Researchers Ask Federal Court To Unseal Years of Surveillance Records (arstechnica.com) 24
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Two lawyers and legal researchers based at Stanford University have formally asked a federal court in San Francisco to unseal numerous records of surveillance-related cases, as a way to better understand how authorities seek such powers from judges. This courthouse is responsible for the entire Northern District of California, which includes the region where tech companies such as Twitter, Apple, and Google, are based. According to the petition, Jennifer Granick and Riana Pfefferkorn were partly inspired by a number of high-profile privacy cases that have unfolded in recent years, ranging from Lavabit to Apple's battle with the Department of Justice. In their 45-page petition, they specifically say that they don't need all sealed surveillance records, simply those that should have been unsealed -- which, unfortunately, doesn't always happen automatically. The researchers wrote in their Wednesday filing: "Most surveillance orders are sealed, however. Therefore, the public does not have a strong understanding of what technical assistance courts may order private entities to provide to law enforcement. There are at least 70 cases, many under seal, in which courts have mandated that Apple and Google unlock mobile phones and potentially many more. The Lavabit district court may not be the only court to have ordered companies to turn over private encryption keys to law enforcement based on novel interpretations of law. Courts today may be granting orders forcing private companies to turn on microphones or cameras in cars, laptops, mobile phones, smart TVs, or other audio- and video-enabled Internet-connected devices in order to conduct wiretapping or visual surveillance. This pervasive sealing cripples public discussion of whether these judicial orders are lawful and appropriate."
No duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
This pervasive sealing cripples public discussion of whether these judicial orders are lawful and appropriate.
Well of course it does. This is because they know very well that the orders are neither lawful nor appropriate. Furthermore they consider their ability to continue undermining national security a process that is vital to national security. So in order to maintain security, they must keep violating our security and must not allow public discourse to reach an informed consensus about what even constitutes security.
*sigh*
And that's not even touching on the privacy issues. Does anyone actually even need this shit unsealed to see the blatantly obvious logical flaw in the reasoning behind it being sealed in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of times where this would be lawful *and* appropriate.
e.g.:
there is reasonable cause to suspect a group is planning a bank robbery.
Turning on the On-Star tracking and mic in their getaway car is both lawful (assuming you get a warrant) and appropriate.
There are also (I suspect) vastly more inappropriate uses in those sealed dockets than there are appropriate ones.
Unsealing these as a mater of course would (IMHO) lower the inappropriate use only if when it's discovered it's followed up on with
Re: No duh. (Score:2)
Can the cops use a warrant to order my neighbour to help them batter down my front door?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, as long as the cops supply the eggs flour and milk.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The issue at hand is that such things are being done without a warrant.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/16/house-blocks-ban-warrantless-surveillance-americans/85988494/
Take your example, and lets speculate that over a period of time in a specific geographical area such a scenario was executed 100 times and resulted in 2 or 3 occurrences in which the suspected crime was actually being planned. Now lets say the other 96 or so were false alarms or misinformation, but during the investigation
Perhaps... (Score:2)
This pervasive sealing cripples public discussion of whether these judicial orders are lawful and appropriate.
Well of course it does. This is because they know very well that the orders are neither lawful nor appropriate...
It is impossible to determine that without actually reading (1) the orders (2) the information presented when they were requested, and (3) a substantial body of case law. And even then, there is still a chance we would need to make arguments in court and let a judge who has also done those things make a decision after we help them sort through the issues.
Just because we don't like the idea or it's a TERRIBLE idea from a security POV doesn't mean it's illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
does this Trump the Russians? (Score:3)
Unemployment line (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to point out that prosecutors are a subset of lawyers. As are judges.
Re: (Score:2)
In many jurisdictions, judges aren't required to have any legal background or education whatsoever. Even Supreme Court justices don't need a law degree or license, though one lacking them hasn't been appointed since 1941.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's shitbaggery comes from being win-at-all-costs prosecutors, not from being lawyers. And if a civil attorney did half of what some corrupt prosecutors do - bribing jailhouse snitches with reduced sentences, hiding evidence from the other side - he'd find himself getting disbarred, and possibly spending some time in jail for contempt of court.
For prosecutors, though, it was absolutely extraordinary when Ken Anderson, who sent Michael Morton
plenty of blame to go around. (Score:1)
orders forcing private companies to turn on microphones or cameras in cars, laptops, mobile phones, smart TVs, or other audio- and video-enabled Internet-connected devices in order to conduct wiretapping or visual surveillance.
When used beyond warrant-enabled specifically-targeted ways based on reasonable suspicion, this is a gross violation of the 4th amendment.
However, the problem lies not just with the govt abusing it. It also lies with the teeming masses who not only make these devices succeed in the market, but do so to an extent that begins to push all other choices OUT of the market. Society is re-forming itself in the shape of a surveillance state, and it's not being forced down people's throats at gunpoint, it's being
plenty of nonsense to go around. (Score:2)
Moran.
People are buying electronic devices for their entertainment and convenience, not so the government can illegally spy on the
Aw how cute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some lawyers and researchers at Stanford still think that the USA is a democracy which follows the rule of law, especially for its surveillance apparatus and unaccountable agencies (CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, ...).
I do hope that no one bursts their bubble, it would be like telling small children that there is no Santa.