tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-603498076864412302024-03-13T13:47:57.444-04:00StockycatA blog by J. Adam Engel focused non-exclusively on the intersection between criminal law, the Fourth Amendment and emerging technology.
Dedicated to the idea that effective law enforcement is not incompatible with a vigorous interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.comBlogger171125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-72215149249911403122012-07-11T11:44:00.003-04:002012-07-11T11:44:22.721-04:00Ohio Criminal Appeals BlogJ. Adam Engel, LLC has created a new blog focused on Ohio Criminal Appeals. Please visit the <a href="http://www.adamengel.net/appealsblog/" target="_blank">Ohio Criminal Appeals Blog</a>.Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-30259218257966987032012-07-09T11:30:00.003-04:002012-07-09T11:31:05.587-04:00Visit Stockycat.comThis blog has moved to its own domain -- <a href="http://www.stockycat.com/">www.stockycat.com</a>.<br />
<br />
Please visit us there!Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-58912509539125321052012-06-26T10:12:00.005-04:002012-06-26T10:12:57.305-04:00Law Technology News: Courts Still Divided on Cell Phone Searches<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"></span></span><br />
<h1 style="font-size: 2.25em; line-height: 1.25em; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 18px; margin-right: 18px; margin-top: 18px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202560499809&slreturn=1">Law Technology News, June 22, 2012</a>.</span></h1>
<div class="date" style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">A Colorado court has continued the split among courts about the ability, under the Fourth Amendment, for police to search cell phones. The case is</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><em style="background-color: white;"><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12062794087693894793" style="color: #004276; text-decoration: none;" target="new">People v. Taylor</a></em><span style="background-color: white;">, Colo. Court of Appeals, 5th Div. No. 09CA2681 (June 7, 2012).</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px;">
In <em>Taylor</em>, undercover officers suspected that the defendant was dealing drugs. He was arrested. After the defendant was arrested, he was searched and his cell phone was seized. One of the arresting officers reviewed the cell phone's call log -- without a warrant -- and found incriminating evidence.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px;">
The defendant argued that the search of his cell phone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The police justified the search under the "search incident to arrest" exception to the warrant requirement. In brief, under this exception to the Fourth Amendment, police may search any objects in the possession or reach of an arrested person.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px;">
Whether this search includes cell phones has not been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. A number of courts -- including the Fourth and Fifth Circuits, have permitted these searches. Some courts -- including most notably the Ohio Supreme Court -- have suggested the cell phones are different.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px;">
The <em>Taylor</em> court allowed the search. Notably, the court seemed to rely upon the fact that the search was limited to the call history. Whether a different result would have been reached had officers searched emails, text messages, or photographs stored on a smartphone is an open question. Regardless, the <em>Taylor</em> case further illustrates why guidance from the Supreme Court on this issue is necessary.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px;">
For further background, see also <em>LTN</em>'s March 12 analysis of a Seventh Circuit decision,<em><a href="http://www.eddupdate.com/2012/03/new-decision-on-warrantless-search-of-cell-phones-ready.html#more%22%3Eone%3C/a" style="color: #004276; text-decoration: none;" target="new"> U.S. v. Abel Flores-Lopez</a></em>; "<a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleFriendlyLTN.jsp?germane=1202560499809&id=1202492125200" style="color: #004276; text-decoration: none;">Courts Struggle With Police Searches of Smartphones</a>," and this law review article, <a href="http://www.adamengel.net/Attorney/Doctrinal%20Collapse.pdf" style="color: #004276; text-decoration: none;" target="new">"Doctrinal Collapse: Smart Phones Cause Courts to Reconsider Fourth Amendment Searches of Electronic Devices</a>, University of Memphis Law Review, Vol. 41, p. 233 (2010).</div>
<br />
Post Originally appeared on <a href="http://www.eddupdate.com/2012/06/colorado-court-continues-split-of-cell-phone-searches-ready.html">EDD Update</a>.Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-25141927507678204352012-05-20T10:18:00.005-04:002012-05-20T10:18:45.695-04:00More on: Audio Recordings<br />
<h2 style="color: #6c6c6c; font-family: 'helvetica neue', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<a href="http://quest.law.com/Search/Search.do?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.com%2Fjsp%2Fsearch_display.jsp%3Fassettype%3Dpubarticle%26pub%3DLaw%2520Technology%2520News%26id%3D1202554133124%26N%3D4294967207%3B8354%3B%26subType%3DPubArticle" style="color: #2073b8; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Seventh Circuit Addresses Audio Recordings and the First Amendment</a></h2>
<div class="publication" style="color: #3f333e; font-family: 'helvetica neue', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.35em; margin-bottom: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<a href="http://www.lawtechnews.com/" style="color: #3f333e; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Law Technology News</a></div>
<div class="byline" style="color: #6c6c6c; font-family: 'helvetica neue', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px !important; line-height: 1.35em; margin-bottom: 12px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
by Joshua A. Engel | 05/17/2012</div>
<div style="color: #6c6c6c; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.35em; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
Whenever a public figure speaks, smartphones and audio devices are there to record. The Seventh Circuit recently addressed the First Amendment limitations of this action in ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez.</div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-58093831825251097442012-05-20T10:15:00.003-04:002012-05-20T10:15:42.656-04:00<a href="http://www.eddupdate.com/2012/05/seventh-circuit-holds-cell-phone-videos-are-constitutionally-protected-ready.html">From EDD Update</a>:<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3 class="entry-header" style="background-color: white; color: #990000; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 5px; margin-top: 5px; text-align: left;">
7th Circuit Holds Cell Phone Videos Are Protected</h3>
<div class="entry-content" style="background-color: white; clear: both; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 5px; position: static; text-align: left;">
<div class="entry-body" style="clear: both;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
<a class="asset-img-link" href="http://commonscold.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345280a669e2016766917b45970b-popup" style="color: #711919; float: right;"><img alt="Chicago_federal_center400" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00d8345280a669e2016766917b45970b" src="http://commonscold.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345280a669e2016766917b45970b-120wi" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" title="Chicago_federal_center400" /></a><strong>Every time</strong> a public figure speaks these days, smartphones are there to record the speech.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
A key question: Is this legal?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
That was the issue addressed last week by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is<em><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5472709012242225935" style="color: #711919;" target="new">American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois v. Alvarez</a></em>, 7th Cir. No. 11-1286 (May 8, 2012).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
The court reviewed a challenge to the Illinois eavesdropping statute, which makes it a felony to audio record "all or any part of any conversation" unless all parties to the conversation give their consent, and includes any oral communication regardless of whether the communication was intended to be private.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
In Chicago, citizens had started a "police accountability program," which included plans to openly make audiovisual recordings of police officers performing their duties in public places and –- a fact that makes the statute applicable -- speaking at a volume audible to bystanders. When persons involved in the program feared prosecution, the ACLU challenged the eavesdropping statute on First Amendment grounds on their behalf.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
The court held that the statute, in these circumstances, violated the First Amendment.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
Read <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202554133124&Seventh_Circuit_Addresses_Audio_Recordings_and_the_First_Amendment" style="color: #711919;" target="new">the full article</a> on <em>LTN</em> online.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
<span style="font-size: 8pt;"><em>The image is in the public domain</em></span></div>
</div>
</div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-49499331813825164432012-02-24T13:28:00.000-05:002012-02-24T13:28:34.642-05:00More Frequent Fliers at the Court. New Supreme Court Decision Continues Trend of Taking Criminal History of Suspects into Account in Miranda Cases.<div class="MsoNormal">In 2011, I published an article in the Seton Hall Circuit Review on the Supreme Court’s recent <i>Miranda </i>decisions: <i><a href="http://www.joshuaaengel.com/Practice-Areas/Publications-Presentations.shtml">Frequent Fliers at the Court</a></i>, 7 Seton Hall Circuit Review 303 (2011).<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">In that article, I reviewed four Supreme Court cases interpreting Miranda that featured suspects with significant prior interaction with law enforcement and the criminal justice system: <i>Montejo v. Louisiana</i>, <i>Florida v.Powell</i>, <i>Maryland v. Shatzer</i> and <i>Berghuis v. Thompkins</i>. I observed that “while the original Miranda decision held that the atmosphere of a custodial interrogation generates ―inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely, these later decisions shift the focus from the atmosphere to whether the individual suspects were actually compelled to make incriminating statements.” <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The four decisions all concerned the waiver of <i>Miranda </i>rights. The article examined the increased consideration of the criminal background of suspects, whether implicit or explicit, by the Supreme Court and lower courts in determining whether a Miranda waiver is made in a knowing, intelligent and voluntary manner. I concluded: “By implicitly – and, someday, probably, explicitly – taking the criminal experience of the suspect into account along with the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, the Court may be engaging in a more realistic review into whether a waiver and statement were uncoerced.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court decided another <i>Miranda</i> case involving a frequent flier recently: <i><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-680.pdf">Howes v. Fields</a></i> In <i>Howes, </i>the issue was not a waiver of <i>Miranda</i> rights, but whether the suspect was in “custody” and therefore was entitled to receive <i>Miranda</i> warnings prior to an interview. The suspect in <i>Howes</i> was serving a sentence in jail (for disorderly conduct!) when he was escorted to a conference room and interviewed about an alleged sexual offense. He was told that he was free to leave; he subsequently confessed to the crime. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court concluded that, despite the fact that he was incarcerated, the defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes. This is because, when examining the totality of the circumstances, the Court believed that incarcerated persons “live” in prison and can return to the daily prison life. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Later, I will more closely examine the entire opinion. But what caught my eye initially was the Court’s willingness to take an incarcerated defendant’s familiarity with the criminal justice system into account in the analysis of whether the defendant in in custody ofr <i>Miranda</i> purposes. The Court noted that “a prisoner, unlike a person who has not been sentenced to a term of incarceration, is unlikely to be lured into speaking by a longing for prompt release.” The Court also noted that a prisoner “knows that the law enforcement officers who question him probably lack the authority to affect the duration of the sentence.” <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The <i>Howe</i> decision, thus, appears to be consistent with the long-term approach of the Supreme Court in taking the subjective knowledge and experience of suspects into account in deciding <i>Miranda</i> cases. Key among the subjective knowledge and experience of suspects is a familiarity and experience with the criminal justice system.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-16516976556806604232011-12-05T10:27:00.000-05:002011-12-05T10:27:51.095-05:00Constitution 3.0<a href="http://www.eddupdate.com/2011/12/a-new-book-edited-by-jeffrey-rosen-a-noted-constitutional-law-scholar-address-the-effect-of-changing-technology-on-constitu.html" target="_blank">From EDD Update</a>.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><strong><br />
</strong></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><strong>Jeffrey Rosen</strong></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> is the co-editor (with Benjamin Wittes) of a new book from The Brookings Institute, </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><em><a _mce_href="http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-3-0-Freedom-Technological-Change/dp/0815722125" href="http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-3-0-Freedom-Technological-Change/dp/0815722125">Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change</a>.</em></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> A constitutional law scholar, Rosen addresses the effect of changing technology on constitutional issues, and recently was interviewed </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><a _mce_href="http://www.npr.org/2011/11/30/142714568/interpreting-the-constitution-in-the-digital-era" href="http://www.npr.org/2011/11/30/142714568/interpreting-the-constitution-in-the-digital-era">on NPR</a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: black; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 8px; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 8px;"><div style="font-size: small;">Rosen claims that “lawyers at Facebook and Google and Microsoft have more power over the future of privacy and free expression than any king or president or Supreme Court justice.”</div><div style="font-size: small;">In the book, Rosen suggests that new technologies, <a _mce_href="http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202530723275&Defining_Search_in_US_v_Jones=&et=editorial&bu=LTN&cn=LTN_20111110&src=EMC-Email&pt=Law%20Technology%20News&kw=Defining%20%27Search%27%20in%20%27U.S.%20v.%20Jones%27" href="http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202530723275&Defining_Search_in_US_v_Jones=&et=editorial&bu=LTN&cn=LTN_20111110&src=EMC-Email&pt=Law%20Technology%20News&kw=Defining%20%27Search%27%20in%20%27U.S.%20v.%20Jones%27">such as GPS tracking</a>, are “challenging our Constitutional categories in really dramatic ways . . . And what's so striking is that none of the existing amendments give clear answers to the most basic questions we're having today.” </div><div style="font-size: small;"><img _mce_src="http://static.typepad.com/.shared:v20111201.01-0-g67828e5:typepad:en_us/js/tinymce/plugins/pagebreak/img/trans.gif" class="mcePageBreak mceItemNoResize" src="http://static.typepad.com/.shared:v20111201.01-0-g67828e5:typepad:en_us/js/tinymce/plugins/pagebreak/img/trans.gif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: url(http://static.typepad.com/.shared:v20111201.01-0-g67828e5:typepad:en_us/images/yui/skins/tp1/editor/extended-separator.png); background-origin: initial; background-position: 50% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-style: initial; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; display: block; height: 15px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 5px; width: 615px;" />Rosen seems to point to two ways in which technology has changed the perception of privacy, at least how the Fourth Amendment is concerned. First, there is the consideration of the amount of privacy people can expect in public places. Second, there is the difference between short-term and long-term surveillance. </div><div style="font-size: small;">In the book, leading legal scholars were asked to imagine technologies and hypothetiucal situations that might be developed in the next few decades that would challenge current thinking about constitutional privacy protections. One scenario he describes is particularly interesting: websites such as Google post video from live surveillance cameras online and archive those videos in a database. Add in facial recognition abilities of Facebook, and it could be possible to search for the location of individual persons at any given time. The challenge is the police could use this surveillance without any apparent Fourth Amendment limitations because no government action would be involved in obtaining the data.</div><div style="font-size: small;"><a _mce_href="http://www.npr.org/2011/11/30/142714568/interpreting-the-constitution-in-the-digital-era" href="http://www.npr.org/2011/11/30/142714568/interpreting-the-constitution-in-the-digital-era" target="_self">Listen</a> to the NPR interview.</div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px;"><i><br />
</i></span><br />
<div style="font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-size: small;"><br />
</div></div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-67031540156884245062011-12-02T11:02:00.000-05:002011-12-02T11:02:42.464-05:00Personal Experience with Find My Friends<h3 class="entry-header" style="color: #990000; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 5px; margin-top: 5px;"><a href="http://www.eddupdate.com/2011/12/i-learned-last-week-that-too-much-information-from-tech-can-be-a-bad-thing-apple-last-month-released-the-find-my-friends.html" target="_blank">From EDD Update.</a></h3><div><br />
</div><h3 class="entry-header" style="color: #990000; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 5px; margin-top: 5px;">TMI or Life Saver?</h3><div class="entry-content" style="clear: both; color: black; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 5px; position: static;"><div class="entry-body" style="clear: both;"><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;"><strong>I learned last week</strong> that too much information from tech can be a bad thing.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">Apple last month released the “Find My Friends” feature on iPhones. This featrure allows users to view the current locations of other users — who agree — on a map. While sold as a way to track and meet up with friends, I am guessing that the feature is most popular with families. </div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">Predictably, last month <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/iphone-app-find-friends-finds-cheating-wife-apple/story?id=14753196#.TteK6TDlZGk" style="color: #711919; text-decoration: underline;">stories started to appear</a> that one of the great uses for “Find My Friends” is the discovery of cheating spouses. One person posted on a web site that he had used the feature to discover that his wife was with another man when she had claimed that she was at a friend’s house in another part of town. </div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;"><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20121104-71/apples-new-find-my-friends-app-finds-wife-cheating/" style="color: #711919; text-decoration: underline;">One commentator noted</a>:</div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-left: 30px;">I am sure at this very moment that John Grisham is calling his agent and musing about a new novel — set somewhere in Mississippi — where the plot will turn on the cheery new functions of an iPhone 4S. The plot will, no doubt, turn on whether planning such a ruse would constitute admissible evidence. . . .</div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-left: 30px;">Quite soon, I feel sure that happy couples will be making their promises at the front of churches and include this wording: "Till death do us part. Or till I discover that my sleazy little spouse has been secretly following my movements with an adorable little Apple app.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;"><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/10/17/did-the-iphones-find-my-friends-already-out-a-cheating-wife/" style="color: #711919; text-decoration: underline;">An author in Forbes took a more ominous view of the technology</a>:</div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-left: 30px;">Will being given technology tools that make law-enforcement-style surveillance so easy a baby could do it transform us (more than Facebook already has) into a society of spies? Just as we expect everyone to have a Facebook account, perhaps we’ll start expecting everyone to volunteer their whereabouts at all times, as part of the “social OS.” If a friend (or a spouse) chooses NOT to be tracked, will we assume they are up to no good?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">My own story is less exciting. We use “Find My Friends” and have found it useful for much more mundane purposes, such as calculating when someone on the road will be home from work. Earlier this week, I was picking up the kids because my wife had an appointment in another city. I called my wife but she did not answer, so I checked where she was on Find My Friends. To my shock, her location was at the local hospital. I checked again, got the same result, and did a quick U-Turn to head to the hospital.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">Then story has a happy ending — she had stopped at a jewelry sale by the hospital auxiliary. But for about 10 minutes I was panicked and worried.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">The moral of the story is obvious. At the risk of <a href="http://techland.time.com/2011/11/05/andy-rooney-i-dont-really-like-gadgets-and-other-tech-quips/?slide=brookstone#brookstone" style="color: #711919; text-decoration: underline;">sounding like Andy Rooney</a>, maybe sometimes we really were better off before we had all of this technology.</div></div></div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-12341526670076930662011-11-14T17:25:00.002-05:002011-11-14T17:25:38.697-05:00Lycurgus Group Publishes White Paper on Penn State Investigations<h3 class="entry-header" style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 15px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">The Lycurgus Group has just published a White Paper on the Penn State Investigations. The White Paper is available <a href="http://lycurgusgroup.net/Documents/WhitePaperonPennState.pdf" style="color: #cccccc; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></h3><div class="entry-content" style="clear: both; font-family: 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 15px; position: static; width: 500px;"><div class="entry-body" style="clear: both; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.5; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden;"><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The White Paper continues to look at the Penn State sexual abuse scandal. The facts and allegations, because so well reported and continuing to develop, will not be repeated here. This may be, as Boston Globe columnist and ESPN contributor Bob Ryan suggests, “the single biggest story in the history of college sports.” The Lycurgus Group joins the hopes and prayers of others that the victims in this matter can find some sense of justice.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">While it is too early in the legal process to draw any definitive conclusions about where the fault should fairly lay, it is not too early for Institutions to begin to answer the question about how similar mistakes can be avoided in the future. The purpose of this White Paper is to examine the potential conflicts of interest inherent when Institution’s conduct internal investigations sensitive of high profile allegations of wrongdoing and to propose the use of external investigators as a viable solution in extraordinary situations.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">In some instances, the reliance on internal staff is appropriate based on the nature of the allegations. However, two recent incidents at Penn State – allegations of wrongdoing by a climate research scientist and the sexual abuse allegations involving a former football coach who maintained ties to the Institution – illustrate that when the institution faces potentially serious allegations, the better course is not to use of internal staff, whether in the compliance office or otherwise, to conduct the investigation. The use of internal staff may create the appearance of a conflict of interest because the staff is not independent from the Institution. In addition, internal staff may not have the resources or experience necessary to conduct a thorough investigation of serious allegations. </div></div></div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-41427066528290261452011-10-27T12:27:00.000-04:002011-10-27T12:27:04.075-04:00Fellows from the Information Society Project at Yale Law School have just published an article on the upcoming GPS tracking case before the Supreme Court.<h3 class="entry-header" style="color: #990000; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 5px; margin-top: 5px;"><br />
</h3><div class="entry-content" style="clear: both; color: black; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-weight: normal; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 5px; position: static;"><div class="entry-body" style="clear: both; font-size: 12px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;"><strong>Fellows from the</strong> <em>Information Society Project at Yale Law School</em> have just published an article on the <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202498748615" style="color: #711919; text-decoration: underline;">upcoming GPS tracking case before the Supreme Court</a>.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;"><a href="http://commonscold.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345280a669e20162fbe362fd970d-popup" style="color: #711919; float: right; text-decoration: underline;"><img alt="Gps" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00d8345280a669e20162fbe362fd970d" src="http://commonscold.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345280a669e20162fbe362fd970d-120wi" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" title="Gps" /></a>Priscilla Smith, Nabiha Syed, David Thaw and Albert Wong are the authors of "<em>When Machines Are Watching: How Warrantless Use of GPS Surveillance Technology Violates the Fourth Amendment Right Against Unreasonable Searches</em>," <a href="http://yalelawjournal.org/2011/10/11/smith.html" style="color: #711919; text-decoration: underline;">121 Yale. J. Online 177 (2011).</a> I highly recommend it.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">The authors argue that “the use of GPS surveillance for prolonged monitoring without a warrant cannot pass muster under the Fourth Amendment.” They suggest that in evaluating new technologies, “wherever a new technology carries the potential for police abuse, the Court has allowed its use only as guarded by the warrant requirement, placing a check on the unlimited discretion otherwise afforded officers.” </div></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="" id="more" style="color: #711919; text-decoration: underline;"></a></span><div class="entry-more" style="clear: both;"><div style="font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">In particular, the authors suggest that the Supreme Court distinguished between technologies that merely enhance human senses (such as binoculars) and technologies that operate independently of humans (such as heat sensors).</div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">This analysis would seem to suggest that GPS tracking of a vehicle is permissible without a warrant – after all, the GPS tracker merely does what a officer conducting traditional surveillance could do – not the location of a vehicle on public streets.</div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">However, the authors suggest that there “is a vast technical valley between old technologies used by police officers, which merely assist in tailing suspects, and modern GPS surveillance technology, which automates tracking and surveillance.”</div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">They point to two unique aspects of GPS tracking: </div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">(1) “Once the GPS tracking device is installed, it can operate autonomously over a prolonged period of time without human involvement, independently determining and remotely transmitting positional data twenty-four hours a day.” </div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">(2) “The electronic storage of gathered location data allows the data to be stored forever and considered at any time in the future alongside data collected from other citizens.”</div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">I generally agree with this argument, and wrote last spring that <a href="http://rjolpi.richmond.edu/archive/Volume_XIV_Issue_3.pdf" style="color: #711919; text-decoration: underline;">“people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the totality of their movements over the course of a period of time. . . [and Courts] are likely to conclude that the use of a GPS tracking device on a vehicle constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.</a></div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">The authors add a unique perspective on this case, suggesting that while there is no evidence of mass surveillance using GPS tracking yet, “circumstances might trigger” law enforcement to conduct such activities, pointing to a possible “terrorist attack by enemies (either foreign or domestic) whose ethnicity, religious affiliation, political persuasion, or other characteristics catalyze fear of or animus toward a particular minority group.”</div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px;"><i>Originally posted on <a href="http://www.eddupdate.com/2011/10/ready-2.html">EDD Update</a></i></span></div></div></div><div class="entry-footer" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; clear: both; color: #666666; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 25px; margin-right: 25px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"></div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-73469745926036056312011-10-16T10:53:00.000-04:002011-10-16T10:53:41.671-04:00New iPhone Leads to Fourth Amendment Violations???<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: black; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 8px; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 8px;"><div style="font-size: small;"><a _mce_href="http://commonscold.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345280a669e201539239b1c7970b-popup" _mce_style="float: left;" href="http://commonscold.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345280a669e201539239b1c7970b-popup" style="float: left;"><img _mce_src="http://commonscold.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345280a669e201539239b1c7970b-120wi" _mce_style="margin: 0px 5px 5px 0px;" alt="Ip42" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00d8345280a669e201539239b1c7970b" height="110" src="http://commonscold.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345280a669e201539239b1c7970b-120wi" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 5px; margin-top: 0px;" title="Ip42" width="56" /></a>So . . . Apple released a <a _mce_href="http://www.apple.com/iphone/" href="http://www.apple.com/iphone/">new iPhone</a>.</div><div style="font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-size: small;">The most interesting aspect of the Apple story is the measures it takes to protect its intellectual property. In an effort to protect the new iPhone, Apple may have run up against the Fourth Amendment.</div><div style="font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-size: small;">CNET <a _mce_href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20099899-37/apple-loses-another-unreleased-iphone-exclusive/" href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20099899-37/apple-loses-another-unreleased-iphone-exclusive/">reported </a> that Apple security personnel enlisted the help of the San Francisco police in locating a lost iPhone prototype. The iPhone was allegedly lost by an Apple employee at a bar in late July. The iPhone was tracked to a home. Apple security personnel and the police officers then went to the home. With the police standing by, the Apple security personnel searched the home, as well as a car and computer. </div><div style="font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-size: small;">The homeowner <a _mce_href="http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/09/iphone_5_apple_police.php" href="http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/09/iphone_5_apple_police.php">told reporters</a> that the people who came to his house looking for the phone identified themselves as police (not Apple employees). He claimed that he never would have allowed Apple employees to conduct a searched.</div><div style="font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-size: small;">The <a _mce_href="http://allthingsd.com/20110903/s-f-police-comment-on-lost-apple-iphone-prototype/" href="http://allthingsd.com/20110903/s-f-police-comment-on-lost-apple-iphone-prototype/">San Francisco Police are reported to have stated</a> that “four SFPD Officers accompanied Apple employees to the . . . home. The two Apple employees met with the resident and then went into the house to look for the lost item. The Apple employees did not find the lost item and left the house.”</div><div style="font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-size: small;">Of course, <a _mce_href="http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/crime/2011/10/apple-could-face-lawsuit-over-iphone-prototype-investigation-july" href="http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/crime/2011/10/apple-could-face-lawsuit-over-iphone-prototype-investigation-july">a lawsuit has now been threatened</a>. Does it have a chance? Assuming that the consent for a search was invalid because of deception (a big assumption, perhaps), then the Fourth Amendment could have been violated. The general rule is that the Fourth Amendment” is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official. <em>United States v. Jacobsen</em>, <a _mce_href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16573686290496533405&q=466+U.S.+109&hl=en" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16573686290496533405&q=466+U.S.+109&hl=en" target="_self">466 U.S. 109</a>, 113 (1984). However, the Court has also held that a person may be deemed a “state actor” when he has acted together with or has obtained significant aid from state officials. <em>Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.</em>, <a _mce_href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1231702144763230317&q=457+U.S.+922&hl=en" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1231702144763230317&q=457+U.S.+922&hl=en" target="_self">457 U.S. 922</a>, 937 (1982).</div><div style="font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-size: small;">In this case, there is certainly a good argument that the Apple employee were acting as state agents in conducting the search. This would make them liable under the civil rights laws for any violations of the Fourth Amendment rights of the homeowner.</div><div style="font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-size: small;">Finally: to add intrigue and a whiff of conspiracy to the story: the video surveillance tape of the bar <a _mce_href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20115037-37/lost-iphone-surveillance-video-has-been-erased/" href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20115037-37/lost-iphone-surveillance-video-has-been-erased/">has been erased</a>. </div><div style="font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-size: small;"><b><i><a href="http://www.eddupdate.com/2011/10/so-apple-released-a-new-iphone-the-most-interesting-aspect-of-the-apple-story-is-the-measures-it-takes-to-protect-its.html">This post originally appeared on the EDD Update blog</a>.</i></b></div><div style="font-size: small;"><span _mce_style="font-size: 8pt;" style="font-size: 8pt;"><em><br />
</em></span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px;"><i><br />
</i></span><br />
<div style="font-size: small;"><span _mce_style="font-size: 8pt;" style="font-size: 8pt;"><em>Image: Apple</em></span></div><div style="font-size: small;"><br />
</div></div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-51102532797862302572011-09-11T09:55:00.000-04:002011-09-11T09:55:38.385-04:00Constitution DayI will be <a href="http://www.rosemont.edu/newsevents/campus-events/constitution-day/index.aspx">speaking at Rosemont College for Constitution Day</a>.<br />
<br />
The title of the talk is: <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #1d1d1d; font-size: 16px; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">We the Ppl of the Internet @ge: The intersection of the Constitution and Social Media.</span></span>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-6795835640870229582011-06-14T15:15:00.000-04:002011-06-14T15:15:15.804-04:00Ninth Circuit's take on GPS trackingA Golden Gate law student posted <a href="http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2040&context=ggulrev">an article about the Ninth Circuit's take on GPS tracking</a> -- a case that gets lost in the <i>Maynard</i> hype. She writes:<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court has recognized that law enforcement’s utilization of more advanced forms of technology threatens to diminish the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. To avoid this, courts should “take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment forward,” so as to protect the rights and privacy<br />
interests of the public. While courts cannot read the Fourth Amendment as confining law enforcement to the technology and tactics available in the eighteenth century, privacy concerns raised by fantastic technological advances oblige the Supreme Court to watch closely to safeguard fairness in the federal court system.Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-14526483576655565792011-06-08T13:14:00.000-04:002011-06-08T13:14:07.136-04:00The Social Media/First Amendment Face OffLTN published a new article: <br />
<h1 style="color: #2b3a41; font-family: 'helvetica neue', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 1.7em; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 20px;">The Social Media/First Amendment Face Off</h1><div class="byline" style="color: #7b0f1b; font-family: 'helvetica neue', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.813em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 2px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Joshua A. Engel <span id="bylineSearch" style="background-image: url(http://www.law.com/img/articlesCommon/pipe.gif); background-position: 0px 3px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; margin-left: 10px; padding-left: 7px;"><a href="http://quest.law.com/Search/Search.do?Ntt=%22Joshua%20A.%20Engel%22&x=0&y=0&Nty=1&N=0&site=law&Ntk=SI_All&cx=0&sortVar=1" style="color: #212b2d; font-weight: normal !important; text-decoration: none !important;" target="_blank" title="Search the Legal Web for more stories by Joshua A. Engel ">All Articles</a></span></div><div class="source" style="border-right-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1px; color: #555555; display: inline; font-family: 'helvetica neue', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.75em; font: normal normal normal 0.75em/normal 'helvetica neue', arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 2px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 3px; padding-top: 0px;">Law Technology News</div><div class="date" style="color: #555555; display: inline; font-family: 'helvetica neue', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.75em; font: normal normal normal 0.75em/normal 'helvetica neue', arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px !important; margin-top: 0px !important; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 3px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;">June 07, 2011</div><div class="contentbody" id="incisive_article"><div class="tools" style="clear: left;"></div></div><div id="articlebody" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(196, 196, 196); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; color: rgb(46, 46, 46) !important; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif !important; font-size: 0.95em; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 20px;"><div id="imagebox" style="float: left; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 20px; margin-top: -5px;"><div class="img" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-color: initial !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; border-width: initial !important; float: none; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 0px; width: 144px;"><br />
<img alt="null" class="imageStyle" height="128" src="http://www.law.com/image/ltn/128_pics/boxing_face_off128.jpg" style="background-color: #fff9f9; border-bottom-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-color: initial; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1px; border-right-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1px; border-style: initial; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 1px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 8px; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 8px; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px;" width="128" /><div id="imageCapBox" style="float: right; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: left; width: 155px;"><div style="color: #333333; float: none; font-family: 'helvetica neue', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 14px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 8px; margin-right: 8px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><span class="credit">Image by clipart.com</span></div></div></div></div><div style="margin-bottom: 8px;">Social Media sites have become a significant source of evidence for federal and state criminal investigators. <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_bbd23382-6ecf-11e0-aeef-001a4bcf6878.html" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(193, 193, 193); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; color: #04437e; text-decoration: none;" target="new">News reports</a>, for example, have described the manner in which federal investigators have been seeking warrants for the Facebook accounts of targets. One person who faced criminal charges after the search of his account complained, "To be honest with you, it bothers me . . . Facebook could have let me know what was going on. Instead, I got my door kicked down, and all of a sudden I'm in handcuffs."</div><div style="margin-bottom: 8px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 8px;"><a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202496254823&The_Social_MediaFirst_Amendment_Face_Off">Read the full article here.</a></div></div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-8257607946809779122011-06-08T13:12:00.000-04:002011-06-08T13:12:11.975-04:00Sorry for Slow PostingApologies to followers. I have been traveling, and then we had a death in the family. So I have been out of touch. Regular posting will resume shortly.Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-69115307198737672382011-05-28T07:27:00.000-04:002011-05-28T07:27:21.821-04:00Ironic? Federal Government Opposes Effort to Obtain Evidence from Facebook.<div class="MsoNormal">One of the endearing qualities of many government lawyers is a total lack of irony.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/defense-seeks-access-to-955323.html?cxtype=rss_news_128746">Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports</a> that federal prosecutors have opposed the efforts of a criminal defendant in a sexual assault case from obtaining information from the victim’s Facebook page.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The defendant claims that the woman’s Facebook account contains information that could be helpful to the defense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The federal prosecutor opposed the subpoena served “calling it a fishing expedition and an invasion of the woman's privacy.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I have no opinion about this particular issue without knowing whether the information sought is relevant to the case, or a violation crime victim rights and rape shield laws.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, <a href="http://stockycat.blogspot.com/2011/04/federal-government-is-using-search.html">I have noted elsewhere</a> that the federal government likes to obtain information from Facebook about defendants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, perhaps it is strange to see the government arguing the other way in this case.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-34573981712113861342011-05-12T14:18:00.001-04:002011-05-13T16:23:38.890-04:00Limewire Verdict Could Hinder Innovation<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The founder of Limewire <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20061209-261.html#ixzz1MAAP0Rzk">admitted that his service likely violated copyright law</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Or so say the headlines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But in reality all he did was say that he took a position in an area of where the law was not completely clear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He said:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>"I didn't think our behavior was inducing [copyright infringement]. I understand that a court has found otherwise."<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This came up in a copyright case brought against Lime Wire by the Recording Industry Association of America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A large verdict in favor of the RIAA could have some very serious chilling effects on innovation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The application of law to emerging technology is always unsure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This doesn’t mean that innovators and entrepreneurs should not be able to take risks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather, people reasonably should continue to push the envelope of legal limits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If they are wrong, they should stop.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But forcing them to pay large judgments serves no legitimate purpose.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: black; font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; padding: 0in;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /> <br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /> </span><o:p></o:p></div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-67253569064935483802011-05-05T10:26:00.000-04:002011-05-05T10:26:04.742-04:00Florida Courts Expresses Skeptcism of Searching Cell Phones Incident to Arrest. But Allows The Search Anyway!<div class="MsoNormal">A Florida District Court of Appeals has questioned the existing Supreme Court doctrine which allows searches of cell phones incident to arrest. This issue has been getting a of of attention recently (especially <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202492125200&Courts_Struggle_With_Police_Searches_of_Smartphones_">from me</a>).<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The case is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15059694902539049941">Wood v. Florida</a>.</i><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br />
</i></div><div class="MsoNormal">In this case, the police found incriminating evidnce on the defendant’s cell phone after he was arrested But for the arrest, the police would have had no justification to search the cell phone. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The court believed that it was bound by the Supreme Court's decision of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5387812968771120977">United States v. Robinson</a></i>, 414 U.S. 218, 234 (1973), in which the Court held containers – in this case, a coigarette package, found upon a person incident to arrest may be searched: <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">We recognize that . . . many of the federal and state courts that have addressed this issue have found whether or not a cell phone may be searched incident to arrest is contingent upon whether or not a cell phone is a "container" as contemplated by Robinson . . .[ W]hether or not a cell phone is properly characterized as a traditional "container" is irrelevant to whether or not it is searchable upon arrest. The Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly found that anything found on an arrestee or within an arrestee's immediate control may be searched and inspected upon arrest. There is nothing in the language of any of these cases that would permit this court to find an exception for cell phones. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court clearly was not comfortable with this conclusion:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">While we feel we are bound by the Supreme Court precedent, we recognize appellant's concern that cell phones contain a vast amount of personal information. However, courts have found the broad language in Robinson permits searches incident to arrest of wallets, purses, date books, and other similar items that contain the same types of personal information stored on a cell phone. . . . However, we express great concern in permitting the officer to search appellant's cell phone here where there was no indication the officer had reason to believe the cell phone contained evidence. The bright-line rule established by Robinson may have been prudent at the time, given the finite amount of personal information an arrestee could carry on his or her person or within his or her reach. However, the Robinson court could not have contemplated the nearly infinite wealth of personal information cell phones and other similar electronic devices can hold. Modern cell phones can contain as much memory as a personal computer and could conceivably contain the entirety of one's personal photograph collection, home videos, music library, and reading library, as well as calendars, medical information, banking records, instant messaging, text messages, voicemail, call logs, and GPS history. Cell phones are also capable of accessing the internet and are, therefore, capable of accessing information beyond what is stored on the phone's physical memory. For example, cell phones may also contain web browsing history, emails from work and personal accounts, and applications for accessing Facebook and other social networking sites. Essentially, cell phones can make the entirety of one's personal life available for perusing by an officer every time someone is arrested for any offense. It seems this result could not have been contemplated or intended by the Robinson court. We would also note that the rationale related to text messages and phone call logs concerning automatic deletion is not applicable here because there was no argument or evidence presented that photographs are subject to automatic deletion.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">In light of theses concerns, the court certified the following question to be one of great public importance:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">DOES THE HOLDING IN UNITED STATES V. ROBINSON, 414 U.S. 218 (1973), ALLOW A POLICE OFFICER TO SEARCH THROUGH PHOTOGRAPHS CONTAINED WITHIN A CELL PHONE WHICH IS ON AN ARRESTEE'S PERSON AT THE TIME OF A VALID ARREST, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THE CELL PHONE CONTAINS EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIME?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">I am not familiar with Florida appellate practice – can someone with experience explain the practical significance of this question.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-36351983759009793772011-05-03T14:47:00.003-04:002011-05-03T14:47:21.201-04:00Seventh Circuit Rejects Argument That Police Need Warrant For GPS<div class="MsoNormal">The Seventh Circuit stated that use of GPS devices by law enforcement is a “Fourth Amendment frontier.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court then rejected a claim that a warrant is required before the police may place a GPS device on a car.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The case is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11261057797265113015">U.S. v. Cuevas-Perez</a></i>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">In this case, federal and state law enforcement officers suspected that the defendant was involved in a drug distribution operation. As part of the investigation, they attached a GPS tracking unit to the defendant’s Jeep.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The most notable aspect of the decision is the court’s rejection of the argument that GPS devices are “different and more intrusive than those addressed in prior [Supreme Court] cases.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court said, “we do not consider this particular advancement to be significant for Fourth Amendment purposes in general: real-time information is exactly the kind of information that drivers make available by traversing public roads. The historical data gathered and stored on comparatively primitive GPS devices is actually less akin to the publicly-exposed information on which the Fourth Amendment permissibility of GPS tracking is based.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://rjolpi.richmond.edu/archive/Engel.pdf">I have previously argued</a> that the Supreme Court’s cases were inapplicable because they were based on old technology. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The concurring judge was more explicit in rejecting this argument:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Make no mistake, concerns over privacy in the information era may make it appropriate to reconsider the principles used for determining whether law enforcement activity constitutes a search within the Fourth Amendment's meaning. The dissenting opinion cogently makes the point. For now, however, the path for lower courts is clear: the holding of Knotts [the old Supreme Court decision] governs GPS monitoring. The practice of using these devices to monitor movements on public roads falls squarely within the Court's consistent teaching that people do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in that which they reveal to third parties or leave open to view by others.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Judge Wood, dissenting, argues:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Prolonged GPS surveillance, like a surreptitious wiretap, intrudes upon an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy by revealing information about her daily trajectory and patterns that would, as a practical matter, remain private without the aid of technology. This sort of constant monitoring at a personal level gives rise to precisely the "dragnet" effect the Supreme Court identified in Knotts . . .”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">An excellently written decision on both sides.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I highly recommend that anyone interested in this issue read the whole thing.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-63266948146775403262011-05-03T09:11:00.000-04:002011-05-03T09:11:01.249-04:00More: If I am arrested and the police can search my phone, do I have to provide the password.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">One of the recurring questions I receive involves passwords for cell phones. The question is: if I am arrested and the police can search my phone, do I have to provide the password. I answered the question very briefly </span><a href="http://www.eddupdate.com/2011/05/recently-an-article-i-wrote-about-police-searches-of-cell-phones-was-published-on-ltn-the-article-focused-on-whether-the-po.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">on the EDD Blog</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Professor Gershowitz at the University of Houston has written a detailed law review article on this very subject: “Password Protected? Can a Password Save Your Cell Phone From the Search Incident to Arrest Doctrine? 96 Iowa L. Rev. 1125 (2011). The online version is </span><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1669403"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">here</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">. In the article he writes that the police "</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">may request or even demand that an arrestee turn over his password without any significant risk of the evidence on the phone being suppressed under the Miranda doctrine or as a Fifth Amendment violation."