Daily Archives: June 28, 2017

NSA-linked tools help power second global ransomware outbreak – Politico

Posted: June 28, 2017 at 5:57 am

The seals of the U.S. Cyber Command, the National Security Agency and the Central Security Service are pictured outside the campus the three organizations share in Fort Meade, Maryland. | Getty

By Eric Geller

06/27/2017 12:16 PM EDT

Updated 06/27/2017 05:49 PM EDT

A potent ransomware attack has gripped organizations around the world for the second time in less than two months.

And like the first outbreak in mid-May which claimed hundreds of thousands victims in a game-changing cyberattack Tuesday's outburst is spreading via a Microsoft flaw originally exposed in a leak of apparent NSA hacking tools.

Story Continued Below

The latest malicious software battered companies in Russia, Ukraine and many other countries in Europe, according to cybersecurity researchers, sending law enforcement officials scrambling and sparking fears about how the world would contain the outbreak of the malware, which locks up computer systems and demands ransom payments.

While the U.S. has been largely unscathed to this point, major multinational energy, shipping, banking, pharmaceutical and law firms, as well as government agencies, have confirmed they are fighting off cyberattacks.

Security firm Kaspersky Lab estimated it had seen 2,000 victims, and counting, throughout the day. While the estimate is significantly lower than the massive numbers tied to May's attack which relied on malware dubbed WannaCry some researchers noted technical details of the new malware that might make it harder to kill.

Researchers have also not yet linked the latest attack to any specific hacking group or nation-state, unlike May's digital ambush, which technical specialists and reportedly intelligence officials in the U.S. and U.K. traced to North Korean-backed hackers.

But security specialists have been warning for weeks that the recent WannaCry ransomware virus was only the beginning of these fast-spreading digital sieges.

WannaCry was powered by a variant of apparent NSA cyber weapons that were dumped online, raising questions about whether the secretive hacking agency should sit on such powerful tools instead of alerting companies like Microsoft to the deficiencies in their software.

Experts say hackers have likely been working to tweak the WannaCry malware, potentially allowing new versions to skirt the digital defenses that helped stall the first global assault.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Indeed, the virus that proliferated Tuesday shares many similarities with WannaCry, but contains some striking differences.

For starters, Tuesday's virus proliferated using the same Microsoft Windows flaw as WannaCry, according to digital security firms Symantec and Bitdefender Labs. But researchers noted the malware is also capable of hopping around using multiple Microsoft flaws, not just the most famous one exposed in the online dump of the purported NSA cyber weapons.

Additionally, like WannaCry, this new malware demands that victims pay a ransom using the digital currency Bitcoin before their files can be unlocked. As of Tuesday evening, 32 victims had paid a ransom, with the number steadily climbing.

Unlike WannaCry, however, the rapidly spreading malware does not merely encrypt files as part of its ransom scheme. Rather, it changes critical system files so that the computer becomes unresponsive, according to John Miller, a senior manager for analysis at the security firm FireEye, which reviewed the malware.

Some researchers identified the infection as a novel variation of the so-called Petya malware, which has been around since 2016. But researchers at Kaspersky believe it is a totally new strain they are dubbing ExPetr.

A sample of the malware initially went undetected by nearly all antivirus software.

The digital weapon cloaks itself as a file that Microsoft has already approved as safe, helping it avoid detection, Costin Raiu, director of global research efforts at Kaspersky, said on Twitter.

The malware was written on June 18, according to a sample that Kaspersky has analyzed.

Most of the infections on Tuesday were in Ukraine, with Russia the next hardest hit, according to Kasperskys analysis. Russia was also a major victim during the WannaCry outbreak. Raiu told POLITICO that Belarus, Brazil, Estonia, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United States were also affected, but that those countries accounted for less than 1 percent of all victims.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesman said the agency was "monitoring reports" of the ransomware campaign and coordinating with international authorities.

Researchers suspect that Ukraine became the nexus of the outburst after companies using a popular tax program unknowingly downloaded an update that contained the ransomware. From there, the virus could have spread beyond those companies using various flaws in Windows.

The ransomware eruption may be responsible for several major cyber incidents that began Tuesday.

