How Privacy Purists Are Helping Criminals; Investor's Business Daily, June 20, 2017

Betsy McCaughey, Investor's Business Daily; How Privacy Purists Are Helping Criminals

"Privacy purists  across the political spectrum — including the libertarian  Cato Institute — are lining up against law enforcement. They argue that the Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans must be  "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" from unreasonable searches. That's a precious right.

But as the store owners robbed by Carpenter will tell you, there's also a need to be secure from criminals.

Not to mention terrorists.

The Carpenter case involves records of calls made in the past. What about a new technology police departments are using to track cellphone locations in real time? It can track fugitives, find abducted children, even foil terrorist attacks.

It's a suitcase-size device called a Stingray that mimics cell towers."

Your privacy doesn’t matter at the U.S. border; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 8/29/16

Noah Feldman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Your privacy doesn’t matter at the U.S. border:

"The lesson from all this isn’t just that you approach a border at your own risk. It’s that major exceptions to our basic liberties should be interpreted narrowly, not broadly. Searching a reporter’s phone or anyone’s data isn’t within the government’s plausible set of purposes.

There are two ways to fix the problem. One is for Congress to pass a law that prohibits such border searches, as was proposed unsuccessfully in 2008 and 2009.

If Congress won’t act, though, it’s up to the Supreme Court to repair the damage it did in 1886 and 1977. It doesn’t need to overturn its precedent, just narrow it to cover the circumstances that Congress actually had in mind in 1789, namely border searches for goods being shipped illegally or without duty. That doesn’t include data. It would be a big improvement in constitutional doctrine — and civil liberties."