Archive for the ‘Fourth Amendment’ Category

The DOJ Is Sneaking in a Policy That'd Crap All Over the 4th Amendment

The rules for how the Department of Justice tracks down criminals in the digital age are woefully arcane, but the DoJ's recent proposed changes to update those rules go way too far, using vague terms to grant sweeping remote search powers that would take a torrential horse piss on the Fourth Amendment.

Under the auspices of probable cause, it'd give FBI agents the power to install tracking malware on computers all over the world, without telling people they've started surveillance. Even though it looks like a minor rule change, the proposal would make it much easier for FBI agents to get warrants on computers without first figuring out their exact location. It gives judges much more flexibility on handing out remote search warrants outside of their jurisdictions. And that would give federal agents way more power to search computers.

This proposal isn't just the DOJ being Big Brothery for no reason. Remote computer searches are difficult to execute right now and that's an obstacle for combating digital crime and hunting criminals who use anonymizing software. This is a real problem, and something that needs to be addressed. But not this way. This is like using a nuke instead of a sniper rifle, and it's going to blow up our privacy rights.

I'm not going to lie, I didn't think I'd ever write an article about a DOJ procedural change because frankly, that sounds like comically dull policy housekeeping. And comically dull is what they were going for: It's a lot easier to slip in a major expansion of power if no one cares enough to pay attention.

But this proposal is way too big not to notice, no matter how boring-sounding and rote the DOJ tries to make it.

"Basically, we think this is a substantive legal change masquerading as a mere procedural rule change," Electronic Frontier Foundation staff counsel Hanni Fakhoury told me via email. "The government is essentially pushing for approval of the idea that it should have the power to deploy malware and execute remote searches. To us, it seems like that's a decision Congress should make."

The vague language of these rules could galvanize an avalanche of covert government surveillance by making it totally OK in certain situations to search peoples' computers without ever letting them know. And that's a violation of the Bill of Rights hidden inside a wonky-sounding procedural adjustment.

Right now, law enforcement officials can get a warrant to search computers remotely, as long as they have probable cause. But, apart from rare, limited circumstances, they need to find the right jurisdiction to petition for a warrant, and they need to give notice of their searches to whoever they're investigating. Notice is an important part of our Fourth Amendment privacy right. It's generally not legal for FBI agents to search you and never tell you. Except this change would make it so.

"The rule itself would be an acknowledgement that remote access searches are valid without notice, without special justification," Electronic Privacy Information Center general counsel Alan Butler told me. "Notice is one of the essential procedural protections of the Fourth Amendment. Validating a rule that implies that notice will never happen does not comport with the Fourth Amendment."

Read the original:
The DOJ Is Sneaking in a Policy That'd Crap All Over the 4th Amendment

Faculty on Point | Professor Jeffrey Fisher on Digital Privacy and the Riley Decision – Video


Faculty on Point | Professor Jeffrey Fisher on Digital Privacy and the Riley Decision
Professor Jeffrey L. Fisher, lead counsel in the digital privacy case Riley v. California, discusses preparing the case and implications of this landmark U.S. Supreme Court Fourth Amendment...

By: stanfordlawschool

See original here:
Faculty on Point | Professor Jeffrey Fisher on Digital Privacy and the Riley Decision - Video

Private Members Bill: Thirty Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Neutrality) Bill 2013 – Video


Private Members Bill: Thirty Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Neutrality) Bill 2013

By: Shane Ross

Read more here:
Private Members Bill: Thirty Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Neutrality) Bill 2013 - Video

Cato Surveillance Conference Keynote Speaker Rep. Thomas Massie – Video


Cato Surveillance Conference Keynote Speaker Rep. Thomas Massie
Follow the link to watch the full event: http://www.cato.org/events/2014-cato-institute-surveillance-conference How should these tracking technologies be regulated by the Fourth Amendment...

By: catoinstitutevideo

Visit link:
Cato Surveillance Conference Keynote Speaker Rep. Thomas Massie - Video

Are CTA Bag Checks Against Our Fourth Amendment Rights?

After four months of random bag checks at more than 40 CTA stations, the results are in: Officers checked 2,600 bags, found zero explosives and made only one arrest. The bag-check initiative, which began Nov. 3 and had full support of Mayor Emmanuel, is funded by a grant from the Transportation Security Administration and currently has no end date.

The CTA announced it has not received any complaints from the public regarding the bag checks. But what about the one arrest made? Turns out, protestor Scott Davis, 43, told the RedEye he was acting in protest of the violation of his Fourth Amendment rights which can be registered as a very public complaint, CTA by refusing to have his bag checked and then attempting to board a Brown Line train. Davis was charged with criminal trespass to state land and disorderly conduct. According to policy, riders are able to refuse bag checks but must leave the CTA station or face arrest. However, refusing a bag check does not stop someone from entering the same station via another entrance, or boarding at a different stop.

So, are the bag checks actually against our Fourth Amendment rights?

According to MacWade vs. Kelly a Second Circuit Court ruling in 2006 no. The case was brought by the ACLU against the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department and the City of New York after subway bag checks were enacted in 2005, which were in response to the Madrid and London subway bombings of 2004 and 2005. The ruling sets precedent for five requirements that must be met for these programs to be deemed constitutional, including:

1. Passengers receive notice of the searches and may decline to be searched so long as they leave the subway. 2. Police search only those containers capable of concealing explosives. 3. A typical search lasts only for a matter of seconds. 4. Uniformed personnel conduct the searches out in the open, which reduces the fear and stigma that removal to a hidden area can cause. 5. Police exercise no discretion in selecting whom to search, but rather employ a formula that ensures they do not arbitrarily exercise their authority.

While Mayor Emanuel has defended the measures in Chicago for providing public security while protecting privacy, critics contend that the measure is simply for show afterall, there are 145 CTA stations and thousands of riders passing through them each day. Others insist that the bag checks could be used to target young, male minorities. It's yet to be seen whether the measure has yielded more harm than good.

Read the rest here:
Are CTA Bag Checks Against Our Fourth Amendment Rights?