Archives: January, 2012

The Second-Day Story on U.S. v. Jones

By
Jim Harper

Does a more careful reading of the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Jones turn up a lurking victory for the government?

Modern media moves so fast that the second-day story happens in the afternoon of the first. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday morning that government agents conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they place a GPS device on a private vehicle and use it to monitor a suspect’s whereabouts for weeks at a time. Monday afternoon, a couple of commentators suggested that the case is less a win than many thought because it didn’t explicitly rule that a warrant is required to attach a GPS device to a vehicle.

Writing on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr noted “What Jones Does Not Hold.”

The Court declined to reach when the installation of the device is reasonable or unreasonable. … So we actually don’t yet know if a warrant is required to install a GPS device; we just know that the installation of the device is a Fourth Amendment “search.”

And over on Scotusblog, Tom Goldstein found that “The Government Fared Much Better Than Everyone Realizes”:

[D]oes the “search” caused by installing a GPS device require a warrant? The answer may be no, given that no member of the Court squarely concludes it does and four members of the Court (those who join the Alito concurrence) do not believe it constitutes a search at all.

So there is a constitutional search when the government attaches a GPS device to a vehicle, but the Court conspicuously declined to say that such a search requires a warrant. Do we have an “a-ha” moment?

When the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case, it took the unusual step of adding to the questions it wanted addressed. In addition to “[w]hether the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent’s vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment,” the Court wanted to know “whether the government violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent.” These are both compound questions, but the dimension added by the second is the Fourth Amendment meaning of attaching a device to a vehicle. The case was about attaching a device to a vehicle, and if the Court didn’t walk through every clause in each of the questions presented, that’s why.

On that central question in the case, the government argued the following: “Attaching the GPS tracking device to respondent’s vehicle was not a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.” The government lost, full stop.

Now, it’s true that the Court’s majority opinion didn’t explictly find that the “search” that occurs when attaching and using a GPS device requires a warrant, but look at its characterization of the opinion it affirmed: “The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed [Jones’s] conviction because of admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device which, it said, violated the Fourth Amendment.”

The Court did decline to consider the argument that the government might be able to attach a device based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause—that argument was “forfeited” by the government’s failure to raise it in the lower courts—but if the Supreme Court were limiting its holding to the attachment-as-search issue, it would have remanded the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. It did not, and the sensible inference to draw from that is that the general rule applies: a warrant is required in the absence of one of the customary exceptions. Failing to make that explicit was not “opening a door” to a latent government victory. U.S. v. Jones was a unanimous decision rejecting the government’s warrantless use of outré technology to defeat the natural privacy protections provided by law and physics.

At least one serious lawyer I know has raised the point that I address here, and it is a real one, but some in the commentariat are a little too showy with their analysis and far too willing to go looking for a government victory in what is nothing other than a government defeat.

Topics: 
Law and Civil Liberties, Telecom, Internet & Information Policy

The Megaupload Chilling Effects Hit

By
Julian Sanchez

As I noted on Friday, the seizure of popular cyberlocker Megaupload demonstrates that, even without controversial new legislation, our government already has extraordinarily broad powers to take down U.S.-registered websites (including any site in the .com and .org domains) before anyone has been tried for illegal conduct, let alone convicted. While the evidence presented in the indictment charging Megaupload’s executives with criminal racketeering and copyright infringement certainly seems damning, I also worried about the broader chilling effect such seizures could have on cloud storage services generally.

It didn’t take long for those effects to become apparent. The cyberlocker Filesonic has now disabled file sharing functionality: Users can still upload files for personal storage, but can’t create public links to enable others to access those files. (Though I’m not sure what prevents someone from simply creating a dummy account, uploading files, and then publicly posting the login information.) Another cyberlocker, Uploaded.to, is just blocking all traffic from U.S. Internet addresses, though it’s not at all clear how much legal protection that’s likely to afford them. You can hardly blame them for being skittish: The Megaupload indictment suggests that the U.S. government considers a wide array of cyberlocker business practices to be ipso facto evidence of criminal intentions, even though there are arguably legitimate reasons for many of them. Yet the government doesn’t think it has to wait for a trial, or give the folks who run a site an opportunity to explain their practices, before seizing an entire domain—which would be an effective death sentence for many startups.

If you think all cyberlockers are nothing more than piracy tools, and there’s no legitimate reason to make use of cloud storage for anything but personal backups, this might sound like an entirely healthy development. It’s a little more worrying to those of us who see many valid reasons that law abiding individuals—even those who lack contracts with major record labels and movie studios, or the funds and tech savvy to run their own servers—might want to share large files with friends and colleagues, or distribute them to the general public.

To be sure, such services aren’t going to vanish entirely. Established corporations like Google have sophisticated filter algorithms that can help identify copyrighted content—though those are trivially defeated by file compression and encryption—and large, well paid legal teams to handle copyright compliance and fend off lawsuits, like the one Google’s own YouTube continues to fight with content behemoth Viacom. The question is whether these are the only companies we want offering such services. Is the market for cloud-based platforms that enable sharing (which is one of the big selling points of cloud computing) a market we’re prepared to see effectively closed off to startups  that can’t preemptively police every user-uploaded file to Hollywood’s satisfaction? Because that is the predictable effect of a regulatory environment where investors know a nascent site can be summarily yanked offline by a district judge who thinks a Tumblr is some sort of gymnastics aficionado.

If you’re only thinking about current, known uses of the Internet, this might not seem like that big a deal: Why do we need lots of different platforms for sharing large files? But then, just a few years ago it was hard to envision why we might want a platform for sharing streams of 140-character messages (“Just a bunch of people gabbing about what they had for lunch, ho-ho-ho!”) or a platform where anyone, not just Professional Content Creators, could upload short videos (“Amateur videos? Sounds like an excuse to steal movies!”) or half the other technologies that are so profoundly shaping 21st century life.

The last innovation is always safe. That’s why it’s easy to claim concrete examples of the harm regulation might do are hyperbolic fearmongering: Nobody’s going to shut down YouTube or Twitter now, because we’ve already seen the incredible value creation they enable, even if they also make it a bit easier to infringe copyrights. And anyway, the success stories eventually get big enough to afford their own fancy lawyers. It’s the next platform that we risk strangling in the cradle, because every new medium starts out recapitulating old media content before it becomes truly generative. Early radio is full of people reading newspapers and books out loud. Early TV and film looks like what you get when someone points a camera at a stage play.

File lockers still look like nothing but piracy tools to a lot of people, because most of us aren’t yet generating and sharing gigabytes worth of content on a daily basis. But it doesn’t take a whole lot of imagination to imagine a world where that’s not at all the case, a world where cheap, ubiquitous, powerful computing and rising bandwidth and falling storage costs make collaborative creation of high definition sound, video, and—who knows—maybe entire 3D environments a nigh universal recreational activity. (Like TV has been for the last couple generations, only with fewer dead brain cells.)

That world can be run by Google and Sony and a few other behemoths capable of negotiating byzantine licensing deals (and filtering protocols), with incumbents ill-disposed to see the value in anything that isn’t easily shoehorned into their existing business models. Or we can have a more dynamic, open world where someone with a cool idea for a platform can give it a try without spending more money on lawyers than servers first. The interesting, important question isn’t—as regulatory advocates want to make it—whether Megaupload should go out of business. Odds are it will and should, after a proper trial. It isn’t even whether sites like Rapidshare or Hotfile ought to follow suit. The interesting, important question is whether we’re going to have a legal climate that’s capable of giving rise to the second kind of cultural ecosystem, or one that’s only hospitable to the first kind.

Topics: 
Law and Civil Liberties, Telecom, Internet & Information Policy

President Obama Could Improve Relations with China at the Stroke of His Pen

By
Daniel J. Ikenson

When China joined the WTO in December 2001, one of the many terms it agreed to was to allow the United States to continue to treat it as a “non-market economy” under U.S. antidumping law for a period of 15 years. China has regretted that concession ever since, and there are precious few gestures that would win more goodwill from the Chinese government than a decision by President Obama to graduate China to market economy status now.

A ruling last month from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit making it illegal to apply the U.S. Countervailing Duty Law (anti-subsidy law) to imports from non-market economies gives the president the perfect opening to make the change now. From the perspective of a free trader, that solution is far from ideal: it preserves domestic industries’ access to the antidumping law and countervailing duty laws, both of which produce egregiously punitive duties on imports and are ripe for serious reform or outright repeal.

But the benefit of granting market economy status to China now is that it will help slow, and likely reverse the deterioration in bilateral economic relations. And that would be an important benefit for all of us.

At the very beginning of the Obama administration, Scott Lincicome and I urged the new president to consider more than just the litany of gripes so often heard at home and to recognize that China has its own justifiable concerns about U.S. policy:

The time has come to seriously consider carrots and not just sticks—particularly since the pain from the sticks is not limited to its intended targets, but is felt in the United States and in other countries, given the transnational nature of supply chains. President Obama would invigorate the relationship if he were to grant China “market economy” treatment in anti-dumping cases. While such a reform would take very little out of petitioning industries’ hides, the gesture would win vast sums of goodwill from the

Chinese—goodwill needed to resolve more important issues going forward. Indeed, repeal of the non-market economy (NME) designation presents a “win-win” scenario for several reasons.

