Slashdot Mirror
New York Judge Rules Against Facebook In Search Warrant Case
itwbennett writes: Last year, Facebook appealed a court decision requiring it to hand over data, including photos and private messages, relating to 381 user accounts. (Google, Microsoft, and Twitter, among other companies backed Facebook in the dispute). On Tuesday, Judge Dianne Renwick of the New York State Supreme Court ruled against Facebook, saying that Facebook has no legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of search warrants served on its users.
for sale already ?
Nuff said.
FUCK THAT FUCKING JUDGE!
You reap what you sow, they say. The real problem was the conjuncture alignment that induced public interest letting pass such laws, and the lack of action, after its consequences are visible. I believe most tech companies are simply protecting their users to the best of their ability by attempting to stall such warrants. It's the only thing they can do, they can't be expected to win legal battles against solid, yet nonsensical legislation put in place that gives omnipotence for state supervision of private data. I can't even blame judges for this: a decent state lawyer only needs know the legislation which umbrellas the warrant, and provide proof all was done within its procedures.
Did the judge also rule that Facebook need not comply with a search warrant issued to its users? How can a rational person state that Facebook is required to act on the warrant and simultaneously not have standing to challenge the warrant?
It would be the defendant/accused (i.e. the user) who could raise an issue of constitutionality of the search warrant. For an internet service provider to raise the issue is just wrong-headed. They're required to respond to warrants; they're not being charged under the warrants.
Of course, if Facebook et. al. would like to assume responsibility for the content posted by users, then they'd have a reason to raise defense-style arguments. But until and unless they want to do so, they need to STFU and obey the law.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
If they have no standing because the law doesn't affect them, then they can ignore the law, since it can't affect them.
If it CAN affect them, then they have standing once it does.
Mind you, I don't agree that you have to have standing to contest a law: if you're bound under the law, you have standing, end of story. You don't have to wait until you are hit by the law, unless you are claiming that you did not agree to the law until you were affected by it.
If that were the case, then there is no such thing as private information. Even government spy info is "out there" since the spy is a third party to the NSA.
If the information is "out there" then there's no need to make a third party give it up, go get it yourself.
Hey corrupt judge, they have legal standing because it costs them time and money to comply with the warrant.
But the government is just overplaying its hand as consumers have now placed economic value in services that resist court orders.
The more idiocy in court, the more consumers will incentivise companies to resist. This will clean up the frivolous court orders while making it more difficult to pursue real criminals. But its not like the cops care about real crime anyway...
Facebook as the "data governor/administrator" has no legal standing to challange. User cannot challenge it directly, since one could not be informed that the government agancy request his data, cause that could be interference with ongoing investigation. So if I understand it correctly once such data is requested, it had to be handed over witout any means of challanging it?
Judge needs to be shot.
So Facebook is receiving the warrant, it is for information on their systems, they are legally obligated to fulfill it and yet they don't have "standing" to challenge it. This judge must have failed most of her coherent arguments classes back in law school, this decision is just plain idiotic.
So once the NSA disclosed information to third party contractors, like Snowden, its now "out there" and public knowledge? Does this thought of yours work both ways? Maybe if Facebook had a confidentiality agreement, like Snowden had to sign to get his job, would they then be covered. Which I think they did have a contract like that in their privacy policy.
Wouldn't the gag-order to not tip anyone off be "out there" as well. Why can't that be publically disclosed because it is no longer only held by the government but was also disclosed to the SAME third party that the government says they don't have rights on keeping the information private?
I'm having a hard time following your double standard here.
So let me see if I understand this. Alice gives me a letter, and asks me to read it and to give it to Bob. (We are all three parties to it.) The government, wishing to investigate Alice or Bob, can serve me a warrant for the letter, and demand all other of my papers that I have relating to the two? And I have no standing to contest the warrant, because it's served "against" Alice and Bob even though it's going after papers that are in my possession and of interest to me?
Is this what the Framers meant by "papers" in the phrase "Persons, Papers and Effects"?
1. Pretense: Find or create some kind of probable cause for a warrant. Doesn't in any way have to be related to what you're really looking for or anything you think he's really doing, just plausible enough to get rubber stamped by a friendly judge.
2. Fishing: Search through third parties like cell phone records, bank records, email records, social media records etc. under NDA, since the person won't know he can't challenge them.
3. Parallel construction: Using the information gathered above, find some law they're actually breaking and "randomly" catch them in the act. Preferably one that'll let you go through the rest of their belongings.
4. Fine tooth comb: Most people break the law in many small ways, just hit them with all of them. And even ones that won't stick, just to get the total and the defense burden high.
5. Buy high, sell low: Have the prosecution offer you a "deal" where you can either take 10% of a ridiculous figure or try it in full court, knowing a few of the lesser charges will stick so the prosecution won't look like a total sham,
Only 62 of 381 in the Facebook case were ever charged with any crime. The remaining 300+ are still totally unaware the government has seen through everything they've done on Facebook, since it's all under NDA. You can't challenge or suppress a warrant until the government tries to use it against you in a criminal case. This reminds me of the NSA wiretaps, since they've officially never admitted to wiretapping anybody there's nobody with standing to sue. It's a nice end-run around the constitution, that's for sure.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Hi sexconker, might as well use your ID since you already forgot to check the anon box once already so everybody knows its you dumbass.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
It is no more "bullshit" than a bank being required to open a safety deposit box when a warrant is presented against whoever is leasing the safety deposit box. That search is happening on bank property, but the bank does not have legal standing to challenge the warrant.
The bank absolutely should have standing to challenge the warrant if they feel the need. Their challenge can be denied AFTER due process but any party that is involved should by default have standing regardless of whether they are the target of the investigation.
We do NOT need internet-enabled corporations running rampant over the law as if they had no legal responsibilities nor limitations on the scope on what they're allowed to do.
Facebook is a company I don't especially trust but in this case they very much appear to be doing the right thing in standing up for their right to challenge a warrant. They are being asked to hand over information about their users which is the core of their business. This necessarily creates both legal and financial and moral problems for them. They have to protect their property. They have to deal with the potential loss of trust from their users and the fallout from that. Saying they don't have standing to challenge a warrant that very clearly requires actions by them and use of their property by government officials is ludicrous.
I'm not saying the search shouldn't be allowed to proceed after due course. But saying they lack standing doesn't make sense.
There are often CLEAR examples of similar situations with physical property, but the weasels in the "new" digital world would like to claim that they're above those precedents.
And in many cases those "clear" precedents are in reality anything but clear. Online data is NOT the same thing as a tangible good. The rules should be consistent whenever practical but at some point you have to make allowances for the fact that there are legitimate differences that matter. Many of these are still being sorted out as we see here and sometimes it is going to take a while and some wrong turns to get to the right answer.
It would be the defendant/accused (i.e. the user) who could raise an issue of constitutionality of the search warrant. For an internet service provider to raise the issue is just wrong-headed. They're required to respond to warrants; they're not being charged under the warrants.
The warrant isn't being executed on the defendant. It is being executed on Facebook. It involves Facebook's property, resources and creates non-trivial problems for them. If Facebook doesn't have standing to challenge then effectively nobody does because the defendant isn't in a position to challenge or possibly even know about the existence of the warrant.
Facebook shouldn't be required to challenge the warrant but they absolutely ought to have standing to do so. Otherwise this is an end run around the Fourth Amendment and possibly the Sixth Amendment as well.
If a warrant allowed the police to enter your property when you weren't present then in theory you'd only if you could see something had changed when you got back. If that is acceptable, then I really don't see why digital records should be any different.
Your analogy is poorly chosen I think. Facebook in this case would be something akin to a landlord for the property. The fact that you are not home does not mean the caretaker should not be allowed to challenge the search if they feel the challenge is justified since it involves their property too. There are necessarily two parties involved here and the rights of both need to be considered for any search. The challenge can be denied after due process but it doesn't logically follow that the parties involved who are not the ultimate target of the search shouldn't be allowed to contest whether the search is legal or justified.
I just think there should be consistency between warrants for physical and digital access.
When possible but we also have to recognize that physical and digital assets are NOT the same and the laws for them cannot always be identical.
Kangaroo Court rules no one is allowed to challenge the diktats of Kangaroo Court. Surprise surprise.
of government when they're all working together against us.
Way to go New York, lets sidestep all the relevant the legal issues. How can Facebook not have standing? THEY were the ones the warrant was served on. It is their servers being searched, it is their employees that have to dredge up the requested info. Although I agree with other postings here, it is Facebook. The information desired is already available for sale. If the government would have just bought it, no one would have known and there would have been no need for a court battle requiring an obviously corrupt judge.
We gave our data to Facebook in exchange for service. If the government wants the data the government should give something in return as a matter of principle. Or at least get a search warrant against Facebook if it wants data Facebook holds. It's like going over to a friend of mine's house and demanding to search the premises to look for something of mine. They should need to get a search warrant against the friend in that case, just as they should get a search warrant against Facebook.
If the users challenge the constitutionality of the warrant they'll be told that the data isn't theirs and that what is being requested are actually business records held by Facebook and thus the user has no legal standing to challenge the warrant.
I've seen this comment in at least 3 separate threads over the last two days. Is there a reason you're chasing this guy all over the site?
No legal standing? How about the Legal document called the Constitution of the United States of America. It doesn't get more legal than that.
Ignore the court.
Can Facebook just say "The judge says the warrent is not to us, so get lost"?
Whatever else the judge is, he's a fucking fascist.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Do not post anything on the internet that you do not want prying eyes to see.
What if Facebook's truthful statement would have been:
"We can give you access to all information the user chose not to declare as private. Anything else is private indeed, since it's encrypted and we do not have the decryption keys, sorry. You will have to serve the user with a warrant and if your case is good enough a judge will decide in a public trial that user will have to hand over the decryption keys."
But then, I guess, Facebook wouldn't be in business in the first place.
I suspect it's the same reason sexconker is posting the moo nonsense everywhere (boredom).
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
I suspect it's the same reason sexconker is posting the moo nonsense everywhere (stupidity).
FTFY