Tag Archive | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Warrentless Cell Phone Searches and Location Privacy

Courts Divided Over Searches of Cellphones

by Smni Sengupta, NYR, November 25, 2012

Judges and lawmakers across the country are wrangling over whether and when law enforcement authorities can peer into suspects’ cellphones, and the cornucopia of evidence they provide. …“The courts are all over the place,” said Hanni Fakhoury, a criminal lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based civil liberties group. “They can’t even agree if there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages that would trigger Fourth Amendment protection.”

For full text of the article, visit Legality of Warrantless Cellphone Searches Goes to Courts and Legislatures – NYTimes.com.

 

Advertisements

Drones May Set Off a Flurry of Lawsuits

by Somini Sengupta, Bits, NYT, February 20, 2012

Opening up the skies to the civilian use of drones in the United States is likely to lead to a number of new questions about surveillance by electronic means. Unmanned aerial vehicles can not only take photos and videos, they can also spot heat sources, read car license plate numbers, and perhaps soon capture other information about people and things down below.

For full text of article, visit Drones May Set Off a Flurry of Lawsuits – NYTimes.com.

Are Drones Watching You?

The article “Are Drones Watching You?” provides a nice summary of U.S. case law regarding aerial surveillance with links to the cases.

By Jennifer Lynch, EFF, January 10, 2012

Today, EFF filed suit against the Federal Aviation Administration seeking information on drone flights in the United States. The FAA is the sole entity within the federal government capable of authorizing domestic drone flights, and for too long now, it has failed to release specific and detailed information on who is authorized to fly drones within US borders.

For full text of the article, visit Are Drones Watching You? | Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Joint Comments on Proposed Smart Grid Privacy Policies and Procedures

Source: Center for Democracy and Technology, October 15, 2010

The Smart Grid promises great benefits to consumers and the environment, including lowered energy costs, increased usage of environmentally friendly power sources, and enhanced security against attack and outage.  At the same time, however, the Smart Grid presents new privacy threats through its enhanced collection and transmission of detailed consumption data – data that can reveal intimate details about activities within the home and that can easily be transmitted from one party to another.

Both the Commission and parties to this proceeding have agreed that a full set of “Fair Information Practice” principles, as previously outlined by CDT and EFF, is the best framework to adopt in order to protect consumers. Adopting rules based on the full set of FIPs is particularly important now, in light of a growing national consensus that consumer privacy is not adequately protected by mere “notice and choice.”

In these comments, we articulate a clear, concise set of policies and procedures that implement or “operationalize” the full set of FIPs for the Smart Grid. We respectfully encourage the Commission to require these policies and procedures of all regulable Smart Grid entities. CDT and EFF are interested in working with all parties on these proposed rules, and we invite other parties to offer suggestions for improvement or to express support for our framework.

See also CDT webpage that links to multiple articles on this topic.

See also related blog postings:

Related Articles

Judges Divided Over GPS Surveillance

Does the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches cover GPS tracking?

WASHINGTON — The growing use by the police of new technologies that make surveillance far easier and cheaper to conduct is raising difficult questions about the scope of constitutional privacy rights, leading to sharp disagreements among judges. A federal appeals court, for example, issued a ruling last week that contradicts precedents from three other appeals courts over whether the police must obtain a warrant before secretly attaching a Global Positioning System device beneath a car.

For full text of the article, click here.

Source: Charlie Savage, NYT, U.S. Section, August 13, 2010

For recent federal appeals court ruling, visit:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/201008/08-3030-1259298.pdf

%d bloggers like this: