Appeals Court Guts Landmark Computer-Privacy Ruling

[n2doc]

By David Kravets September 13, 2010

Bowing to the Obama administration, a federal appeals court Monday gutted its own decision that had dramatically narrowed the government’s search-and-seizure powers in the digital age.

The 9-2 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nullifies Miranda-style guidelines the court promulgated last year that were designed to protect Fourth Amendment privacy rights during court-authorized computer searches. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, as solicitor general last year, had urged the court to reverse itself amid complaints that federal prosecutions were being complicated, and computer searches were grinding to a halt, because of the detailed guidelines.

The original ruling required the government to cull specific data described in the search warrant, rather than copy entire hard drives. When that’s not possible, the feds were advised to use an independent third party under the court’s supervision, whose job it would be to comb through the files for the specific information, and provide it, and nothing else, to the government. The ruling said judges should “deny the warrant altogether” if the government does not consent to such a plan in data-search cases.

The ruling came in a case that dates to 2004, when federal prosecutors probing a Northern California steroid ring obtained warrants to seize the results of urine samples of 10 Major League Baseball players at a Long Beach, California, drug-testing facility. The players had been tested as part of a voluntary drug-deterrence program implemented by Major League Baseball.



Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/digital-miranda-rights/

Change-o-licious! Obama gets what Bush Couldn't

[fasttense]

1. There is no longer any justice in our justice system. n/t

[BzaDem]

2. Not really. This case was unusual, because the court went way out of its way to decide issues that

were not properly before the court. They issued "guidance" that had nothing to do with the case, and all parties to the case agreed that this guidance was not necessary to resolve the case. The problem was that the guidance was being interpreted in completely different ways access the circuit, because no one knew what was mandatory.

The court simply changed its guidance from being a part of the opinion of the court to being simply guidance in a concurring opinion. It does nothing to prevent it from gradually becoming mandatory, if the issues are squarely presented before the court in future cases and decided the same way.