</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Professor Gershowitz is an early expert on the l</span><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084503"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">egal implication of smartphones</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">. His article is worth a read.</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1669403">h</a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1669403">ttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1669403</a><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-39346166898572217452011-05-02T11:38:00.000-04:002011-05-02T11:38:02.076-04:00Dropbox Makes Files Available To Law Enforcement. Is a Warrant Needed?<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">While up late with the baby one night recently, I came across <a href="http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/991554-dropbox-opens-subscriber-files-to-law-enforcement/">a discussion</a> on Dropbox providing information to law enforcement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The claim is:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="background: silver; color: #333333; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-highlight: silver;">"As set forth in our privacy policy, and in compliance with United States law, Dropbox cooperates with United States law enforcement when it receives valid legal process, which may require Dropbox to provide the contents of your private Dropbox," . Furthermore: "In these cases, Dropbox will remove Dropbox's encryption from the files before providing them to law enforcement."</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: .5in;"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The unanswered question is what type of valid legal process is required.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One possibility is that Dropbox will provide files in response to a subpoena, which the government can easily issue in most investigations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The other possibility is that Dropbox would require a warrant before providing the information.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: .5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: .5in;"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Whether a warrant is needed turns on whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in files stored on Dropbox.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the one hand, by uploading files on Dropbox, people are taking a risk that the files may be disclosed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is because the user is voluntarily providing the files to a third party.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the other hand, by encrypting the files and requiring a password to access some of them, users may have a much greater expectation of privacy than in files that are made publicly available.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: .5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: .5in;"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">As noted <a href="http://stockycat.blogspot.com/2010/12/more-on-court-ruling-that-emails-are.html">here</a>, some courts have held that the government must obtain a warrant before accessing emails stored by third parties.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The question for some court will be whether this rule applies to services like Dropbox.</span></span><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-69075099777560113542011-05-02T07:52:00.001-04:002011-05-02T07:52:00.140-04:00Did You Remember To Welcome Our New Computer Overlords?<div class="MsoNormal">My wife reminded me that I forgot to pay special attention to April 19, 2011.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">On this date, Skynet was implemented.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, the attack against humanity doesn’t occur for a few days. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Huffington Post has more info <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/20/skynet-terminator-self-aware-april-19_n_851452.html">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Skynet, from Terminator lore, was a defense department computer system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Apparently, it becomes self-aware and objects to the efforts of humans to disconnect it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nuclear war, death, destruction, and human enslavement follow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal">What lesson can be learned for those of us who care about privacy rights and government action:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>it could always be worse!<o:p></o:p></div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-34014687060659890472011-05-01T07:50:00.000-04:002011-05-01T07:50:04.736-04:00The Atlantic Asks: Is it the Size of the Device, or How You Use It?<div class="MsoNormal">I apologize for the bad taste of the title of this post. But I couldn't resist.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The Atlantic published <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/04/atoms-vs-bits-your-phone-in-the-eyes-of-the-law/237853/">a nice article about cell phone searches</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From a legal standpoint, no new ground is covered.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">However, the author suggests a new philosophical approach to how we look at cell phones – whether as traditional containers or something different:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="background: silver; mso-highlight: silver;">What's really at issue here is whether it's the size of the digital device that matters or the amount of information it contains. It's a classic case where if you think about it in terms of the atoms -- the stuff -- you get one answer but if you think about it in terms of bits you get another. The phone is small, so it is easy to have it "immediately associated" with you. But the information it contains is vast and wide-reaching and valuable.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="background: silver; mso-highlight: silver;">The battle points out just how tuned our laws are to our bodies. Remember the wingspan rule or the plain view doctrine, which presupposes a certain resolution for your eyes? These things only make sense in the world of atoms. And we don't yet have new rules for that other, constantly growing world of bits.</span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: .5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: .5in;">The best way to look at this, I suggest, is to acknowledge that courts are struggling with when the difference in degree becomes a difference in kind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The key question is whether the aggregation of personal data found on modern cell phones makes them somehow distinct from traditional boxes of papers or file drawers.<o:p></o:p></div>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-44431100513569480382011-04-29T16:04:00.000-04:002011-04-29T16:04:55.997-04:00New Law Technology Article: When Can Police Search Cell Phones?In Law Technology News: <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202492125200&Courts_Struggle_With_Police_Searches_of_Smartphones_">Courts Struggle With Searches of Smartphone</a>s.Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60349807686441230.post-1589226593585650792011-04-27T13:38:00.000-04:002011-04-27T13:38:52.296-04:00Apple Denies Tracking Users. Promises Changes.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/technology/28apple.html?_r=1&hp&gwh=E93D64871FB81BB12357EE33800AA141">news reports</a>, Apple denies that it is tracking the location of iPhone users. Apple <a href="http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html">posted a release</a> on the issue.<br />
<br />
I am working on a longer piece on the implications of the revelation that iPhones store location information.<br />
<br />
It is still hard to tell exactly what is going on, or why this was done.<br />
<br />
Apple denies that it was tracking users. OK. Probably true. But this does not change the more important fact that the iPhone was storing the data for a long time, and that the data allowed anyone with access to determine the past location of users.<br />
<br />
<br />
</span>Joshua Engelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com0