Posted on 05/13/2002 6:34:02 PM PDT by Patriotman
ISPs Seek to Void Ruling on Police Searches
Mon May 13, 7:27 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Web giant Yahoo! Inc. and several Internet trade associations filed papers Monday seeking to overturn a court ruling which they said could fill the offices of Internet companies with police officers overseeing the execution of search warrants.
In an amici curiae brief filed with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, the Internet group said a Minnesota court ruling requiring police officers to be physically present for search warrants would threaten client privacy, slow the searches and disrupt business.
"A large Internet service provider can receive literally thousands of search warrants and other requests for information during the course of a year," the brief said.
If the Minnesota ruling is allowed to stand, "it is entirely possible that at any given time a dozen or more law enforcement officers would be on the premises of a given service provider," it said.
The Minnesota case involved a search warrant that was issued on Yahoo! in connection with a child pornography investigation. The warrant was faxed from Minnesota to Yahoo's headquarters in Santa Clara, California, where employees pulled up the requested information and sent it back to local prosecutors.
The defendant in the case subsequently sought to have that evidence suppressed, arguing that his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated because it was conducted by civilians.
The judge in the case agreed, saying that that a law enforcement officer should have been present at Yahoo! while the search was being conducted. His ruling directed all future such searches to be supervised by law enforcement personnel.
UNREASONABLE BURDEN
The U.S. government has already challenged the ruling, saying it puts an unreasonable burden on law enforcement in an era when Internet companies span the globe.
The Internet group, which includes the Computer and Communications Industry Association, NetCoalition and the United States Internet Service Providers Association, further argued in their brief that the ruling would do nothing to extend Fourth Amendment protections.
"The police officer waiting in the lobby while the technician works away on the computer does not in any way safeguard anyone's Fourth Amendment rights," the brief said.
The group's lawyer, Jonathan Brand, said the Minnesota ruling would also disrupt normal business operations at Yahoo! and other companies while having a "chilling effect" on their subscribers, who could be concerned that a constant police presence would impinge on their privacy rights.
"A lot of people in the industry have been concerned about this decision ever since it came down," Brand said Monday.
"We're saying that this ruling is bad public policy. It's wasteful, it is going to be a waste of government resources, and of law enforcement resources that should be out there catching real criminals."
He added that the ISPs were concerned that the burden could increase as the number of search warrants -- already up sharply in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks -- will grow even faster under the new Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention, an international treaty which requires the U.S. government to obtain information from Internet service providers at the request of foreign governments.
"You could have countries halfway around the globe requiring these searches, and we would have to comply," Brand said. "All the work is going to be done by the service providers, and their technicians and engineers. Having police present will add no value."
Deserve Neither Liberty nor Safety."- Ben Franklin
Mon May 13, 5:41 PM ET
SANTA CLARA, Calif. (Reuters) - SONICblue Inc. on Monday moved to overturn a court order for it to spy on users of its digital recording devices and share detailed viewing data with major studios and television networks, saying the order would violate privacy rights.
Santa Clara-based SONICblue called the May 2 order from Central District Court Magistrate Charles Eick "breathtaking and unprecedented" and said the directive to track what television viewers watch "violates consumers' privacy rights, including those guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments."
The plaintiffs in the case, including film studios Paramount, Universal, The Walt Disney Co. and Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. , as well as TV networks CBS, ABC and NBC, have argued they need the data, including details on what commercials viewers skip and what files they transfer across the Internet, to build their copyright infringement case against SONICblue.
"The information that has been ordered to be collected and disclosed to plaintiffs is at the core of consumers' expectations of privacy," said SONICblue, which in the past has acknowledged it has the right to collect such data under its sales contracts, but chooses not to do so.
At the heart of the matter is the company's ReplayTV (news - web sites) 4000 product, which allows viewers to digitally record programs and, if they wish, to skip over commercials. The device also has a high-speed Internet port that allows users to download film files.
The studios and networks claim those features threaten to deprive them of the means of paying for their programs since they allow ads to be cut out and premium programs on subscription services, such as HBO, to be forwarded to non- subscribers.
SONICblue also protested against the order for effectively forcing it to redesign its product for the express purpose of collecting data to be used against it.
Barring an outright reversal, the company asked for three modifications to the order, including:
-- allowing consumers to opt in or out of the collection;
-- allowing data to be collected only in aggregate and not person-to-person, form; and
-- making any surveillance narrow in scope and limited in duration.
If its appeals are denied, SONICblue will have 60 days from May 2 to design new software that will allow it to track what its customers are watching.
The company said the modifications will require about $400,000 in development costs and will take four months to complete without error.
The lawsuit is part of a broader campaign by the studios, and TV networks to a lesser extent, to combat what they say is video piracy that costs them billions of dollars each year in lost sales in advertising and subscription-based programming.
When did the Senate ratify that treaty? Does anyone have the bill number or a link on Thomas or another source? Why are we beholden to the Council of Europe? Was that another Clinton subterfuge, or did Bush sanction that? What did Trent Lott have to say about it?
A basic principle of Libertarian philosophy is illustrated herein.
That it was articulated by a bunch of cable TV low-life scum doesn't detract from its veracity.
What would happen if SonicBlue were to opensource the software? If their hardware contains any patented features, SB might retain or even enhance market share (if people buy an SB unit for the purpose of running other software on it). And they would avoid any "spyware" problems.
Probably. And this was obviously no accident. It required the collusion of the White House, and both parties in the Senate. I encourage anyone here who cares about these issues to revisit the thread at the link you post.
On December 8, his [Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY)] office called to explain that Senator Thomas just happened to be on the Senate Floor late in the afternoon of October 18 -- and was asked by the leadership to handle procedurally, the package of treaties...
This was clearly a setup, a move to deceive the American people in a late night or early morning vote. As the article by Henry Lamb cited in your link mentions, it took more than a month before other Senators even knew about it.
The establishment media, as usual, played it's role by failing to inform the American people of the bi-partisan scandal that had just taken place.
I would expect this of Clinton and algore, but Craig Thomas? This incident should be reopened for investigation, and Trent Lott and Thomas should be pressured to explain it to the voters.
What was in the other 33 treaties approved in the secret vote in those wee hours of October 18/19? What say you Mr. Lott?
It's a lot easier (and quicker) to ratify a treaty than to amend the Constitution by the procedures established for a Constitutional Amendment.
What are they talking about? The police would never monitor peoples' without search warrants now would they?
All kidding aside, it's only a matter of time. One of these days FR will be labeled a terrorist site I'm sure. After all, a few of us harbor anti-government beliefs and talk about that piece o' paper, the Constitution.
This argument is specious. If they argue that the policeman is irrelvant because he's 'in the lobby while a technician works at the keyboard' then how could he possibly be violating anyone's privacy ?
BUMP
How many Americans know that everything in a treaty ratified by the Senate supercedes anything in our Constitution written by our Founding Fathers?Bzzzzt, incorrect. Treaties do not even supercede domestic law. In order to be implemented, they require enabling legislation (or regulatory acts within existing law - don't get me started on legislation by regulation!).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.