The global shipping and logistics firm Maersk which is based in Denmark confirmed that it was dealing with a intrusion affecting "multiple sites and business units." And the Russian oil company Rosneft said it was responding to "a massive hacker attack."

Ukraine's central bank and its capital city's main airport also said they were dealing with cyberattacks. The virus appeared to be hitting the country's government computers as well.

The cyberattack also forced the Ukraine-based Chernobyl nuclear power plant to revert to manual radiation monitoring, according to a Ukrainian journalist citing the country's state news service.

Elsewhere, the German pharmaceutical giant Merck said its network was compromised in the outbreak and that it was still investigating the incident.

A daily briefing on politics and cybersecurity weekday mornings, in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

But the U.S. has been largely spared so far.

The American Gas Association said in a statement that no U.S. natural gas utilities have reported infections.

However, in Pennsylvania, the Heritage Valley Health System which operates two hospitals and 60 physician offices said it was grappling with a cyberattack. The incident is widespread and is affecting the entire health system, said spokeswoman Suzanne Sakson.

Multinational law firm DLA Piper was also experiencing computer and phone outages in multiple offices, including in Washington, D.C. The company did not respond to a request for comment.

But a photo shared with POLITICO showed a sign outside the firm's Washington office that read, "All network services are down, do not turn on your computers! Please remove all laptops from docking stations and keep turned off. No exceptions."

DLA Pipers secure document storage system for clients also went down, though the firm may have done that as a precaution. A bit stressed at moment as I am unsure if our docs there are safe, one client told POLITICO.

Tim Starks contributed to this report.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Read the rest here:
NSA-linked tools help power second global ransomware outbreak - Politico

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on NSA-linked tools help power second global ransomware outbreak – Politico

NSA Warrantless Surveillance Aided Turks After Attack, Officials Say – New York Times

Posted: at 5:57 am

But the witnesses sidestepped Mr. Grahams question, saying only that they were working on his request. That provoked an angry intervention from the committee chairman, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who banged his gavel and told Mr. Graham, his voice rising, I want you to proceed until you get an answer.

Mr. Graham eventually ended his questioning without getting one. But later in the hearing, Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, suggested that the senators emotion at the thought that their government could invade their privacy and use the information against them was just part of the bigger picture.

What about the privacy of the Americans who are not in this room? he asked.

The warrantless surveillance program traces back to President George W. Bushs Stellarwind program, introduced after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Stellarwind permitted the National Security Agency to wiretap Americans international phone calls without the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, of 1978.

After it came to light, Congress legalized a form of the program in 2008 with the FISA Amendments Act. It permits the government to collect, from American internet or phone providers and without warrants, the communications of foreigners abroad who have been targeted for any foreign intelligence purpose even when they are talking to Americans.

Privacy advocates want Congress, as part of any bill extending the law, to require warrants before officials may use Americans identifiers, like their email addresses, to search the repository of messages previously collected by the program. But Stuart J. Evans, a top intelligence official at the Justice Department, testified on Tuesday that imposing such a limit would grind the entire FISA process to a halt because investigators need to quickly search a large volume of such queries to process leads, and because such queries are typically undertaken at an early stage, when investigators have not yet found evidence to establish probable cause of wrongdoing.

Several lawmakers also pressed the officials about a decision by Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, to shelve an N.S.A. effort to estimate how much incidental collection of Americans information the program sweeps up. Bradley Brooker, the acting general counsel to Mr. Coats, said that systematically determining who is using email accounts that are not of foreign intelligence interest would invade peoples privacy and divert resources.

To underscore their message that the program is too valuable to curtail, Mr. Brooker and other officials disclosed several additional examples where the program had been useful. They included detecting an unidentified country that was smuggling goods in violation of sanctions, and finding someone in Western Europe who was talking to a member of the Islamic State about purchasing material to build a suicide belt.

Mr. Ghattas said the government had used the program to investigate Shawn Parson, a Trinidadian social media propagandist for the Islamic State whose network distributed prolific amounts of English-language recruiting pitches and calls for attacks before he was killed in Syria in August 2015.

The F.B.I. had been investigating Mr. Parson since October 2013 based on his online postings, Mr. Ghattas said, and information it shared from that collection with unspecified allies had helped them identify other Islamic State supporters and had potentially prevented attacks in those countries.

Follow Charlie Savage on Twitter @charlie_savage.

A version of this article appears in print on June 28, 2017, on Page A14 of the New York edition with the headline: Up-and-Down Hearing On Surveillance Program.

See the original post:
NSA Warrantless Surveillance Aided Turks After Attack, Officials Say - New York Times

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on NSA Warrantless Surveillance Aided Turks After Attack, Officials Say – New York Times

New cyberattack uses same NSA-developed exploit – WHSV.com – WHSV

Posted: at 5:57 am

PARIS (AP) UPDATE (1:30 p.m.):

Security experts say Tuesday's cyberattack shares something in common with last month's WannaCry attack: Both spread by using digital break-in tools purportedly created by the U.S. National Security Agency and recently leaked to the web.

Security vendors Bitdefender Labs and Kaspersky Labs say the NSA exploit, known as EternalBlue, is allowing the malware to spread inside an organization's network. Other than that, the latest malware is different from WannaCry.

Organizations should be protected if they had installed a fix that Microsoft issued in March.

But Chris Wysopal, chief technology officer at the security firm Veracode, says that's only the case if 100 percent of computers were patched. He says that if one computer gets infected, the new malware has a backup mechanism to spread to patched computers within the network as well.

Wysopal says the attack seems to be hitting large industrial companies that "typically have a hard time patching all of their machines because so many systems simply cannot have down time."

Organizations hit include the Russian oil company Rosneft and the Danish oil and shipping company AP Moller-Maersk.

_____

UPDATE (12:10 p.m.):

The second-largest drugmaker in the United States is confirming it's been affected by a cyberattack.

In a message sent using its verified Twitter account, Merck confirmed Tuesday that its computer network was "compromised" as part of a global attack.

Officials said the Kenilworth, New Jersey-based company was investigating the incident but provided no further details.

Merck has global locations including in Ukraine, where a new and highly virulent outbreak of malicious data-scrambling software causing mass disruption across Europe appeared to be hitting especially hard.

Company and government officials reported serious intrusions at the Ukrainian power grid, banks and government offices, where one senior official posted a photo of a darkened computer screen and the words, "the whole network is down."

Dutch-based transport company TNT Express, which was taken over last year by FedEx, also said Tuesday that it is suffering computer disruptions. Spokesman Cyrille Gibot says that "like many other companies and institutions around the world, we are experiencing interference with some of our systems within the TNT network. We are assessing the situation and are implementing remediation steps as quickly as possible and we regret any inconvenience to our customers." He declined further comment.

_____

A new and highly virulent outbreak of malicious data-scrambling software appears to be causing mass disruption across Europe, hitting Ukraine especially hard.

Company and government officials reported serious intrusions at the Ukrainian power grid, banks and government offices, where one senior official posted a photo of a darkened computer screen and the words, "the whole network is down." Ukraine's prime minister said the attack was unprecedented but that "vital systems haven't been affected."

Russia's Rosneft oil company also reported falling victim to hacking, as did Danish shipping giant A.P. Moller-Maersk.

"We are talking about a cyberattack," said Anders Rosendahl, a spokesman for the Copenhagen-based group. "It has affected all branches of our business, at home and abroad."

The number of companies and agencies reportedly affected by the ransomware campaign was piling up fast, and the electronic rampage appeared to be rapidly snowballing into a real-world crisis. Dutch daily Algemeen Dagblaad says that container ship terminals in Rotterdam run by a unit of Maersk were also affected. Rosneft said that the company narrowly avoided major damage.

"The hacking attack could have led to serious consequences but neither the oil production nor the processing has been affected thanks to the fact that the company has switched to a reserve control system," the company said.

There's very little information about what might be behind the disruption at each specific company, but cybersecurity experts rapidly zeroed in on a form of ransomware, the name given to programs that hold data hostage by scrambling it until a payment is made.

"A massive ransomware campaign is currently unfolding worldwide," said Romanian cybersecurity company Bitdefender. In a telephone interview, Bitdefender analyst Bogdan Botezatu said that he had examined samples of the program and that it appeared to be nearly identical to GoldenEye, one of a family of hostage-taking programs that has been circulating for months.

It's not clear whether or why the ransomware has suddenly become so much more potent, but Botezatu said that it was likely spreading automatically across a network, without the need for human interaction. Self-spreading software, often described as "worms," are particularly feared because they can spread rapidly, like a contagious disease.

