In a federal prosecution for armed bank robbery, a defendant challenges a geofence warrant.
Privacy Paradox: Rethinking Solitude
Privacy Paradox takes an unorthodox look at the law and policy of contemporary privacy: intelligence reform, the transatlantic divide over data protection and government data collection, and the incipient international law of privacy. What does the "right to be let alone" mean in a world in which we leave digital dust wherever we go and entrust our lives to companies we know to be exploiting our data for commercial gain? Do we want those companies to stand up to government or work with it—or both?
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has declassified an order about the Department of Justice's handling of 2016 and 2016 applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant for Trump campaign associate Carter Page. The Dec. 2019 Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report about the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election devoted considerable discussion to the Page warrants.
David Kris, whom the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court appointed as amicus curiae to review the FBI's filing before the court regarding FBI and Justice Department practices in filing FISA warrants, has filed a letter brief with the court in response to the FBI's submission. The brief is available here and below.
The inspector general’s findings on the Carter Page FISA applications are actually worse than the president’s defenders understand—precisely because Michael Horowitz did not find any kind of political conspiracy.
The FBI has filed a response to the order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) requesting further information on FBI and Justice Department practices in filing FISA warrants before the court in the wake of the Justice Department inspector general's report identifying failures in the Carter Page FISA application. The document is available here.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that incidental collection of U.S. persons’ communications under Section 702 does not violate the Fourth Amendment, but raised constitutional questions related to querying databases containing these communications.
The investigation may have taken steps that the inspector general thinks unwise, thinks should have been forbidden by policy, and thinks should have required more Justice Department consultation. But it was, in fact, about Russia. It was always about Russia. Full stop.
Subscribe to Privacy Paradox: Rethinking Solitude via RSS.