Slashdot Mirror
Judge Tells Feds To Be More Specific About Email Search Warrants
An anonymous reader writes "In yet another example of the judicial branch of the government becoming more critical of federal mass acquisition of personal data, federal magistrate judge John Facciola in D.C. 'denied a government warrant request to search an unnamed user's @mac.com e-mail address, citing the request as being overbroad.' The judge further noted (PDF), 'While it is evident from closely reading the Application and its attachments what the government is really after, it is equally evident that the government is using language that has the potential to confuse the provider—in this case Apple—which must determine what information must be given to the government. This Court should not be placed in the position of compelling Apple to divine what the government actually seeks. Until this Application is clarified, it will be denied.'"
Not much new there.
Warrant requests are modified regularly.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I was going to make a snide post, but the fact that a judge denying a vague warrant is now news is just sad.
Nobody at DHS is stupid enough to put a Federal Judge on the no-fly list.
Why not? Congressmen did end up on this list a few times
Granted, they would probably be taken off when this issue comes up (unlike the rest of us who just have to deal with it).
Keep in mind that the government already has the data they are requesting. The warrant is simply how they legitimize that data so they can use it in court.
That's likely why they were using boilerplate. The judge pointed out that the text being used was boilerplate from a 2009 Department of Justice document. That document specifies all sorts of things to make sure that it covers everything in cases where agencies need to search through computer accounts, but the agency making this request was really only interested in the e-mails, so the judge told them to ditch the boilerplate and write what they meant, since otherwise Apple may think that they're compelled to turn over everything.
Also worth noting: this is just a run-of-the-mill case, not some sort of secret court or national security case. The only interesting thing here is a judge acting with some sense. Oh, and that it may be an indication of a growing recognition that citizens have an expectation of privacy with regards to e-mail.
He's calling it "The Government" for the same reason prosecutors bring their cases in the name of "The People" or he himself talks about the opinion of "The Court". That's just the convention.
This judge has dealt with this issue in other cases, and in fact had previously told the government exactly what it should do in order to avoid the 4th Amendment problems of general warrants. FTA:
"[In a previous ruling, the Court] warned the government to “adopt stricter search parameters in future applications” or the Court would be "unwilling to issue any search and seizure warrants for electronic data that ignore the constitutional obligations to avoid ‘general’ electronic warrants.” Facebook Opinion, 2013 WL 7856600, at *8. The Court recommended several different approaches, including key word searches, using an independent special master to conduct searches, or segregating the people who are performing the search from those who are conducting the investigation.""
The government attorneys in this case are hopefully looking for a new gig. You don't ignore a judge and feed him boilerplate when he's already on to you.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday