investigators | business fraud | criminal defenseMA high court: high court rules warrant needed for cell phone search
Feb.24.2014
In an interesting cell phone data privacy case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before using a suspect's cell phone data to track his movements via GPS. SJC held a warrantless search violated Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures.
The plaintiff in the case, Shabazz Augustine, was a suspect in a 2004 homicide of his girlfriend. Police obtained his cell phone records from Sprint that showed what towers were used as he traveled in Boston. Police relied on a federal law that only requires “information to be relevant to an investigation” in order to get the data, as opposed to requesting a search warrant (and having a judge find probable cause regarding the target’s involvement in the case).
Practically speaking, the case is somewhat dated: police in most criminal cases now request warrants for such data anyway.
The plaintiff in the case, Shabazz Augustine, was a suspect in a 2004 homicide of his girlfriend. Police obtained his cell phone records from Sprint that showed what towers were used as he traveled in Boston. Police relied on a federal law that only requires “information to be relevant to an investigation” in order to get the data, as opposed to requesting a search warrant (and having a judge find probable cause regarding the target’s involvement in the case).
Practically speaking, the case is somewhat dated: police in most criminal cases now request warrants for such data anyway.
Google: we will invade your privacy
Aug.14.2013
In a blunt admission in a brief filed recently in federal court, lawyers for Google said people have no expectation of privacy when they send messages to a Gmail account.
Google’s brief said: “Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient’s assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their emails are processed by the recipient’s [email provider] in the course of delivery. Indeed, ‘a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.’
A highly redacted version of the complaint was filed publicly.
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/googlemotion061313.pdf
Google’s brief said: “Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient’s assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their emails are processed by the recipient’s [email provider] in the course of delivery. Indeed, ‘a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.’
A highly redacted version of the complaint was filed publicly.
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/googlemotion061313.pdf
Facebook leaked data all over internet--including non-users
Apr.12.2013
Security researchers who revealed Facebook's shadow profiles vulnerability are claiming that Facebook leaked massive amounts of data, including private phone numbers and other personal data--despite what Facebook told its users.
Facebook had announced the fix of a bug that inadvertently exposed the private information of over six million Facebook users. In addition, Facebook apparently is collected non-user phone numbers and email addresses and then matched the data to people. Here is the technical explanation of how data gets merged over several sets of databases, and unique links are discovered.
Knowing the information industry, I expect that this data will be for sale very shortly.
Facebook had announced the fix of a bug that inadvertently exposed the private information of over six million Facebook users. In addition, Facebook apparently is collected non-user phone numbers and email addresses and then matched the data to people. Here is the technical explanation of how data gets merged over several sets of databases, and unique links are discovered.
Knowing the information industry, I expect that this data will be for sale very shortly.
No right of privacy in IP case
Nov.09.2011
Judge Young in Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Swarm Sharing Hash File & Does 1 through 38, held "the constitutional presumption of openness of judicial proceedings" trumps the privacy claims of defendants, who swarmed to illegally download and distribute gay pornography. The film (with the winsome title “Corbin Fisher Amateur College Men Down on the Farm&rdquo
was downloaded illegally; the IP addresses of the downloaders was used to track and identify them. Young did leave an opening for defendants: “Nevertheless, should individual defendants be concerned about being publicly 'outed' as discovery proceeds, the Court will entertain those arguments on an individual basis.”
was downloaded illegally; the IP addresses of the downloaders was used to track and identify them. Young did leave an opening for defendants: “Nevertheless, should individual defendants be concerned about being publicly 'outed' as discovery proceeds, the Court will entertain those arguments on an individual basis.” Privacy, surveillance & civil litigation: a Massachusetts guide for private investigators
Apr.05.2018
The Massachusetts Bar Association hosts a good summary of privacy laws as they apply to video surveillance in Massachusetts civil litigation, including insurance cases. One of the leading cases in Mass. is DiGirolamo v. D.P. Anderson & Associates, Inc., The court wrote that investigators may generally observe, or photograph a person in public places. A gray area arises when a person enters the privacy of their own home. The court looked at 4 scenarios as to whether a private investigator violates a person's statutory right to privacy:
~ the investigator looks through a window into an apartment with the naked eye;
~ the investigator looks with the naked eye when a person walks out onto a balcony;
~ the investigator photographs, or looks at the person on a balcony with enhanced vision;
~ the investigator photographs or looks at a person inside the home with enhanced vision.
The Mass. court concluded that only the fourth scenario would constitute an unreasonable and substantial interference with the plaintiff’s right to privacy.
The court adopted the United States Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment analysis from Oliver v. United States. It also quoted a Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ case United States v. Taborda: “Observation of objects and activities inside a person’s home by unenhanced vision from a location where the observer may properly be does not impair a legitimate expectation of privacy. However, any enhanced viewing of the interior of a home does impair a legitimate expectation of privacy.”
Written by lawyers Joseph M. Desmond & David Viens, this article has some good information on Massachusetts state laws applicable to video surveillance, audio recordings, pretext interviews and pretrial discovery.
~ the investigator looks through a window into an apartment with the naked eye;
~ the investigator looks with the naked eye when a person walks out onto a balcony;
~ the investigator photographs, or looks at the person on a balcony with enhanced vision;
~ the investigator photographs or looks at a person inside the home with enhanced vision.
The Mass. court concluded that only the fourth scenario would constitute an unreasonable and substantial interference with the plaintiff’s right to privacy.
The court adopted the United States Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment analysis from Oliver v. United States. It also quoted a Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ case United States v. Taborda: “Observation of objects and activities inside a person’s home by unenhanced vision from a location where the observer may properly be does not impair a legitimate expectation of privacy. However, any enhanced viewing of the interior of a home does impair a legitimate expectation of privacy.”
Written by lawyers Joseph M. Desmond & David Viens, this article has some good information on Massachusetts state laws applicable to video surveillance, audio recordings, pretext interviews and pretrial discovery.