Monthly Archives: June 2017

For weeks, President Trump cried foul, repeating unverified claims that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower to spy on him, accusations that remain unsubstantiated.

But Mr. Trump, with the power of the presidency and executive branch as a whole at his fingertips, has said little of how he intends to approach the authority he now wields over the country's surveillance policies. As developing policing technologies continue to outpace laws restricting their use, and as Mr. Trump and top members of his administration like Attorney General Jeff Sessions take a hard line against illegal immigration, terrorism and crime, experts in constitutional law and civil liberties fear the lack of an accompanying conversation on privacy protections could contribute to the erosion of Fourth Amendment rights.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

"I think we will see a push from the Trump administration to expand surveillance powers, and that of course could directly implicate Fourth Amendment protections," said Christopher Slobogin, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School who has studied and written on Fourth Amendment, privacy and surveillance issues for years.

"And they're going to push I think also for greater militarization of the police, which could affect Fourth Amendment issues," Slobogin added.

The American Civil Liberties Union is currently taking the Department of Justice to court to determine when the government notifies people they are under surveillance.

In May 2015, before announcing his bid for the presidency, Mr. Trump said he supported legislation allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to hold bulk metadata, and later in the year reiterated he would tend to "err on the side of security." On the campaign trail, and after taking office, Mr. Trump has emphasized the importance of bulking up police forces and eradicating terrorism. Sessions fought against reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 2012, and against limits on the NSA's spying powers.

Play Video

FBI Director James Comey says there is no evidence to support President Donald Trump's tweet about a "wiretap" of Trump Tower during the 2016 ele...

"It's not as though this didn't exist before Trump, because it's all in this terrorism -- war on terrorism stuff," said Robert Bloom, a professor at Boston College Law School who focuses on criminal procedure and civil rights law. "We've loosened up on protections of individuals. But now you've really got an abusive executive. A president and attorney general who don't really give two whits about individual protection and about the Fourth Amendment."

The White House and Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

Guaranteeing Fourth Amendment rights has become increasingly complicated in the digital age. One longstanding legal theory dating to the 1970s, known as the Third Party Doctrine, asserts that once a person gives personal information to a third party, for instance, to a cell service provider, he or she loses the expectation of privacy, and the information can be given to other entities without the person's explicit permission -- without violating the Fourth Amendment.

The Obama administration placed some limitations on surveillance technology, but mostly through policy. The Obama administration required the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to obtain warrants for the use of their 400 Stingrays or cell site simulators, devices that mimic cellphone towers, so all phones within a range connect to it instead of their cellphone provider's nearest tower, and the devices collect cellphone data. The IRS also acquired the technology in recent years.

"But that's the kind of thing that Jeff Sessions could do away with with the stroke of a pen," said Alvaro Bedoya, founding executive director for the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University Law Center.

Play Video

Law enforcement uses tracking devices called "stingrays" to locate cellphones. But the technology also picks up personal information from other c...

Law enforcement agencies say Stingray technology helps them catch suspected criminals -- and it does. But privacy advocates fear the technology's ability to collect nearby cellphone owners' data without their permission or knowledge -- and often, without a warrant -- compromises Fourth Amendment rights.

Federal authorities have said the devices they use are not configured to collect the content of communications, but the capabilities of the technology aren't clear. That's partly because federal authorities have shrouded cell site simulators in mystery, sometimes dropping cases against criminal suspects rather than reveal their policing methods and agreements with private cell site simulator companies that swear the government to product secrecy in contracts.

The ability to put the warrant requirement "through the shredder" at any moment is why policy is an insufficient safeguard, said Matthew Feeney, policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

"We're relying heavily on government policy rather than law, and that I think is a problem," Feeney said.

Many states also use automatic license plate readers, technology that can scan hundreds of plates per minute. In the 2008 election cycle, Virginia State Police used automatic license plate readers on attendees' cars at political rallies for Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, the ACLU revealed. Alone, license plates may not amount to much information, but police have the ability to check those plates against other records, and -- over time -- can observe patterns about a driver's habits, the ACLU argued.

Meanwhile, the federal government is quietly ramping up its surveillance approach at airports, using technology that was, "in most cases developed for the battlefield," Bedoya said.

Play Video

Delta and JetBlue are rolling out new ways to use the sophisticated technology on passengers, but not everyone is on board. Stacey Butler of CBS ...

U.S. Customs and Border Protection began testing facial recognition software -- called Biometric Exit -- at Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C., in 2015, and pilot programs are expanding to other large airports. The software -- the concept of which was first required by Bill Clinton-era legislation in 1996 -- is intended to check visa holders entering or leaving the country through facial matching systems. That scan can be checked against a person's passport. As Mr. Trump looks to toughen immigration policies, it's a timely tool.

But Bedoya worries the technology's use won't stop there.

"There aren't many people talking about biometric exit, when it might fundamentally change the way we travel," Bedoya said.

It's unlikely the technology will only be used on foreign nationals, Bedoya said. Many airports mix international and domestic terminals, and it's more practical and realistic to use the technology at the main Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint, Bedoya said.

"That means you have a flow of both domestic and international travelers," Bedoya said.

Once it's in place, facial recognition software -- like other kinds of policing technology -- can be used to match other federal databases and tell a story.

"We shouldn't forget that all of these tools can be put together," Feeney said.

"Drones can be used to mount a license plate reader," Feeney said. "Body cam footage could be linked to drone footage."

Congress has made some efforts to strengthen privacy in recent months. In February, the House passed the Email Privacy Act, which would require a warrant for any access to stored digital communications. But the Senate has yet to take any action on it, and threats of terrorism may easily quash any momentum on similar legislation, Slobogin said.

"If we have an event like Manchester in the United States -- or Manchester itself -- that might push Congress in the other direction," Slobogin said.

Absent much guidance from Congress in the way of laws, the courts are deciding the future of surveillance as it pertains to the Fourth Amendment, Slobogin said.

"Some of the lower courts have looked at warrants and searches and things of that nature, but the Supreme Court really hasn't weighed in on those kinds of issues," Bloom said.

Slowly, that's changing, as cases work their way up to the highest court in the land.

This year, the Supreme Court will decide United States v. Carpenter, on whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell phone records revealing location and movements of a person over the course of months is constitutional.

"That is arguably going to be the most significant Fourth Amendment case in decades," Feeney said.

The Third Party Doctrine theory "needs to be grappled with significantly," and could be reviewed in that case, Bloom said.

The lack of legal protection against an expanding availability of policing technologies may not concern law-abiding citizens, but it should, Feeney said.

"At the moment, we seem to be mostly concerned about radical Islamic terrorism," Feeney said.

"Maybe in 15 years it's progressives, or libertarians, pro-life people or pro-choice people," he added.

This, Feeney said, is the fundamental question people should ask themselves: "Would I be happy with the state of the Fourth Amendment if my enemy is in charge?"

The rest is here:
What is the future of privacy, surveillance and policing technologies ... - CBS News

On August 1, 2016, Lakewood City Council sent a clear message to all renters living in Lakewood by voting for the Rental Housing Safety Program. known as the R.I.P. Essentially the message from Lakewood City Council was, Lakewood renters do not possess enough brain power, energy or courage to manage their own rental housing SAFETY without government interference.

Although most, if not all, city council members do not agree with my viewpoint, I have provided a link above which will take you to the city website where council members share why they support the rental inspection plan.

While we have not heard much lately, it looks like it will not be very long before property owners and renters will have to start living with this new big brother program.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that citizens are to be free of unreasonable search and seizure of their persons and papers.

The city councils vote indicates a willingness to violate Fourth Amendment Rights or at least the spirit of the Fourth Amendment Rights in the guise as the council says, moving in the right direction in the name of SAFETY.

For the sake of argument, lets say I am wrong and city council is right. Then why not make the SAFETY program more comprehensive?

I offer the following suggestions to our Lakewood City Council in consideration for making their SAFETY plan more comprehensive which means more renter SAFETY.

With these enhancements to the Rental Inspection Safety Program, I am starting to understand what our city councils drive for SAFETY can mean.

If Lakewood City Council chooses to ignore the Fourth Amendment by simply hiding behind the word SAFETY, our city can accomplish a lot by simply expanding their safety program.

One last observation. Our Lakewood City Councils R.I.P. is a genius move. Think about it. Without the council approved R.I.P. program made possible by hijacking the inspection provision of the Washington State Landlord Tenant Act there could be no R.I.P. The city now plans to bully their way over renter thresholds. The manipulation of the Landlord Tenant law is a bold and creative move.

What would happen if police bullied or forced their way through a renters front door with no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion, no exigent circumstances and no warrant? This would be thought of as an abuse of police power and a violation of the renters Constitutional Rights.

People would be outraged if our uniformed police acted in a Gestapo-like fashion. The ACLU would be all over this kind of police action. The Department of Justice would launch a major investigation. Civil lawsuits would be filed with the City of Lakewood paying out millions of dollars on civil rights claims. There would be protestors marching on city hall.

My compliments to our city council. They have made it possible to accomplish what would ordinarily seem impossible in America and in doing so, will be bringing SAFETY to our renters.

If in the end if the SAFETY enhancements I have suggested are not included in the R.I.P., then SAFETY must not be the real motivation for the R.I.P.. I would ask, What then is city councils true motivation?

For any of you thinking this article contains ridiculous suggestions, I would be quick to admit that I agree with you. But, my suggested SAFETY enhancements are no more ridiculous than Lakewood City Councils R.I.P. plan in terms of eroding renters and property owners right to privacy and security.

It is interesting to note that there are a number of U.S. court cases which explore what happens when law enforcement uses lethal force inside someones home after gaining entrance in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The question is, does the homeowner have the right to defend his right to privacy when a police officer or public official is inside his or her home illegally.

As the City of Lakewood pushes forward with their rental inspection program, I am confident they will work hard to create a smooth running inspection process. I am confident they will find cases to point to where they can say, See, one look at this rental confirms we need R.I.P. On the other hand, I will not be surprised to learn of the city experiencing, no causing, unexpected negative consequences.

There is time. I still hope City Council will be able to escape the fog that has clouded their judgment regarding constitutional rights.

Read more here:
Westside Story The Fog Has Not Lifted - The Suburban Times