Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
But Do You Have A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy With Your Cell Phone?
0 commentsThe recent decision by the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals (Warshak v. United States) that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the contents of their emails may impact the spatial technology industry.
Warshak Case
Warshak concerned what steps the US government must take in order to compel a provider of electronic communication services (such as an ISP) to turn over emails and email-related information in connection with a criminal investigation under the 1986 Stored Communications Act. Sections 2703(b) and 2705 of the Act state in part that the government can compel such information, without notice to the customer, if "there were specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records of other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation."
The "specific and articulable facts" standard is considered lower than the probable cause (what to be seized is evidence of a crime) standard we all know from television shows. And it was this standard that the Sixth Circuit felt violated the reasonable expectation of privacy that individuals have in the content of their emails. In effect, the court found that in order for the government to compel disclosure of the contents of the email it must have probable cause.
Spatial Data and the Stored Communications Act
There have been a number of recent cases involving the attempted use by the government to use the specific and articulable facts standard in the Stored Communications Act to collect spatial data associated with electronic transmissions. (See e.g. In the Matter of the Application of the United States of America For An Order Authorizing the Release Of Prospective Cell Site Information, (407 F.Supp.2d 134); In the Matter Of An Application Of the United States For A Order Authorizing Pen Register And A Trap And Trace Device And Release Of Subscriber Information And/Or Cell Site Information; (384 F. Supp. 2d 562) In Re Application for Pen Register and Trap/Device with Cell Site Location Authority, 396 F.Supp. 2d 747 ) Specifically, the government has tried to use Section 2703(c) to collect "a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or a customer of such service". In all three instances the government was attempting to use the reasonable grounds standard under Section 2703(d) of the Act in order to obtain cell site data to track a customer's location in real or near real time rather than the higher probable cause standard that would be required to obtain approval to use a more standard tracking device to monitor a suspect's movements. However, in each case the court found that the government needed to have probable cause in order to compel disclosure of the cell tower data.
Analysis
Each of the decisions regarding spatial data under the Stored Communications Act focused on the intent and history of the Act as well as other laws limiting the government's use of tracking devices. None spoke to whether individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to their location. However, the Sixth Circuit's analysis of the Act, in conjunction with the other decisions of the Act regarding spatial data, suggests that such an expectation may not be unreasonable . . . at least in the Sixth Circuit. It will be very interesting to see whether other Circuit Courts follow the Sixth Circuit in this analysis and what impact it will have on location data and companies that collect and store such data.
read more “But Do You Have A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy With Your Cell Phone?”
Warshak Case
Warshak concerned what steps the US government must take in order to compel a provider of electronic communication services (such as an ISP) to turn over emails and email-related information in connection with a criminal investigation under the 1986 Stored Communications Act. Sections 2703(b) and 2705 of the Act state in part that the government can compel such information, without notice to the customer, if "there were specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records of other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation."
The "specific and articulable facts" standard is considered lower than the probable cause (what to be seized is evidence of a crime) standard we all know from television shows. And it was this standard that the Sixth Circuit felt violated the reasonable expectation of privacy that individuals have in the content of their emails. In effect, the court found that in order for the government to compel disclosure of the contents of the email it must have probable cause.
Spatial Data and the Stored Communications Act
There have been a number of recent cases involving the attempted use by the government to use the specific and articulable facts standard in the Stored Communications Act to collect spatial data associated with electronic transmissions. (See e.g. In the Matter of the Application of the United States of America For An Order Authorizing the Release Of Prospective Cell Site Information, (407 F.Supp.2d 134); In the Matter Of An Application Of the United States For A Order Authorizing Pen Register And A Trap And Trace Device And Release Of Subscriber Information And/Or Cell Site Information; (384 F. Supp. 2d 562) In Re Application for Pen Register and Trap/Device with Cell Site Location Authority, 396 F.Supp. 2d 747 ) Specifically, the government has tried to use Section 2703(c) to collect "a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or a customer of such service". In all three instances the government was attempting to use the reasonable grounds standard under Section 2703(d) of the Act in order to obtain cell site data to track a customer's location in real or near real time rather than the higher probable cause standard that would be required to obtain approval to use a more standard tracking device to monitor a suspect's movements. However, in each case the court found that the government needed to have probable cause in order to compel disclosure of the cell tower data.
