While the Lenihan order and decision did say that the government cannot demand location information without a search warrant, that decision has been appealed by the current administration. And even if the DOJ loses that appeal, the decision would only apply to a limited section of the country - other courts could decide differently.
The bigger issue is that electronic communications laws are badly out-of-date. There are so many grey areas and loopholes that Sprint and the DOJ can easily argue with a straight face that GPS records are not protected by the Constitution, are not protected by federal or state law, can be demanded without a search warrant, can even be voluntarily handed over with no process whatsoever, do not have to be logged, and do not require anyone ever to tell the person whose location information was collected that they were tracked. And while the courts often do get it right eventually, that's a really slow battle - we need a better approach than that.
We (the ACLU) are launching a new campaign, Demand Your dotRights, to push companies and lawmakers to provide real protections for our personal information. The "Electronic Communication Privacy Act," which is supposed to protect information like GPS records, was passed in 1986(!) - it just doesn't fit any more.
We hope you will all sign on and join our efforts to push Sprint, lawmakers, and others to respect individual privacy. It clearly won't be an easy battle (seeing how Sprint is actually proud of its "over 8 million GPS record requests served" title), but with enough support, we hope to make a difference - and we could use your help!
While it is NICE to want Universal Health Care, it isn't a "right" because it requires something from others.
All rights require something from others. The question is whether that something is negative (my right to freedom of expression requires you not to silence me) or positive (my right to equal treatment under the law requires you, as a restaurant owner, to serve me in the same manner that you serve other customers).
It's harder to state where rights end. My right to life requires that you do not shoot me. Does it require you to offer me basic first aid if someone else shoots me? Does it require you to allow me onto your property to escape someone trying to shoot me? Does it require you to sell me services that will save my life? Can you charge whatever you like, or does the cost have to be "reasonable"?
"For example: make it illegal to allow ISPs to release personal information to anyone who wants it."
Wrong approach. Either accept that personal info is going to be released or find an ISP that offers a guaranteed level of privacy you desire. Can't find one? Tough, go without. Or find an open access point, internet cafe or whatever, that doesn't require personal info.
And what happens when you have absolutely no way of knowing your ISP's policies in terms of releasing information, or whether it complies with those policies that you do know? You have absolutely no bargaining leverage at all as an individual, and "go without" isn't much of an alternative.
Wouldn't it be better for government to step in and provide people with the tools they need to actually take care of themselves? I agree that there's no need to make the transfer of personal information illegal per se - but what about requiring that ISPs allow customers to observe, or even determine, the parties to whom their information is transferred?
If, as you say, "Laws are only there to secure the rights and Liberties of men," then doesn't a law that prevents a gross imbalance of information about personal data sharing achieve exactly this end? Is there any party other than government that is adequately positioned to even out the balance of power between an ISP and an end user?
Nowhere in the article does it even suggest that people just put money in and cashed out 10x what they put in "without doing anything." From TFA:
More than two dozen people played the machine before one gambler alerted Caesars employees.
Caesars lost $487,000 on the machine during that time, state police said.
Assuming "more than two dozen" is still less than fifty, we're talking about people pulling out $10,000 or more on average from what was apparently a dollar slot machine.
Since a typical dollar slot machine doesn't spit out thousands of dollars in winnings to multiple players in a row, I think the facts in the article do pretty clearly "suggest" that several players recognized that the machine was faulty, pumping in bills, and, well, stealing from the casino.
But, before the government, ie the President or the Treasury Dept, can seize a citizen's assets, they have to provide that citizen due process.
Not necessarily; there are cases where seizure before judicial process is constitutional, especially where prior notice would eliminate any chance of seizure. This is most common in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence; the police aren't required to say "excuse me, we'd like to know that we will be coming back in an hour to seize that bag of white powder and see if it's cocaine, just wanted to make sure you received due process," after all.
The same reasoning would seem to apply here as well - if notice really would make a freeze impossible, and if there are sufficient precautions to prevent abuse of freezes (including both internal checks and the opportunity for rapid appeal), this would seem to be a constitutional order. The question of whether that's true is one for the courts, as others have said; this order cannot and does not have any real impact there.
What the order does do is instruct the Treasury that it is permitted to make the assumption that a freeze without notice is warranted in certain circumstances, specifically those involving violent actions intended to disrupt the administration's Iraq policy. The order does not permit, let alone encourage, the Treasury to abuse its right to make such an assumption, since once again the courts are the final arbiters of whether such actions are constitutional.
(Nor does the order prohibit suits against the government, including suits for damages for abusing constitutional rights. The last paragraph states solely that the order does not convey any NEW right or cause of action; it does not and cannot invalidate existing legitimate suits such as those alleging a willful violation of a constitutional right.)
The best part about this is that broadband services providers are "information services" rather than "telecommunications services" when the FCC wants them to be - like, say, when it wants to ensure that they are not subject to common carrier requirements, hence triggering the entire net neutrality debate. But when the FCC wants to ensure that the FBI can access Internet records, it decides that broadband Internet providers are actually telecommunications services and not information services.
