1 Beyond the Fourth Amendment: Additional Constitutional Implications Arising From Big Government s Surveillance and Seizures of U.S. Citizens Digital Property The NSA has an electronic dragnet. The SEC wants an agency exception to the need for a warrant to obtain stored electronic data so they can more easily administer their civil enforcement duties. The Healthcare.gov website requires users to supply sensitive private information before the user can determine eligibility or shop for insurance plans, and this information is shared with a host of other federal agencies and can be used for virtually any purpose. Despite recent revelations about abuse, the IRS is now in charge of receiving and safeguarding more private information, and for more programs, than ever before. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is trying to make financial institutions disclose sensitive user transaction and purchasing history. The list goes on. Through these efforts the government is surreptitiously or publicly expanding its surveillance of US citizens in many ways, and trying to extensively gather private information that has historically been out of its reach except through a criminal warrant or voluntary, knowing disclosure. The government often goes to private third party service providers to obtain individuals customer data, transactional data and even content, rather than going to the individual. This all-encompassing Big Government/Big Data 1 mining must stop. Individually and collectively these efforts give rise to policestate concerns; they threaten individual liberty and property and violate the Constitution. Two examples of the government s hunger for intelligence on its own citizens have received the most discussion: NSA s activities and the effort by federal regulatory agencies to obtain content from service providers for civil enforcement purposes. While this paper will address only these two, similar concerns arise from other efforts as well. Most of the commentators addressing the recent revelations of cybersurveillance by the NSA and other entities have focused on whether mass/bulk collection of users communications-related information (both metadata 2 and/or content 3 ) violates the 1 Those who believe in a limited government should contemplate the proposition that in order for big government to operate with any kind of effectiveness it must have big data. Without this ocean of information big government would crumble and fall. 2 The term metadata is not defined in any relevant statute. Some have described telephony metadata as including comprehensive communications routing information, including but not limited to session identifying information (e.g., originating and terminating telephone number, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, etc.), trunk identifier, telephone calling card numbers, and time and duration of call. Internet metadata has included digital network information such as connect times, addresses and IP numbers, among other things. But there is no comprehensive explanation of what metadata is and is not. If one were to search for a statutory root for what has been described to date then telephony and Internet metadata information would be a combination of the data covered by 50 U.S.C. 1842(d)(2)(C)(i)(III), (V) and (VI) and (i)(iii) and the information gleaned from a pen register and/or trap and trace authorized in 50 U.S.C. 1805(i), 1842(d)(2)(A)(iii), 1842(d)(2)(C)(i)(III), (V), (V) and 1842(d)(2)(C)(ii)(III). Note that
2 Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and its requirement that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Mass/bulk collection has significant Fourth Amendment implications, but there are other as-yet ignored Constitutional issues. Similarly, the ongoing efforts to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act so it better reflects current technology, services and expansion of the cloud have hit a snag: several federal agencies, led by the Securities and Exchange Commission, want the ability to directly obtain the content of users communication from service providers in the civil context, without any showing of probable cause that a crime has been committed and without having to meet basic Fourth Amendment particularity requirements concerning the place to be searched and the things to be seized. Many others have opposed these efforts, and Data Foundry agrees with them. But once again, another set of important Constitutional issues have been overlooked in the debate. USERS DIGITAL CONTENT IS PROPERTY PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH, NINTH, AND TENTH AMENDMENTS; THERE ARE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENT ISSUES AS WELL The ability to own property and exercise the bundle of rights that comes with a property interest is one of the fundamental ways our society exercises liberty. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. A property right carries with it the right of dominion. It is the right, which a person has, as against all others, to the exclusive control, use, and enjoyment of any particular thing. This includes acquisition and disposal, the right to exclude others, a right against trespass and a right of quiet enjoyment. Interference with this right of dominion over personal property constitutes a trespass to chattel, 4 and can be a conversion under under 50 U.S.C the government may also independently obtain information under Title 18 chapters 119, 121, and 206. Those authorities contain roughly synonymous definitions with regard to this issue. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 2703(c)(2)(C) and (E) and 18 U.S.C. 3127(3) and (4) U.S.C. 2710(8) defines contents to mean any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of a communication. 4 The government may make a copy without consent or require that a copy be made by a third party bailee Even if the original remains in place a nonconsensual duplication of the original is an exercise of dominion. For example, making a digital copy of the original is an infringement (akin to a taking) on the user s property rights in the intellectual property realm. Further, it is a trespass to chattel since there is a physical touching of the property, albeit in electronic form, as a necessary prerequisite to making the copy or otherwise obtaining the information. See CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1015, 1021 (SD Ohio 1997); Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 94 Cal. App. 4th 325 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2001); Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek, 46 Cal. App. 4th 1559, 1566, n. 6, 54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 468 (1996); Restatement (Second) of
3 certain circumstances. The interference need not completely destroy exclusivity in order to be actionable. Users digital content is property. 5 If you take a picture with a digital camera you own the resulting image file, just as you would an old-style Polaroid. If you do your diary using Microsoft Word the electronic document is the modern equivalent of papers, just as it would be if you had handwritten the words on paper and placed the book in a secure location in your house. No one would seriously contend that the government can forcibly or surreptiously enter your home or place of business and seize the digital content (for example, document or image files) on your computer hard drive. Nor would anyone legitimately assert that the government can cut a lock off of a storage unit or safety deposit box you have rented from a third party and confiscate or copy all of the digital that may have been placed in the rented space. If you are transporting computer disks from your home to the storage using your truck the government cannot just stop the vehicle, rummage through it and traipse away with the disks and information. The government cannot lawfully conceal itself in your house, truck 6 or rental unit and make a surreptitious digital copy 7 so as to listen in unless it meets constitutional due process and probable cause requirements. Torts 217b and Comment e, (1963 and 1964) [trespass to chattel includes the intentional use or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another]. 5 The courts have recognized this property interest, and the legal protection that flows therefrom: Like the tort of trespass, the Stored Communications Act protects individuals privacy and proprietary interests. The Act reflects Congress s judgment that users have a legitimate interest in the confidentiality of communications in electronic storage at a communications facility. Just as trespass protects those who rent space from a commercial storage facility to hold sensitive documents, cf. Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 13, at 78 (W. Page Keeton, 5 th ed. 1984), the Act protects users whose electronic communications are in electronic storage with an ISP or other electronic communications facility. Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066, (9th Cir. Cal. 2004). 6 See, e.g., U.S. v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945, 950, n. 3 (2012) (emphasis added): Justice Alito s concurrence (hereinafter concurrence) doubts the wisdom of our approach because it is almost impossible to think of late-18th-century situations that are analogous to what took place in this case. Post, at, 181 L. Ed. 2d, at 928 (opinion concurring in judgment). But in fact it posits a situation that is not far afield--a constable s concealing himself in the target s coach in order to track its movements. Ibid. There is no doubt that the information gained by that trespassory activity would be the product of an unlawful search--whether that information consisted of the conversations occurring in the coach, or of the destinations to which the coach traveled. In any case, it is quite irrelevant whether there was an 18th-century analog. Whatever new methods of investigation may be devised, our task, at a minimum, is to decide whether the action in question would have constituted a search within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Where, as here, the Government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area, such a search has undoubtedly occurred. 7 Trespassing and then making a copy without permission clearly interferes with the owner s possessory interest. See Jones, 132 S.Ct. 951: a seizure of property occurs, not when there is a trespass, but "when
4 In today s world, the cloud is the equivalent of a storage unit. The Internet is the equivalent of the road, and electronic communications are modern day conveyors of content the truck on the road to the storage unit. The user and the cloud storage providers have a bailor/bailee relationship. The user (bailor) does not waive any property interest. The cloud storage provider (bailee) has the right, indeed perhaps even the duty, to protect the information/property from governmental intrusion. 8 The government s vast domestic electronic surveillance and the SEC s efforts to have an agency exception threaten individual liberty and property, and are contrary to constitutional principles. They erode privacy, impede legitimate business activities, have led to immense domestic and international economic impacts and are wholly antagonistic to the founders intent and vision. Data Foundry agrees that information content is the modern manifestation of the papers and effects protected by the Fourth Amendment. But it is also property for purposes of the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. Surveillance and seizure of digital information also implicates several aspects of the First Amendment, and it could impact the Second Amendment as well. Each of these Amendments form the basis of the zones of privacy held by all citizens, including business, 9 as against any governmental there is some meaningful interference with an individual s possessory interests in that property." Post, at, 181 L. Ed. 2d, at 927 (internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise with a search. Trespass alone does not qualify, but there must be conjoined with that what was present here: an attempt to find something or to obtain information. See also Id. at 953 (stating that seizure or monitoring of electronic signals that is not accompanied by a trespass is subject to Katz expectation of privacy analysis, but reserving question on result if there is a trespass on an electronically signaled effect. See also 132 S.Ct. at 955 (Sotomayor, J concurring): When the Government physically invades personal property to gather information, a search occurs. 8 A bailee has the right and often the duty to exclude others from possession of the property entrusted to him. See generally Dobie, Handbook on the Law of Bailments and Carriers 61, at 133 (1914) (right); id. 65, at (duty); Story, Commentaries on the Law of Bailments 422a, at 421 (4th ed. 1846) (right); id. 457, at (duty). As to everybody except the true owner of the bailed property, the bailee has the right of the owner to have and defend its custody and direct possession. See generally 4 LaFave, Search and Seizure 11.3(f), at 344 (2d ed. 1987) ( person who is not the owner of the container but who possesses it by virtue of his status as bailee certainly has standing to object to illegal interference with his possessory interest ). Foulke v. New York Consolidated Railroad Co., 228 N.Y. 269, 275, 127 N.E. 237 (1920). Further, the bailee, whether gratuitous or for hire, has some duty of care. See, e.g., Voorhis v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 60 N.Y.2d 878, 879, 470 N.Y.S.2d 364, 365, 458 N.E.2d 823 (1983) (gratuitous bailee must avoid gross negligence; gross negligence presumed from nonreturn of property); Aronette Manufacturing Co. v. Capitol Piece Dye Works, Inc., 6 N.Y.2d 465, 468, 190 N.Y.S.2d 361, 364, 160 N.E.2d 842 (1959) (bailee for mutual benefit must exercise ordinary care). 9 Although corporations are not entitled to the constitutional protections accorded to citizens they are persons for many (albeit perhaps not all) of the liberty protections afforded by the Constitution. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court long ago held that corporations and businesses are entitled to the procedural and substantive due process protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700, 719 (1879); Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 522, 526 (1898); Grosjean v. American
5 intrusion or confiscation. The government may not seize user content without due process of law and just compensation. Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment prohibits deprivations of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. This Amendment ensures that citizens have a right to procedural and substantive due process as against the federal government in the civil context. It is a taking when a governmental entity captures a digital copy of user content while in transit on the Internet, or somehow acquires it while in storage. The user has a right to civil and/or criminal due process and must receive just compensation for the confiscation since the government has effectively deprived the user of his or her property or at least the exclusive right of dominion over and use of it. Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment was inserted to re-emphasize the founders desire for a federal government with limited scope and to make clear that all powers not granted were withheld by the people and reserved to them. The Ninth Amendment has been characterized as a constitutional saving clause 10 This Amendment forms one of the so-called penumbral sources of a Constitutional right to privacy. 11 The framers might not be able to understand the technology behind the government s ongoing domestic surveillance and its efforts to avoid due process and compensation for taking digital property, but they could surely recognize its implications. Although there may be some statutory basis to some extent, nothing in the Constitution expressly authorizes or even contemplates this exercise of power in the absence of war or domestic insurrection, and this is especially so when most of the domestic information captured in the government s vast surveillance net has no relationship to terrorism or international intrigue, and certainly not to any crime. It is a classic case of overbreadth. Similarly, the effort to secure an agency carve-out that would allow an agency to seize digital property held by third party bailees over the objection of the bailor who owns the proerty cannot be squared with any power granted to the federal government. Both efforts are barred by to the Ninth Amendment. Tenth Amendment. Like the Ninth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment was promulgated to make clear that the federal government has only those powers expressly Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936) [ a corporation is a person within the meaning of the equal protection and due process of law clauses]. See also Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, (2010) (reaffirming that corporations entitled to First Amendment free speech protection, and overruling recent contrary holdings). 10 Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, & n.15 (1980). See also The Rights Retained by the People: The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment George Mason University Press, See, e.g. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, (1965); also Id. at (Goldberg, J concurring).
