(Bloomberg) — U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed concern about privacy intrusions in the digital age, hinting they may curb the power of law enforcement officials to track people using mobile-phone data.

In a spirited argument that went 20 minutes beyond its scheduled hour on Wednesday, the justices considered requiring prosecutors to get a warrant before obtaining mobile-phone tower records that show a person’s location over the course of weeks or months.
“This is highly personal information,” Justice Stephen Breyer said.
The case could have a far-reaching impact. Prosecutors seek phone-location information from telecommunications companies in tens of thousands of cases a year. More broadly, the court’s decision will help set the rules governing government access to the fast-growing trove of information available on the cloud, including data from virtual assistants, smart thermostats and fitness trackers.
Several justices, including Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, indicated they were concerned about the increasing precision of the phone location data being kept by wireless providers.
“A cell phone can be pinged in your bedroom,” Sotomayor said. “It can be pinged in a doctor’s office.”
Bank Records
But Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy questioned whether location data was any more sensitive than bank records, which the court said in 1976 aren’t protected by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment because they are

 

(Bloomberg) — U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed concern about privacy intrusions in the digital age, hinting they may curb the power of law enforcement officials to track people using mobile-phone data.

In a spirited argument that went 20 minutes beyond its scheduled hour on Wednesday, the justices considered requiring prosecutors to get a warrant before obtaining mobile-phone tower records that show a person’s location over the course of weeks or months.
“This is highly personal information,” Justice Stephen Breyer said.
The case could have a far-reaching impact. Prosecutors seek phone-location information from telecommunications companies in tens of thousands of cases a year. More broadly, the court’s decision will help set the rules governing government access to the fast-growing trove of information available on the cloud, including data from virtual assistants, smart thermostats and fitness trackers.
Several justices, including Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, indicated they were concerned about the increasing precision of the phone location data being kept by wireless providers.
“A cell phone can be pinged in your bedroom,” Sotomayor said. “It can be pinged in a doctor’s office.”
Bank Records
But Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy questioned whether location data was any more sensitive than bank records, which the court said in 1976 aren’t protected by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment because they are

 

(Bloomberg) — A U.S. Supreme Court with a record of protecting digital privacy is taking up a case that may curb law enforcement officials’ power to track people using mobile-phone data.

In arguments Nov. 29, the justices will consider requiring prosecutors to get a warrant before obtaining mobile-phone tower records that show a person’s location over the course of weeks or months.
The case could have a far-reaching impact. Prosecutors seek phone-location information from telecommunications companies in tens of thousands of cases a year. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team used location data to build a case against George Papadopoulos, the former Trump campaign adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators.
Beyond location data, the case has implications for the growing number of personal and household devices that connect to the cloud — including virtual assistants, smart thermostats and fitness trackers.
“The data that is transmitted can reveal a wealth of detail about people’s personal lives,” according to a court filing by technology companies including Apple Inc., Facebook Inc., Microsoft Corp., Verizon Communications Inc., Twitter Inc. and Google Inc. “Users of digital technologies reasonably expect to retain significant privacy in that data.”
Armed Robberies
The high court case involves Timothy Ivory Carpenter, who is seeking to overturn his conviction for taking part in a string of armed robberies of

 

(Bloomberg) — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether law enforcement officials conducting a criminal investigation can demand data held overseas by Microsoft Corp. and other technology companies in a high-stakes clash over digital privacy.
The justices will review a federal appeals ruling that the Trump administration says has become a major obstacle in criminal probes. Already, Google Inc. and Yahoo, acquired by Verizon Communications Inc., have stopped complying with search warrants for emails and other user data stored outside the country, the Justice Department said.
The lower court said a 1986 law that protects the privacy of electronic communications — and carves out an exception for law enforcement needs — doesn’t extend to data kept in other countries. The ruling came in a case involving emails stored on a Microsoft server in Ireland.
“Under this opinion, hundreds if not thousands of investigations of crimes — ranging from terrorism, to child pornography, to fraud — are being or will be hampered by the government’s inability to obtain electronic evidence,” Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued in court papers.
The case will pit federal and state officials against the technology industry, which has lined up behind Microsoft in the litigation. The court will hear arguments early next year and rule by June.
Microsoft urged the court not to hear the case, saying the justices should leave it to Congress to

 

(Bloomberg) — The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal from embattled internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom, leaving intact an order that lets the federal government seize $40 million from accounts in Hong Kong and New Zealand.
A federal appeals court said Dotcom and his associates can’t try to block the seizure because they are fugitives who are fighting extradition to face U.S. criminal charges.
The group’s Supreme Court appeal said the lower court ruling puts foreign defendants in an untenable position, forcing them either to forfeit money needed to mount a defense or to relinquish their right to contest extradition.
The U.S. is seeking Dotcom’s extradition from New Zealand over his now-defunct file-sharing website Megaupload.com, which is alleged to have been used for the biggest copyright infringement in U.S. history.
To collect the $40 million, the government still needs orders from courts in Hong Kong and New Zealand enforcing the forfeiture.
The case is Batato v. United States, 16-1206.

 

(Bloomberg) — AT&T Inc. and other broadband providers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Obama-era “net neutrality” rule barring internet service providers from slowing or blocking rivals’ content.
The appeals, filed Thursday, will put new pressure on a rule enacted in 2015 when the Federal Communications Commission was under Democratic control. Filing a separate appeal from AT&T were the United States Telecom Association, a trade group, and broadband service provider CenturyLink Inc.
Now under Republican leadership, the FCC is already considering a plan to replace and weaken the rules. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wants to remove strong legal authority that critics say over-regulates telephone and cable providers and that defenders say is needed to enforce fair treatment of web traffic.
The embattled net neutrality rules bar internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. from blocking or slowing some web traffic in favor of other content — their own or a paying customer’s.
“The practical stakes are immense,” AT&T said in its appeal of a ruling that backed the FCC. The company pointed to a dissenting opinion that said the regulation “fundamentally transforms the internet” and will have a “staggering” impact on infrastructure investment.
The rules are backed by tech companies such as Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook Inc.
Pai, elevated to chairman by President Donald

 

The Supreme Court of India struck down an online censorship law this week, declaring Section 66A of the Information Technology Act to be unconstitutional, NDTV reports. The law had been the subject of widespread criticism, particularly after it was used to arrest two young Indians for a Facebook post and Facebook like in 2012.

The post Supreme Court of India Strikes Down Controversial Online Censorship Law appeared first on Web Hosting Talk.

 

The Supreme Court of India struck down an online censorship law this week, declaring Section 66A of the Information Technology Act to be unconstitutional, NDTV reports. The law had been the subject of widespread criticism, particularly after it was used to arrest two young Indians for a Facebook post and Facebook like in 2012.

The post Supreme Court of India Strikes Down Controversial Online Censorship Law appeared first on Web Hosting Talk.

 

The Supreme Court of India struck down an online censorship law this week, declaring Section 66A of the Information Technology Act to be unconstitutional, NDTV reports. The law had been the subject of widespread criticism, particularly after it was used to arrest two young Indians for a Facebook post and Facebook like in 2012.

The post Supreme Court of India Strikes Down Controversial Online Censorship Law appeared first on Web Hosting Talk.

 

The Supreme Court of India struck down an online censorship law this week, declaring Section 66A of the Information Technology Act to be unconstitutional, NDTV reports. The law had been the subject of widespread criticism, particularly after it was used to arrest two young Indians for a Facebook post and Facebook like in 2012.

The post Supreme Court of India Strikes Down Controversial Online Censorship Law appeared first on Web Hosting Talk.

© 2012 Webhosting news Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha