warrant
Latest
Supreme Court dismisses appeal based on warrantless phone search
It's hard to forget a name like Quartavious Davis, but let us remind you anyway: he was sentenced to 162 years in prison with no possibility of parole for a number of armed robberies in Miami. His target locations included big name outlets, such as Walgreens and Wendy's. Now, the Supreme Court's nine justices have rejected the appeal he filed -- based on the fact that feds obtained his phone data without a warrant -- to overturn his conviction. As you may have guessed, authorities used his phone data as evidence in court, showing that his device connected to cell towers near the target locations when they were robbed to make and take calls.
California senate wants warrants to be required for phone searches
The California State Senate has passed the "Leno bill," which aims to protect residents' digital privacy. Officially called Senate Bill 178, it would require authorities to secure a warrant whenever they want to search phones, laptops or other devices in California. That would effectively keep residents' text messages, emails, cloud storage, social media accounts and GPS data private unless a court issues a wiretap order, barring a few exceptions. The bill, authored by Sen. Mark Leno and Sen. Joel Anderson, has a solid list of supporters, including the EFF and major tech companies, such as Apple, Facebook, Google and Twitter.
California court says cops need warrants to get phone location data
A number of states already have laws preventing the police from snooping on your phone's location history without a warrant, but they just got another big boost from a court ruling. A California-based federal judge has determined that cops need those warrants because you have a reasonable expectation that your position data will remain private, even if it's vague info like the whereabouts of cell towers you've used. Cellphones can follow you anywhere and transmit a lot of information, the judge says. That location data may reveal much more about your life than you'd willingly share, especially at home and other private places where you have plenty of constitutional protections.
Google fights rule that would let the US hack devices worldwide
The US is already snooping on computers around the world, but Google is worried that it might be sneaking in a rule change that would sanction more nosy behavior. The search firm has filed comments protesting an advisory committee proposal that would let the government get warrants for "remote access" to phones and PCs when their locations are hidden "through technological means." While the change is ostensibly targeted at American suspects masking their connections or running botnets, Google is worried that the proposal is worded such that it would allow law enforcement to hack into devices worldwide without any real political debate on the subject. After all, someone on a virtual private network could easily be in another country -- you might not know until you've broken in.
Court rules collecting cellphone location without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment
Quartavious Davis was sentenced to nearly 162 years in prison, without the possibility of parole, for a string of armed robberies in the Miami area several years ago. After having his day before the Court of Appeals for the 11th circuit, much of that severe punishment stands. Davis will likely continue his battle to have his conviction overturned or his sentence reduced, but his case has already struck one victory for privacy advocates. The decision handed down by the judges today marks the first time that cell phone location data has been explicitly included as part of a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
EFF lawyer questions Microsoft's ability to search our email, claims it's open to abuse
This week Microsoft revealed that, without a warrant, it accessed the Hotmail account of a French blogger in order to track down an employee leaking source code to some of its products, ultimately leading to that employee's arrest. Microsoft's actions created an uproar among users, causing it to spell out both its means, and its justification. Microsoft claims it needs to establish if "there is evidence sufficient for a court order" before conducting any searches, as allowed under its terms of service (the ones you read and agreed to). In response, Electronic Frontier Foundation fellow Andrew Crocker calls Redmond's claim that it can't obtain a warrant on itself a false premise with massive potential for abuse. Instead of "Warrants for Windows," he argues that bringing in the FBI and obtaining a warrant is not only possible, but that it would be in line with Microsoft's policy to require a warrant before revealing user info to others.
Supreme Court to determine if police need warrants to search cellphones
It's now clear that police don't need a warrant to track your cellphone, but searching that phone is another matter; there's no obvious guiding policy. Any murkiness may be settled soon, as the Supreme Court has agreed to rule on two cases where the accused have objected to cops obtaining evidence from their phones without warrants. Decisions in either case could set precedents for searches across the US; if judges determine that warrants are necessary, they could challenge guidelines in California and other places that allow warrantless searches after arrests. The court hasn't scheduled the relevant hearings, though, so it may be a while before there are any definitive answers. [Image credit: Erin Nekervis, Flickr]
Utah ISP breaks silence over government server installed on its network
When the government comes knocking on your door, you kind of have to cooperate with them or face the consequences. That's the situation Pete Ashdown, CEO of Utah ISP XMission, was faced with in 2010 after receiving a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Service Act (FISA). The warrant, coming in at just three or four pages, was perfectly clear: install a rack-mount server on your network to track every last bit going in and out from one of your customers, and don't say anything to anyone about this. Ashdown's lawyer said the request was indeed legit, and the box stayed there for a little over half a year. So why talk about it now? Because Pete, like the rest of us, wants a bit of transparency, even if there's a risk the G-Men will come "come back and haunt" him.
DoJ now in favor of using search warrants to access user email
The United States Justice Department seems to be listening to cries from Google (among others) that the 1986 ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) should be revised to reflect the vastly different universe that we now live in. DoJ attorney Elana Tyrangiel testified before the US House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations today, and in a nutshell, she now seems willing to think about the use of search warrants to access all types of email. Previously, the entity wanted the use a far less strict method for gaining access -- giving less privacy to opened emails or emails that were over half a year old. In part, she stated: "We agree, for example, that there is no principled basis to treat email less than 180 days old differently than email more than 180 days old. Similarly, it makes sense that the statute not accord lesser protection to opened emails than it gives to emails that are unopened." Certainly, this is a step in the right direction, but we're a long way from having a genuine solution. We'll be covering the saga as it unfolds, but for now, have a look at the full brief in the source below.
ACLU: court document shows how invasive cell phone searches can be
The American Civil Liberties Union stumbled upon a document submitted to the court during a drug investigation headed up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The document lists the data that ICE officials were able to pull off an iPhone, and it's striking how much information that one small device can hold. According to the report, ICE snagged the iPhone from a suspect's bedroom during a drug bust and subjected the phone to one data extraction session. During that sweep, officials were able to obtain the following personal information: call activity for 104 calls phone book directory information for 18 contacts stored voicemails and text messages photos and videos details from 37 installed apps eight different passwords 659 geolocation points, including 227 cell towers and 403 WiFi networks with which the cell phone had previously connected. As pointed out by the ACLU, analysis of this data provides information on every nook and cranny of the suspect's life and is a wealth of information that was not available to police before smartphones became prevalent. Warrants were obtained in this particular investigation, but the ACLU notes that warrants aren't always needed to search a cell phone. And with portable cell phone forensic machines more readily available to law enforcement, the contents of your phone are only a keypress away. In the end the best way to keep your phone away from prying eyes (government, thieves or curious friends) is to use a strong passcode and disk encryption if that option is available on your phone. You can read more about cell phone searches and this case in the ACLU article.
Sixth Circuit rules that law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to track your phone
If you go through tin foil like there's no tomorrow (or because you think there's no tomorrow), you might want to head down the store. A recent 2 - 1 ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that law enforcement agencies can obtain cellphone location data, without the need for a warrant. The decision comes after a defendant in a drug-related case claimed protection from his phone's GPS location data being used under the Fourth Amendment. Judge John Rogers stated that the defendant didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy for data given off by a voluntarily purchased phone, going on to state that if tools used in such crimes give off a trackable signal, police should be allowed to use it. Rogers likened it to the use of dogs tracking a scent, and criminals complaining they didn't know they were giving one off, or that the dog had picked it up. The use of technology in crime prevention, be it police tools, or that belonging to the greater population, has long been a source of complex discussion, and this latest development is unlikely to be the end of it. But for now, at least one guy is rueing his decision to get a better phone. Hit the source for the full case history.
Federal appeals court says warrantless wiretapping is legal
A federal appeals court has ruled today that the US government can tap into Americans' communications without worrying over frivolous things like "being sued" by its people. In what most sane civilians will probably see as a depressing loss of protection, a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that citizens can sue the United States for damages stemming from the use of information collected via wiretap, but not for the collection of information itself. In typical pass-the-buck fashion, Wired reports that Judge Michael Daly Hawkins and Judge Harry Pregerson added the following: "Although such a structure may seem anomalous and even unfair, the policy judgment is one for Congress, not the courts." Alrighty. For those unaware, the back and forth surrounding this issue extends back to Congress' authorization of the Bush spy program in 2008, and more specifically, a pair of US lawyers and the now-defunct al-Haramain Islamic Foundation -- a group that was granted over $2.5 million combined in legal fees after proving that they were spied on sans warrants. The full report can be found in the PDF below.
Texas judge says warrantless cellphone tracking violates Fourth Amendment, saga continues
Rev up the bureaucratic turbines, because a judge in Texas has determined that warrantless cellphone tracking is indeed unconstitutional. In a brief decision issued earlier this month, US District Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas argued that seizing cellphone records without a search warrant constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. "The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made," Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling, linked below. "These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion." The decision comes in response to an earlier ruling issued last year by Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith, also of the Southern District of Texas. In that case, Judge Smith argued against unwarranted wiretapping on similarly constitutional grounds, pointing out that with today's tracking technology, every aspect of a suspect's life could be "imperceptibly captured, compiled, and retrieved from a digital dossier somewhere in a computer cloud." The federal government appealed Judge Smith's ruling on the grounds that the Fourth Amendment would not apply to cellphone tracking, because "a customer has no privacy interest in business records held by a cell phone provider, as they are not the customer's private papers." Judge Hughes' decision, however, effectively overrules this appeal. "When the government requests records from cellular services, data disclosing the location of the telephone at the time of particular calls may be acquired only by a warrant issued on probable cause," Judge Hughes wrote. "The standard under [today's law] is below that required by the Constitution." The law in question, of course, is the Stored Communications Act -- a law bundled under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which allows investigators to obtain electronic records without a warrant. This month's decision implicitly calls for this law to be reconsidered or revised, though it's certainly not the only ruling to challenge it, and it likely won't be the last, either.
DoJ: Stingray cellphone tracking device falls under Fourth Amendment, but don't ask about it
In 2008, federal authorities arrested David Daniel Rigmaiden on charges of spearheading a massive identity theft ring in Arizona. Rigmaiden allegedly led this operation from January 2005 to April 2008, harvesting some $4 million off of more than 1,900 fraudulent tax returns. He was ultimately nabbed, however, thanks in part to controversial, and somewhat mysterious tool known as a "stingray" -- a device that effectively acts as a fake cell tower, allowing authorities to locate and track a cellphone even when it's not being used to place a call. Since his arrest, the 30-year-old Rigmaiden has been battling the feds in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, on allegations that their tracking tactics constituted an unlawful search and seizure, thereby violating his Fourth Amendment rights. For more than a year, the Department of Justice has maintained that the use of stingrays does not violate the Fourth Amendment. When it comes to sending data from a mobile device, the DoJ has argued, users should not have a "reasonable expectation" of privacy. Recently, though, the judge overseeing the case has indicated that he will press the feds for more information on how stingrays actually work -- something the government clearly has no desire to disclose. Prosecutors are so reluctant, in fact, that they may be willing to sacrifice their case against Rigmaiden in order to safeguard the stingray's secrecy. Read more about the latest developments, after the break.
