Mediaboss Marketing

Apple is really serious about privacy, guys.

Apple Apple wants the world to know that its really, really serious about privacy. Accompanying the launch of the iPhone 6 and iOS 8 was a personal letter from Apple CEO Tim Cook about the companys commitment to privacy and a new, revamped page about all-things-privacy on iDevices and a how-to guide for setting preferences to up your privacy if youre an iUser. Apple has long used privacy to differentiate itself from the competition; back in 2010, Steve Jobs said Apple always had a very different view of privacy than some of our colleagues in the Valley. We take privacy extremely seriously. Cook repeated the sentiment more strongly in his letter, taking direct aim at Google Google, saying Apple doesnt build a profile of its users or read their messages to get information to market to you.

Apple is getting serious about privacy because it has to. It wants the iPhone to become the only thing you need beyond oxygen. The iPhone is not just for communication and web browsing anymore. It wants to track your health (with HealthKit), be your wallet (with Apple Pay), and control the devices in your home (with HomeKit). Depending on how personalized the iPhone 6s vibration capabilities get, it could be your iSignificantOther. This is all set against the backdrop of concern about tech companies guardianship of our personal information amid the Snowden leaks. So Apple did something very smart. It announced that with iOS 8, the data encrypted on iPhones will only be able to be unlocked with your passcode. Unlike ourcompetitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data, Apple wrote on its privacy page. So its not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS8.

So now, if law enforcement wants into your phone, theyll need to get you to enter your passcode. One Apple competitor felt the heat. Google-owned Android quickly issued an us, too! announcement, saying that its next operating system will also encrypt data on smartphones by default for those using a passcode. Privacy advocates are thrilled. Its not just about making it easier to protect civil liberties in the U.S. but exporting it to countries with restrictive governments where it will now be harder to get dissidents iPhone chats.

But former federal prosecutor and legal expert Orin Kerr was not thrilled. He says that if the po-po have a warrant, they should be able to get into a phone, and that Apple is making it harder for them to conduct lawful searches. People encrypting the content of their devices is not common practice now, but moving forward, it could become widespread, and law enforcement will have to force people to hand over or enter their passcodes in order to get evidence from those devices. Thats where the legal showdown will happen.

If the government obtains a subpoena ordering the person to enter in the passcode, and the person refuses or falsely claims not to know the passcode, a person can be held in contempt for failure to comply, writes Kerr.

Thats actually disputed legal territory. Back in 2012, Hanni Fakhoury, a lawyer at civil liberties group EFF, explored the issue of decryption as a Fifth Amendment issue. Is refusing to enter the passcode to your device the same as refusing to give incriminating testimony and pleading the Fifth? There is conflicting law on the issue.

A district court judge in Colorado ruled(PDF) that Ramona Fricosu could be forced to decryptinformation on a computer seized by law enforcement in connection with a mortgage fraud case.But the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled (PDF) that the 5th Amendment prevented the government from forcing a suspect in a child pornography investigation to decrypt the contents of several computers and drives seized by law enforcement.

In one case, the court ruled that law enforcement already knew what it wanted off the computer and could get it. In the other, the court ruled that law enforcement was trying to force the alleged child porn possessor to testify against himself by performing the decryption.

Kerr thinks the Fifth Amendment shouldnt protect people against decrypting evidence that will be used against them, citing a 2009 case from Vermont, but suggests that if this turns out to be a problem, Congress should pass a new law upping the penalties beyond a simple contempt charge for people who wont hand over their passcodes, or pass a law forcing tech companies to design their systems in such a way that they can bypass the passcode.

More here:
Apple And Google Will Force A Legal Battle Over The Privacy Of Your Passcode

The Fifth Amendment Eminent Domain
For Mr. Carter #39;s Government class Idaho.

By: Justin Myler

See more here:
The Fifth Amendment Eminent Domain - Video

You probably already knew this, but we have a pretty good idea of what our users are searching for. Sure, it's a little creepy when Google knows your question before you even type it into the box. We don't get that personal, but we do pay attention to frequently searched terms in order to better understand -- and serve -- your needs.

Since today is Constitution Day, we thought we'd share the Top 5 FindLaw.com search terms related to the U.S. Constitution. You'll also find valuable resources for each topic listed below, but feel free to search for more:

1. "Gun Laws" (2nd Amendment) -- Regardless of your personal beliefs, we can all agree that an epidemic of gun-related tragedies has kept this issue on the front burner of our collective conscience. Although the right to bear arms is a federal guarantee, many state laws provide varying restrictions on gun ownership and use. You can learn more about these laws here:

2. "Miranda Rights" (5th Amendment and 6th Amendment) -- Nearly every crime show on TV will have an utterance of the words, "You have the right to remain silent..." Those are referred to as our Miranda rights, named for the U.S. Supreme Court case (Miranda v. Arizona) that requires police to inform arrestees of their constitutional rights. Check out these resources to learn more:

3. "Supreme Court Cases" -- The U.S. Supreme Court is where the constitutionality of laws is tested. Quite a few of our users simply typed "Supreme Court cases" into the search box, but there's a much easier way to find High Court opinions, news, and analysis of both recent and historical cases:

4. "Search and Seizure" (4th Amendment) -- Few constitutional provisions have been challenged and clarified as often as the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure by the police. Searches and seizures have a broad impact on criminal rights and procedures, such as the admissibility of evidence and the legality of arrests.

5. "Due Process" (5th Amendment and 14th Amendment) -- To honor "due process" is to follow the proper course of formal legal proceedings, carried out consistently, fairly, and in line with current laws and regulations. While the Fifth Amendment prohibits the arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections to all U.S. citizens under all jurisdictions within the country.

It's hard to believe that a document signed exactly 227 years ago today is not only still valid, but continues to serve as the cornerstone of this great experiment we call the United States of America. FindLaw may not have been around as long as the U.S. Constitution, but we're always here to serve you.

Read more:
Top 5 Constitution-Related Searches at FindLaw.com

Fifth Amendment
Goss vs Lopez.

By: Dulcebee101

See the original post:
Fifth Amendment - Video

As Eugene noted, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit recently held that a child pornography conviction had to be reversed because the evidence was gathered in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Steve Vladeck has a post discussing the important and potentially certworthy issue in the case, which is whether a violation of that statute can trigger the exclusionary rule at all.

I confess that my initial reaction was skepticism. Consider Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon:

We have applied the exclusionary rule primarily to deter constitutional violations. [In t]he few cases in which we have suppressed evidence for statutory violations the excluded evidence arose directly out of statutory violations that implicated important Fourth and Fifth Amendment interests.

Maybe the Posse Comitatus Act can be shown to implicate important Fourth and Fifth Amendment interests, but the Ninth Circuit didnt really show that, and it isnt obvious to me.

More generally, it seems to me that current exclusionary rule doctrine can be read in a couple of different ways:

One is the deterrence theory: Exclusion is appropriate when it seems like theres intentional and/or widespread and/or generally problematic illegality by the government. This refrain appears in a bunch of the cases, and its how the Ninth Circuit framed the analysis. Its not clear, however, that the analysis automatically applies in statutory cases (see above).

A second is the slow destruction theory: Under this theory, the exclusionary rule is unfounded and deleterious, and the rule and its works should be slowly destroyed. Some people read the Courts exclusionary rule precedents to be implicitly working toward this theory. It is not really put forward by the Court as a first-order justification, although quite a few of the opinions do frame their analysis by questioning the rules basis or justification.

Until recently, I would have ended this list there. But I have recently begun to give some credence to a third account of exclusionary rule doctrine put forward by my friend Richard Re in an article called The Due Process Exclusionary Rule.

Richard argues that today many searches and seizures should be seen as part of the criminal process and that the exclusionary rule is thus justified by the Due Process Clause, which forbids a conviction obtained through illegal process. While I am not yet sure that I agree with this view, I think it deserves serious consideration, and is the best alternative to the slow destruction theory that is on offer.

Here is what the article says about statutory violations (footnotes omitted):

Visit link:
Volokh Conspiracy: What the posse comitatus case might mean for the future of the exclusionary rule