Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 3, 2013, 07:22 PM   #1
bradl
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Your Personal Data versus the 4th Amendment

I caught this on the drive home from work yesterday, and while I am in the IT business, I have seen that shift in availability of personal data that this is referring to, and to be honest, this should scare you more than anything that the NSA has done recently. The availability of it, and to who is just staggering.

Have a read, and let's see if we agree or disagree that we should hold the 4th Amendment in such high regard as some people whole the 2nd.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcons...ent-protect-us

Quote:
Your Digital Trail: Does The Fourth Amendment Protect Us?

by Daniel Zwerdling
October 02, 2013 1:00 PM

This is the third story in our four-part series examining your digital trail and who potentially has access to it. It was co-reported by G.W. Schulz from the Center for Investigative Reporting. Yesterday, we examined how data-tracking companies are monitoring your online behavior. Today we look at your Fourth Amendment rights.

Science-fiction writers have fantasized for years about the government monitoring everything we do. For example, there's a classic scene in the 2002 movie The Bourne Identity, which portrays young government agents glued to computer monitors in a crowded room. In seconds, they are able to track almost everywhere Jason Bourne, the main character, has been and where he's going his flights, train trips and hotels.

One agent gets a photo of Bourne talking to a woman in an alley from a surveillance camera hundreds of miles away. Almost instantly, they identify her, apparently using facial recognition software, and pull up the digital records of her life including her family biography and her utility bills from three countries.

The woman is just a bystander, but the movie suggests that the minutiae of someone's life can make anyone look guilty.

"I don't like her," the unit chief mutters. "I want to go deep. I want to know every place she's slept in the last six years."

Back in the real world, could government agents really sit in a room and gather that information in 60 seconds or less? "No," says Kevin Bankston, senior attorney with the nonpartisan Center for Democracy and Technology. But "that is the world we're moving toward."

He says one reason is the digital revolution itself. For instance, Facebook uses software now that identifies people from photos. Stores are reportedly using facial recognition programs, so the staff can learn the names of customers almost the moment they stroll through the door.

Bankston says there's another reason the government is beginning to obtain digital records faster and faster if not yet instantly as it does in movies: The laws that regulate the government were written back in the analog age, so the government often doesn't have many legal restraints. America's founders were not thinking about computers when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

Rights Under The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment of the Bill Rights, ratified in 1791, has traditionally been Americans' "principal constitutional protection against government spying," says David Cole, a lawyer who teaches constitutional law and national security at Georgetown University. As the amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

But Cole and other legal analysts say the world of computers has weakened the Fourth Amendment. "In the modern digital age," he says, "it means very, very little."

Here's why: Let's say the police or FBI wanted to gather intimate details about your life back in the old days meaning, before computers came along. Whom are you meeting? What are you reading? What are you writing in your diary? What kinds of products have you been buying? Where are you going to travel and where will you stay?

One of the best ways to get that information would have been to search your home, bug it and wiretap your phone. Based on the Fourth Amendment, that meant the police would have needed a search warrant. And to obtain a warrant, law enforcement officers must convince a judge that they have probable cause that the place they want to search, or the person they want to bug, is likely to reveal evidence of a crime.

But since the 1960s and 1970s, the Supreme Court and other courts have issued a series of rulings declaring that the government does not need a search warrant to obtain your personal documents if you have already shared them with somebody else. For instance, since you allow your bank and credit card company to know what you buy, and since you let your phone company know whom you call, you can't claim that information is private. It's the legal version of the lesson you learned when you were 12 years old: If you don't want everyone else to read your diary, then don't show it to anybody.

In the wake of those court decisions, the digital revolution came along. And many of the most intimate details of your life that you used to protect at home morphed into digital documents which are stored on someone else's computers.

"When I send an email, I've shared it with the Internet provider," Cole says. "When I search the Web, I've shared it with the Web company. When I walk around with my cellphone, I'm sharing with the cellphone company my whereabouts. All of that information has lost its constitutional protection, and the government can get it without having to make any showing that you're engaged in illegal activity or suspicious activity."

So in this digital age, police often do not need to show probable cause of a crime when they want to find out details about your life that they used to find in your home. Instead, they can get your private files from corporations that store your records on their computers.

And instead of a search warrant, the police might just need a subpoena which is "trivially easy to issue," says Bankston of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Law enforcement doesn't need a judge's approval to obtain subpoenas prosecutors can sign them on their own, as can authorized employees at federal and state agencies. And law enforcement agents don't need evidence that there's likely a crime. They need only to be able to show that the records they want are relevant to an investigation.

The Ease Of The Subpoena

Cory Borgeson, president of the Golden Valley Electric Co. in Fairbanks, Alaska, told NPR he is stunned at how easily the government can obtain personal information with subpoenas. For instance, agents at the Drug Enforcement Administration wondered if some of Golden Valley's customers might be making or growing drugs in their homes. Drug dealers sometimes use more electricity than normal, and their power consumption records can potentially be a clue. So the DEA served a subpoena on the utility, ordering it to turn over detailed digital records on its customers' electricity use, bank and credit card accounts, and other information. Borgeson says the standard for getting a subpoena is so low that it's essentially "one agent turning to [his or her colleague] and saying, 'Would you please sign this administrative subpoena for me so I can get information?' "

Golden Valley tried unsuccessfully to block the subpoena in court by arguing that the government needed a search warrant. "We think at Golden Valley that what we sell to our members, and that's electric kilowatt hours, is really private," says Borgeson. He says the digital age has made the customers' records far more extensive and revealing than they were in the days of paper bills and file folders. For instance, it's so inexpensive to store digital files that the company keeps records for years longer than it used to. And Borgeson says those records can reveal personal information that has nothing to do with a crime, from how many people live in your house to whether you run a business that might be legal, but which grumpy neighbors might protest if they found out about it.

"Some people might think that ... it's not terribly sexy that we know how many kilowatt hours you use in a day or a month or a year," Borgeson says. "But it's kind of like looking at you through an open window and seeing what you do in your home."

Access To Your Tweets

Meanwhile, a judge in New York City issued a ruling last year that could have huge implications for anything you store online in the cloud. The case involved one of the protesters arrested at an Occupy Wall Street demonstration. When the New York district attorney subpoenaed all the tweets he had written over 3 1/2 months, the protester and his lawyer tried to block it. But the judge said they couldn't, because even though the protester wrote those tweets, he "has no proprietary interests" in them in other words, he didn't own the tweets; Twitter Inc. did.

"And that is really a crucial, crucial issue in this age of cloud computing," says Martin Stolar, the protester's criminal defense and civil liberties lawyer.

"Because people now use the cloud to store all kinds of private, personal information where they travel, where they go, where they go to church, whom they consult with their doctor, what their medical conditions are, what personal private conversations they've had. If they are stored in the cloud, then the person who stored them in the cloud loses the right to object when the government seeks them."

Incidentally, if you think your tweets or other digital messages are really gone when you click "delete," think again. Twitter and other digital companies keep them in computer archives for months or years.

The New York ruling represents just one judge's decision, and Stolar is appealing it. But there's a battle over these issues across the country. For instance, some courts have ruled that police can get emails and cellphone logs with just a subpoena, while other courts have said that law enforcement needs probable cause of a crime and a search warrant. Stolar says if the ruling on the Twitter case stands, it could make it even easier for the government to get a detailed portrait of your personal life with just a subpoena.
BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2013, 11:56 PM   #2
Macky-Mac
macrumors 68020
 
Macky-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
so there's the question of whether somebody else's business records are actually YOUR personal documents.......do you, or should you, have any say in whether some business shows its business records to......whoever?
Macky-Mac is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2013, 03:03 AM   #3
bradl
Thread Starter
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky-Mac View Post
so there's the question of whether somebody else's business records are actually YOUR personal documents.......do you, or should you, have any say in whether some business shows its business records to......whoever?
Actually, I would think of it being the other way around, especially when it comes to cloud or hosted services. Once you upload them (to Facebook, twitter, instagram, iCloud, etc), do you still hold the rights and ownership to that data? Facebook, as we all know, owns the data you upload to them, regardless of if it is personal or not; According to the ruling in the New york case, the same would apply to any other hosted services, which would only require a subpoena to those services to get access to it, and no part of the 4th Amendment applies. That means it is legal search and seizure, and no warrant is needed.

That concern and threat of your personal data, at least to me, is really important. Say they want to search your purchase records. Normally they would need a warrant. But since you've stored your info at, say, Paypal, all the lawyers would need to do is subpoena Paypal to get your CC number, and track your purchases that way. No need to get a warrant to get that data from you or your bank. This makes accessing your data much much easier than people realize. But we (people in general) sacrifice that privacy for convenience, and some of people do it naively.

BL.
bradl is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2013, 03:02 PM   #4
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Don't forget that the NSA has basically gathered everything on us using our digital footprint. We don't have privacy anymore.
__________________
The thoughts in my head are rated TV-MA. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now batting, Number 2 Derek Jeter, Number 2
MacNut is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2013, 10:26 PM   #5
bradl
Thread Starter
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
Don't forget that the NSA has basically gathered everything on us using our digital footprint. We don't have privacy anymore.
Not forgotten at all. But surmise this:

We know that the government has easier ways than a requiring a warrant to get access to your data. All they need to do is request and get a subpoena from any authorized clerk of the court. Prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, etc., are clerks of the court. A divorce lawyer could write his own subpoena to a private company requesting records for the other party and get it, regardless of what that data is for. It isn't owned by that other person; it is owned by that third party company No more needing to hire a Private Investigator to snoop around, when all they need to do is go towards the company or companies they frequent and get the data there.

I don't know the exact number for this, but imagine how many subpoenas Facebook must get from divorce and both prosecuting and defense attorneys for the opposite party's data.

So forget the government in this case. It is easier for ANYONE to get that, legally or otherwise, and no violation of the 4th amendment would occur.

Not to troll, but I wish we had people more concerned about this than keeping possession of their guns. Guns won't matter when their entire personal life has been compromised.

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2013, 10:39 PM   #6
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
People don't care about their privacy. Just look at what people willingly post to Facebook and Twitter. It's like their inner filter is turned off.
MacNut is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2013, 10:42 PM   #7
bradl
Thread Starter
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
People don't care about their privacy. Just look at what people willingly post to Facebook and Twitter. It's like their inner filter is turned off.
That's my whole point, especially with my last statement. So many people plead the 2nd an want to uphold it so tightly and dearly, but turn a blind eye to and all but spit in the face of the 4th, when the the ways to circumvent the 4th far more dangerous than what is going on with the 2nd.

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPhone: How to erase personal data on JB Iphone? jdaniel Jailbreaks and iOS Hacks 17 Sep 23, 2013 04:45 PM
Erase Personal Data on iPhone Asylum47 iPhone Tips, Help and Troubleshooting 1 Jul 4, 2013 10:48 PM
GOP Bill Seeks To Force Welfare Applicants To Waive 4th Amendment Rights rdowns Politics, Religion, Social Issues 126 Mar 16, 2013 11:00 PM
Can someone access my personal data? saidie10 iPhone Tips, Help and Troubleshooting 2 Jan 9, 2013 12:57 PM
Clearing personal data before resale... JoeyBam MacBook Pro 1 Jun 23, 2012 12:48 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC