Podcasts about stored communications act

Monday, April 15th, 2024Today, barring any last minute issues, jury selection begins in the Trump 2016 election interference trial; Iran launched hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel over the weekend and Speaker Johnson appears to be using it as an excuse to bury Ukraine aid; the House has passed FISA reauthorization; MTG won't say what happened to her Trump Media stock; a court filing shows additional Twitter search warrants issued by the Department of Justice; Kentucky GOP lawmakers removed the Democratic governor's role in filling US Senate vacancies; the Arkansas attorney general claims purchasing laws do not apply to governor days before the release of the lectern audit; plus Allison and Dana deliver your good news. Promo Code:For a limited time, HomeChef is offering you 18 Free Meals, plus Free Shipping on your first box, and Free Dessert for Life. At https://www.HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS. House approves bill renewing FISA spy program after GOP upheaval threatened passage (CBS)House to act on Israel aid, but Ukraine up in the air, after Iran's attack (Politico)Marjorie Taylor Greene won't say what happened to her Trump Media stock (CNBC)Kentucky GOP lawmakers remove Democratic governor's role in filling US Senate vacancies (AP News)Arkansas AG claims purchasing laws do not apply to governor, days before release of lectern audit (Arkansas Advocate) Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote?utm_source=TwitterAG&utm_medium=creator_organic&utm_campaign=muellershewrote&utm_content=FollowMehttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsS.E Robertson Fictionhttps://www.serobertsonfiction.comAffinity ABC (Albuquerque, NM)https://www.affinityabc.comRed Wine and Bluehttps://redwine.blueUpcoming Live Show Dateshttps://allisongill.com (for tickets and show dates)Sunday, June 2nd – Chicago IL – Schubas TavernFriday June 14th – Philadelphia PA – City WinerySaturday June 15th – New York NY – City WinerySunday June 16th – Boston MA – City WineryWednesday July 10th – Portland OR – Polaris Hall(with Dana!)Thursday July 11th – Seattle WA – The Triple Door(with Dana!)6/17/2024 Boston, MA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-Bos27/25/2024 Milwaukee, WI https://tinyurl.com/Beans-MKE7/28/2024 Nashville, TN - with Phil Williams https://tinyurl.com/Beans-Tenn7/31/2024 St. Louis, MO https://tinyurl.com/Beans-STL8/16/2024 Washington, DC - with Andy McCabe, Pete Strzok, Glenn Kirschner https://tinyurl.com/Beans-in-DC8/24/2024 San Francisco, CA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-SF Live Show Ticket Links:Chicago, IL https://tinyurl.com/Beans-ChiPhiladelphia, PA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-PhillyNew York, NY https://tinyurl.com/Beans-NYCBoston, MAhttps://tinyurl.com/Beans-Bos2Portland, ORhttps://tinyurl.com/Beans-PDXSeattle, WAhttps://tinyurl.com/Beans-SEA Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Discover the world of CISSP Cyber Training in a thrilling exploration that unravels the complex web of cybersecurity legislation, contractual law, and computer crimes acts. We'll begin our journey by studying recent cybercrimes, with a focus on the Singapore government and the US pledge to fight scams through cross-border cooperation. With the alarming statistic of scam losses in the US reaching around $10.3 billion last year, we aim to illuminate the critical importance of understanding these laws for your CISSP exam.Intrigued about how various laws affect the protection of intellectual property? We've got you covered. We'll decipher the intricacies of civil, criminal, administrative and contractual law, and their implications on protecting trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. You'll be privy to in-depth conversations about working with attorneys when drafting contracts, and understand the legal recourse available if a vendor misplaces information. We'll also guide you through the steps to tackle issues such as domain name scams.But that's not all. We venture into computer crime laws and their implications, focusing on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFA) and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). We'll examine the Electronic Funds Transfer Act of 1978, the Stored Communications Act, and discuss their impact on privacy and legal considerations related to accessing or disclosing electronic data. We'll also probe the Data Protection Act in the UK and the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act. To top it off, we have a unique segment on career coaching for CISSP Cyber Training. We'll share with you, invaluable tips on acing the CISSP exam, crafting compelling resumes and acing interviews. So, get ready to embark on a thrilling journey that will equip you with the essential training to excel in your cybersecurity career!Gain access to 30 FREE CISSP Exam Questions each and every month by going to FreeCISSPQuestions.com and sign-up to join the team for Free.

A court document unsealed on Wednesday revealed that prosecutors executed a search warrant on former President Donald Trump's Twitter account as part of Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Trump's alleged attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.  The documents revealed that Twitter did not fully produce the documents requested, and took the Department of Justice to court. Twitter argued that the nondisclosure order violated the First Amendment and the Stored Communications Act.

One of the most urgent debates in tech policy at the moment concerns encrypted communications. At issue in proposed legislation, such as the UK's Online Safety Bill or the EARN It Act put forward in the US Senate, is whether such laws break the privacy promise of end to end encryption by requiring content moderation mechanisms like client-side scanning. But to what extent are such moderation techniques legal under existing laws that limit the monitoring and interception of communications? Today's guest is James Grimmelmann, a legal scholar with a computer science background who recently conducted a review of various moderation technologies to determine how they might hold up in under US federal communication privacy regimes including the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). The conversation touches on how technologies like server side and client side scanning work, the extent to which the law may fail to accommodate or even contemplate such technologies, and where the encryption debate is headed as these technologies advance.

Stanford's Evelyn Douek and Alex Stamos weigh in on the latest online trust and safety news and developments:Senators Chris Coons, Rob Portman, Amy Klobuchar, and Bill Cassidy introduced the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act (PATA) on Wednesday. The Bill would give researchers at universities and nonprofit organizations in the U.S. access to study data from the largest social media companies and provide public transparency on the most widely shared posts, advertising, content moderation practices and recommendation algorithms. - John Perrino / Tech Policy PressMore: Nate Persily puts in a cameo appearance to explain the bill and its history. Nate has been working on platform transparency for years. - Tara Wright / SLS NewsAn internal investigation by ByteDance, TikTok's parent company, found that employees tracked the location and user data of multiple journalists, in an attempt to identify leakers at the company - Emily Baker White / Forbes More: One of the reporters who was tracked, Emily Baker White, has a good toot-thread of the reporting on the company that she has done over the past year that led to her being tracked. - Emily Baker White / MastodonThe password manager LastPass dropped a lovely Christmas present on its users, announcing a major security breach. Yikes. - Karim Toubba / LastPassOver at Twitter:Musk is still CEO.No, the US Government is not paying Twitter millions of dollars to censor information (Musk on Twitter). It reimburses the company for the costs of complying with orders to hand over data under the Stored Communications Act. - 18 U.S. Code § 2703, § 2706The Twitter Files finally had some interesting reporting about US Government covert information operations. - Lee Fang / The InterceptNo, it's not news that platforms struggled with content moderation during the pandemic and often made mistakes. Yes, there should be a proper review of content moderation during the pandemic. - David Zweig / TwitterElon Musk has a worrying lack of understanding of Twitter's data security obligations. - Faiz Siddiqui / Washington PostHere's a primer of what he should know and why he should be worried Moderated Content prepared earlier - “Elon puts rockets into space, he's not afraid of the FTC”And for Orin Kerr's take on why he really, really shouldn't share people's DMs, listen to MC Weekly Update 12/12Everything has a content moderation angle – Leo Messi's post celebrating his world cup win has become the most-liked Instagram post of all time. - Dan Ladden-Hall / The Daily BeastJoin the conversation and connect with Evelyn and Alex on Twitter at @evelyndouek and @alexstamos.Moderated Content is produced in partnership by Stanford Law School and the Cyber Policy Center. Special thanks to John Perrino for research and editorial assistance.Extra special thanks this week to the production team, Brian Pelletier, Alyssa Ashdown and Ryan Roberts for making sure this reached you during winter shutdown.Like what you heard? Don't forget to subscribe and share the podcast with friends!

https://youtu.be/0gzEgp8x9XA Casey S. Erick is a Shareholder with the law firm Coals Thompson, and focuses on Commercial Litigation and Employment Law. He has represented clients in both litigation and transactional matters that span across commercial law, labor and employment, real estate, consumer protection, and general litigation including, but not limited to breach of contract, corporate trade secret theft, tortious interference, defamation, personal injury, fraud, and various other kinds of civil litigation. He has represented high-profile clients as well as defended against high-profile national and global entities in matters related to commercial litigation, defamation, privacy, negligence, the Stored Communications Act, the Texas Harmful Access by Computer Act, Texas identity Theft Enforcement and Protection Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. He's a member of the State bar of Texas and the Dallas bar, with admissions to the fifth circuit court of appeals, and the us district courts for the northern, southern, eastern, and western districts of Texas. He's been selected as a Thomson Reuters Super lawyer, and he's in the 1% of attorneys who have been admitted to the Million Dollar Advocates Forum. https://www.cowlesthompson.com/attorneys/casey-erick/

Fresh from his launch of the Alperovitch Institute for Cybersecurity Studies, Dmitri Alperovitch kicks off this episode with a hopeful take on the 31-nation videoconference devoted to combatting ransomware. He and Nate Jones both think a coordinated international effort could pay off. I challenge Dmitri to identify one new initiative that this group could enforce, and he rises to the occasion. Dmitri also previews one of the proposals for regulating Silicon Valley that might yet make it through Congress—a ban on “self-preferencing” by platforms that sell both their own and other people's products. No, we don't get out of this discussion without a “Master of our domain” Seinfeld reference. Or a nod in the direction of China's even more aggressive use of antitrust remedies against companies like meal delivery giant Meituan. Tatyana Bolton, meanwhile, identifies a second front in the attack on Big Tech – regulation of algorithms. This leads us into a discussion of freedom of speech versus “freedom of reach” and a WSJ story on the weaknesses of Facebook's AI system for downrating but only occasionally nuking “hate speech.” I argue that social media will embrace AI reach restrictions, if only as a way to make sure the victims of Silicon Valley censorship never realize how much their voices are being squelched. Microsoft has given up its ambitions for LinkedIn's China operations, Dmitri notes, dropping the social media elements and moving to straight job listings. I think the retreat was overdetermined by the Chinese government's effort to extract both financial and political concessions from Microsoft. In more news about Chinese regulation, it turns out that the Chinese ban on crypto-mining didn't quite reach the crypto miners using state resources. But if China is slowly poisoning its high-tech sector, why does a former Pentagon official think the U.S. has lost the AI race to China? Nate and I are cautiously skeptical of that view, not least because of the official's, uh, provenance. Tatyana and I dig into WhatsApp's somewhat limited adoption of encrypted backups, and the policy's likely impact on law enforcement and different categories of criminal. In quick hits, I also nod to the critique of “client-side scanning” of phone content for law enforcement offered by All the Usual Cryptographers. In more comic relief, the governor of Missouri embarrasses himself by threatening criminal prosecution after a state website's security flaws are exposed by a reporter who seems to have done all the right things from a responsible disclosure point of view. In other quick hits,  I report on Facebook's appeal of the magistrate opinion unexpectedly gutting the Stored Communications Act for everyone who's ever been deplatformed by social media. It's a workmanlike effort, but only mildly persuasive. This could turn out to be a big hole in the SCA, I offer. Dmitri breaks down the federal government's plan to issue SD cards to all its employees for network access. It's a good idea, he thinks, but saying it will end phishing of employees is more fond hope than reasonable expectation. Download the 379th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

In this episode, host Bidemi Ologunde talked about the delicate balance between security and privacy, in terms of how geofence warrants are being used to arrest the rioters that breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.A link to the Capitol Breach Cases.Please send questions, comments, and suggestions to bidemi@thebidpicture.com. You can also get in touch on LinkedIn, Twitter, the Clubhouse app (@bid), and the Wisdom app (@bidemi).Support the show

Richard "Dick" Whiting joins Joseph and Amber on this episode to share his expertise when it comes to wiretapping laws and the Electronic Stored Communications Act. Dick has practiced primarily in the area of Family Law and federal and state wiretap law. Contact us at DirectExaminationPodcast@gmail.com or via our website at SCLawPod.com. HOSTS: - Dayne Phillips (@sccrimlawyer): sccriminallaws.com/ - Amber Fulmer (@redjudicata): https://jdooleylaw.com/attorney-amber-fulmer/ - Joseph Bias (@JosephPBias) --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/direct-examination/support

This is the meatiest episode in a long time, as Dmitri Alperovitch, Dave Aitel, and Mark MacCarthy go deep on the substance of a dozen stories or more.  First up, Dmitri and I speculate on possible outcomes from the newly announced administration plan to convene 30 countries to crack down on ransomware. We also report on what may be the first conformed death resulting from the equipment failures caused by ransomware—a newborn strangled by its umbilical cord without the usual electronic warnings.  Dmitri also recaps and explains a new cryptocurrency regulatory topic that doesn't concern its use in ransomware schemes—the move to ensure the financial stability of stablecoins.  Dave weighs in on two surprising provisions of the House intel authorization bill. The first would respond to the Project Raven incident by imposing new controls on ex-spies working for foreign governments. No one is against the idea, but no one thinks that the problem is limited to alumni of a few intelligence agencies. And the bill's sweep is far broader than cases like Project Raven. I make the argument that it may criminalize ex-spies giving security advice to Airbus, or perhaps even the Atlantic Council. The second imposes reporting requirements on U.S. government purchases of vulnerabilities from foreign vendors. This leads to a discussion of which nation has the best offensive talent. Dave thinks the old champ has been decisively dethroned.  In other legislative news, Dmitri covers the three committees producing bills to require cyber incident reporting, with special emphasis on the recently leaked bill from Senate Intel. It's a very aggressive bill, perhaps designed to stake out negotiating room with the Homeland committees. I ask, “What's the difference between Europe's staggering fines for General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) violations and the fines for violating U.S. cyber reporting obligations?” The answer: about two weeks, at which point the maximum fine due to the U.S. will exceed the top European fine. Mark gives an overview and some prognostication about Google's effort to overturn the EU's $5 billion antitrust fine for its handling of Android.  Dmitri and I find ourselves forced to face up to the growing soft power of Russia and China, which are now increasingly forcing Silicon Valley companies to project Russian and Chinese power into the West. Russia, having forced Apple and Google to send hostages in the form of local employees, are trying to use their leverage to control what those companies do in countries like Germany.  And Linkedin, the last Western social media company still standing in China, is trying to keep that status by asking Americans to self-censor their accounts. At Dave's request, we visit a story we missed last week and explore all the complex equities at work when the FBI decides whether to use ransomware keys for remediation or disruption. Mark gives an overview of the new Federal Trade Commission, where regulatory ambition is high but practical authority weak, at least until the Senate confirms a third Democratic commissioner. Waiting in the wings for that event is even more antitrust action, possible new online privacy rules and Commissioner Slaughter's enthusiasm for addressing racial equity quotas under the guise of algorithmic fairness. Dmitri offers his best guess about the recent Russian arrest of a cybersecurity executive for treason (that's the second in five years if you're counting) and the U.S. decision to send a Russian scammer back to Russia after bitterly fighting to extradite him from Israel (it's the magic of time served awaiting extradition, I speculate).  In quick hits: Dmitri makes a public service announcement about the ways that Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) can be subverted.  I celebrate some good news for the U.S.: China is planning to encourage provincial controls on the design and use of user algorithms. That's bound to give US companies a new competitive advantage in a field where TikTok has passed them. Dave and I dissect the guilty plea of former Ethereum developer Virgil Griffith to violating U.S. sanctions to offer a bland speech on cryptocurrency in North Korea.  I give the highlights of two new and eminently contestable cyberlaw rulings: In U.S. v. Wilson, the Ninth Circuit decided that law enforcement needs a warrant to open files that it knows from hashes are 99.9 percent certain to be child porn. The decision would be unfortunate if it weren't meaningless; the hash itself provides probable cause, so warrants will be quickly and routinely issued. Thanks for the make-work, EFF!  And a magistrate judge clearly gunning for promotion has written a Stored Communications Act opinion that would fill me with concern about the way it empowers Silicon Valley's biased Trust and Safety operatives to de-platform people and then turn their posts over to law enforcement without the subpoena they usually demand. I would worry more about those troubling consequences if I thought the opinion would survive.   And, finally, Dmitri is pleased to find one field where AI is succeeding without controversy, as machine learning declares a famous Peter Paul Rubens painting, Samson and Delilah, to be a fake. But how long, I wonder, before this AI is forced by the FTC to correct its notorious anti-Flemish bias? And more! Download the 377th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Privacy as Privilege. Rebecca Wexler from the University of California Berkeley talks about the Stored Communications Act and how it blocks criminal defense subpoenas, effectively creating an unprecedented privilege for online communications.

As state, federal, and international laws protecting consumer data multiply, employers need to know about the applicable restrictions and obligations related to employee data. Part 1 of this miniseries will cover the Stored Communications Act and the California Consumer Privacy Act, as well as touching briefly on the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.   This podcast is made available for educational purposes only, to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice or to establish an attorney-client relationship. This podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.

On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Frank v. Gaos, a case raising the question whether, or under what circumstances, a cy pres award that provides no direct relief to class members fulfills the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e) requirement that a class action settlement be "fair, reasonable, and adequate."In a class-action suit with three named plaintiffs, Google was accused of violating the Stored Communications Act by sharing user search terms and other information with the server hosting whatever webpage that user clicked to via Google Search results. A settlement was reached that would require Google to include certain disclosures on some of its webpages and would distribute more than $5 million to cy pres recipients, more than $2 million to class counsel, and no money to absent class members. The district court approved the settlement over the objections of several class members, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to address petitioners’ challenge that this cy pres settlement did not satisfy the Rule 23(e) requirement that class action settlements be “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” but did not ultimately reach the merits of that question.In a per curiam opinion, the Court vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the class action plaintiffs even had standing to bring their class action in light of the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Spokeo v. Robins. That case held that “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.” Here, the Court indicated, the lower courts needed to resolve “whether any named plaintiff has alleged [Stored Communications Act] violations that are sufficiently concrete and particularized to support standing.” If not, the lack of standing would deprive the federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Justice Thomas dissented. To discuss the case, we have Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute - and one of the named petitioners in this case.

On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Frank v. Gaos, a case raising the question whether, or under what circumstances, a cy pres award that provides no direct relief to class members fulfills the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e) requirement that a class action settlement be "fair, reasonable, and adequate."In a class-action suit with three named plaintiffs, Google was accused of violating the Stored Communications Act by sharing user search terms and other information with the server hosting whatever webpage that user clicked to via Google Search results. A settlement was reached that would require Google to include certain disclosures on some of its webpages and would distribute more than $5 million to cy pres recipients, more than $2 million to class counsel, and no money to absent class members. The district court approved the settlement over the objections of several class members, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to address petitioners’ challenge that this cy pres settlement did not satisfy the Rule 23(e) requirement that class action settlements be “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” but did not ultimately reach the merits of that question.In a per curiam opinion, the Court vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the class action plaintiffs even had standing to bring their class action in light of the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Spokeo v. Robins. That case held that “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.” Here, the Court indicated, the lower courts needed to resolve “whether any named plaintiff has alleged [Stored Communications Act] violations that are sufficiently concrete and particularized to support standing.” If not, the lack of standing would deprive the federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Justice Thomas dissented. To discuss the case, we have Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute - and one of the named petitioners in this case.

In this episode, Enrico Schaefer interviews attorney Mallory King about third party subpoenas in federal court. If you have ever come up against a Stored Communications Act objection, or tried to get information from big platform providers, you need to listen to these tips. Mallory shares the nuances of getting the information you are looking for to support your federal claims and defenses. It is about perseverance and expertise if you have any hope for success. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/techlaw/message

You might be shocked to find out getting a divorce is not the most private matter. On this episode of Splitsville, we explore the area of computer forensics and talk about how you can protect yourself from invasions of privacy in the world of divorce. Today’s conversation is with Clark Walton. He is an attorney with a background in computer science and forensics. Clark and his firm advise clients on how best to preserve things like text messages or internet history, and the firm also does investigative work to retrieve data. If you are going through a divorce with digital evidence or may be thinking some digital evidence might be out there that might affect your relationship, this conversation is for you. Welcome to Splitsville. Clark starts our conversation by telling our listeners who are his typical clients and what his firm does for most clients (2:22) Several laws limit what Clark and his firm can do. Clark explains what he can do legally and what is off limits. (9:05) Clark then talks about the ways data can be leaked for those using Apple products and his advice to secure those devices so a divorcing spouse or anyone else cannot access that data. (13:19) Clark talks about the steps that he goes through to collect data and investigate someone else’s device properly. (27:57) With today’s apps and operating systems, deleting something permanently can be very hard. Clark talks about how likely it is to recover deleted data. (35:58) Clark also discusses what types of technology listeners need to be most concerned about protecting. (38:32) Clark discusses spoofing and how fitness trackers, in-car GPS devices, and IP cameras can hold information. (44:10) Clark wraps up this episode talking about the increased vulnerability of Android devices versus Apple products. (55:29) For more information on Clark Walton visit his website at relianceforensics.com or give Clark a call at 980-335-0710. If you have questions about digital forensics and divorce, consult a local family law attorney. If you are in North or South Carolina, you can contact Leigh Sellers and her team at www.TouchstoneFamilyLaw.com Links Mentioned in this Episode: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (09:56)  Stored Communications Act (10:20)   TeenSafe (13:01) Cellebrite (29:48) Ccleaner (43:00)  Epic Privacy Browser (47:11) The insights and views presented in “Welcome to Splitsville” are for general information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Nor does tuning in to this podcast constitute an attorney-client relationship of any kind. If you’re ready for compassionate and reliable legal guidance on your journey through divorce, contact Leigh Sellers and her team at www.TouchstoneFamilyLaw.com  

On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court heard Frank v. Gaos, stemming from a class action suit brought against Google for allegedly leaking, in violation of privacy laws, information about their search terms to third parties by including search terms in the referrer header. Essentially, the plaintiffs allege that Google disseminated private information of users in violation of the Stored Communications Act. The district court approved a cy pres, or “near as possible award”, that directs the application of the property (or a portion of the property) to a charitable purpose that reasonably approximates the designated purpose rather than a few cents or dollars to class members.The petitioners in the case before the Supreme Court, led by Theodore Frank, included all those who believe the district court’s decision to award a cy pres settlement creates an unlawful conflict of interest between attorneys, who were compensated monetarily, and class members, who were not. Secondly, they allege that it is inappropriate that the settlement fund was given to institutions that regularly council in the matter at hand (i.e. privacy cases). The respondents include members from both parties (plaintiffs and defendants) who support the cy pres award.The Supreme Court decided to vacate and remand to the 9th Circuit with direction to investigate the issue of standing. Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter, claiming that the settlement should be reversed, because “the class members here received no settlement fund, no meaningful injunctive relief, and no other benefit whatsoever in exchange for the settlement of their claims.”Ted Frank will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision, next steps, and other like cases including another pending cy pres cert petition, Perryman v Romero.Featuring: Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court heard Frank v. Gaos, stemming from a class action suit brought against Google for allegedly leaking, in violation of privacy laws, information about their search terms to third parties by including search terms in the referrer header. Essentially, the plaintiffs allege that Google disseminated private information of users in violation of the Stored Communications Act. The district court approved a cy pres, or “near as possible award”, that directs the application of the property (or a portion of the property) to a charitable purpose that reasonably approximates the designated purpose rather than a few cents or dollars to class members.The petitioners in the case before the Supreme Court, led by Theodore Frank, included all those who believe the district court’s decision to award a cy pres settlement creates an unlawful conflict of interest between attorneys, who were compensated monetarily, and class members, who were not. Secondly, they allege that it is inappropriate that the settlement fund was given to institutions that regularly council in the matter at hand (i.e. privacy cases). The respondents include members from both parties (plaintiffs and defendants) who support the cy pres award.The Supreme Court decided to vacate and remand to the 9th Circuit with direction to investigate the issue of standing. Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter, claiming that the settlement should be reversed, because “the class members here received no settlement fund, no meaningful injunctive relief, and no other benefit whatsoever in exchange for the settlement of their claims.”Ted Frank will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision, next steps, and other like cases including another pending cy pres cert petition, Perryman v Romero.Featuring: Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Steve Chu and Joshua Gilliland are two attorneys who grew up playing with first generation Transformers. Join Steve and Josh as they geek out over the joyride of a movie Bumblebee. Buckle up for legal analysis on vandalism, evading police with probable cause to conduct a stop, and the Stored Communications Act. Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thelegalgeeks)

What is the purpose of class actions? To provide compensation to class members? Or to provide compensation for attorneys? The Seventh Circuit has taken a skeptical view of settlements that provide fees for counsel but no meaningful benefit for the class. But there is a circuit split on the question, with the Ninth Circuit approving settlements that maximize attorney fees at the expense of the class, while funneling the class’s compensation to organizations already supported by defendant contributions.The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in Frank v. Gaos to consider whether and in what circumstances cy pres is permitted in class action settlements. Class counsel brought a putative class action against Google alleging Stored Communications Act violations entitling over 100 million class members to $1000/violation statutory damages. Before a motion to dismiss could be decided, the parties settled. Class counsel would receive over $2.1 million (over $1000/hour for every lawyer who worked on the case) and the class would receive nothing. The parties justified this settlement because of a provision providing for cy pres donations: about $5 million to five organizations that would use the money on Internet-related issues. At the fairness hearing, class member Ted Frank objected that the settlement unfairly benefited class counsel at the expense of the class, and objected that the cy pres money was going to organizations affiliated with Google or class counsel, such as Chicago-Kent Law School, the alma mater of one of the attorneys. The district court stated the cy pres did not pass the “smell test,” but approved the settlement under Ninth Circuit precedent, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.Ted Frank, litigation director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argues that a settlement where attorneys receive millions and the class receives nothing by definition fails the Rule 23(e) requirement that settlements be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” A bright line rule on “fairness” requiring that attorney fees be proportional to the direct recovery to the class would provide guidance to lower courts, align counsels’ incentives with the class they represent, and reduce the incentive to bring low-value class actions that function as a mechanism to extract fees.The New Jersey Civil Justice Institute filed an amicus brief in the case. Alida Kass, president and chief counsel, will discuss the questions at issue in Frank v. Gaos. The argument is scheduled for October 31.Featuring: Alida Kass, President and Chief Counsel, New Jersey Civil Justice Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

What is the purpose of class actions? To provide compensation to class members? Or to provide compensation for attorneys? The Seventh Circuit has taken a skeptical view of settlements that provide fees for counsel but no meaningful benefit for the class. But there is a circuit split on the question, with the Ninth Circuit approving settlements that maximize attorney fees at the expense of the class, while funneling the class’s compensation to organizations already supported by defendant contributions.The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in Frank v. Gaos to consider whether and in what circumstances cy pres is permitted in class action settlements. Class counsel brought a putative class action against Google alleging Stored Communications Act violations entitling over 100 million class members to $1000/violation statutory damages. Before a motion to dismiss could be decided, the parties settled. Class counsel would receive over $2.1 million (over $1000/hour for every lawyer who worked on the case) and the class would receive nothing. The parties justified this settlement because of a provision providing for cy pres donations: about $5 million to five organizations that would use the money on Internet-related issues. At the fairness hearing, class member Ted Frank objected that the settlement unfairly benefited class counsel at the expense of the class, and objected that the cy pres money was going to organizations affiliated with Google or class counsel, such as Chicago-Kent Law School, the alma mater of one of the attorneys. The district court stated the cy pres did not pass the “smell test,” but approved the settlement under Ninth Circuit precedent, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.Ted Frank, litigation director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argues that a settlement where attorneys receive millions and the class receives nothing by definition fails the Rule 23(e) requirement that settlements be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” A bright line rule on “fairness” requiring that attorney fees be proportional to the direct recovery to the class would provide guidance to lower courts, align counsels’ incentives with the class they represent, and reduce the incentive to bring low-value class actions that function as a mechanism to extract fees.The New Jersey Civil Justice Institute filed an amicus brief in the case. Alida Kass, president and chief counsel, will discuss the questions at issue in Frank v. Gaos. The argument is scheduled for October 31.Featuring: Alida Kass, President and Chief Counsel, New Jersey Civil Justice Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In Carpenter, arrests made in an armed robbery case occurred because the Federal Bureau of Investigation was able to obtain “transactional records” of the cell phones owned by the alleged coconspirators. These records track the date and time of a call and the approximate position of the caller. The records were collected under the Stored Communications Act of 1986, which allows the government certain kinds of telecommunications records relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The defendants wanted the stored data to be inadmissible because the FBI failed to get a search warrant to acquire the records, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed this argument and the Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s decision. On June 22, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, and ruled the government's activities violated the fourth ammendment. The government did not obtain a warrant for the search of the cell phone records, and therefore violated standing constitutional law. Featuring: Dean A. Mazzone, Deputy Chief, Criminal Bureau of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s OfficeTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In Carpenter, arrests made in an armed robbery case occurred because the Federal Bureau of Investigation was able to obtain “transactional records” of the cell phones owned by the alleged coconspirators. These records track the date and time of a call and the approximate position of the caller. The records were collected under the Stored Communications Act of 1986, which allows the government certain kinds of telecommunications records relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The defendants wanted the stored data to be inadmissible because the FBI failed to get a search warrant to acquire the records, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed this argument and the Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s decision. On June 22, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, and ruled the government's activities violated the fourth ammendment. The government did not obtain a warrant for the search of the cell phone records, and therefore violated standing constitutional law. Featuring: Dean A. Mazzone, Deputy Chief, Criminal Bureau of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s OfficeTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

A change of plans: instead of airing the interview with comrades in Yogyakarta about May Day repression of anarchists there, we're including that in the radio show for next Sunday.  So, instead, kick back with this new issue of #Error451 ! The CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act) got passed by the U.S. Congress earlier this year and signed into law by President Trump.  It's a revision of the 1986 Stored Communications Act.  Basically, it allows U.S. cops from local up to Federal to request data belonging to persons of interest that is stored on overseas servers from the private corporations or organizations storing it. If the U.S. executive makes an agreement with the foreign power where the data is stored, that power also gets a degree of access to the data of persons of interest to the overseas powers.  Basically, governments can more easily spy on folks around the world! We talk a bit about the implications of the Act, how it came to pass and the types of practices and services folks can engage to help protect themselves from some of these government excesses. Check out past episodes of Error451 and hit us up if you have ideas for segments or guests you'd like to hear from.  Check out our contact page! featured track: "Bob Ross remixed by Symphony of Science's John D. Boswell for PBS Digital Studios"

    Bio Sally Culley is a Partner in the law firm of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell where she primarily practices in the areas of employment and commercial litigation. Her clients include large corporations as well as smaller, local businesses. With regard to employment law, Sally represents employers, both in the public and private sector, in defending employment-related claims, including claims of discrimination, wage and hour violations, whistle-blower violations, wrongful termination, harassment, and retaliation. She also provides consulting and training services designed to help prevent such claims and minimize risk. Finally, Sally assists with the creation and enforcement of employee handbooks, severance agreements, and non-compete agreements. With regard to commercial litigation, Sally handles matters involving contract disputes, fraud, and statutory claims such as Florida's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act/Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). Sally also represents clients in commercial mortgage foreclosures and workouts, construction lien compliance and litigation, quiet title actions, bankruptcy, and collection matters. Sally also has significant experience reviewing and interpreting insurance policies, and she assists insurers with matters involving coverage and bad faith claims, evaluating such matters, and participating in litigation where necessary. She earned her J.D. from the UNC Chapel Hill School of Law and her Bachelors from Samford University from which she graduated magna cum laude. Resources Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell First Gig Economy Trial Decision: Independent Contractor by Sally Rogers Culley and Suzanne A. Singer (2018) News Roundup In political maneuver, House Republicans expose Senator Mark Warner's confidential texts The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the House Intelligence Committee, under the leadership of Devin Nunes, leaked confidential texts in which Senator Mark Warner sought from a lawyer associated with British spy Christopher Steele, a meeting with Mr. Steele, as Mr. Warner sought to investigate Russia's interference with the 2016 presidential election. The law firm for which the lawyer, Adam Waldman, works has also represented Oleg Deripaska—a Russian oil magnate. So after the text was leaked, President Trump tweeted “Wow! – Senator Mark Warner got caught having extensive contact with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch …” Both Mark Warner and Republican Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr, who ostensibly wasn't in on the leak, sought a meeting with House Speaker Paul Ryan to express their overall concern about the politicization of the House Intelligence Committee. Nicholas Fandos reports in the Washington Post. Online sex trafficking bill clears House The House overwhelmingly passed the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) on Tuesday by a vote of 388-25. The bill would amend the Communications Decency Act to hold web platforms that knowingly help facilitate sex trafficking accountable. Currently, an exception to the CDA—Section 230—provides that web platforms are shielded from third-party liability for illegal content posted by their users. Opponents say the bill would erode free speech on the Internet and would ultimately not do enough to stop sex trafficking online. There's a Senate companion bill—the Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act (SESTA)—that the House will vote on next, which is also expected to pass. Harper Neidig reports in The Hill. Facebook polls users on how it should handle child porn Facebook conducted a strange survey in which it asked users how they should handle a “private message in which an adult man asks a 14 year old girl for sexual pictures.” The question turned on the extent to which Facebook should display the photo. Facebook says the question was a “mistake”. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Microsoft overseas data case The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday regarding a dispute between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The DOJ wants to be able to obtain data on Microsoft users suspected of drug trafficking. The problem is that the suspects' data are stored on a server in Ireland. Normally, the 1986 Stored Communications Act would apply, which would allow the DOJ to get a warrant. But Microsoft argues that since the data are stored overseas, the SCA doesn't apply. The court's liberal justices--namely, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor-- seemed to side with Microsoft, arguing that Congress should enact new legislation. But Justices Roberts and Alito seemed to favor an interim, judicial measure that would allow law enforcement to conduct investigations while Congress sorts it out. Amy Howe reports on SCOTUS Blog. On the net neutrality front … Democrats in both chambers introduce bill to stop net neutrality repeal Democrats in both chambers introduced bills to stop the FCC's repeal of the net neutrality rules. The Senate bill has 50 co-sponsors, with one Republican, Susan Collins. It needs 1 more vote to get through the Senate. There's also another bill in the House, that Representative Mike Doyle introduced, that's supported by 150 of representatives.  However, Donald Trump is not expected to sign off on these bills, even if they do pass. And the clock is ticking on Congress to do something by January 23rd, which is when the 60-day window closes on the Congressional Review Act process. Public Knowledge has a great primer on how the Congressional Review Act works here., which I've linked to in the show notes. Additionally, the state of Washington became the first state to pass net neutrality legislation of its own. And six more companies have decided to sue the FCC for repealing the net neutrality rules including Kickstarter, Foursquare, Etsy, Shutterstock, Expa, and Automattic. Pai to calls for new spectrum auctions FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is calling for new auctions to free up more spectrum. Pai announced at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona that he wants to free up more spectrum in the 24 and 28 GHz bands. The auction would be designed to accommodate 5G wireless. Pai proposes conducting the auction for the 28Gz band in November, and then proceed with a separate auction for the 24GHz band. Ali Breland has more at the Hill. Pai declines NRA award I reported last week that the National Rifle Association awarded FCC Chairman Ajit Pai the Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award. Politico now reports that Pai has turned it down. New lawsuit alleges that Google discriminated against white and Asian men  A new lawsuit filed in California's San Mateo County Superior Court alleges that Google executives actively discriminated against white and Asian men in the hiring process. But currently, whites and Asians comprise some 91% of Google's workforce. Kirsten Grind and Douglas MacMillan report in the Wall Street Journal. The Verge: Palantir has been secretly using predictive policying technology in New Orleans Ali Winston of the Verge wrote an investigative report on a secretive program carried out by Palantir, a data mining company that was seeded with funding from the CIA's venture capital firm.  Apparently, Palantir has been working with the New Orleans' police department to secretly track largely minority populations in New Orleans with an algorithm that claims to predict violence and crime. Not even the New Orleans city council admits that they were aware of the program.  Report: Sexting is on the rise among youth A new JAMA Pediatrics report finds that sexting is on the rise among tweens and teens. The study compiled data from 39 studies of 110,380 participants and found that some 27% of kids between 12 and 17 receive sexts. The average age is 15. Fifteen percent reported that they sent sexts. Beth Mole reports in Ars Technica. FCC relaxing environmental standards for 5G deployment In addition to the spectrum auction, Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr last week announced that the Commission will vote on March 23rd on a measure that would relax some environmental review standards for small companies that want to deploy 5G. Carr claimed in his remarks that the proposal would remove regulatory burdens and help the U.S. remain competitive. To support relaxing these environmental standards, Carr also made unsubstantiated claims that 5G deployment would create 3 million new jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in network investment and GDP growth. EU tells Facebook and Google to take down terror content in 1 hour The European Union released a set of voluntary guidelines for Facebook and Google to remove terrorist and other illegal content, including content that incites hatred. The guidelines provide that the companies should remove such content within one hour. Binding regulations could be forthcoming depending on how well the voluntary guidelines work. Natalia Drozdiak reports in the Wall Street Journal. Comcast wants to buy Sky for $31bn Harper Neidig reports in the Hill that Comcast now wants to buy Sky, the European broadcaster, for $31 billion. This offer is 16% higher than what Fox was offering. Disney is also a factor here, since they're making a bid for Fox's non-broadcast assets.

The Stored Communications Act of 1986 authorizes federal, state, and local law enforcement officers to obtain subpoenas, orders, or warrants that permit them to seize emails. However, the storage of such data in the “cloud” of remote servers, many of them overseas, presents difficult questions Congress did not anticipate years before global internet access became commonplace. The main question in United States v. Microsoft is whether a warrant served on the tech giant’s U.S. offices requires it to turn over emails of a suspected drug trafficker that happen to be stored in Ireland.Because federal law is presumed not to apply outside the United States, the case presents the question whether the relevant conduct occurs domestically—whether the Act’s focus is the disclosure of electronic records available to the U.S. company, or whether its focus is the compelled retrieval of the data stored abroad. It is an increasingly important issue at a time when many leading email providers may store an email in one location and its attachments in another location entirely. Due to the potentially vast implications, more than 30 amicus briefs have been filed by several governments, members of Congress, numerous tech firms, privacy advocates, and law-enforcement officials. John Elwood will attend the oral argument and then join us to discuss his thoughts on the proceedings. Featuring: John Elwood, Partner, Vinson & ElkinsTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The Stored Communications Act of 1986 authorizes federal, state, and local law enforcement officers to obtain subpoenas, orders, or warrants that permit them to seize emails. However, the storage of such data in the “cloud” of remote servers, many of them overseas, presents difficult questions Congress did not anticipate years before global internet access became commonplace. The main question in United States v. Microsoft is whether a warrant served on the tech giant’s U.S. offices requires it to turn over emails of a suspected drug trafficker that happen to be stored in Ireland.Because federal law is presumed not to apply outside the United States, the case presents the question whether the relevant conduct occurs domestically—whether the Act’s focus is the disclosure of electronic records available to the U.S. company, or whether its focus is the compelled retrieval of the data stored abroad. It is an increasingly important issue at a time when many leading email providers may store an email in one location and its attachments in another location entirely. Due to the potentially vast implications, more than 30 amicus briefs have been filed by several governments, members of Congress, numerous tech firms, privacy advocates, and law-enforcement officials. John Elwood will attend the oral argument and then join us to discuss his thoughts on the proceedings. Featuring: John Elwood, Partner, Vinson & ElkinsTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could have far-reaching implications on law enforcement’s ability to access digital records. In US v.  Microsoft, the tech giant is challenging a US search warrant involving data stored in servers located in Ireland.  The case poses major questions over data access in the Internet age.  The case hinges on the Stored Communications Act, which was passed in 1986, long before the explosion  of emails and the Internet.  The government argues that access to records stored by US companies overseas is vital as evidence for criminal cases such as terrorism, child pornography and fraud.   Michael Whitener of VLP Law Group discusses the implications of the case. 

Arrests made in an armed robbery case occurred because the Federal Bureau of Investigation was able to obtain “transactional records” of the cell phones owned by the alleged coconspirators. These records track the date and time of a call and the approximate position of the caller. The records were collected under the Stored Communications Act of 1986, which allows the government certain kinds of telecommunications records relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The defendants wanted the stored data to be inadmissible because the FBI failed to get a search warrant to acquire the records, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed this argument and the Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court will decide if the warrantless procurement of cell phone information, including location of the phone, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. ˈ Featuring: Orin S. Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law SchoolMichael Sussmann, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Arrests made in an armed robbery case occurred because the Federal Bureau of Investigation was able to obtain “transactional records” of the cell phones owned by the alleged coconspirators. These records track the date and time of a call and the approximate position of the caller. The records were collected under the Stored Communications Act of 1986, which allows the government certain kinds of telecommunications records relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The defendants wanted the stored data to be inadmissible because the FBI failed to get a search warrant to acquire the records, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed this argument and the Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court will decide if the warrantless procurement of cell phone information, including location of the phone, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. ˈ Featuring: Orin S. Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law SchoolMichael Sussmann, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Duration: 20:01 How far should the arm of the law reach when it comes to data stored overseas? That’s a question that courts continue to struggle with, even after U.S. tech companies scored a landmark win last year in favor of limiting what authorities can obtain when it comes to foreign-stored data. Prosecutors investigating crimes in their jurisdiction demand access to suspects’ emails and other communications no matter where the data is stored. But companies say complying could put them in conflict with the legal privacy frameworks of other countries. Lately, companies like Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. have been on the losing side of the battle. More Law.com podcasts In this podcast, we talk to Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partner and former Department of Justice criminal attorney Mark Krotoski to understand the controversy around the scope of the 1986 Stored Communications Act. What he sees is a novel, technical issue colliding with an ill-fitting legal framework. “Because of that—and because there’s no established precedent—you’re getting different decisions from different judges,” Krotoski says. Ahead of a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the scope of the law this week, Krotoski says courts are looking to the legislature to help settle the fight—something Google has also called for. “I think most would agree that if Congress weighed in we’d have more clarity as to the limits and guidelines for the collection of data. But until then, we’ve got this old statute that has to be applied in this new, evolving area.”

In our 153rd episode of the Steptoe Cyberlaw Podcast, Stewart Baker, Michael Vatis, and Maury Shenk discuss: Howard Schmidt, RIP; the Trump wiretap story; a federal magistrate judge in Wisconsin has ruled that the government can use a warrant issued under the Stored Communications Act to compel email providers to disclose the content of emails stored abroad; internet-connected teddy bear company hacked, 2 million parent-child voice messages exposed and held ransom; new analysis of the 50c army forces a reconsideration of who they are and what they do; the fight over 702 reauthorization warms up: lefty lawmakers want an estimate on how many innocent Americans are swept up in key surveillance programs up for reauthorization this year; a dozen civil society groups are asking Vera Jourová the European Commissioner for Justice, Consumer and Gender Equality, to suspend the US-EU Privacy Shield unless reforms are made to Section 702; and Wilbur Ross endorses Privacy Shield. Our guest interview is with Matt Tait, CEO and Founder of Capital Alpha Security. The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.

Jonathan and Rachel discuss cell phones, cell towers, the 4th Amendment, the Stored Communications Act, and the pending cases of Graham and Davis.

Attorneys Jessica Mederson and Josh Gilliland discuss how Tron is an allegory for electronic discovery. Jess and Josh discuss other topics explored in Tron, including Net Neutrality and the Stored Communication Act. Josh outlines major issues in electronic discovery and solutions.No part of this podcast should be considered legal advice. Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thelegalgeeks)