6 granted elsewhere in the Constitution; all other rights and powers are reserved to the people or (as with the Tenth), the states. Both Amendments in large part represent the constitutional equivalent of the judicial interpretative doctrine of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. But they also have substantive import, particularly when other constitutional interests are involved, such as the Fifth Amendment and the First and Second Amendments (discussed below). 12 While Congress and the Executive Branch have express powers related to surveillance as it pertains to international matters, domestic surveillance does not fall within any of the federal governments enumerated powers. Put another way, nothing in the Constitution allows the federal government to engage in cyber-trespassing; it seems beyond peradventure that nothing in the Constitution justifies or allows the federal government engage in secretive trespass and then go on to purloin (through trespass or conversion) citizens digital property without meaningful due process or any effort to compensate for the property deprivation. First Amendment. Government cybersurveillance directly threatens core First Amendment associational and expressive rights. Each person has the right to speak, and to individually decide the audience to whom the person is directly speaking. 13 If the citizen is aware of the monitoring he or she will likely reduce his or her expression and associational activities. 14 Surreptitious monitoring can unlawfully intrude on core expressive and associational rights, including those that have separate Constitutional protection such as the right to bear arms along with other statutory legal protections in the privacy area See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 589, (1995) [Tenth Amendment one basis for striking down federal statute outlawing possession of guns in school zone] and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) [Tenth Amendment prohibits federal statute conscripting state officials into enforcement of federal gun regulatory regime.] 13 A person conveying confidential or private information to a chosen recipient cannot have a constitutionally enforceable expectation that the recipient will not further disseminate the message. See United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 433 (1976). But reconveyance by an intended recipient is much different than secret interception by an unknown governmental body during conveyance or surreptitious access to and appropriation of information (property) in storage. 14 See Jones, supra, 132 S.Ct. at 956 (Sotomayor, J concurring): Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government's unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring--by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track--may alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society. United States v. Cuevas- Perez, 640 F.3d 272, 285 (CA7 2011) (Flaum, J., concurring). 15 See National Rifle Association amicus curiae brief, ACLU, et al v. Clapper, et al, No. 13-cv (WHP), S.D.N.Y, Document 44-1 (September 4, 2013).
7 CONCLUSION The government s ongoing efforts to pervasively monitor citizens through electronic monitoring, interception and by gathering electronic information from third party bailees intrude on individual liberty and property, and violate the Constitution s due process, property, privacy, expression and associational rights. Congress must act before we turn into a full-blown surveillance state.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHITE PAPER Sharing Cyberthreat Information Under 18 USC 2702(a)(3) Background Improved information sharing is a critical component of bolstering public and private network owners
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE APPLICATION OF THE : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO : Misc. No. 01-189 (Magistrate Judge Bredar) 18 U.S.C. 2703(d)
Legislative Language SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CYBERSECURITY AUTHORITY. Title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is amended (a) in section 201(c) by striking
Chapter 6 The Constitution and Business Laws that govern business have their origin in the lawmaking authority granted by the federal constitution. The Constitutional Powers of Government The Constitution
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR CELL TOWER RECORDS MAGISTRATE NO. H-15-136M UNDER 18 U.S.C. 2703(D) OPINION On February 10, 2015
THE NOT A SEARCH GAME JOHN F. STINNEFORD * The privacy versus security discussion is not just about the Fourth Amendment it involves policy considerations as well. The Fourth Amendment concerns frame the
Section by Section DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CYBERSECURITY AUTHORITY AND INFORMATION SHARING Sec. 1. Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Authority Section 1(a) amends Title II of the Homeland
~ (c) S.B. NO. \ JAN 0 A BILL FOR AN ACT THE SENATE TWENTY-EIGHTH LEGISLATURE, 0 STATE OF HAWAII RELATING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII: ' SECTION. Section
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION : M-50 OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
September 18, 1998 No. 8261 This opinion is issued in response to questions from Jan Curry, Manager of the Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Branch of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), about
Personal Data Act (1998:204); issued 29 April 1998. Be it enacted as follows. General provisions Purpose of this Act Section 1 The purpose of this Act is to protect people against the violation of their
Case:-xr-00-HRL Document Filed0 Page of MELINDA HAAG (CABN United States Attorney DAVID R. CALLAWAY (CABN Chief, Criminal Division J. DOUGLAS WILSON (DCBN JEFFREY SCHENK (CABN Assistant United States Attorneys
Online Research and Investigation This document is intended to provide guidance to police officers or staff engaged in research and investigation across the internet. This guidance is not a source of law
NEW WAVE PRIVACY NOTICE Companies controlled by NewWave Communications (subsequently referred to as NewWave, we, our, or us ) operate cable television systems through which they provide their customers
Provisional draft of the Data Retention Regulations 2014 This provisional draft is presented to Parliament to be considered during the passage of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill 2014 Any
H. R. 5005 11 (d) OTHER OFFICERS. To assist the Secretary in the performance of the Secretary s functions, there are the following officers, appointed by the President: (1) A Director of the Secret Service.
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 146 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LARRY KLAYMAN, et al., v. Plaintiffs, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United
COMMENTS OF THE ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER To THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of "Rules and Regulations Implementing the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009" WC Docket No. 11-39
Professor Clive Walker School of Law, University of Leeds Inquiry into section 35P of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 Submission to the Independent Security Law Monitor 3 April
Legal Framework to Combat Cyber Crimes in the Region: Qatar as a Model Judge Dr. Ehab Elsonbaty Cyber Crime expert firstname.lastname@example.org Why should we care about CYBER CRIME & CYBER SECURITY? Clarification
HOT TOPICS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW E-Mail, Voicemail, and Employees Right To Privacy: Monitoring Employees Electronic Communications by Andrew M. Low Employers have plenty of legitimate reasons for wanting to
PRIVACY AND SECURITY NewWave will provide you with a copy of its privacy notice at the time Service is installed, and annually afterwards, or as otherwise permitted by law. Customer can view the most current
Section II Privacy and Legislation 1 Privacy and Legislation Privacy Definition What is privacy? The Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
Number 3 of 2011 COMMUNICATIONS (RETENTION OF DATA) ACT 2011 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Interpretation. 2. Non-application of Act. 3. Obligation to retain data. 4. Data security. 5. Access to data.
Declaratory Ruling 89-10141-M Proposed Employee Life Insurance Program June 27, 1989 A. The Request for Declaratory Ruling I. BACKGROUND Clark/Bardes Organization, Inc. (hereinafter Applicant) submitted
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224 April 27, 2000 GL-607849-99 Number: 200027045 CC:EL:GL:B1 Release Date: 7/7/2000 UILC 20.02.03-00 9999.98-00 MEMORANDUM FOR VIRGINIA-WEST
STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. RICARDO H. GLASCO, Defendant. Circuit Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County. Case No. 05-2010-CF-021349-AXXX-XX. February 24, 2011. John M. Harris, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ABINGDON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WILLIAM HENRY BAILEY, Defendant. Case No. 1:00CR00044 OPINION AND ORDER
NCVLI NATIONAL CRIME VICTIM LAW INSTITUTE PROTECTING, ENFORCING & ADVANCING VICTIMS RIGHTS Protecting, Enforcing & Advancing Victims Rights AUGUST 2014 * LEGAL PUBLICATIONS PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL CRIME
State of Nature v. Government Overview In this lesson, students will discuss what they think life would be like in a state of nature and examine reasons why there is a need for government. They will explore
Retaliatory Hacking: Risky Business or Legitimate Corporate Security? 1 Presenter: Sean L. Harrington Cybersecurity Partnership Manager and information security risk assessor in the banking industry; Digital
TH CONGRESS ST SESSION S. ll To codify mechanisms for enabling cybersecurity threat indicator sharing between private and government entities, as well as among private entities, to better protect information
CONCERNS WITH THE LEAKED INTERNET CHAPTER OF ACTA The U.S. proposal for an Internet chapter in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been leaked to the press and widely disseminated on the
Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 521 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 7 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) TOWN OF COLORADO CITY,
Privacy Versus Security in the Workplace ALAN L. PEPPER AND BETHANIE F. THAU An important challenge facing employers today is balancing the security of the workplace versus the privacy rights of employees.
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Inquiry Concerning High Speed Access to ) GN Docket No. 00-185 the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities ) Proprietary
For Now, New York State Investigators Can Ping Cellphones Without A Warrant in New York State Can New York State Inspectors General and other law enforcement agencies use real-time GPS tracking on cellphones
Electronic Communications: E-Mail, Voicemail, Telephones, Internet and Computers Key Points Put employees on notice through policies that they should have no expectation of privacy arising from their use
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION (TAX INFORMATION EXCHANGE 2005 : 47 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 4A 5 5A 6 6A 7 8 8A 9 10 11 12 Short title Interpretation Duties of the Minister Grounds
Government Bill Explanatory note General policy statement The implements Government policy decisions to update the interception warrant framework. Amendments are required to update and clarify the Service
Case 5:14-cv-00141-XR Document 37 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION TAMMY FABIAN, v. Plaintiffs, CAROLYN COLVIN, Commissioner
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION KIMBERLY D. BOVA, WILLIAM L. BOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Civil
SESSION ID: PNG-F02 Updating the Law on Government Access to Your Online Data Richard Salgado Director, Law Enforcement and Information Security Google Jim Dempsey Executive Director Berkeley Center for
Location and Cell Phone Tracking: Technology, Law, and Defense Strategy Part 1: Location Tracking Technology Cell Site Data Fine location data: GPS / Triangulation GPS Trackers (Homing devices, e.g. Jones)
M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: All Directors, Officers and Covered Persons of Power Solutions International, Inc. and its Subsidiaries Catherine Andrews General Counsel and Insider Trading Compliance Officer
No. 12-52 In The Supreme Court of the United States DAN S CITY USED CARS, INC., D/B/A DAN S CITY AUTO BODY, v. Petitioner, ROBERT PELKEY, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Internal Investigations, Data Analytics and Employee Privacy in Online/Computer Activity Prepared for: The Essential Privacy, Access to Information, CASL Forum November 24, 2014 Dr. Andrea Slane University
GPS Tracking of Employees: Balancing Employees Right to Privacy with Employers Right to Know The Law, Potential Issues, and Best Practices. By Brian J. Moore and Ashley C. Pack Presenters Bi Brian J. Moore
OBJECTS AND REASONS This Bill would provide for (a) the regulation of the collection, keeping, processing, use or dissemination of personal data; (b) the protection of the privacy of individuals in relation
English is not an official language of the Swiss Confederation. This translation is provided for information purposes only and has no legal force. Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP) 235.1 of 19 June
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY CONFLICTING REGULATION OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLINF*F SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP AUGUST 10, 2006 Many directors and officers would confidently state that
RAPID CONNECT SERVICES(sm) and SPECIFICATION LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS RAPID CONNECT SERVICES AND SPECIFICATION LICENSE AGREEMENT IS BETWEEN FIRST DATA MERCHANT SERVICES CORPORATION ( FDMS ) FDMS AND YOU,
118 STAT. 661 Public Law 108 237 108th Congress An Act To encourage the development and promulgation of voluntary consensus standards by providing relief under the antitrust laws to standards development
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION September 15, 2015 9:15 a.m. v No. 325802 Livingston Circuit Court RYAN SCOTT FEELEY, LC No. 14-022259-AR
A MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO THE 4TH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT? Bryan R. Lemons Senior Legal Instructor It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process,
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL CHRIS KOSTER, v. Appellant, CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., d/b/a CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS; CHARTER FIBERLINK-MISSOURI,
BAG15121 Discussion Draft S.L.C. 114TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. XXXX To improve cybersecurity in the United States through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats, and for other purposes.
S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. BOX 20207 NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37202 April 29, 2008 Opinion No. 08-98 Attorneys Advertising of DUI Defense Services QUESTION If enacted,
Translated from Chinese Order of the State Council (No. 631) The Regulation on the Credit Reporting Industry, as adopted at the 228th session of the executive meeting of the State Council on December 26,
INVESTIGATION OF SCHOOL EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT INVOLVING THE MISUSE OF TECHNOLOGY 2003 ELA Convention Savannah, Georgia Jeffrey J. Horner Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P. 711 Louisiana, Suite 2900 Houston, Texas
Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Office of Chief Counsel CC-2004-034 September 10, 2004 Subject: Effect of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 Privacy Regulations,
No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Amendment V. Defendant may not be compelled
STATE OF TENNESSEE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Juveniles on Sex Offender Registry February 3, 2014 Opinion No. 14-15 QUESTIONS 1. Would a juvenile who committed a violent juvenile sexual offense before
Competing Interests: Enforcing Cybersecurity and Protecting Privacy By Ulka Ghanta March 2012 What is reasonable when balancing privacy rights with a need to enforce Cyber security? The 9/11 attacks forever
Volume 22, No. 1 September 2012 Criminal Justice Section Digital Evidence meets the Charter: Peer-to-Peer (P2P) File-Sharing Networks A case comment on R. v. Spencer and R. v. Trapp Brock Jones 1 A. Peer-to-Peer
The Continued Evolution of Mobile, Wireless and Cloud Technologies in the Healthcare Industry Health Care Compliance Association Regional Conference October 11, 2013 Pittsburgh, PA Michael A. Cassidy Copyright
Click here for Explanatory Memorandum AN BILLE CUMARSÁIDE (SONRAÍ A CHOIMEÁD) 2009 COMMUNICATIONS (RETENTION OF DATA) BILL 2009 Section 1. Interpretation. Mar a tionscnaíodh As initiated ARRANGEMENT OF
Brochure More information from http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/2128523/ Information Security Law: Control of Digital Assets. Description: For most organizations, an effective information security
South Dakota Parental Rights and Procedural Safeguards Special Education Programs Revised July 2011 Prior Written Notice... 1 Definition of Parental Consent... 3 Definition of a Parent... 3 Parental Consent...
THE FORTY RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FINANCIAL ACTION TASK FORCE ON MONEY LAUNDERING 1990 A. GENERAL FRAMEWORK OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Each country should, without further delay, take steps to fully implement
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN COUNTY ` DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE OF MINNESOTA, Plaintiff, vs. JIMMIE DALE JACKSON, File No: 04085182 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant. Defendant
FedRAMP Package Access Request Form For Review of FedRAMP Security Package INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Please complete this form, then print and sign. 2. Distribute to your Government Supervisor for review and signature.
EMPLOYEE PRIVACY IN THE AGE OF WORKPLACE MONITORING Kristin M. Case The Case Law Firm, LLC 250 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 230 Chicago, IL 60606 312-920-0400 http://www.thecaselawfirm.com http://www.blog.thecaselawfirm.com
Interception of Communications Code of Practice Pursuant to section 71 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Draft for public consultation February 2015 Contents Contents... 2 1. General...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------- BARTHOLDI CABLE COMPANY, INC., formerly known as LIBERTY CABLE COMPANY, INC. and LVE, L.L.C., ---X Plaintiffs,
IN RE APPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE USE OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DOCKET A PEN REGISTER AND TRAP NO. 2005M0499RBC ON [xxx]internet SERVICE ACCOUNT/USER NAME [email@example.com]
SUN PRAIRIE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT COURSE SYLLABUS Course Title: Legal Studies Curriculum Area: Social Studies Course Length: Semester Credit Status: Elective Date submitted: 2/07 District Adopted Texts/Materials/Resources:
Five Myths Regarding Privacy and Law Enforcement Access to Personal Information in the European Union and the United States Cloud computing is one of the Internet s great innovations, enabling individuals
A Summary of Significant Amendments to the Bankruptcy Code Contained in BAPCPA 2005 Edward P. Jackson 2005 Summary of Significant Amendments to the Bankruptcy Code Contained in BAPCPA 2005 1. Mandatory
Guide to managing visitations by the Environment Agency and Health & Safety Executive. By John Dyne, Director Dyne Solicitors Limited. 1 Introduction... 3 Advising clients... 3 Active advice... 3 Use of
Case 5:14-cv-00590-OLG Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DESTINY ANNMARIE RIOS Plaintiff VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-00590
Case 1:14-mj-02258-UA Document 1 Filed 10/31/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X IN RE ORDER REQUIRING