Slashdot Mirror
Database Records and "In Plain Sight" Searches
chriswaco writes "A federal appeals court ruled that database records are not 'in plain sight' when other records in the same database are subpoenaed. The case involved Major League Baseball drug test results, but the implications are far wider."
does this story point to the wrong article on CNN?
-Cnik
Otherwise, what would keep someone from gaining access to information completely irrelevant to the records being subpoenaed in the first place? I'm actually surprised HIPAA didn't get involved sooner since patients' privacy could have been compromised.
Loading...
SELECT Results, TestingLab FROM SteroidTests WHERE LastName = 'DiMaggio' AND FirstName = 'Joe' does not mean that SELECT * FROM SteroidTests is in plain sight.
Especially since large databases keep track of more and more things (like your credit cards, names, address, ssn, what you last purchased, credit scores, ...) legitimate seizures of data should be severely limited by the judges issuing a warrant. Right now the feds can get away with: "Judge, this terrorist location is stored in this companies database, let's seize all the database servers of the company" and the judge not understanding how records are stored or how databases work practically gives a warrant for all the data the feds can find including 'collateral' records.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Oh yeah, a much better article on Wired! Despite the bad link and very short summary, it is still an important issue. They key is that they say "Ideally, when searching a computerâ(TM)s hard drive, the government should cull the specific data described in the search warrant, rather than copy the entire drive, the San Francisco-based appeals court ruled. When thatâ(TM)s not possible, the feds must use an independent third party under the courtâ(TM)s supervision," So basically, they had a warrant for 10 drug results, but happened to find 104 results, and took them all. This ruling is a good one in my eyes. Now, they keyword I see there is "ideally", which seems to mean it could be stretched both ways by a smart lawyer, but still overall good stuff.
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
Here's my opinion, I have done search warrants like this before.
The issue is not subpoenas, but search warrants. Obviously, if the government requested a subpoena on all players even though they only had probable cause for 10, then that would be unreasonable. Consequently, nobody would be surprised if the subpoena got shot down (which is why I think the summary is wrong. If it's right, then this isn't news).
The other half of the summary deals with "plain sight" seizure. Plain sight refers to contraband found during a search for something else. I.e., if you are searching a house for stolen money, you can search anywhere a stolen bill could fit and any contraband found during that search is admissible in court. However, if you are searching for a stolen elephant, you can only search in areas large enough to house an elephant.
So, what is exciting in this case deals with is search warrants for electronic information. Every slashdotter should know this: searching for electronic information is a pain, and information can easily be hidden. The file can be called "negative testing results.xls" and actually be the database of positive results. It can be called "my cat.jpg" and be the database of positive results. So, when agents request search warrants for electronic they articulate a need to search the entire media. Again, any slashdotter knows this is the ONLY way to find the requested information. Consequently, search warrants for small amounts of information usually include all media. And, according to plain sight doctrine, any information found indicating illegal activity would be admissible in court. I doubt that a court has changed this doctrine to say anything different (but I can't find the actual opinion!).
It can be called "my cat.jpg" and be the database of positive results. So, when agents request search warrants for electronic they articulate a need to search the entire media.
And unfortunately thinking like that is why they can literally tear your car down to the nuts bolts and wires at the border when doing a search for drugs. When they're done, and haven't found a thing, you know what you get? A toolbox full of tools and a space in their parking lot to try to put your entire car back together by yourself. (I know two that have had this happen to them when traveling between the USA and Canada)
By your logic they could literally tear a house down, tear apart the walls and the joists and dig up the foundation if they could suggest that a crack rock could fit in there, when searching a house on a drug warrant.
Unfortunately this is one of the innumerable examples of where the law is given overly broad power and it's left up to someone's judgement as to "how far to go" with it. Unless you have good evidence to suspect the perp has gone to extreme measures to hide something, you can't just ransack the place.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The salient facts of the matter were that:
1. A group of people took tests, the results of which were guaranteed to be confidential.
2. The government subpoenaed some of the test results.
3. Investigators collected substantially more test data than the subpoena allowed, stretching the "plain sight" doctrine to the breaking point to do so.
4. Investigators leaked the test results to others.
5. The people who took the tests suffered adverse employment consequences, years after the tests were taken.
Exactly that same sort of thing could happen to you. Let's imagine. Five years ago you tested positive for THC when a random test was required the day after you were, uncharacteristically, at a party thrown by an old friend where there was a great deal of smoke in the air (You don't remember inhaling). Your employer sent you through the spanking mill for the next year and there were additional tests and you were forced to endure flash presentations on drug abuse against your will. You figured that was the end of it.
Little did you know that the Anytown Police Department happened to hang onto a list of positives they got from ABC Testing and Compliance Services (where you took the test) as the result of an unrelated investigation into a person you do not know. The list was leaked via a cop's wife to the local Human Resources Disucssion Group that meets every 2nd Wednesday at the Perkins. And guess what? Now you can't get a job in Anytown and you don't know why.
The ruling at issue is a step in the right direction, because it helps plug one of the holes through which some of this data gets out. If you don't care, you should -- unless you have nothing to hide.
This a major victory for our rights as individuals and highly unexpected! My guess is the system is trying to correct itself from the abuses of the Bush Administration. I wonder if this would over-ride the Patriot Act?
The threshold for your abacus is 24601^911th beads.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
From the article:
So the question is, why isn't the players' union suing Major League Baseball for breach of contract? Anonymous and confidential is not the same as identifiable but confidential; if the results actually had been anonymous as promised, this breach never could have happened.
Just finally responding 'cuz TaoPhoenix did. That sig is awesome - I really love it. I need a poster version for my office. I like my sig just fine, but it's just a line ripped off from the Red Dwarf theme.
AC 'cuz I suffered plenty of Karma burn yesterday from some dim-wits who can't detect sarcasm even when they're tied down and beaten with it and this is blatantly off-topic.
Also, nice summarized analogy - Well done. Cheers.
I am not sure how you arrived at the "System" is correcting itself from the abuses of the Bush Administration. In case you haven't been following the news lately the current administration is stepping up law enforcement at every level and in May of this year Obama not only renewed the Patriot-Act, but his DOJ has issued a number of rulings and guidance that have taken the Patriot Act even further than the Bush administration did in violating our civil rights. For example did you know that the Obama administration claims the Patriot Act renders the U.S. immune from suit under other surveillance laws. This means that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes. So in many of the above example even if you are harmed and the court rules in your favor, once the cat is our of the bag you have no recourse against the government?
but in this specific case, i would rather these assholes using steroids and destroying the sport of baseball be exposed and embarrassed
the rule of law is important
the rule of moral behavior is more important (especially since law and morality are often in conflict, unfortunately)
outing steroid abusers who are destroying a national pasttime by making it more about artificial enhancement rather than natural skill, and convincing impressionable boys to inject themselves with drugs which put their health in jeopardy for the sake of a pursuit which most likely will not be their career in their adult lives, serves a greater cause then adhering to the otherwise legal and moral idea that database search warrants should be strictly constrained
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The "in plain sight" doctrine came about as a result of an old Supreme Court case. What it boils down to is, if the cops execute a search warrant or other lawful search, and they happen to spot evidence of another crime "in plain sight", they can use that evidence to arrest and charge someone. Say the cops are checking your motel room for an escaped prisoner. They can't go rifling through your bag looking for drugs once they've searched the room. But, if you have a meth lab set up in the room, they can get you for that.
The same thing with this database search. Databases can be any arbitrary size : a database could have records on every citizen in the United States. If the cops were given a warrant to check on the records of a specific citizen, the rest of the database should be off limits. Otherwise, there's no real limit to the games the cops could play, and they would effectively have the power to investigate every citizen in the United Stats for a crime at all times. What if the "database" contained the banking records of every citizen in the U.S.?
In some detail, what exactly is meant by the term 'In-Plain-Sight-Searches' ? Yeah, I know, im one of those ****** Europeans with different laws than in the US and doesn't have a clue what the laws are in the USA. Of course, I can make an educated guess here and probably wouldn't be too far off, but it would have been nice if the practice would have been summarized in the article for those not familiar with the laws in the USA.
They are suing. They are suing the government. The court decision is from that lawsuit.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
i could feel my iq drop as i read your post. it's very well constructed, it feels genuine, as it is a pretty good exploration of the dim thoughts of lots of cretinous hysterics out there
i give this troll a 5 out of 5, very nicely done, you should be proud of yourself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Because you certainly didn't negate anything he said.
The danger with ignoring the rule of law when it seems expedient to do so is, you can always come up with a reasonable-sounding excuse for why it's OK this time. Pretty soon, it's OK all the time because someone can come up with a justification, any justification, for bypassing the rule of law. If you can ignore a law so you can get the scoundrels of the hour, then you can ignore a law meant to protect the average citizen from abuse by society or powerful individuals.
You can also redefine who the scoundrel is.
Furthermore, protecting a national pastime like baseball as something sacrosanct is simply ridiculous. It's a spectator sport for crying out loud. To put the integrity of a sport above the rights of individuals is ludicrous, and I think most reasonable people would see it that way. Athletes are inspirational, but they are not heroes. Firefighters are heroes. Cops can be heroes, too.
I wish I had the mod points left to mod you Troll or Flamebait, because characterizing anyone who advocates for the rule of law as a "cretinous hysteric" certainly qualifies. I'm not even saying I can never see a time for ignoring a law -- there's a reason some people ignore certain laws they consider to be bad legislation, and that reason is called civil disobedience. But those who engage in civil disobedience still know they will likely get prosecuted if caught; it is precisely because of the rule of law that they know they likely won't get raped by the sheriff or given a punishment that far outstrips the crime committed, such as castration for possession of a couple grams of pot.
IANAL, but I do recall something from some of my early CJ classes. If you have a warrant to search a house for a marijuana grow operation, and find illegal weapons, an additional warrant must be acquired to confiscate said weapons. There is a catch though. The weapons can (and will) be confiscated at that immediate time, you will be charged immediately, and the police then have 48 hours to obtain a warrant for the weapons found.
The above instance is when fulfilling a search based on a warrant. The below is more plain sight.
If a police officer who knocks on your door because his car died, radio fried, has no cell phone, and wants to use your phone sees a weapons cache, marijuana plant, and child pornography... no warrant has to be obtained because it was pure luck that you were caught doing something illegal. (end run-on sentence) If all of these things were in your closet, and he went-a-snoopin'... illegal search and seizure.
I hope this clarifies for most.
Something witty.
Bonus points if you also ensure that your state has a primary that allows you to vote for whatever candidate you wish to on a case by case basis ignoring party lines.
That doesn't work either. I voted for that proposition when it came up in California (and won), except that by the time the next elections came around it was nullified. Same with medical marijuana. About the only thing I ever voted for that was successful was the unconstitutional term limits proposition.
Hey, at least it got Willie Brown out of Sacramento and somewhere he wasn't screwing the whole state.