Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Fourth Amendment Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Communications Law

Institution
Keyword
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 181 - 210 of 237

Full-Text Articles in Fourth Amendment

Accidental Wiretaps: The Implications Of False Positives By Always-Listening Devices For Privacy Law & Policy, Lindsey Barrett, Ilaria Liccardi Jan 2022

Accidental Wiretaps: The Implications Of False Positives By Always-Listening Devices For Privacy Law & Policy, Lindsey Barrett, Ilaria Liccardi

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.


Keynote Address, Christopher J. Buccafusco, Jeff Kosseff Jan 2022

Keynote Address, Christopher J. Buccafusco, Jeff Kosseff

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

The article discusses the evolution and impact of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, highlighting its role in shaping internet speech and liability. It traces the law's origins, key court rulings, and current debates about its future. The speaker emphasizes the need for informed discussion to address concerns about harmful content, platform moderation, and free speech.


Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review Jan 2021

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents


Enough Is As Good As A Feast, Noah C. Chauvin Oct 2020

Enough Is As Good As A Feast, Noah C. Chauvin

Seattle University Law Review

Ipse Dixit, the podcast on legal scholarship, provides a valuable service to the legal community and particularly to the legal academy. The podcast’s hosts skillfully interview guests about their legal and law-related scholarship, helping those guests communicate their ideas clearly and concisely. In this review essay, I argue that Ipse Dixit has made a major contribution to legal scholarship by demonstrating in its interview episodes that law review articles are neither the only nor the best way of communicating scholarly ideas. This contribution should be considered “scholarship,” because one of the primary goals of scholarship is to communicate new ideas.


Preservation Requests And The Fourth Amendment, Armin Tadayon Oct 2020

Preservation Requests And The Fourth Amendment, Armin Tadayon

Seattle University Law Review

Every day, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, ridesharing companies, and numerous other service providers copy users’ account information upon receiving a preservation request from the government. These requests are authorized under a relatively obscure subsection of the Stored Communications Act (SCA). The SCA is the federal statute that governs the disclosure of communications stored by third party service providers. Section 2703(f) of this statute authorizes the use of “f” or “preservation” letters, which enable the government to request that a service provider “take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession” while investigators seek valid legal process. …


Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review Sep 2020

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents


Limited Privacy In “Pings:” Why Law Enforcement’S Use Of Cell-Site Simulators Does Not Categorically Violate The Fourth Amendment, Lara M. Mcmahon Apr 2020

Limited Privacy In “Pings:” Why Law Enforcement’S Use Of Cell-Site Simulators Does Not Categorically Violate The Fourth Amendment, Lara M. Mcmahon

Washington and Lee Law Review

This Note proposes four factors courts should consider when asked to determine whether law enforcement’s use of a cell-site simulator constituted a Fourth Amendment search. The first asks courts to consider whether the cell-site simulator surveillance infringed on a constitutionally protected area, such as the home. The second asks courts to consider the duration of the cell-site simulator surveillance. The third asks courts to consider whether the cell-site simulator surveillance was conducted actively or passively. The fourth asks courts to focus on the nature and depth of the information obtained as a result of the cell-site simulator surveillance. If, after …


Privacy, Eavesdropping, And Wiretapping Across The United States: Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy And Judicial Discretion, Carol M. Bast Jan 2020

Privacy, Eavesdropping, And Wiretapping Across The United States: Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy And Judicial Discretion, Carol M. Bast

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

One-party consent and all-party consent eavesdropping and wiretapping statutes are two broad pathways for legislation to deal with the problem of secret taping and some states protect conversation under state constitutions. Whether a conversation is protected against being taped as a private conversation is often gauged by the reasonable expectation of privacy standard. Judges in both all-party consent and one-party consent jurisdictions have had to use their leeway under the reasonable expectation of privacy standard to arrive at what at the time seemed to be the most appropriate solution, perhaps in doing so creating a case law exception.


Protecting Online Privacy In The Digital Age: Carpenter V. United States And The Fourth Amendment’S Third-Party Doctrine, Cristina Del Rosso, Carol M. Bast Jan 2020

Protecting Online Privacy In The Digital Age: Carpenter V. United States And The Fourth Amendment’S Third-Party Doctrine, Cristina Del Rosso, Carol M. Bast

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

The goal of this paper is to examine the future of the third-party doctrine with the proliferation of technology and the online data we are surrounded with daily, specifically after the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States. It is imperative that individuals do not forfeit their Constitutional guarantees for the benefit of living in a technologically advanced society. This requires an understanding of the modern-day functional equivalents of “papers” and “effects.”

Looking to the future, this paper contemplates solutions on how to move forward in this technology era by scrutinizing the relevancy of the third-party doctrine due …


In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth Jan 2020

In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth

Seattle University Law Review

Janet Ainsworth, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law: In Memory of Professor James E. Bond.


Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review Jan 2020

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents


Transnational Government Hacking, Jennifer Daskal Jan 2020

Transnational Government Hacking, Jennifer Daskal

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.


Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review Sep 2019

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.


Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review Feb 2019

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.


Dialing It Back: Why Courts Should Rethink Students’ Privacy And Speech Rights As Cell Phone Communications Erode The ‘Schoolhouse Gate’, Nicholas J. Mcguire Nov 2018

Dialing It Back: Why Courts Should Rethink Students’ Privacy And Speech Rights As Cell Phone Communications Erode The ‘Schoolhouse Gate’, Nicholas J. Mcguire

Duke Law & Technology Review

The ubiquity of cell phones in today’s society has forced courts to change or dismiss established, but inapplicable analytical frameworks. Two such frameworks in the school setting are regulations of student speech and of student searches. This Article traces the constitutional jurisprudence of both First Amendment off-campus speech protection and Fourth Amendment search standards as applied to the school setting. It then analyzes how the Supreme Court’s ruling in Riley v. California complicates both areas. Finally, it proposes a pragmatic solution: by recognizing a categorical First Amendment exception for “substantial threats” against the school community, courts could accommodate students’ constitutional …


Why Courts Fail To Protect Privacy: Race, Age, Bias, And Technology, Bernard Chao, Catherine Durso, Ian Farrell, Christopher Robertson Jan 2018

Why Courts Fail To Protect Privacy: Race, Age, Bias, And Technology, Bernard Chao, Catherine Durso, Ian Farrell, Christopher Robertson

Faculty Scholarship

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable “searches and seizures,” but in the digital age of stingray devices and IP tracking, what constitutes a search or seizure? The Supreme Court has held that the threshold question is supposed to depend on and reflect the “reasonable expectations” of ordinary members of the public concerning their own privacy. For example, the police now exploit the “third party” doctrine to access data held by email and cell phone providers, without securing a warrant, on the Supreme Court’s intuition that the public has no expectation of privacy in that information. Is that assumption correct? If …


Upholding Citizens’ Privacy In The Use Of Stingray Technology: Is New York Behind?, Samantha Hazen Mar 2017

Upholding Citizens’ Privacy In The Use Of Stingray Technology: Is New York Behind?, Samantha Hazen

Pace Law Review

This Comment will argue that New York should follow the federal agencies’ and states’ leads by imposing a warrant requirement supported by probable cause on local and state agencies that wish to use Stingray technology in their investigations. The first section will explore Stingray technology and how it works. The second section will frame the issue and describe New York’s current standard. The third section will discuss the judicial response to the issue and how New York courts seem to place the burden of upholding privacy on the citizen, instead of the government. The third section will also discuss a …


Civil Liberty Or National Security: The Battle Over Iphone Encryption, Karen Lowell Mar 2017

Civil Liberty Or National Security: The Battle Over Iphone Encryption, Karen Lowell

Georgia State University Law Review

On June 5, 2013, Edward Snowden released what would be the first of many documents exposing the vast breadth of electronic surveillance the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA) had been conducting on millions of United States citizens. Although the federal agencies had legal authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to collect metadata from companies such as Verizon, many Americans considered this data collection to be a massive invasion of privacy.

Equipped with the knowledge of sweeping domestic surveillance programs, citizens and technology firms fighting for strong privacy and security protection, have started …


Digital Technology And Analog Law: Cellular Location Data, The Third-Party Doctrine, And The Law's Need To Evolve, Justin Hill Mar 2017

Digital Technology And Analog Law: Cellular Location Data, The Third-Party Doctrine, And The Law's Need To Evolve, Justin Hill

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


Is Wifi Worth It: The Hidden Dangers Of Public Wifi, Ellie Shahin Jan 2017

Is Wifi Worth It: The Hidden Dangers Of Public Wifi, Ellie Shahin

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.


Autonomous Cars: Navigating The Patchwork Of Data Privacy Laws That Could Impact The Industry, Anthony Jones Jan 2017

Autonomous Cars: Navigating The Patchwork Of Data Privacy Laws That Could Impact The Industry, Anthony Jones

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.


