Blog of Rights

Catherine
Crump

Prior to joining the ACLU, Crump clerked for the Hon. M. Margaret McKeown, a judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Crump graduated from Stanford University and Stanford Law School. She is a non-residential fellow with the Stanford Center for Internet and Society.

Justice Department Refuses to Release GPS Tracking Memos

By Catherine Crump, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 11:12am

Two key memos outlining the Justice Department’s views about when Americans can be surreptitiously tracked with GPS technology are being kept secret by the department despite a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU to force their release. The FBI’s general counsel discussed the existence of the two memos publicly last year, yet the Justice Department is refusing to release them without huge redactions. (You can see the heavily censored versions sent to the ACLU here and here, and our original FOIA request here.)

Supreme Court GPS Ruling: Bringing the 4th Amendment Into the 21st Century

By Catherine Crump, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 2:05pm

On Monday the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision protecting privacy in the digital age. In U.S. v. Jones, a unanimous Supreme Court held that the police and FBI violated the Fourth Amendment when they attached a GPS device to Antoine Jones’s car and tracked his movements for 28 days. While the case turned on the fact that the government physically placed a GPS device on Mr. Jones’s car, the implications are far broader. A majority of the justices acknowledged that advancing technology, like cell phone tracking, gives the government unprecedented ability to collect, store, and analyze an enormous amount of information about our private lives.

Is the Government Reading Our Email, Texts and IMs Without a Warrant? You Bet.

By Catherine Crump, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 3:36pm

Today the ACLU filed a batch of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to learn more about the government's practice of reading people's email, text messages and other private electronic communications without a warrant.

It has been clear since the 1870s that the government needs a warrant to read snail mail, and there is no good reason for email to be treated differently. Unfortunately, the government continues to take advantage of an outdated law to read Americans' private electronic communications without a warrant. Under the law, the government does need a warrant to access the content of electronic communications that are 180 days old or less, but doesn't need one for older emails. In an era when everyone stores their email forever, this rule makes no sense and puts a great deal of personal information at risk.

ACLU in Court Today Arguing that GPS Tracking Requires a Warrant

By Catherine Crump, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 9:59am

Should law enforcement agents have to obtain a warrant based on probable cause to attach a GPS tracker to a vehicle and track its movements? Several months ago we asked the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to consider our argument that they should (you can read our amicus brief here). Today, we will be in court arguing that point in the case of Harry, Mark, and Michael Katzin.

Federal Judge Finds Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking Unconstitutional

By Catherine Crump, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 1:33pm

In August, we blogged about a court decision from the federal court in the Eastern District of New York that held that law enforcement agents are constitutionally obligated to get a warrant based on probable cause before obtaining historical cell phone location information. And in September, we wrote about an opinion from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals holding that judges may order the government to get a warrant based on probable cause for historical cell phone location information. However, the 3rd Circuit also held that judges are not obligated to require probable cause, and cautioned that they should only require the government to meet this high standard on rare occasions. Now another court has joined the fray. In a detailed opinion (PDF) citing documents obtained through litigation by the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation, Judge Stephen Smith of the Southern District of Texas held that “warrantless disclosure of cell site data violates the Fourth Amendment.”

Does the Government Want to Read Your Texts and Emails?

By Catherine Crump, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project & Chris Calabrese, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 5:45pm

Last week the Justice Department squandered an opportunity to reassure Americans that as technology advances our civil liberties will not be left behind. The Justice Department was called before Congress to say whether it should be permitted to read people's email, text messages and other electronic communications without a probable cause warrant — that is, without a judicial determination that it has a good reason to believe a search will turn up evidence of a crime. The clear answer to this question should have been "no." After all, a warrant has been required for postal mail since at least the 1870s and for telephone conversations since the 1960s. Why shouldn't our email receive the same protection?

Surveillance Programs Must Not Be Kept Secret

By Catherine Crump, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 2:07pm

Technology moves so fast today that surveillance programs can now become routine before the public even learns of them. That is a problem because new surveillance programs can involve difficult value judgments and tradeoffs. How valuable are those programs in actually stopping criminals? How much privacy are we willing to give up for those benefits? What kinds of checks and balances do we think are necessary? In a democratic society, those are questions that should be answered not by law enforcement acting on their own as they install new technologies in the shadows — they should be decided by the people and their elected representatives after full democratic discussion and debate.

New York Court Decision Highlights Yet Another Shortcoming In Nation’s Outdated Electronic Privacy Laws

By Catherine Crump, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 1:02pm

A recent cell phone tracking case from New York is both a win and loss for privacy. In People v. Moorer, police officers submitted an emergency or “exigent circumstances” request to a phone company asking it to ping (locate) a cell phone—but the court concluded that the circumstances were not exigent at all. The Stored Communications Act (18 USC 2702) permits the voluntary disclosure (without any kind of court order) of customer records to the government, but only if “the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of information relating to the emergency.”

Appeals Court Rules Fourth Amendment Does Not Protect Cell Phone Location Data

By Catherine Crump, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 3:25pm

Yesterday the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unfortunate and legally incorrect decision holding that the Fourth Amendment provides no protection against warrantless cell phone tracking. Although couched in language stating narrowly that the Constitution does not protect criminals’ “erroneous expectations regarding the undetectability of their modern tools,” the impact of the opinion sweeps far more broadly, holding that the innocent as well as the guilty lack Fourth Amendment protection in cell phone location information. This is wrong, for a number of reasons.

Want to Read My Email? Not Without a Warrant.

By Catherine Crump, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 2:51pm

Why should a warrant be required? Because email is deeply personal and private.

Statistics image