Nina Totenberg, NPR; A Needle In A Legal Haystack Could Sink A Major Supreme Court Privacy Case
"The question in the case is whether a U.S. technology company can refuse to honor a court-ordered U.S. search warrant seeking information that is stored at a facility outside the United States...
...[A]s the case came to the justices, they were going to have to apply current advanced technology to the Stored Communications Act, a law enacted in 1986, several years before email even became available for wide public use.
Amazingly, just three weeks after the Supreme Court argument, lo and behold, a Congress famous for gridlock passed legislation to modernize the law...
Titled the Cloud Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data), the statute was attached to the 2,232 page, $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill."
Issues and developments related to ethics, information, and technologies, examined in the ethics and intellectual property graduate courses I teach at the University of Pittsburgh School of Computing and Information. My Bloomsbury book "Ethics, Information, and Technology" will be published in Summer 2025. Kip Currier, PhD, JD
Showing posts with label Stored Communications act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stored Communications act. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Monday, June 5, 2017
Supreme Court to decide if a warrant is needed to track a suspect through cellphone records; Washington Post, June 5, 2017
Robert Barnes, Washington Post; Supreme Court to decide if a warrant is needed to track a suspect through cellphone records
"The Supreme Court next term will decide whether law enforcement authorities need a warrant to track a suspect through his cellphone records, justices announced Monday.
The case seeks to resolve a digital-age question that has divided lower courts relying on past Supreme Court precedents about privacy."
"The Supreme Court next term will decide whether law enforcement authorities need a warrant to track a suspect through his cellphone records, justices announced Monday.
The case seeks to resolve a digital-age question that has divided lower courts relying on past Supreme Court precedents about privacy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)