Notice And Standing In The Fourth Amendment: Searches Of Personal Data, Jennifer Daskal Jan 2017

Notice And Standing In The Fourth Amendment: Searches Of Personal Data, Jennifer Daskal

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

In at least two recent cases, courts have rejected service providers' capacity to raise Fourth Amendment claims on behalf of their customers. These holdings rely on longstanding Supreme Court doctrine establishing a general rule against third parties asserting the Fourth Amendment rights of others. However, there is a key difference between these two recent cases and those cases on which the doctrine rests. The relevant Supreme Court doctrine stems from situations in which someone could take action to raise the Fourth Amendment claim, even if the particular thirdparty litigant could not. In the situations presented by the recent cases, by …


Decrypting Our Security: A Bipartisan Argument For A Rational Solution To The Encryption Challenge, Jamil N. Jaffer, Daniel J. Rosenthal May 2016

Decrypting Our Security: A Bipartisan Argument For A Rational Solution To The Encryption Challenge, Jamil N. Jaffer, Daniel J. Rosenthal

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.


The Connected State Of Things: A Lawyer’S Survival Guide In An Internet Of Things World, Antigone Peyton May 2016

The Connected State Of Things: A Lawyer’S Survival Guide In An Internet Of Things World, Antigone Peyton

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.


Submarine Cables, Cybersecurity And International Law: An Intersectional Analysis, Tara Davenport Dec 2015

Submarine Cables, Cybersecurity And International Law: An Intersectional Analysis, Tara Davenport

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.


Corporate Rights And Individual Interests: The Corporate Right To Privacy As A Bulwark Against Warrantless Government Surveillance, Kayla Robinson Aug 2015

Corporate Rights And Individual Interests: The Corporate Right To Privacy As A Bulwark Against Warrantless Government Surveillance, Kayla Robinson

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.


Social Media And The Internet: A Story Of Privatization, Victoria D. Baranetsky May 2015

Social Media And The Internet: A Story Of Privatization, Victoria D. Baranetsky

Pace Law Review

This article will question what role private and public actors assume in the current structure of data collection and what potential rights are violated. To tease out the relationship between the private and government sectors, this article, for sake of argument, accepts as fact that surveillance is a core government function and that data is a public resource collected by private organizations. While those assumptions may be challenged by different definitions of what constitutes a public function, public resource, or mode of collection, this article does not take on those challenges. It also does not ask the normative question of …


No More Shortcuts: Protect Cell Site Location Data With A Warrant Requirement, Lauren E. Babst Jan 2015

No More Shortcuts: Protect Cell Site Location Data With A Warrant Requirement, Lauren E. Babst

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

In modern society, the cell phone has become a virtual extension of most Americans, managing all kinds of personal and business matters. Modern cell tower technology allows cell service providers to accumulate a wealth of individuals’ location information while they use their cell phones, and such data is available for law enforcement to obtain without a warrant. This is problematic under the Fourth Amendment, which protects reasonable expectations of privacy. Under the Katz two-prong test, (1) individuals have an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in their cell site location data, and (2) society is prepared to acknowledge that expectation as …


The Un-Territoriality Of Data, Jennifer Daskal Jan 2015

The Un-Territoriality Of Data, Jennifer Daskal

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Territoriality looms large in our jurisprudence, particularly as it relates to the government’s authority to search and seize. Fourth Amendment rights turn on whether the search or seizure takes place territorially or extraterritorially; the government’s surveillance authorities depend on whether the target is located within the United States or without; and courts’ warrant jurisdiction extends, with limited exceptions, only to the borders’ edge. Yet the rise of electronic data challenges territoriality at its core. Territoriality, after all, depends on the ability to define the relevant “here” and “there,” and it presumes that the “here” and “there” have normative significance. The …


Online Data Breaches, Standing, And The Third-Party Doctrine, Adam Lamparello Jan 2015

Online Data Breaches, Standing, And The Third-Party Doctrine, Adam Lamparello

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

This Essay argues that, in the context of online data breaches, these doctrines hinder consumers from receiving full monetary compensation and do not adequately safeguard privacy rights. For example, courts frequently dismiss consumers’ suits against online service providers for lack of standing, which results in consumers bearing the cost for damages that the providers were in a position to prevent. This Essay argues that the Supreme Court should relax the standing doctrine’s “imminent harm” requirement and permit consumers to sue providers for mitigation damages. In addition, the Court should abandon the longstanding principle that citizens lose all privacy protections in …