Apple cracks down on counterfeit products sold in NYC, files lawsuit against Queens vendors
There may be more than a few fake Apple Stores in China, but for the moment, Cupertino's anti-KIRF crusade seems focused squarely on New York City. According to Reuters, Apple has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against two stores in Queens, alleging that they sold unauthorized cases, headphones and other accessories for the iPhone, iPad and iPod. In the complaint, the company claims that the products in question were all emblazoned with its familiar fruit logo, along with the phrase, "Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China." The suit also demands that one of the stores, called Apple Story (seriously), change its name to avoid confusion with the real retail outlet and that both vendors disclose full lists of people who both supplied and purchased the goods. It all began when company representatives visited the Chinatown-area stores on "multiple occasions over several weeks," where they bought and examined the items, described in court records as "exact duplicates" of their authentic counterparts. On July 27th, Apple executed a few ex parte seizure warrants, which allowed authorities to seize any goods bearing its logo. US District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto has already granted an injunction to stop the stores from selling the alleged knockoffs, but hasn't yet decided whether Apple Story will have to change its name. The complaint also seeks undisclosed monetary damages and asks that all existing counterfeit goods be destroyed, though court documents suggest that both sides are close to reaching a deal. Neither Apple nor the defendants have commented on the accusations, but we'll let you know as soon as we learn more. In the meantime, check out this KIRF "iPhone 5" we found in Beijing -- a Java-powered handset that's slimmer than the Galaxy S II and a bit laggy, but boasts a multitouch capacitive screen. Asking price? ¥680, or about $106. %Gallery-131124%
Sprint's Assurant Advanced Protection Pack protects against theft and damage, not alliteration
What's the price of peace of mind, when it comes to the safety of your shiny new HTC EVO View 4G or Samsung Galaxy Tab? How does $13 a month sound? That price will get you a membership in Sprint's not-so-exclusive Assurant Advanced Protection Pack club. Included in the cost are a device locator, malware protection, remote log-in help, and a replacement or repair, should a qualified netbook, notebook, or tablet suffer from mechanical or electric problems. Sprint will also help out if you accidentally damage it (i.e., not what's happening in the image above), or get it lost or stolen -- the last three do involve a $100 deductible, however. No one ever said protection was going to be cheap.
California Supreme Court says warrantless searches of suspects' text messages are legal
Planning on getting arrested in California any time soon? You'd better make sure your text archives are free from any incriminating information as the state's Supreme Court has now ruled it legal for police to check your missives folder without the need for a warrant. The justification for this privacy intrusion is that a phone search is "incidental" to a lawful arrest and its contents, much like the contents of your pockets or bags, fall within the realm of reasonable search. Two of the judges in the case did dissent, with one noting that "never before has it been possible to carry so much personal or business information in one's pocket or purse," which she argues should afford your iPhone, Droid or BB a higher level of privacy protection than, say, the packet of gummy bears you have in the other pocket. What do you think?
AT&T hacker's home raided, drugs found, dude detained (update)
Man, one day you have the whole world's ear to talk about slack network security, and the next you're in the joint. Andrew Auernheimer, Goatse Security's hacker-in-chief and a key player in the unearthing of a major security flaw exposing iPads surfing AT&T's airwaves, is today facing felony charges for possession of a variety of potent drugs. That wouldn't be such intriguing news by itself, but the discovery was made by local law enforcers who were in the process of executing an FBI search warrant. Hey, wasn't the FBI going to look into this security breach? Yes indeedy. While nobody is yet willing to identify the reasons behind this warrant, it's not illogical to surmise that Andrew's crew and their online exploits were the cause for the raid. So there you have it folks, it's the first bit of advice any publicist will give you: if you're gonna step out into the glaring light of public life, you'd better clean out your closet first. Update: Before y'all get in an uproar about "white hacker this" and "Police State that," let's keep in mind that this Andrew Auernheimer character (a.k.a. "Weev") is one unsavory dude (not to mention a raving anti-Semite): check out this New York Times piece on Internet Trolls if you don't believe us. After all, it's not really a stretch that law enforcement might be after someone who's in possession of ecstasy, cocaine, LSD, and various other pharmaceuticals.