First, graduation from NME status is one of the Chinese government’s top international

trade priorities. China wants to be treated like all other major economies, and accordingly, the Chinese government is likely willing to make important concessions in other contested areas of trade policy to achieve market economy status. But the longer we wait to grant market economy status to China, the less valuable that concession becomes. Under the rules governing China’s accession to the WTO, the United States must repeal China’s NME designation by 2016. Thus, the value of that “concession”

will be greater in 2009—seven years early—than it will be in 2010 or 2012. Much beyond

2012, and the concession looks a bit like Confederate money.

Second, China’s NME designation has drawn intense criticism from domestic consuming industries, trade policy experts, and U.S. trade partners because of its incongruous application (for example, Russia was deemed a “market economy” in 2002, yet still is not a WTO member, while China became a WTO member in 2001) and the latitude for abuse of administrative discretion it affords. Also, the relatively recent change in policy that opened the door to countervailing duty cases against China has sparked controversy about whether NME treatment in anti-dumping cases should still be permissible.

U.S. revocation of China’s NME status would alleviate many of those domestic concerns at virtually no cost to domestic petitioning industries, but petitioners value NME because of the trade-suppressing uncertainty the process engenders. It is important that President Obama understand that our trade relationship with China has been mutually beneficial, that the rhetoric about the impact of unfair Chinese practices has been highly exaggerated, and that unnecessary provocation could open a Pandora’s Box of economic problems.

(Read the whole analysis here.)

Well, Lincicome (in a thorough analysis) and I (in a fairly technical one) continue to make the case for market economy designation, and welcome the retorts of those who are opposed.

Topics: 
Trade and Immigration

State Dependency on the Federal Government

By
Tad DeHaven

The president’s fiscal 2013 budget proposal is scheduled to be released on February 13th. State officials are predictably sounding the alarm on the coming “deep cuts” to federal subsidies now that stimulus funds are running out and Washington is being forced to confront its mounting red ink.

State officials have become addicted to federal subsidies because they allow them to spend money taken from taxpayers across the country instead of having to ask their voters to pony up the funds. As the following charts shows, total state spending continued to increase during the economic downturn because the federal government picked up the slack. Note that the federal share of total state spending went from 25.7 percent in 2001 to 34.1 percent in 2011.

See this Cato essay on federal subsidies to the states for more on why it is critical to reverse this trend.

Topics: 
Tax and Budget Policy

‘The White House Is Resorting to Unsubstantiated Happy Talk’ on ObamaCare

By
Michael F. Cannon

Last week, the White House claimed 28 states are “on their way” toward creating ObamaCare’s health insurance Exchanges. Here’s what Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center thinks about that:

[E]ven if one were to accept the White House’s accounting…that would mean that 22 states — roughly 40 percent of the country — are not “on their way” toward erecting the Obamacare exchanges. Isn’t that a problem? Further, upon closer inspection, it’s clear that many of the 28 states that are supposedly “on their way” really aren’t “on their way.”…

A more accurate description of what is going would go like this…the administration can rightly claim 15 states are more or less playing ball with them…

[T]here’s a very long list of states — nearly 30 — with strong Republican governors who have absolutely no interest in doing anything to solidify the position of Obamacare…

In other states, with mixed political control, it’s not entirely clear what direction they will go, as the legislatures and the governors are either at odds over the issue or have deferred taking any definitive steps…

So, a fair reading of what’s really going on is that the vast majority of states are not proceeding apace to implement Obamacare, and there’s no prospect of their doing so anytime soon…

Obamacare is under siege at this point. It is on shaky ground legally. It’s opposed by a plurality of voters. And there’s no real plan in view for actually implementing it, even if it were to survive the various challenges coming its way. No wonder the White House is resorting to unsubstantiated happy talk.

Read the whole thing.

Topics: 
General, Government and Politics, Health Care

Should I Change My Mind about Super PACs?

By
John Samples

Lately I have argued that Super PACs, a result of the SpeechNow judicial decision, have enhanced democratic debate in the 2012 presidential election.

Super PACs have had one undeniable specific result this year: they enabled a donor to give a Super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich several million dollars. Mr. Gingrich, it turns out, has put that money to good use to win the South Carolina primary and now to take the lead in Florida, according to recent polls. Absent that Super PAC spending (and the contribution that made it possible), Mr. Gingrich’s candidacy would have come to an end no later than the end of the New Hampshire primary.

Some people say that Mr. Gingrich’s nomination or election would be a disaster for the Republican party or for the nation, respectively. Let’s assume the accuracy of those beliefs for purposes of argument. Given that, shouldn’t I at least reconsider my position on Super PACs?

Freedom of speech, like all public things, has risks. The real question should be: is such freedom better on the whole than the alternative, i.e. giving government officials the discretion to suppress speech? In this case, a ban on Super PACs would give the government the effective power to decide who loses and when in a party presidential primary. I do not believe that such power, even if it were constitutional, would be exercised on behalf of the general welfare of the country.

In any case, if Mr. Gingrich’s efforts turn out to be a disaster for the GOP or the USA, it will not be because he spent money on television ads. He can only succeed through gaining the assent of voters who were moved by his ads and other considerations (his general demeanor, debate style, and so on). Money fosters speech; it does not guarantee electoral success.

Finally, in this case, as always, more (money spent on) speech is the answer to (money spent on) speech. Gov. Romney and President Obama, I suspect, understand that truth and are ready to act on it. The rest will be up to voters, as it should be.

Topics: 
Government and Politics, Law and Civil Liberties, Political Philosophy

“Jones”ing for a Fourth Amendment Upgrade

By
Julian Sanchez

Today’s unanimous Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Jones makes it clear that government installation and use of GPS tracking devices is a Fourth Amendment “search”—but it may be the concurring opinions, rather than Justice Scalia’s majority opinion, that are most significant for Americans’ privacy in the 21st century.

As Jim Harper notes, Justice Scalia ruled on the relatively narrow grounds that installing the tracking device involved physical intrusion on the suspect’s property, triggering Fourth Amendment protections.  Yet as Justices Alito and Sotomayor observe in separate concurrences—and as I pointed out in a previous post on this case—there are plenty of means for tracking a target’s location in public that don’t require such intrusion. One of the most popular with law enforcement is cell-phone tracking, either by means of a court order demanding records from the phone company directly, or through the use of devices known as “Stingrays” or “Triggerfish.” There’s also the use of license-plate recognition cameras, and even aerial surveillance drones.  The broader question that’s crucial to determining the extent of our privacy rights in the long term, then, is the one Scalia’s opinion pointedly declines to reach: Does prolonged, technologically-assisted location surveillance impinge on a citizen’s “reasonable expectation of privacy,” even when it does not require physical intrusion?

Justice Alito, joined by three other justices, says that it can indeed—and in this case, did. The placement of a tiny device on the undercarriage of a car parked in a public place, Alito argues, does not sufficiently “interfere” with a suspect’s property interests to constitute a Fourth Amendment “seizure,” nor is it a “search” until police activate and begin monitoring the device. If the police had simply slipped a business card into the tire, after all, the physical intrusion would be too minor in itself to count as an actionable trespass. Instead, Alito insists, it is necessary to proceed to the harder question of whether such intensive location monitoring violates our reasonable social expectations of privacy, even as we move around in public. Though the concurrence is reluctant to say exactly when that expectation is breached, Alito notes that round-the-clock surveillance over a full month would be so costly to carry out by conventional physical observation that it exceeds what reasonable people expect—and so triggers the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

Perhaps most intriguing is Sotomayor’s brief concurrence. For Sotomayor, either the property rationale relied on by Scalia or the “expectations” analysis deployed by Alito would suffice to find a Fourth Amendment violation here. That’s crucial, because it means that there are at least five votes on the current Court for the view that we have some Fourth Amendment protection against intensive, high-tech location tracking, even in public, and even when the method doesn’t require physical intrusion. Yet even more important than that may be this passage:

More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. […] This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a greatdeal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. […] But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protectedstatus only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection.

This is a pretty big deal. Fourth Amendment scholars have been warning for decades—and with increasing alarm—that modern communications technology could turn constitutional privacy protections into an empty formality if we’re regarded as waiving those protections whenever we “expose” information to a third party. It is inherent to the nature of the Internet and mobile telecommunications, after all, that almost everything we do online—and, increasingly, much that we do offline as well—leaves a trace in the vast databases of one corporation or another.

Sotomayor’s concurrence signals a recognition that we need to move beyond what privacy scholar Daniel Solove has called “The Secrecy Paradigm,” which assumes that whatever is not totally secret (or very nearly so) is effectively “public.” In other words, if your Internet provider has a record of every Web site you visit, there’s no invasion of privacy when the government decides to have a look at the list. At least one Justice, evidently, recognizes that this is an indefensible inference—and one hopes she’s not alone.

Topics: 
Law and Civil Liberties, Telecom, Internet & Information Policy

Pages