[IP] Mark Rasch on Supreme Court ruling's impact on Net-snooping [priv]
------ Forwarded Message
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:57:54 -0500
To: <politech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Politech] Mark Rasch on Supreme Court ruling's impact on
Net-snooping [priv]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: an interesting take on the recent ruling regarding dogs and
traffic stops
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:16:26 -0500
From: Chuck Mauthe <cmauthe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Politech' <declan@xxxxxxxx>
Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/10/sniffer_dog_ruling/
Sniffer dog threatens online privacy
By Mark Rasch, SecurityFocus (MarkRasch at solutionary.com)
Published Thursday 10th February 2005 12:43 GMT
Comment The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution is supposed to be the
one that protects people and their "houses, places and effects" against
"unreasonable searches". Forty-two years ago, the US Supreme Court held that
attaching a listening device to a public pay phone violated this provision
because the Constitution protects people, not places, and because the Fourth
Amendment prohibits warrantless searches without probable cause if the
target enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Last month the US Supreme Court effectively trashed this principle in a case
that could have a profound impact on privacy rights online.
The case, decided by the court on 24 January, had nothing to do with the
Information Superhighway, but rather an ordinary interstate highway in
Illinois. Roy Caballes was pulled over by the Illinois State Police for
speeding. While one officer was writing him a ticket, another officer in
another patrol car came by with a drug sniffing dog.
There was absolutely no reason to believe that Caballes was a drug courier -
no profile, no suspicious activity, no large amounts of cash. The driver
could have been a soccer mom with a minivan filled with toddlers. Under
established Supreme Court precedent, while the cops could have looked in the
window to see what was in "plain view", the officers had neither probable
cause nor reasonable suspicion to search Caballes' car, trunk, or person.
[...]
Groups fight internet wiretap push
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/23/groups_fight_internet_wiretap/)
Email privacy strikeout suspended
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/07/email_wiretap/)
Feds invite comment on VoIP wiretaps
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/26/feds_seek_net_tap_comments/)
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
------ End of Forwarded Message
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/