- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), along with New Jersey-based Tarver Law Offices, are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination extends to the digital age by prohibiting law enforcement from forcing individuals to disclose their phone and computer passcodes.
Law enforcement agencies are required to get a warrant to obtain an individual's mobile phone location data, the Supreme Court ruled in 2018.
ShareTweet The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that passcodes aren’t protected by the Fifth Amendment.The rationale in these states is that while law enforcement may know about certain incriminating documents that could be accessed if the passcode were provided, providing the passcode allows access to absolutely everything on the phone – which could turn up additional evidence that prosecutors didn’t know about.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled on Monday that defendant Robert Andrews must comply with a search warrant by turning over the passcodes for his two phones.
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.
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.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will start hearings in a case where it is alleged that Google collected information of millions of iPhone users through the Safari Browser and sold this information to advertisers.
The new legal act against hate speech will have a profound impact on freedom of speech of users, and may inspire the EU’s ongoing work to reform the rules governing online platforms through the so-called Digital Services Act. On May 18, 60 French senators filed a challenge with the French Supreme Court against the Avia Bill before its promulgation, and after it passed in the National Assembly on May 13, 2020.
But could the government require a similar application in the United States or would it be a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against “unreasonable searches?” Generally, the Fourth Amendment may be invoked when a search infringes on a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the government’s activity amounts to a trespass, per the Supreme Court’s holding in Katz v.
Writing for the majority in a ruling handed down on Wednesday, Justice Debra Todd wrote: Based upon these cases rendered by the United States Supreme Court regarding the scope of the Fifth Amendment, we conclude that compelling the disclosure of a password to a computer, that is, the act of production, is testimonial.
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.
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.
EPIC filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the violation of the privacy law was sufficient for Facebook users to sue the company.Six Flags, where the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously decided that consumers can sue companies that violate the state's biometric privacy law.
New York (CNN Business)A group of iPhone owners accusing Apple of violating US antitrust rules because of its App Store monopoly can sue the company, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
In its reversal, the Virginia Supreme Court found that the photographic and location data stored in the department’s database did meet the Data Act’s definition of ‘personal information,’ but sent the case back to the Circuit Court to determine whether the database met the Act’s definition of an “information system.” Judge Smith’s ruling affirms EFF’s view that the ALPR system does indeed provide a means through which a link to the identity of a vehicle's owner can be readily made.
We urged the Florida Supreme Court yesterday to review a closely-watched lawsuit to clarify the due process rights of defendants identified by facial recognition algorithms used by law enforcement.
A recent decision of the French Supreme Court illustrates this tension and highlights the need for litigators to take into account data privacy principles before producing evidence containing personal information.In this case, a company had organized mandatory staff representatives’ elections.
It’s well settled that the privilege protects against “testimonial” communications, which a 1957 Supreme Court case describes as those that require a person to disclose “ the contents of his own mind .” It’s also clear that nonverbal acts can be testimonial, such as being forced to respond truthfully to police questioning with a “ nod or headshake ,” or to produce a gun that police believe was used in a crime.
Today the Illinois Supreme Court ruled unanimously that when companies collect biometric data like fingerprints or face prints without informed opt-in consent, they can be sued.
In their letter, Leahy and Lee ask the government to explain how recent changes in Supreme Court caselaw, and the National Security Agency’s (NSA) report of a massive compliance problem earlier this year, have affected implementation of these powerful surveillance authorities.
Commission, urging the Supreme Court to review a decision that wrongly denied EPIC access to a required privacy impact assessment for state voter data. EPIC filed suit against the Presidential Election Commission last year to halt the collection of state voter data pending the completion of the assessment.
In a landmark case, NLA v Meltwater, heard in the UK’s Supreme Court and which resulted in questions referred on to the Court of Justice of the European Union, it was determined that on-screen and cached copies of websites generated by users while browsing may be created without authorisation from copyright holders.
On Friday, a joint statement said, “In fact, the DoT and UIDAI are in a process to bring out a completely hassle-free and digital procedure for issuing new SIM cards through a mobile app, which will be fully compliant of the Supreme Court judgement in the Aadhaar Case.”
EPIC has appealed a federal district court decision for the release of a "Predictive Analytics Report." The district court backed the Department of Justice when the agency claimed the "presidential communications privilege." But neither the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals nor the Supreme Court has ever permitted a federal agency to invoke that privilege in a FOIA case.
If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, we’ll no longer be able to rely on the federal judiciary to protect the rights of the most vulnerable people in our country.
Key points: Indian residents cannot receive welfare food rations, other benefits without being entered into Aadhaar Until today, Indian residents have had to link their private bank accounts, mobile numbers and even school admissions to their profile in the government database.