RSS Feed
Facebook
Twitter
Google+The “mere evidence” rule, forbidding searches for documents that were themselves not “instrumentalities” crimes (or contraband themselves) lasted well into the twentieth century before being abandoned. So why were telegrams never explicitly covered by the rule?
privacy
An argument for the “Inviolability of Telegraphic Correspondence”
Former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas M. Cooley, in a forward-looking article, advocated for extending Fourth Amendment protections to telegrams in 1879. Cooley articulated a position that both foreshadowed 20th century arguments over telephone wiretaps, and reflected his late 19th century concerns.
What was the “right to privacy” in 1948?
It took nearly 50 years for Justice Brandeis’ ground-breaking law review article on the right to privacy to begin to widely influence judicial decisions. By 1948, though, a dozen or so states had begun to recognize the right as a part of common law.
Law of privacy vs. confidentiality in the nineteenth century
According to Richards and Solove the “right to privacy” as we now understand it actually grew out of an earlier recognition of the right to confidentiality in certain situations. Warren and Brandeis then took this original principle of confidentiality and shifted it to focus on a newly developed right to privacy.
The telegraph and business invasions of privacy
In the late 19th century, many began to see the rise of monopolistic telegraph operators as more of a threat than the government. Against this potential eavesdropper, the Bill of Rights provided no protection.
Extending the Fourth Amendment beyond the home: Ex parte Jackson (1878)
Ex parte Jackson, which dealt with government agents opening mail in search of banned lottery materials, hints at the future Court’s ruling on wiretaps in Katz v. United States that the Fourth Amendment “protects people, not places.”
Highlights of the Google Books settlement hearing
Norman Oder updates us on the arguments at the Google Books settlement hearing. I found the several following points made by speakers at the hearing particulary interesting.
Should police need probable cause to request mobile-phone location data?
There are currently no firm standards on the kinds of Fourth Amendment protections that should apply to cell phone tracking data. This is becoming an issue as GPS and other tracking technologies have been added to cell phone to satisfy E911 requirements, and as police agencies have discovered the potential benefits of mobile-phone location data.
Retention of transactional Web browsing data
The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years.
Does an open WiFi signal reduce your 4th Amendment protections?
A federal trial court in Oregon ruled that a suspect’s rights were not violated when police — tipped by a neighbor — accessed his unprotected WiFi network and saw child pornography shared via his iTunes library.
Applying the Fourth Amendment to data in the cloud
In a Note called Defogging the Cloud: Applying Fourth Amendment Principles to Evolving Privacy Expectations in Cloud Computing, David A. Couillard explores the potential applicability of the Fourth Amendment to data stored in offsite servers: spreadsheets in Google Docs, accounting data hosted on FreshBooks, and pretty much everything synced through DropBox, just to name three example services.
FBI "technically violated" wiretap laws for years
FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni said in an interview Monday that the FBI technically violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act when agents invoked nonexistent emergencies to collect records.
Should signing a petition be a confidential act?
The Supreme Court has accepted a new case on to its docket concerning the constitutionality of a Washington State law being used as the basis to publish the names of signers of a petition to restrict gay rights.
Why can the TSA subpoena bloggers to get at their sources?
The TSA issued a directive aimed at instituting new security measures. After two bloggers published it, the TSA issued subpoenas that sought to compel them to reveal their sources. Why did the TSA think they could do this, and did they have the power to enforce their request?
Should the government need a warrant to access your Google Books history?
Should accessing content via the Google Books service provide the same protections as one would receive when relying on a bookstore? The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU say, “Yes.”
Obama to Appoint Information Security Coordinator
President Barack Obama confirmed Friday that the White House will be creating a new office to be led by a cybersecurity czar. The office will be in charge of coordinating efforts to secure government networks and U.S. critical infrastructures.
