Mediaboss Marketing

by

January 23, 2017, 5:00 AM EST January 23, 2017, 2:48 PM EST

Microsoft Corp.s effort to halt the FBIs so-called sneak-and-peek searches of e-mails may ride on whether its allowed to defend its customers constitutional rights.

The judge who will decide whether the case can go ahead had told the companys lawyers to be ready to address earlier rulings that undercut their arguments. Calling the issue a dilemma in court Monday, the judge said he will issue a written ruling later. At stake is a key element of Microsofts challenge to the U.S. practice of secretly accessing customer data stored in the cloud, including e-mail.

Microsoft drew support from tech leaders includingApple Inc., Google and Amazon.com Inc. when it sued the U.S. Justice Department in April. They say the very future of mobile and cloud computing is at risk if customers cant trust that their data will remain private. The federal law allowing searches goes far beyond any necessary limits and infringes users Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure and their First Amendment guarantee of free speech, the companies contend.

The Justice Department argues it needs such digital tools to help fight increasingly sophisticated criminals and terrorists who are savvy at using technology to communicate and hide their tracks. Disclosing the searches would undermine investigations and put Americans at risk, they argue. A decision for the U.S. would give an early victory to President Donald Trump, who said during his campaign that he would compel technology companies to cooperate.

The government argues that Microsoft lacks the ability to sue -- or standing -- to protect customer privacy.

Standing has been a barrier in cases that seek to vindicate peoples privacy rights, said Jennifer Granick, a StanfordLaw School professor. Its a serious issue in conducting constitutional litigation, and this case is no different.

Four court decisions listed by U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle all reached the same conclusion -- Fourth Amendment protections can only be cited by individuals, and not vicariously by third parties. The most recent was a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the family of a driver who was shot and killed by police after a high-speed chase couldnt invoke that right on his behalf related to a lawsuit over his death.

Exclusive insights on technology around the world.

Get Fully Charged, from Bloomberg Technology.

Business

Your guide to the most important business stories of the day, every day.

Politics

The latest political news, analysis, charts, and dispatches from Washington.

Markets

The most important market news of the day. So you can sleep an extra five minutes.

Pursuits

What to eat, drink, wear and drive in real life and your dreams.

Game Plan

The school, work and life hacks you need to get ahead.

The current case squarely presents a situation in which the constitutional rights of persons who are not immediately before the court could not be effectively vindicated except through an appropriate representative before the court, the company said in a filing Sunday.

The industrys push against government intrusion into customers private information began in the wake of Edward Snowdens 2013 disclosures about covert data collection that put them all on the defensive.

For more on the history of the privacy vs. security debate, click here

Microsoft saidwhen it filed its lawsuit that federal courts had issued almost 2,600 secrecy orders barring it from disclosing government warrants for access to private e-mail accounts. It said more than two-thirds of those orders have no fixed end date, meaning the company can never tell customers about them, even after an investigation is completed.

The Redmond, Washington-based company concedes there may be times when the government is justified in seeking a gag order to prevent customers under investigation from tampering with evidence or harming another person. Still, the statute is too broad and sets too low of a standard for secrecy, Microsoft contends.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy group supporting Microsoft in the case, fears a ruling that the company cant sue could mean no one will ever have the right to file a data privacy lawsuit under the Fourth Amendment. The people whose privacy might be violated will never find out about the searches, said Andrew Crocker, a lawyer for the group.

We obviously think that providers should be able to raise the rights of their customers, Crocker said. Otherwise youre cutting customers out of the equation when the government comes to companies with these secret gag orders."

The case is Microsoft Corp. v. U.S. Department of Justice, 16-cv-00538, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle).

Read more from the original source:
Microsoft Asserts Clients' Rights in FBI E-Mail Searches Fight ... - Bloomberg

Its not a good idea to have incriminating information stored on your PSN account (or at all) as its not protected by the Fourth Amendment. A Kansas judge recently ruled that Sony can take the information without a warrant as it wasnt unreasonable search and seizure. This came up during a court case regarding child pornography where Michael Stratton, who went by the PSN handle of Susan_14, messaged multiple users asking if they were interested in child pornography.

After being reported to Sony several times for these infractions, Sony decided to view his PSN data. After doing so, they found several images of child pornography that was downloaded by Stratton and sent to other users. Afterwards, Sony shared the information with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who then contacted the FBI. This led to Stratton getting arrested, and his PlayStation 3 seized after a warrant was given.

Strattons defense argued that their client was protected under the Fourth Amendment, and that Sony couldnt share his information without having a warrant first. This argument was shot down in court by Judge Daniel D. Crabtree, who said that the PlayStation Networks terms of service explicitly nullified its users reasonable expectation of privacy. As such, Sony is free to view any PSN data, and are completely in the right in going to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in this case.

Heres the official conclusion from the courts website:

Defendants Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The court thus refuses to apply the exclusionary rule to suppress: (1) evidence NCMEC obtained from searching defendants electronic communications; (2) evidence law enforcement officers acquired from searching defendants residence; or, (3) statements defendant made to law enforcement during the search. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to Sonys search of defendants information because Sony acted as a private entity. And, NCMEC, as a governmental entity, did not exceed the scope of Sonys private search. Even if Sony acted as a government agent when it searched defendants information, the Fourth Amendment did not apply because defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information he stored on the PSN. Finally, even if defendants Fourth Amendment rights were violated, the good faith exception applies and the exclusionary rule is not justified in this case.

(Source: Ars Technica)

Excerpt from:
PSN Data Isn't Protected by Fourth Amendment - PlayStation LifeStyle - PlayStation LifeStyle

The Fourth Amendment of the United State Constitution, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, does not protect users on the PlayStation Network from warrantless searches conducted by network proprietor Sony, a district court judge ruled this week.

The case involved a PSN user going by the handle Susan_14. The account, owned by the defendant in the case Michael Stratton, was reported to Sony on several occasions for soliciting child pornography through spam messages.

Sony reviewed the accountwithout providing notice or acquiring a warrantafter receiving complaints and found the account had been used to download and upload several pornographic images involving children.

Sony reported the findings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which then coordinated with the FBI to gather additional information about Stratton, including his email address (nudesusan14@gmail.com) and IP address acquired through subpoenas from Google and internet provider CenturyLink.

The information was enough for a judge to issue a warrant for law enforcement to search Strattons home in Kansas, where they discovered child pornography stored on his PlayStation 3. The finding lead to his arrest.

Strattons defense attempted to argue he had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" for the information he stored on his PSN account, and Sony didnt have the right to share his informationincluding the child porn housed on Sonys serverswithout a subpoena or warrant.

The court was unmoved by the argument, finding the terms of service for PSN explicitly state that users give Sony the right to monitor and record your and your Sub Account's activities and communications. The terms also note that Sony may disclose any user information to appropriate authorities or agencies.

The defense also tried to make the case Sony was acting as a government agent when it searched the Suan_14 accountan approach that fell flat because, in the courts viewing, Sony was monitoring the account for its own benefit and reported what it found and wasnt required to perform the search by any government agency.

Alan Butler, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told International Business Times the ruling falls under what is commonly referred to as the private search doctrine.

The finding that, as Butler described it, Sonys review of that data was an action of a private entity, not compelled by any government agency, falls in line with other cases of companies sharing private information that is in violation of federal law.

In a paper from Priscilla Grantham Adams, senior research counsel for the National Center for Justice and the Rule of Law, on the private search doctrine, she describes the policy as extinguish[ing] an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy in the object searched. Once the search has occurred, she explains, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit governmental use of this non-private information.

While the finding doesnt present a picture all that different than previous rulingsit simply extends the concept of the private search doctrine to more tightly controlled Sonys PlayStation NetworkButler noted any attempt to extend the courts opinion beyond the case it was ruling one is dicta and was beyond the scope of what the court was asked to decide in that case.

Butler said the courts conclusions about the privacy interests that apply to electronic communications sent via PSN and similar networks is inconsistent with the prevailing standard in federal courts and the standard recognized by the Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies.

More here:
PlayStation Network Data, PSN Privacy Not Protected By Fourth ... - International Business Times

Aurich x Getty

If you have any legally incriminating information sitting in your PSN account, don't count on the Fourth Amendment to protect it from "unreasonable search and seizure" by Sony without a warrant. A district court judge in Kansas has ruledin a recent case that information Sony finds has been downloaded to a PlayStation 3 or a PSN account is not subject to the "reasonable expectation of privacy" that usually protects evidence obtained without a warrant.

The case involves Michael Stratton, who went by the handle Susan_14 on PSN. According to Sony, Stratton was reported to PSN multiple times for sending spam messages asking about interest in child pornography. After reviewing the Susan_14 account in response to these complaints, Sony found that several images containing child porn had been downloaded by and uploaded to the account.

Sony shared information about the Susan_14 account and the images with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The NCMEC then coordinated with the FBI to get additional information about Susan_14's e-mail address and IP address from Google and CenturyLink via subpoena. This action led to a warrant on Stratton's Kansas home, the discovery of child pornography stored on his PS3, and his arrest.

At trial, the defense tried to argue that Stratton had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" for the images on his PSN account and that Sony therefore couldn't share those with authorities absent a subpoena or warrant. In this case, the court ruled that Sony's PSN terms of service "explicitly nullified its users reasonable expectation of privacy." Those terms state explicitly that Sony reserves the right to monitor PSN activity and that Sony may turn over evidence of illegal activity to the authorities.

(The defense also made the related argument that Sony's terms of service were an adhesion contract that put an "unconscionable" and "patently unfairly... take-it-or-leave-it" burden on Stratton. The defense didn't provide enough evidence to demonstrate that claim, according to the court.)

Separately, the defense argued that Sony was acting as a "government agent" when it searched Stratton's PSN account, and, therefore, any evidence obtained needed to be subject to a warrant. This argument hinges in part on the federal "Failure to Report Child Abuse" statute, which requires those that learn of child abuse to "make a timely report" or suffer jail time or fines. Through this law, the defense argued, Sony was essentially being recruited to search for child pornography at the government's request and without any warrant.

The case is not all that different from other cases in which online service providers have worked with law enforcement to report child pornography when found on their services or devices. The main difference here is that the circuit court has found that these same legal arguments apply to the tightly controlled world of the PlayStation 3 and the attached PlayStation Network and not just the more "open" world of personal computers.

Read the original:
US court says PSN data doesn't get Fourth Amendment protection - Ars Technica

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has released a major report on the Chicago Police Departments 'pattern' of violations of civil rights and federal laws in recent decades.

"Chicago Police Department (CPD) engages in a pattern or practice of using force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution," the DOJ said in a statement.

READ MORE: Chicago cops shoot at someone every 5 days

CPD does not give its officers the training they need to do their jobs safely, effectively, and lawfully. It fails to properly collect and analyze data, including data on misconduct complaints and training deficiencies," said Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch.

"And it does not adequately review use of force incidents to determine whether force was appropriate or lawful, or whether the use of force could have been avoided altogether."

The report stated that Chicago police unfairly targeted minorities and used unreasonable force on predominantly black and Latino neighborhoods, causing a break in police-community trust.

The probe found that Chicago accountability forces are broken and its promotional systems aren't transparent, saidPrincipal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta.

The city fails to investigate the majority of cases it is required to investigate by law, the DOJ said. It pointed out that, even if the investigation is launched, it is aimed at eliciting information favorable to the officer."

The DOJlaunched the probe into the 12,000-officer force one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the country after a police video showing thefatal shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald was released in December 2015. The footage, which shows a white police officer firing 16 shots at a black teenager in October 2014, caused public outcry and protests, and led to calls for an investigation.

READ MORE: Chicago police shootings down since Laquan McDonald's death, but gun & drug violence remain high

The video contradicted the accounts given by Officer Jason Van Dyke, who was involved in shooting, and other police officers on the scene, who stated that McDonald had had a small knife with its blade folded, and thus posed a threat to the officers life. Van Dyke wascharged with first-degree murder earlier in the day the video was made public.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has initiatedseveral police department reforms since the investigation began, includingissuing body cameras to officers on patrol.

Original post:
Chicago police used excessive force and violated rights for decades DOJ - RT