International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
In the aftermath of the San Bernadino terrorist attack, the Federal Bureau of Investigations sought the assistance of Apple in its investigation. An Apple phone used by one of the terrorists included a function, which the FBI wanted Apple to defeat, that would automatically delete all stored information after ten failed hacking attempts. Defeating the function would have required Apple employees to write code, which Apple contended amounted to compelled speech. Privacy issues were also asserted, but countered, at least in part, by the fact that the user of the phone was deceased, and the phone was actually owned by a local government. After the FBI used other sources to get the information it sought, Apple moved against the FBI to disclose exactly whether and how it had bypassed the delete function. Our experts discussed this interesting matter and next steps.
Short Video on Private Servers and the 4th Amendment in the Information Age featuring Amy Peikoff
- Prof. Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Assistant Professor of Law, Nebraska College of Law
- Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor of Law and Director, Homeland and National Security Law Program, George Mason University School of Law and former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Amy Peikoff February 10, 2016
Southwestern Law School’s Visiting Associate Professor Amy Peikoff explains the Third Party Doctrine of the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment Doctrine. Under the Third Party Doctrine, the government does not need a warrant in order to obtain information entrusted to a third party, such as a bank, cell phone company, or email server. Thus, individuals who utilize their personal server for email may effectively keep their emails private while those using a commercial email server such as gmail do not have the same privacy. SCOTUScast 3-9-15 featuring Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz
On March 3, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in City of Los Angeles v. Patel. This case presents two questions. The first question in this case is whether the Fourth Amendment permits facial challenges to municipal ordinances and statutes or only “as-applied” challenges. The second question is whether warrantless police searches of hotel guest registries, which include information that a guest is required by law to provide, are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
To discuss the case, we have Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, who is a Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in City of Los Angeles v. Patel. Los Angeles has an ordinance that requires hotels to maintain certain records about their guests and to produce those records for police officers upon request. The officer does not necessarily need a warrant or any particular suspicion. Hoteliers claim that this regime violates the Fourth Amendment. Interestingly, the hoteliers do not allege that any particular search was illegal. Is this kind of “facial” Fourth Amendment challenge to a statute or ordinance (as opposed to an “as applied” challenge to a particular search carried out under the statute) permissible? This issue raises fundamental questions about the constitutional structure of judicial review, with importance reaching far beyond the Fourth Amendment context.
Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
- Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center
In December of 2014, Microsoft filed a brief with the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York to prevent the U.S. Department of Justice from seizing a customer’s data stored in Dublin, Ireland. It’s a case that raises important questions about the right of Americans to know what the government and companies are doing with sensitive electronic data. How do we ensure accountability both to the law through reasonable regulation, and to the courts through effective judicial review? The case also raises questions about the rights of people in other countries. Will they continue to have their privacy rights protected by their own laws? Anticipating a world where every device is a connected device, these are but a few of the important questions raised by this case regarding the future of privacy and regulations going forward.
- James M. Garland, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP
- David Howard, Corporate Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Microsoft