Mediaboss Marketing

The Fourth Amendment of the United State Constitution, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, does not protect users on the PlayStation Network from warrantless searches conducted by network proprietor Sony, a district court judge ruled this week.

The case involved a PSN user going by the handle Susan_14. The account, owned by the defendant in the case Michael Stratton, was reported to Sony on several occasions for soliciting child pornography through spam messages.

Sony reviewed the accountwithout providing notice or acquiring a warrantafter receiving complaints and found the account had been used to download and upload several pornographic images involving children.

Sony reported the findings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which then coordinated with the FBI to gather additional information about Stratton, including his email address (nudesusan14@gmail.com) and IP address acquired through subpoenas from Google and internet provider CenturyLink.

The information was enough for a judge to issue a warrant for law enforcement to search Strattons home in Kansas, where they discovered child pornography stored on his PlayStation 3. The finding lead to his arrest.

Strattons defense attempted to argue he had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" for the information he stored on his PSN account, and Sony didnt have the right to share his informationincluding the child porn housed on Sonys serverswithout a subpoena or warrant.

The court was unmoved by the argument, finding the terms of service for PSN explicitly state that users give Sony the right to monitor and record your and your Sub Account's activities and communications. The terms also note that Sony may disclose any user information to appropriate authorities or agencies.

The defense also tried to make the case Sony was acting as a government agent when it searched the Suan_14 accountan approach that fell flat because, in the courts viewing, Sony was monitoring the account for its own benefit and reported what it found and wasnt required to perform the search by any government agency.

Alan Butler, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told International Business Times the ruling falls under what is commonly referred to as the private search doctrine.

The finding that, as Butler described it, Sonys review of that data was an action of a private entity, not compelled by any government agency, falls in line with other cases of companies sharing private information that is in violation of federal law.

In a paper from Priscilla Grantham Adams, senior research counsel for the National Center for Justice and the Rule of Law, on the private search doctrine, she describes the policy as extinguish[ing] an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy in the object searched. Once the search has occurred, she explains, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit governmental use of this non-private information.

While the finding doesnt present a picture all that different than previous rulingsit simply extends the concept of the private search doctrine to more tightly controlled Sonys PlayStation NetworkButler noted any attempt to extend the courts opinion beyond the case it was ruling one is dicta and was beyond the scope of what the court was asked to decide in that case.

Butler said the courts conclusions about the privacy interests that apply to electronic communications sent via PSN and similar networks is inconsistent with the prevailing standard in federal courts and the standard recognized by the Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies.

More here:
PlayStation Network Data, PSN Privacy Not Protected By Fourth ... - International Business Times

Aurich x Getty

If you have any legally incriminating information sitting in your PSN account, don't count on the Fourth Amendment to protect it from "unreasonable search and seizure" by Sony without a warrant. A district court judge in Kansas has ruledin a recent case that information Sony finds has been downloaded to a PlayStation 3 or a PSN account is not subject to the "reasonable expectation of privacy" that usually protects evidence obtained without a warrant.

The case involves Michael Stratton, who went by the handle Susan_14 on PSN. According to Sony, Stratton was reported to PSN multiple times for sending spam messages asking about interest in child pornography. After reviewing the Susan_14 account in response to these complaints, Sony found that several images containing child porn had been downloaded by and uploaded to the account.

Sony shared information about the Susan_14 account and the images with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The NCMEC then coordinated with the FBI to get additional information about Susan_14's e-mail address and IP address from Google and CenturyLink via subpoena. This action led to a warrant on Stratton's Kansas home, the discovery of child pornography stored on his PS3, and his arrest.

At trial, the defense tried to argue that Stratton had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" for the images on his PSN account and that Sony therefore couldn't share those with authorities absent a subpoena or warrant. In this case, the court ruled that Sony's PSN terms of service "explicitly nullified its users reasonable expectation of privacy." Those terms state explicitly that Sony reserves the right to monitor PSN activity and that Sony may turn over evidence of illegal activity to the authorities.

(The defense also made the related argument that Sony's terms of service were an adhesion contract that put an "unconscionable" and "patently unfairly... take-it-or-leave-it" burden on Stratton. The defense didn't provide enough evidence to demonstrate that claim, according to the court.)

Separately, the defense argued that Sony was acting as a "government agent" when it searched Stratton's PSN account, and, therefore, any evidence obtained needed to be subject to a warrant. This argument hinges in part on the federal "Failure to Report Child Abuse" statute, which requires those that learn of child abuse to "make a timely report" or suffer jail time or fines. Through this law, the defense argued, Sony was essentially being recruited to search for child pornography at the government's request and without any warrant.

The case is not all that different from other cases in which online service providers have worked with law enforcement to report child pornography when found on their services or devices. The main difference here is that the circuit court has found that these same legal arguments apply to the tightly controlled world of the PlayStation 3 and the attached PlayStation Network and not just the more "open" world of personal computers.

Read the original:
US court says PSN data doesn't get Fourth Amendment protection - Ars Technica

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has released a major report on the Chicago Police Departments 'pattern' of violations of civil rights and federal laws in recent decades.

"Chicago Police Department (CPD) engages in a pattern or practice of using force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution," the DOJ said in a statement.

READ MORE: Chicago cops shoot at someone every 5 days

CPD does not give its officers the training they need to do their jobs safely, effectively, and lawfully. It fails to properly collect and analyze data, including data on misconduct complaints and training deficiencies," said Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch.

"And it does not adequately review use of force incidents to determine whether force was appropriate or lawful, or whether the use of force could have been avoided altogether."

The report stated that Chicago police unfairly targeted minorities and used unreasonable force on predominantly black and Latino neighborhoods, causing a break in police-community trust.

The probe found that Chicago accountability forces are broken and its promotional systems aren't transparent, saidPrincipal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta.

The city fails to investigate the majority of cases it is required to investigate by law, the DOJ said. It pointed out that, even if the investigation is launched, it is aimed at eliciting information favorable to the officer."

The DOJlaunched the probe into the 12,000-officer force one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the country after a police video showing thefatal shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald was released in December 2015. The footage, which shows a white police officer firing 16 shots at a black teenager in October 2014, caused public outcry and protests, and led to calls for an investigation.

READ MORE: Chicago police shootings down since Laquan McDonald's death, but gun & drug violence remain high

The video contradicted the accounts given by Officer Jason Van Dyke, who was involved in shooting, and other police officers on the scene, who stated that McDonald had had a small knife with its blade folded, and thus posed a threat to the officers life. Van Dyke wascharged with first-degree murder earlier in the day the video was made public.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has initiatedseveral police department reforms since the investigation began, includingissuing body cameras to officers on patrol.

Original post:
Chicago police used excessive force and violated rights for decades DOJ - RT

Jan 18, 2017

This week, Note to Self gets in our time machine, back to the court cases that brought privacy from the founding fathers to Google Docs. Stories of bookies on the Sunset Strip, microphones taped to phone booths, and a 1975 Monte Carlo. And where the Fourth Amendment needs to go, now that were living in the future.

The amendmentdoesnt mention privacy once. But those 54 little words, written more than 200 years ago, are a crucial battleground in todays fight over our digital rights. That one sentenceis why the government cant listen to your phone calls without a warrant. And its why they dont need one to find out who youre calling.

But now, we share our deepest thoughts with Google, through what we search for and what we email. And we share our most intimate conversations with Alexa, when we talk in its vicinity. So how does the Fourth Amendment apply when were surrounded by technology the Founding Fathers could never dream of?

With Laura Donohue, director of Georgetowns Center on Privacy and Technology. Supreme Court audio from the wonderful Oyez.org, under a Creative Commons license.

If you want to visit a phone booth, there are four leftin New York City. They're all on West End Avenue, and there's even a kids bookabout them.

The tech show about being human. Hosted by Manoush Zomorodi. Produced by WNYC.

View original post here:
The Bookie, The Phone Booth, and The FBI - WNYC

Our Constitutions Fourth Amendment reads as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As with nigh all the rest of our Constitution, the federal government has long been ignoring the Fourth. Likely the most notorious example is the National Security Administration (NSA)s bulk data collection. Which is the Feds: (S)toring the online metadata of millions of internet users for up to a year, regardless of whether or not they are persons of interest to the agency.

The NSA has been amassing so much data on persons notof interest that it built a $1.2 billion data center thats seven times larger than the Pentagon. (If youre questioning whether the Fourth Amendments papers protection applies to digital data imagine hitting Print.)

Let me guess what youre wondering now: How could the NSA possibly be issued this sort of mass, blanket warrant, under the auspices of the Fourth Amendment if millions of these persons are notof interest? I.e. totally devoid of any probable cause? A very reasonable question.

The NSA laid claim to the authority to do this under the auspices of the Patriot Act. Which is not how things are supposed to work. Congress cant pass laws that eviscerate Constitutional protections they must amend the Constitution to eviscerate said protection. So, of course, the poorly written Patriot Act is trumped (no pun intended) by the Constitution.

The Senate has long been ignoring another Constitutional charge to properly vet federal judges prior to confirmation. So our judiciary is addled throughout by men and women in black gowns who shouldnt be. Because they impose their personal policy preferences rather than rule within the confines of the Constitution.

Even under these conditions, we do occasionally get good legal decisions. In May 2015, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the NSAs build data collection is unconstitutional. In response, President Barack Obamas Attorney General Loretta Lynch said: she was unaware of privacy violations under its existing program.

Madame Attorney Generals blissful ignorance is emblematic of the Washington, D.C.-wide problem. (As, too, was her being confirmed AG by a yet-again-too-compliant Senate.)

And, of course, the Feds arent just massively overreaching on domestic data they are overreaching overseas as well.

Under the auspices of the now-woefully-outdated 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the Feds obtained a warrant against tech giant Microsoft. With which they tried to collect data stored on servers Microsoft has outside of the United States (in this instance, in Dublin, Ireland).

This would be horrendously bad precedent as tin horn dictators the world over could and would start looking to get at data contained within our borders. To allow the Feds to do this to Microsoft would be to allow one of the worst genies ever out of its bottle.

Thankfully, the very same Second Court of Appeals that dumped the NSAs bulk data collection agreed and unanimously told the Feds they couldnt have access to Microsofts overseas servers. (God bless them.)

The very same Attorney General Lynch still bathing in her blissful ignorance has filed to reopen the case. Which brings us to Congress Fourth Amendment reminder we mentioned at the outset. Which would stop Madame Attorney Generals abuse here and a whole lot of abuses elsewhere.

The (Senate) bill is called the International Communications Privacy Act (ICPA). It is, amongst other things, a DC unicorn it is bipartisan. And bi-cameral as members of the House have joined in its crafting.

And it will rein in an overreaching federal government that is forcing companies to violate the laws of other countries in which they operate to give the U.S. government data to which it really shouldnt have access.

Because the Fourth Amendment (and the rest of the Constitution) is limited to our territorial bounds. Else wed better start invading a whole lot of places in which all sorts of our Constitutional rights are being routinely violated in their jurisdictions.

Obviously, the Feds need a reminder of this fact. ICPA is that reminder. It is pathetic that you need a Congressional backstop to a Constitutional right but were dealing with DC here, so we are oft dealing in things pathetic.

I am on the record as being nigh always against lame duck Congressional action. I dont like officials We the People just said should no longer be voting on legislation voting on legislation. But ICPA is a perfectly reasonable exception that proves this rule.

You can almost certainly pass ICPA just with people who will again be here in the next Congress. And ICPA has been languishing for more than two years all the while (and going back years and years before) the Feds have been vastly exceeding their Constitutional bounds. And in the Microsoft case are looking to do so yet again.

So the overreaches must be ended. ICPA ends them. So lets pass ICPA.

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Continued here:
Unfortunately, Congress Needs to Pass This Fourth Amendment ...