Analysis
Each of the decisions regarding spatial data under the Stored Communications Act focused on the intent and history of the Act as well as other laws limiting the government's use of tracking devices. None spoke to whether individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to their location. However, the Sixth Circuit's analysis of the Act, in conjunction with the other decisions of the Act regarding spatial data, suggests that such an expectation may not be unreasonable . . . at least in the Sixth Circuit. It will be very interesting to see whether other Circuit Courts follow the Sixth Circuit in this analysis and what impact it will have on location data and companies that collect and store such data.
Restictions On Spatial Data Can Have Detrimental Consequences.
0 commentsSpatial data is unique in that a data set can be used for a variety of purposes: national security, environmental, commercial, infrastructure. The recent tragic events in China are a good example of these qualities. The May 13, Slashgeo Daily Newsletter references a number of articles on China's attempt to regulate companies that provide Internet mapping services, such as Google. Apparently, the Chinese government has expressed both national security concerns as well as the belief that the maps do not accurately portray its borders. Subsequently on May 17, the Google Earth blog reports on efforts around the world to use Google Earth to help visualize the earthquake damage. (Similarly, spatial data is being used to assist relief efforts in Myanmar.)
It is unclear as to what China has done or might do to regulate Internet mapping companies. However, any effort to regulate spatial data in one context may result in unintended detrimental consequences in others. As a result, those who wish to restrict the collection, analysis and/or distribution of spatial data need to look beyond their limited domain in weighing the costs and benefits of such actions.
read more “Restictions On Spatial Data Can Have Detrimental Consequences.”
It is unclear as to what China has done or might do to regulate Internet mapping companies. However, any effort to regulate spatial data in one context may result in unintended detrimental consequences in others. As a result, those who wish to restrict the collection, analysis and/or distribution of spatial data need to look beyond their limited domain in weighing the costs and benefits of such actions.
Export Controls and Imagery
0 commentsRecently Ogle Earth wrote that aid workers in Sudan were prohibited from accessing Google Earth. The reason, Ogle Earth learned from an email exchange with Google,was that US export restrictions prohibited Google from allowing its Google Earth software from being downloaded in the Sudan. See: http://www.ogleearth.com/2007/04/oh_the_irony_go.html#comments
There are a numerous restrictions on the export of technology from the United States. These restrictions will vary depending upon the type of technology being exported, the country the technology is being exported to, as well as the individual(s) or group(s) that will be using the technology. The restrictions being imposed on Google appear to be the result of the country the technology is being exported to.
Thus far, there are relatively few restrictions on the export of imagery, as compared to software to view and manipulate the imagery. As a result, displaying most image data on a web site for third parties to access does not appear to be restricted. This is due in large part to a series of laws and regulations that have made the export of information, as compared to software, subject to much less restrictions. Thus far, the US government appears to have taken the position that imagery is considered information for purposes of export controls. However, the export of information is not without any limitations. The US government, primarily through the Department of Treasury, does have certain requirements before information, such as imagery, can be exported. Image vendors should be aware of these requirements before exporting or displaying data.
read more “Export Controls and Imagery”
There are a numerous restrictions on the export of technology from the United States. These restrictions will vary depending upon the type of technology being exported, the country the technology is being exported to, as well as the individual(s) or group(s) that will be using the technology. The restrictions being imposed on Google appear to be the result of the country the technology is being exported to.
Thus far, there are relatively few restrictions on the export of imagery, as compared to software to view and manipulate the imagery. As a result, displaying most image data on a web site for third parties to access does not appear to be restricted. This is due in large part to a series of laws and regulations that have made the export of information, as compared to software, subject to much less restrictions. Thus far, the US government appears to have taken the position that imagery is considered information for purposes of export controls. However, the export of information is not without any limitations. The US government, primarily through the Department of Treasury, does have certain requirements before information, such as imagery, can be exported. Image vendors should be aware of these requirements before exporting or displaying data.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