Wired got it right the first time:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
Sorry to nitpick, but the quote is "let loose the dogs of war."
Sorry to nitpick, but:
ANTONY:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.
~ William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (Act III, Scene 1)
"Let slip" is an interesting phrase; while "slip" is usually unintentional, "let slip" suggests at least knowledge of what is to come.
Kind of like "accidental" takedown notices that impact legitimate content or lawsuit flurries certain to hit at least a few grandmothers without computers, no?
Slashdot Mirror
While the Lenihan order and decision did say that the government cannot demand location information without a search warrant, that decision has been appealed by the current administration. And even if the DOJ loses that appeal, the decision would only apply to a limited section of the country - other courts could decide differently.
The bigger issue is that electronic communications laws are badly out-of-date. There are so many grey areas and loopholes that Sprint and the DOJ can easily argue with a straight face that GPS records are not protected by the Constitution, are not protected by federal or state law, can be demanded without a search warrant, can even be voluntarily handed over with no process whatsoever, do not have to be logged, and do not require anyone ever to tell the person whose location information was collected that they were tracked. And while the courts often do get it right eventually, that's a really slow battle - we need a better approach than that.
We (the ACLU) are launching a new campaign, Demand Your dotRights, to push companies and lawmakers to provide real protections for our personal information. The "Electronic Communication Privacy Act," which is supposed to protect information like GPS records, was passed in 1986(!) - it just doesn't fit any more.
We hope you will all sign on and join our efforts to push Sprint, lawmakers, and others to respect individual privacy. It clearly won't be an easy battle (seeing how Sprint is actually proud of its "over 8 million GPS record requests served" title), but with enough support, we hope to make a difference - and we could use your help!
All rights require something from others. The question is whether that something is negative (my right to freedom of expression requires you not to silence me) or positive (my right to equal treatment under the law requires you, as a restaurant owner, to serve me in the same manner that you serve other customers).
It's harder to state where rights end. My right to life requires that you do not shoot me. Does it require you to offer me basic first aid if someone else shoots me? Does it require you to allow me onto your property to escape someone trying to shoot me? Does it require you to sell me services that will save my life? Can you charge whatever you like, or does the cost have to be "reasonable"?
And what happens when you have absolutely no way of knowing your ISP's policies in terms of releasing information, or whether it complies with those policies that you do know? You have absolutely no bargaining leverage at all as an individual, and "go without" isn't much of an alternative.
Wouldn't it be better for government to step in and provide people with the tools they need to actually take care of themselves? I agree that there's no need to make the transfer of personal information illegal per se - but what about requiring that ISPs allow customers to observe, or even determine, the parties to whom their information is transferred?
If, as you say, "Laws are only there to secure the rights and Liberties of men," then doesn't a law that prevents a gross imbalance of information about personal data sharing achieve exactly this end? Is there any party other than government that is adequately positioned to even out the balance of power between an ISP and an end user?
Caesars lost $487,000 on the machine during that time, state police said.
Assuming "more than two dozen" is still less than fifty, we're talking about people pulling out $10,000 or more on average from what was apparently a dollar slot machine.
Since a typical dollar slot machine doesn't spit out thousands of dollars in winnings to multiple players in a row, I think the facts in the article do pretty clearly "suggest" that several players recognized that the machine was faulty, pumping in bills, and, well, stealing from the casino.
Not necessarily; there are cases where seizure before judicial process is constitutional, especially where prior notice would eliminate any chance of seizure. This is most common in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence; the police aren't required to say "excuse me, we'd like to know that we will be coming back in an hour to seize that bag of white powder and see if it's cocaine, just wanted to make sure you received due process," after all.
The same reasoning would seem to apply here as well - if notice really would make a freeze impossible, and if there are sufficient precautions to prevent abuse of freezes (including both internal checks and the opportunity for rapid appeal), this would seem to be a constitutional order. The question of whether that's true is one for the courts, as others have said; this order cannot and does not have any real impact there.
What the order does do is instruct the Treasury that it is permitted to make the assumption that a freeze without notice is warranted in certain circumstances, specifically those involving violent actions intended to disrupt the administration's Iraq policy. The order does not permit, let alone encourage, the Treasury to abuse its right to make such an assumption, since once again the courts are the final arbiters of whether such actions are constitutional.
(Nor does the order prohibit suits against the government, including suits for damages for abusing constitutional rights. The last paragraph states solely that the order does not convey any NEW right or cause of action; it does not and cannot invalidate existing legitimate suits such as those alleging a willful violation of a constitutional right.)
Sorry to nitpick, but:
~ William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (Act III, Scene 1)"Let slip" is an interesting phrase; while "slip" is usually unintentional, "let slip" suggests at least knowledge of what is to come.
Kind of like "accidental" takedown notices that impact legitimate content or lawsuit flurries certain to hit at least a few grandmothers without computers, no?