We found that over a decade, 101 million arrest records and 45.7 million mugshots will be posted to the internet, at no cost, by police departments and local jails.It’s legal for local governments to post police and court data under public records laws and Constitutional guarantees.
These include Article 13 of the Swiss Constitution and a Swiss law called the DPA, as well as European legislation, such as the GDPR.While we’re reluctant to make such sweeping statements, Swiss companies in general are more secure than their U.S.-based counterparts, thanks to Switzerland’s strict laws governing the processing of personal data.
A First Circuit US judge has found that phone searches at US borders without a warrant are constitutional.“The bottom line is that basic border searches of electronic devices do not involve an intrusive search of a person,” she wrote in her ruling.
The minister of state security had appealed an earlier high court judgment on the legality of bulk communication surveillance The concourt held that section 2 of the National Strategic Intelligence Act of 1994 is ambiguous, and should be interpreted in a manner that best promotes the right to privacy, and does not contradict the prohibition of communication interceptions without interception directions contained in Rica, the legislation that governs the lawful interception of communications.
But it violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution for the government to purchase commercially available location data it would otherwise have to get a warrant to acquire.
Mizelle states in his memo that there are ways for CBP and ICE to “minimize the risk” of possible constitutional violations, pointing out that they could limit their searches to defined periods, require supervisors to sign off on lengthy searches, only use the data when more “traditional” techniques fail, and limit the tracking of one device to when there is “individualized suspicion” or relevance to a “law enforcement investigation.”.
The Los Angeles Police Department received approval Tuesday to begin recording and storing aerial footage of protests and other large gatherings from its helicopters — a new capability that the department said would expand its “operational readiness” and protesters and civil liberties advocates denounced as unconstitutional government surveillance.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) said in separate reports that many services used the database to look at COVID-19 test results for wide geographic areas and sometimes pulled up personal information unrelated to active calls.
Geofence warrants work in reverse: Police start with a time and location, and request data from Google or another tech company about the devices in the area at the time.“This is as clear as day a fishing expedition that violates people's basic constitutional rights,” says New York state assemblymember Dan Quart.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Monday that a criminal defendant can be compelled to reveal his cellphone passcode to investigators, rejecting the argument that such a move violates the right against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In the case of broadband privacy which was passed at the state level in Maine , the internet service providers (ISPs) actually tried to stop the law from being enacted by claiming that their right to selling profiles of user internet activity and history is part of their constitutional right to free speech .
Despite the FCC's preemption order being overturned in court, the DOJ's amended complaint yesterday argued that California's net neutrality law "is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.".
The latest ruling by the French court undermines the argument that general filters of this kind should be adopted under the Digital Services Act – something that is already controversial, in any case.
A Carmel woman who was held in contempt when she refused to unlock her smartphone for police during a criminal investigation is protected by the U.S. Constitution, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a decision that could affect how law enforcement uses technology to gather evidence.
Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), the highest court in the country, has ruled that parts of a 2016 law that allowed monitoring of the internet activity of foreign targets outside of Germany are unconstitutional.
In its press release about the decision, the court found that the privacy rights of the German constitution also protects foreigners in other countries and that the German intelligence agency, Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), had no authority to conduct telecommunications surveillance on them:.
The German government must come up with a new law regulating its secret services, after the country's highest court ruled that the current practice of monitoring telecommunications of foreign citizens at will violates constitutionally-enshrined press freedoms and the privacy of communications.
In a decision [PDF] that could put an end to a practice that civil-liberties groups have decried as illegal for years, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted that the way the Feds today use a database of seized communications “would be at odds with the bedrock Fourth Amendment concept that law enforcement agents may not invade the privacy of individuals without some objective reason to believe that evidence of crime will be found by a search.”.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a forceful opinion today holding that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from being forced to disclose the passcode to their devices to the police.
This relatively innocuous language pushes back the sunset provision of the Patriot Act by three months, leaving its vast powers in the hands of a president who Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden charges with "failure to uphold basic democratic principles," who House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has accused of "alarming connections and conduct with Russia" and, joined by Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer, says is making an attempt to "shred the Constitution.".
BOSTON — In a major victory for privacy rights, a federal court in Boston today ruled that the government’s suspicionless searches of international travelers’ smartphones and laptops at airports and other U.S. ports of entry violate the Fourth Amendment.
The court’s ruling is the first time a state Supreme Court has recognized the potential danger to privacy and constitutional rights created by allowing access to car data without judicial oversight.
Ultimately, the FBI agreed to amend the querying process, requiring the agency to justify in writing why it is looking into any person in the U.S.For years, civil liberties advocates have argued that the law at the center of the dispute – Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — violates constitutional rights as it allows the government to collect data on Americans without a warrant.
(Yuri Gripas/Reuters) The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has ruled that an FBI program intended to target foreign suspects violated Americans’ constitutional right to privacy by collecting the personal information of American citizens along with the foreign targets of the surveillance.
Unfortunately for the online advertising industry, the CJEU begs to differ: In today’s judgment, the Court decides that the consent which a website user must give to the storage of and access to cookies on his or her equipment is not validly constituted by way of a pre-checked checkbox which that user must deselect to refuse his or her consent.
The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court ruled information gathered via an individual's use of electricity constitutes personal data, Confidencial Judicial reports.Related Stories.FTC reaches $30M settlement with company over deceptive use of lead generators.
Notably, the court emphasizes that the Fourth Amendment of the federally binding US Constitution does not protect internet users from having their information handed over to law enforcement without a warrant because users willingly give that information to the third party (the ISP in this case).
"These leaks about a potential Executive Order from the White House are troubling on many levels, from the order's potential to violate the First Amendment, to its apparent disregard for the independence of agencies like the FCC and the FTC, to its intent to unilaterally limit Section 230 which promotes moderated online communities free of hate speech and misinformation," said Chris Lewis, president and CEO of Public Knowledge.