"It's like somebody sneezing into a train full of people," said Botezatu. "You just have to exist there and you're vulnerable."

The world is still recovering from a previous outbreak of ransomware, called WannaCry or WannaCrypt, which spread rapidly using digital break-in tools originally created by the U.S. National Security Agency and recently leaked to the web.

This particular variant of ransomware leaves a message with a contact email; several messages sent to the address were not immediately returned.

___ Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow and Jan M. Olsen in Copenhagen, Denmark contributed to this report.

Read this article:
New cyberattack uses same NSA-developed exploit - WHSV.com - WHSV

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on New cyberattack uses same NSA-developed exploit – WHSV.com – WHSV

The dangers of reading micro expressions – HuffPost

Posted: at 5:56 am

Do We Really Want People to Learn How to Spot Micro Facial Expressions?

Paul Ekman Group

By definition, micros leak emotions that people dont want others to know they are feeling. Sometimes, even the person showing the micro is not aware of the emotion that is leaking out. My Micro Expression Training Tool (METT) enables those who study it to take this information from people attempting to conceal their emotions (and, in a sense, they are stealing this information).

Who has the right to do that, to tear away the curtains disguise? Certainly the Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs), although I have argued (a bit rhetorically) that LEOs who have been trained to spot micros should offer those they talk to the opportunity to wear a mask or facial cover.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution protects us from self-incrimination, but micros may provide the Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) who took our training just such incriminating information- just what the person involuntarily showing the micros doesnt want a LEO to know. Would it be in the spirit of the Fifth Amendment for LEOs who have learned how to spot micros to at least inform those they interview that they have been specially trained to take this information- to invade privacy without consent? Should they offer criminal suspects the right to wear a mask to preserve their Fifth Amendment protection?

Many people (lawyers, business operators, salespersons) whose interests are not always the same as those whose micros they learn to spot, can now (without forewarning) invade privacy, taking information without permission that the provider would not want them to have. I never thought about these issues when I developed METT, but I recognize that my training courses enable an invasion of a very private realm of peoples lives: the feelings they dont want everyone (and sometimes, no one) to know they are experiencing.

And yet, such an invasion of privacy can serve the public good. It helps the health care provider doctor, nurse, or other caregiver tune in and, therefore, be better able to help.

I once thought that I might be able to control who else would be able to use METT, but I learned from my colleagues in the Department of Defense that there is no way to do that. A tool, once created and accessible on the internet, is available to everyone who pays the nominal price. All I can hope, my Defense Department colleagues advised, is that it will be used more for what I consider to be good, to help people, than to harm or exploit people.

The proverbial cat is out of the bag, free to go anywhere!

Dr. Paul Ekman is a well-known psychologist and co-discoverer of micro expressions. He was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by TIME magazine in 2009. He has worked with many government agencies, domestic and abroad. Dr. Ekman has compiled over 40 years of his research to create comprehensive training tools to read the hidden emotions of those around you. To learn more, please visit: http://www.paulekman.com.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Here is the original post:
The dangers of reading micro expressions - HuffPost

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on The dangers of reading micro expressions – HuffPost

A Supreme Court call on the third party doctrine – Washington Times

Posted: at 5:56 am

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

This week, constitutional law experts and the law enforcement community were abuzz after the U.S. Supreme Court added Carpenter v. United States to its docket, a case that could reshape government data collection and the Fourth Amendment in the internet Age. The Fourth Amendment asserts that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. Timothy Carpenter, the petitioner in this case, alleges that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

The case comes at a time when domestic surveillance by intelligence agencies is under scrutiny, and smartphone and internet records are playing a greater role in law enforcement investigations. It raises an important legal question about the applicability of old doctrines that give the government immense power in the Information Age.

Carpenter was convicted of taking part in six armed robberies in Michigan and Ohio. The FBIs evidence at trial included information collected from his cellphone carrier without a warrant, including location information that placed him in the vicinity of the robberies. Police almost certainly could have gotten a search warrant for Carpenters phone records. The appeals court upheld his conviction and dismissed his argument because, as most courts hold in these cases, personal information gathered from businesses like phone companies is not a search or seizure and doesnt require a warrant.

Before the creation of the web or smartphones, courts developed whats known as the third party doctrine for Fourth Amendment cases. This doctrine denies that information turned over to a third party like phone call and location information automatically transmitted to a phone company when placing a call is protected by Fourth Amendment. The doctrine derives from Supreme Court decisions from the 1970s about phone and bank records.

Today, technological advancements mean we each turn over tremendous amounts of personal data to third parties simply with routine use of the digital services of our age. New services that transmit data to the internet cloud, like smart homes, voice-activated devices, and Google Docs, offer law enforcement an even bigger treasure trove of personal records that, under the third party doctrine, does not require a warrant to collect.

The mere fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Carpenter case was a small victory for civil liberties groups. The third party doctrine is a blunt instrument that, in our connected world, permits too many low-value fishing expeditions by law enforcement. Cellular phone companies in particular are inundated with law enforcement subpoenas every year for user data, including user location. Verizon, for instance, reported that the government issued more than 120,000 subpoenas to the company in 2016 over 350 per day. Legal teams at Google, Facebook, Amazon and Uber are required to sift through similar government requests for information.

The political right and left have bristled in recent years against intrusive and often secretive government data collection. Conservatives were alarmed when The Wall Street Journal broke news last October that federal agents in Southern California had co-opted state license plate readers and drove around a parking lot to collect information about thousands of gun show attendees. For years, police departments around the country have spent millions acquiring cell site simulators that jam cellular signals and collect data from hundreds of nearby smartphone users. Progressives have alleged that these devices are used to identify people at mass protests.

The third party doctrine denies that such information can ever be unreasonably seized or searched. As the Cato Institute argues in its amicus brief in the Carpenter case, its time for the court to strip away the decades of privacy doctrine that has permitted police data collection to metastasize.

If the court takes up the Fourth Amendment issues, it should scrupulously apply the Fourth Amendments language: Are Carpenters phone records papers or effects? Were they searched or seized? Was the search or seizure unreasonable? Courts ask these questions in other criminal cases, but not when information leaves someones home or device. Justice must be served, but the third party doctrine short-circuits what should be a demanding constitutional analysis that protects us all.

Contracts between individuals and phone and app companies affirm the confidentiality of sensitive information, and courts should allow only reasonable searches of that data. We should not relinquish Fourth Amendment protections the moment a third party is involved especially in an era when devices in our pockets automatically transmit data.

Brent Skorup is a research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Melody Calkins is a Google Policy Fellow with Mercatus.

Read the original here:
A Supreme Court call on the third party doctrine - Washington Times

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on A Supreme Court call on the third party doctrine – Washington Times

Oh, The Places You’ll Go: Mobile Geolocation Data and the 4th Amendment – Lexology (registration)

Posted: at 5:56 am

Early this month, the U.S. Supreme Court addedCarpenter v. United Statesto the roster for consideration in the upcoming October term.Carpenterwill mark the Courts first chance to address an important, as-yet unresolved question in the digital age: Does the Fourth Amendment require a warrant for law enforcement officials to obtain cell site location information, or CSLI, which reveal the location and movements of a cell phone user?

The case will address the tension between the Fourth Amendment and the Stored Communications Act, which Congress enacted as Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. The SCA specifies procedures that law enforcement may use to obtain certain records from third-party electronic communication services or remote computing services. But it does not require a warrant. Since its enactment, third-party service providers have routinely cooperated with law enforcement requests to disclosesubject to certain statutory requirementscustomer data. And notably the petitioner here does not attack the constitutionality of the SCA. Rather,Carpenterasks whether companies should require a warrant, supported by particularized findings of probable cause, before disclosing CLSI. This question has caused considerable doubt among service providers, which must balance responding to law enforcement demands for information with the privacy interests of their customers, and which also require a clear roadmap about what the appropriate procedures are.

The uncertainty among service providers responding to requests for customer information under the SCA is exacerbated by the existence of a significant circuit split concerning whether the Fourth Amendment applies to CSLI. There have been no fewer than 18 separate majority, concurring and dissenting opinions across five circuit courts on the issue, and courts have fractured over whether there is any reasonable expectation of privacy in CLSI and other customer data.Carpenterimplicates three different strains of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence: (1) the third party disclosure doctrine, (2) the physical trespass doctrine, and (3) the distinction between content and non-content information. The case will have the Court decide whether these doctrines, which first arose in the pre-digital world, still have continuing vitality today. And it will allow the Court to consider whether the accumulation of data by third-party service providersnow commonplacegives rise to any new privacy interests under the Fourth Amendment.

Background

In connection with the investigation of a series of armed robberies, federal prosecutors moved under the SCA for court orders requiring two cellular service providers to disclose 187 days of phone records, including CSLI, for petitioner Timothy Carpenter. Based on the CSLI, the government charged Carpenter with aiding and abetting robbery. Carpenter moved to suppress the evidence, but the district court rejected Carpenters argument and held that the governments collection was not a Fourth Amendment search. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) that the records did not disclose the contentof communications and thus were not entitled any Fourth Amendment protection; (2) that the disclosure of the records to third-party cellular providers defeated any reasonable expectation of privacy under the seminal caseKatz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); and (3) that the physical trespass doctrinewhich the Supreme Court had revived in its recentRiley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014), andUnited States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), decisionsdid not apply.

Concurring in the outcome on alternative grounds, one member on the panel, Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch, wrote separately to air her concerns about the Fourth Amendment tests that courts have applied in this rapidly changing area of technology, especially in light of the sheer quantity of sensitive information procured without a warrant.

The Old Ways Just Dont Work

Carpenterdemonstrates the difficulty of applying the canonical tests under existing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to the modern day. For example, there is the third party disclosure doctrine, which grows out ofKatzs reasonable expectation of privacy test. For someone to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a piece of information, (1) that person must subjectively exhibit an expectation of privacy and (2) that expectation must be objectively reasonable. The core concept is that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in any information they disclose to third parties, because they already subjectively surrendered any such expectation with the fact of disclosure. Where the doctrine applies, you cannot even get past the first step of theKatzframework, andKatzhas remained black letter law on the books for half a century now. But in the digital age, where persons passively disclose so much information about themselves (and their whereabouts) to third parties at all times, what reasonable expectation of privacy could possibly be left?

Or take the related distinction that the Fourth Amendment marks between content information and non-content information, such as addressing. The idea here is that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in non-content information, because that is frequently disclosed, either to third-party service provider or to the public more broadly. Consider, for instance, a package sent through the mail: itscontentsare unknown and thus the sender has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that. But all other information about the packagethe return and target address, the amount of postage on it, its size, shape, and weightis ascertainable by any mail carrier or member of the public that comes into contact with it. And so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in that kind of information. On balance, CLSI appears closer to what courts have traditionally considered addressing or other non-content information: it does not tell you what a person said or did, it just shows you where a person was.

Finally, there is the trespass theory of the Fourth Amendment, which the Supreme Court resurrected in its recent cases dealing with technology. InJones, the Court held that the unauthorized placement of a GPS tracker on a car for long-term surveillance triggered Fourth Amendment protections. Similarly, inRiley, the Court held that law enforcement needed a warrant to search a mobile phone. But this trespass notion does not appear to have any place inCarpentereither. Police did not track Carpenter, or break into his cell phone; they merely asked for records from a third party who kept them.

None of these doctrines apply cleanly. Still, given the accumulation of information, there is still some visceral notion that the Fourth Amendment should apply here. The only question is how?

How MayCarpenterResolve This Tension?

While the petitioner here did not request a full rejection of the third party disclosure doctrine, the Court may cull back on the third party disclosure doctrine. Chief Justice Robertss majority opinion inRileysuggested that persons still have some reasonable expectation of privacy in sensitive information collected over mobile phones and stored by service providers. Similarly, Justice Sotomayors concurrence inJoneswarned against a strict application of the third party doctrine: I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose, is for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection. In both cases, the Court signaled that stringent adherence toKatzmay stop making sense as technology evolves. But those cases both side-stepped the issue by instead turning to the doctrine of physical trespass, and that doctrine cannot sensibly apply to the facts ofCarpenter.

It is also possible that the Court might create a new strain of jurisprudence based on the quantity of records requested. Such an approach would likely introduce certain issues of line-drawing, for instance, if a warrant is required for long-term tracking, while the SCA is sufficient for short-term. But, as Justice Samuel Anthony Alitos concurrence inJonesand Judge Stranchs concurrence in theCarpentercase point out, that might be appropriate. After all, in the modern era, it is not the disclosure of individual, isolated data points that seem problematic, but rather the accumulation of that data over time.

Which test will the Court apply? Service providers, and their customers, will have to wait until this October term to find out.

Here is the original post:
Oh, The Places You'll Go: Mobile Geolocation Data and the 4th Amendment - Lexology (registration)

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on Oh, The Places You’ll Go: Mobile Geolocation Data and the 4th Amendment – Lexology (registration)

A New Day for the Second Amendment: Donald Trump Addresses the NRA – NRA ILA

Posted: at 5:56 am

This article appears in the July 2017 issues of the Official Journals of the National Rifle Association.

The drumbeat of fake news continues as the elites disappointed by the 2016 election dedicate themselves to resisting the Trump administration.

Among their many false narratives is that Americans are no longer interested in firearms now that Barack Obama is out of the White House.

At least two big groups of people didnt get that memo.

One is comprised of the 2,045,564 Americans who were queried through the FBIs firearm background check database in April 2017. This was the second busiest April ever for that system. In fact, each month of Trumps presidency has seen over two million firearm-related background checks. Only in 2016, when Americans faced losing their Second Amendment rights forever, did the FBI run more checks during a January to April period.

The other group included the nearly 82,000 people who attended the NRAs Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Atlanta, Georgia in late April. This was our second-highest total of attendees ever. Fifteen acres of guns and gear on display at the Georgia World Congress Center said all that needed to be said about the vitality of Americas firearms industry.

But those werent the only encouraging signs that greeted the NRAs extended family reunion in the Peach State. Our Annual Leadership Forum drew an impressive line-up of speakers. Besides three sitting U.S. Senators (Georgias David Purdue, Alabamas Luther Strange, and Texas Ted Cruz), we heard from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Florida Governor Rick Scott. Lt. Col. Allen West and Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke provided a distinguished presence from the uniformed ranks. And rounding out the guest list were Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, former Major League Baseball great Adam LaRoche, and campus carry advocate Antonia Okafor.

But that was just the undercard, as it were. Because for only the second time in the NRAs history, we welcomed the sitting President of the United States (the last one before him being Ronald Reagan in 1983). For those of us who were on the front lines of the brutal 2016 election (and that included every NRA member present), it was not only an honor to have President Trump address the NRA, but one of the clearest possible lessons of the power the common person still holds in American democracy.

I began my remarks with a montage of film clips showing condescending figures from the political, media, and entertainment establishments dismissing Trumps chances of winning the election, contrasted with footage of the partnership forged between the NRA and Donald Trump. NRA members have always stood apart from the prevailing winds of elite opinion and political correctness to focus on the enduring values that have bound our country together from the beginning.

That resolve was never as evident or necessary as in 2016, when the fate of our country and the Second Amendment literally hung in the balance of the presidential contest. On the one hand was globalist and Second Amendment opponent Hillary Clinton, who claimed that the Supreme Court was wrong to recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms. On the other was Donald Trump, who had a Second Amendment position paper on his campaign website that began, The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Period. At stake was which of them would appoint the Second Amendments tie-breaking vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.

By the time President Trump addressed the crowd in Atlanta, he had already made that appointment by filling the late Justice Antonin Scalias seat with another constitutional originalist, Neil M. Gorsuch. Once again, we have a majority of support on the Court for our right to keep a gun in our home for self-defense.

President Trump had many stirring things to say during his address. But the line all of us will remember most is when he assured the members of the NRA: you came through for me, and I am going to come through for you.

More than that, however, you the NRAs members came through for America and for the freedoms we hold dear. And American democracy and its elevation of the common man and woman came through for all of us.

As ever, the fight for Americas soul will continue. But that Friday in Atlanta showed with the utmost clarity it is one we can win.

View post:
A New Day for the Second Amendment: Donald Trump Addresses the NRA - NRA ILA

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on A New Day for the Second Amendment: Donald Trump Addresses the NRA – NRA ILA

Supreme Court refuses to hear high-stakes Second Amendment handgun case – Washington Examiner

Posted: at 5:56 am

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take a case about the boundaries of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, by saying it will not review a California self-defense law.

The petitioners in Peruta v. California who asked the Supreme Court to review the case called the controversy "perhaps the single most important unresolved Second Amendment question" left to come before the Supreme Court. The high court's action on Monday will leave that question unresolved.

The question the Supreme Court refused to hear is whether the Second Amendment gives people the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the high court's decision not to take the case, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.

"At issue in this case is whether that [Second Amendment] guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense," Thomas wrote. "Neither party disputes that the issue is one of national importance or that the courts of appeals have already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant the petition for a writ of certiorari."

He added, "For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a state denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it."

California law generally prevents carrying a handgun outside a home, but concealed carry is allowed for those with a license. Applicants for such a license need to demonstrate "good cause" to obtain the license, which several sheriffs have taken to mean including carrying a handgun for self-defense, as the petitioners noted in their brief to the Supreme Court. But in San Diego, the sheriff defined "good cause" as requiring a "particularized" need for self-defense that separates the applicant from an average applicant.

A three-judge panel found the San Diego County Sheriff's policy unconstitutional, but was reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the Supreme Court did not take the case, the 9th Circuit's ruling will prevail.

"We should have granted certiorari in this case," Thomas wrote. "The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this court should address. I see no reason to await another case."

Paul Clement, an attorney who several conservatives hoped to see included on President-elect Trump's Supreme Court short lists when looking to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is listed as the counsel of record for the petitioners challenging the California policy and 9th Circuit decision.

See more here:
Supreme Court refuses to hear high-stakes Second Amendment handgun case - Washington Examiner

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Supreme Court refuses to hear high-stakes Second Amendment handgun case – Washington Examiner

SCOTUS just made a mockery of biology AND the Second Amendment – Conservative Review

Posted: at 5:56 am


Conservative Review
SCOTUS just made a mockery of biology AND the Second Amendment
Conservative Review
Over the past few years, we have chronicled a pattern developing in the lower courts on the Second Amendment since the Heller decision. Not that we needed the Supreme Court to affirm the right to self-defense, which predated the Constitution, but the ...

View original post here:
SCOTUS just made a mockery of biology AND the Second Amendment - Conservative Review

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on SCOTUS just made a mockery of biology AND the Second Amendment – Conservative Review

SCOTUS Lets Ruling Stand Protecting Second Amendment Rights Following Non-Serious Misdemeanors – Breitbart News

Posted: at 5:56 am

The issue revolved aroundBinderup v. the U.S. Attorney General, a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on behalf ofDaniel Binderup. He pleaded guilty in 1996 to a misdemeanor charge related to a consensual relationship he had with a 17-year-old female employee, receiving three years probation and a $300 fine.Since thecrime could have resulted in jail timeof over one yeartriggering a federal gun law blocks firearms possessionBinderup sought protection of his Second Amendment rights.

The Third Circuit handed down an en banc ruling in Binderups favor and Obamas Department of Justice responded by seeking a Supreme Court review. The result of that review is that the Third Circuit decision stands.

Following SCOTUS announcement, SAF sent a press release to Breitbart News, saying:

The Third Circuit Courts favorableruling combined Binderups case withanother SAF case involvinga man named Julio Suarez. Hewas stopped in 1990 on suspicion of driving while intoxicated.At the time he was carrying a handgun and spare ammunition without a permit.He pleaded guilty in Maryland state court to the charge and received a 180-day suspended sentence and $500 fine. Asa result, he also lost his gun rights because the crime could have resulted in jail timeof more than one year. Neither man was ever incarcerated.

The pro-Second Amendment results ofBinderup v. the U.S. Attorney Generalwere accompanied by news that SCOTUS declined to hearPeruta v. California; a case revolving around Californias good cause requirement for concealed carry license acquisition. On January 12, 2017, Breitbart News reported SCOTUS was petitioned to review Perutain hopes of securing a ruling as to whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

For now, the Second Amendment community is cheering the ruling inBinderup but remains pensive overPeruta.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read more here:
SCOTUS Lets Ruling Stand Protecting Second Amendment Rights Following Non-Serious Misdemeanors - Breitbart News

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on SCOTUS Lets Ruling Stand Protecting Second Amendment Rights Following Non-Serious Misdemeanors – Breitbart News