May 312011
 
 May 31, 2011  Posted by  Laws, Surveillance, U.S.

Amy Gahran reports:

Think about all the data — photos, videos, text messages, calendar items, apps, call log, voice mail, and e-mail — on your cell phone right now. If you’re arrested, could the police search your cell phone? And would they need a warrant?

That depends on which state you’re in.

In California, it is legal for police to search an arrestee’s cell phone without a warrant — ever since a January decision by the California Supreme Court.

California civil rights advocates are pushing back.

Read more on TheIndyChannel.com.

May 312011
 
 May 31, 2011  Posted by  Breaches, Court, Online

Katie Lynn reports:

A Woodbury man has been charged with 13 felony counts of identity theft. The charges claim 26-year-old Timothy Noirjean hacked into Facebook accounts in order to access to personal information of young women, including sexually explicit photos, which he then posted online.

According to the complaint, the investigation began in February 2010 when one victim contacted the Oakdale Police Department after she discovered private photos of herself were posted on an adult website.

Read more on KSTP.

May 312011
 
 May 31, 2011  Posted by  Laws, Non-U.S., Surveillance

Nathalie Vandystadt reports:

The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) – the EU’s advisory body – stated, on 31 May, its view that the EU’s controversial Data Retention Directive “does not meet the requirements imposed by the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection”. The 2006 directive requires all providers of electronic communication services to store traffic and location data of the communications of all EU citizens, for possible use for law enforcement purposes and in particular in the fight against terrorism. On 18 April, the European Commission published a report warning against a too thorough revision of the legislation (see Europolitics4186). In particular, the Commission’s experts were opposed to limited storage of data in the case of strong suspicion (as opposed to the current timeframe of six months to two years) – a revision that had been called for by those who were against the legislation. However, experts recognise that there are problems linked to the protection of privacy, which have not been covered by the legislation. These problems have prompted three courts – in Germany, the Czech Republic and Romania – to cancel its transposition into national legislation.

Read more on EuroPolitics.

May 312011
 
 May 31, 2011  Posted by  Court, Laws, Surveillance

Stephen Treglia writes:

The past 12 months have seen an unprecedented shift in the law as it pertains to electronic communications. What makes this recent evolution particularly dramatic are the scope of the shift, the fact that the shift has affected multiple levels of e-communications and that each level of the evolution has headed in the same direction—toward increasing the restrictions that prevent law enforcement from gaining evidence from e-communications.

The irony is that at the very start of this 12 month period, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to be warning the entire legal system against precisely this course of conduct in City of Ontario v. Quon

Read more on Law.com.