| | |
|
SethGlickmanFirstPaper 3 - 12 Mar 2021 - Main.SethGlickman
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | The Fourth Amendment vs. Third-Party Doctrine | |
<
< | Third-party doctrine applies to situations where individuals have voluntarily given information to a third party with “no reasonable expectation of privacy”. In the 1976 case _United States v. Miller_ the Supreme Court found specifically that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties (in this case, records at a bank), and highlights as justification that an individual’s information is “exposed to [the bank’s] employees in the ordinary course of business.” Thus, information which is stored with third parties lies outside of an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights, and as technological trends shift more to third-party cloud services, this covers an increasingly broad set of information. It would be desirable to relocate this information back to within the auspices of the Fourth Amendment’s protections.
Notes
:
| >
> | Third-party doctrine applies to situations where individuals have voluntarily given information to a third party with “no reasonable expectation of privacy”. In the 1976 case _United States v. Miller_ the Supreme Court found specifically that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties (in this case, records at a bank), and highlights as justification that an individual’s information is “exposed to [the bank’s] employees in the ordinary course of business.” Thus, information which is stored with third parties lies outside of an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights, and as technological trends shift more to third-party cloud services, this covers an increasingly broad set of information. | | | Search Warrant vs. Subpoena | |
<
< | The Fourth Amendment vs. Third-Party Doctrine distinction matters because it affects the mechanism for obtaining information. Under the Fourth Amendment, the government is required to produce a search warrant, a relatively high threshold to meet which involves a showing of probable cause to prevent governmental abuse. | >
> | The Fourth Amendment vs. Third-Party Doctrine distinction matters because it affects the mechanism for obtaining information. Under the Fourth Amendment, the government is required to produce a search warrant, a relatively high threshold to meet which involves a showing of probable cause to prevent governmental abuse. Subpoenas face a much lower threshold, and through their use the government can far more easily compel a third party to produce information about an individual. It would thus be desirable to relocate this information back to within the auspices of the Fourth Amendment’s protections. | | | | |
<
< | ECPA | >
> | ECPA Title II
Congress took note of this disparity and attempted to address it with the 1986 passage of ECPA, which contained the Stored Communications Act (SCA) under Title II. The SCA sought to bring the heightened threshold of the search warrant to “stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records”. It covers two types of services: “electronic communication services” (ECS) and “remote computing services” (RCS). The line between the two can be counterintuitive: for example, a server containing email over 180 days old qualifies as “providing storage” and therefore RCS; if it has been held for 180 days or less it qualifies as ECS — unless an email has been opened, in which case it likely reverts to a classification of storage rather than communication, and therefore RCS.
Again, this distinction matters due to the retrieval mechanism: RCS-classified data production can be compelled via a subpoena combined with prior notice (and prior notice can be delayed for up to 90 days if it would jeopardize an investigation), a far lower threshold than a search warrant.
The SCA, while a step in the right direction, is subject to two issues: (1) it can be altered by Congress at a later date through the normal course of legislation, and (2) it has large gaps which have only grown wider since 1986.
Notes
:
:
| | |
Home is Where the Heart is: Your Data Should Live in Your House |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |