May 312018
 
 May 31, 2018  Posted by  Court, Featured News, Surveillance, U.S.

Jim Garland and Katharine Goodloe of Covington & Burling write:

Two federal appellate courts are taking sharply different views on whether—and why—government agents must have some amount of suspicion to conduct forensic searches of electronic devices seized at the border.

The Fourth Circuit on May 9, 2018, held that government agents must have reasonable suspicion to conduct forensic searches of cell phones seized at the border.  It said that decision was based on the Supreme Court’s recognition in Riley v. California that phones contain information with a “uniquely sensitive nature.”  The Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit are the only two federal appellate courts to require reasonable suspicion for forensic border searches.

In contrast, the Eleventh Circuit on May 23, 2018, rejected that position—and held that no suspicion is required for forensic border searches of electronic devices.

Read more on Inside Privacy.

May 312018
 
 May 31, 2018  Posted by  Misc, Online

Daniel Oberhaus reports:

Google and Facebook are two of the most valuable companies in the United States and the majority of their revenue is derived from selling advertisements. The reason that these giants of Silicon Valley are able to command a whopping three-quarters of the US ad market is because of the extensive amount of data they have on their users, which can be used to target ads with uncanny precision. This user data is not impervious to abuse, as the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal reminded us, but even in the wake of the misuse of 87 million Americans’ data, Facebook’s net worth only took a small hit.

Read more on Motherboard.

h/t, Joe Cadillic

May 312018
 
 May 31, 2018  Posted by  Surveillance, U.S., Workplace

Arthur O’Connor writes:

Orwellian technology, capable of monitoring your every message and conversation, may be coming to your office soon.

In keeping with the management adage, “What you can’t measure, you can’t manage,” new employee monitoring methods called talent analytics (or workforce analytics) are hitting the corporate market.

From small startups to global giants such as IBM, tech vendors are offering employers the promise of quantitative, data-driven precision in determining who is a high performer and who is a slacker.

Read more on WhoWhatWhy?

h/t, Joe Cadillic

May 302018
 
 May 30, 2018  Posted by  Court, Featured News, Surveillance, U.S.

Amy Howe writes:

When two Virginia police officers searched for the motorcyclist who had eluded them by driving away at speeds of up to 140 miles per hour, they probably would not have imagined that the case would end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. But that’s exactly what happened, and today the justices ruled that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they went to the motorcyclist’s home and found the distinctive orange-and-black Suzuki motorcycle that they’d been looking for under a tarp in the driveway.

The Fourth Amendment normally requires police to have a warrant to conduct a search. But one exception to that general rule, known as the “automobile exception,” was at the heart of this case: It allows police to search a car without a warrant if the car is “readily mobile” and they have probable cause to believe that it contains evidence of a crime. But the justices today ruled that the exception does not justify an intrusion on the “curtilage” of a home – the area immediately surrounding the house, where residents expect privacy.

Read more on ScotusBlog.