals, including pedos, because the criminals were stupid enough to think their photos are "private", and the developers have a duty to protect their privacy,

They were just as stupid as you sound.  Privacy?  Unless there's a contractual or legal requirement, the owner can run his business as he sees fit.  This is not a gov't agency searching for evidence.  It's a private business owner who stumbled across evidence of crimes and dirty dealings within the government.

Now take off the IT hat.  Do you think your mother would do the same?  If she got a laptop repaired.  Should your mother have a reasonable degree of privacy, even though she isnt tech savy?   Privacy must be held  up from both sides.   You cant only say its the customer and not the other side.  Both sides must work.  Its a double layer of protection.  If the customer fails, the other side should also work to protect their rights.

Ethical vs legal

If someone isn’t aware of dangers doesn’t make the argument any different. I mean when my dad was still alive, being scammed was one of my bigger fears.  But my feelings don’t have impact in this case.

I have no interest in defending Biden or his kid though.  I just don't like how this happened.  Ethically, I am pro privacy and freedom.  Regardless of who and the outcome.  Like I said before if they got dirt on trump through unethical means I wouldn't support that either, even if I don't like the guy either.

Ok. Going back to the Schiff thing, you don’t see hypocrisy there.

And going back to that, the point wasn’t trusting Russia. It was Schiff trying to twist statements to fit his agenda when fitting.

During the repair the shop owner admitted to looking at the data seeing what it contained, saving it to a separate location.   Why do you not talk about this?   I already said you are correct in the end that there's nothing legally wrong. Encryption is important but privacy applies to even dumb people like hunter.  I do the same,  I remove hard drives before any repair.  But we are not normal people.   Regular people don't know this but should have the same expectation of privacy in America, the land of the free.

Making a backup before attempting a repair is 100% standard operating procedure.

If you've never done this, then you had a poor teacher -- and zero real world IT hardware experience.

Privacy only applies if the contract says it does.  Or, do you believe there's a "Customer-Provider Relationship" rule, not just for doctors, lawyers and spouses?

Ok. Going back to the Schiff thing, you don’t see hypocrisy there.

And going back to that, the point wasn’t trusting Russia. It was Schiff trying to twist statements to fit his agenda when fitting.

Sorry I am not following what do you mean?  What did he do?