In the meantime Lamar Smith is pushing a bill so ISP's track and log everything you do online for 18 months, and then to give the data away without a warrant.
Most people would be appalled if they saw what the police get away with when they ask for search warrants. In the two areas I have personal experience with, the process of getting a warrant is an administrative inconvenience to the police, not the fair review that it's supposed to be. It's also important to keep in mind that it's similar to a prosecutor getting an indictment -- it's the law enforcement side telling only their side of the story, twisting facts however they please with no rebuttal, being told to a judge that maintains regular working relationships with these people and whose main concern is making sure the affidavit covers their ass enough not to get overturned on an appeal.
In France in the 60s the police used to have fill-in-the-blanks search warrants: pre-signed and pre-approved, with the name of the searchee conveniently left blank, so officers could type in whatever they wanted whenever they needed.
I say "in France" and "in the 60s" because it's been proven to happen there and then, but it's probably still common in many parts of the world...
My personal experience reflects this as well. Secret service obtained a search warrant looking for evidence of credit card fraud for my apartment based on some old consumer electronics packaging in our trash and recycling bins, bins shared with 2 other apartments nonetheless.
I think you know the answer: if judges will approve it 95%, law enforcement becomes convinced that the process of obtaining approval is superfluous, and is nothing but a barrier to getting their job done.
The problem is, that is a violation of the persons rights. S ome publications report that anywhere from 5-10% of WARRANTED searches were invalid. So imagine if you dropped that prerequisite, what that number would end up being? Would LEO selectiveness drop, and put the level of effort in validating the search onto the defense? Is that fair to the defendant? Absolutely not.
law enforcement becomes convinced that the process of obtaining approval is superfluous, and is nothing but a barrier to getting their job done
I don't have a problem with giving law enforcement more work to do if it means increased diligence in the court room and due process actually being executed...duly.
after this ruling we will see, right ? Imagine a supreme court judge aski ng if All of his internetndata was available to besearchedwithout a warrant And being told yes.... one could imagine a similar outcome when such a case reaches them.
To me, this supreme court decision stands as precedent against the ISP's forced tracking. If recording your vehicle moves constitutes a search, then recording your online moves surely constitutes a search.
The only difference is that the supreme court ruling mentions officers having to enter a constitutionally protected area(your car) to install the searching device. With ISP data recording they would have to make no such intrusion, as it would be built in. It would be as though every car came with GPS monitoring and all the feds had to to was ask for it from your car's manufacturer.
It would surprise me if the police hadn't gone to OnStar to get exactly that kind of tracking information. Even if they haven't, just reframing the case the way you have reduces the applicability of the ruling significantly. It wouldn't be hard to argue "the Internet is a public place" and as such, there is no expectation of privacy (perhaps with the exception of SSL, but AFAIK, PCIPA doesn't require keeping the actual data, just the logs of where you went, which, even with SSL, the IP address you are visiting is clear text).
I think we will need new legislation or some serious divine intervention for this decision to protect our online privacy from the government.
Where did the notion arise that because USA is a representative democracy, that they are somehow not subject to bureaucrats relentlessly trying to increase and concentrate their powers over their constituents?
http://gcn.com/articles/2011/08/05/protecting-children-bill-...