Author: Andrew Selbst

  • Scary Description of New Hungarian Secret Police

    In Paul Krugman’s blog at the NYT, his colleague Kim Lane Scheppele has been periodically writing about the recent radical changes in Hungarian government. Today she wrote about the TEK, the new Hungarian Secret Police. The description of their police is everything you would expect from a new secret police, and worth reading in it’s entirety, but here’s a (somewhat long) excerpt:

    TEK can engage in secret surveillance without having to give reasons or having to get permission from anyone outside the cabinet. In an amendment to the police law passed in December 2010, TEK was made an official police agency and was given this jurisdiction to spy on anyone. TEK now has the legal power to secretly enter and search homes, engage in secret wiretapping, make audio and video recordings of people without their knowledge, secretly search mail and packages, and surreptitiously confiscate electronic data (for example, the content of computers and email). The searches never have to be disclosed to the person who is the target of the search – or to anyone else for that matter. In fact, as national security information, it may not be disclosed to anyone. There are no legal limits on how long this data can be kept.

    [R]equests for secret surveillance are never reviewed by an independent branch of government. The justice minister approves the requests made by a secret police unit operated by the interior minister. Since both are in the same cabinet of the same government, they are both on the same political team.

    TEK now has had the legal authority to collect personal data about anyone by making requests to financial companies (like banks and brokerage firms), insurance companies, communications companies (like cell phone and internet service providers) – as well as state agencies. Data held by state agencies include not only criminal and tax records but also educational and medical records – and much more. Once asked, no private company or state agency may refuse to provide data to TEK….[TEK’s] data requests no longer [have[ to be tied to criminal investigations…. In fact, they have virtually no limits on what data they can collect and require no permission from anyone.

    If an organization (like an internet service provider, a bank or state agency) is asked to turn over personally identifiable information, the organization may not tell anyone about the request. People whose data have been turned over to TEK are deliberately kept in the dark.

    These powers are shocking, not just because of their scope, but also because most Hungarians knowledgeable about constitutional law would probably have thought they were illegal. After the changes of 1989, the new Hungarian Constitutional Court was quick to dismantle the old system in which the state could compile in one place huge amounts of personal information about individuals. In its “PIN number” decision of 1991, the Constitutional Court ruled that the state had to get rid of the single “personal identifier number” (PIN) so that personally identifiable data could no longer be linked across state agencies. The Court found that “everyone has the right to decide about the disclosure and use of his/her personal data” and that approval by the person concerned is generally required before personal data can be collected. It was the essence of totalitarianism, the Court found, for personal information about someone to be collected and amassed into a personal profile without the person’s knowledge.

    Does this not also violate the EU Data Protection Directive, or does that only apply to private companies rather than the member governments? It seems clear from the other posts about this that the Fidesz government isn’t particularly concerned about that sort of thing, but at what point does the EU just kick them out?

  • New Phones! Now With More Personal ID!

    Just in case anyone had trouble making the argument that our cell phones are actually personally identifying despite our ability to leave them at home, it looks like we might not have to worry about that much longer. Look, I’m all for pursuing whatever leads show up in science, but is there really no one at Nokia who realizes that this is a terrible idea?

  • 7th Circuit OKs Limited Warrantless Cell Phone Search

    The 7th Circuit ruled that police can search your cell phone for your phone number without a warrant. Judge Posner justified this by saying that it wasn’t that big an intrusion.

    “On an iPhone without password protection two steps are required to get the number: touching the “settings” icon and then the “phone” icon. On a Blackberry only one step is required: touching the “phone” icon.”

    Also, the cop could have just gotten the number from the phone company…

    As far as other things the police might see while looking for the phone number?

    “It’s not even clear that we need a rule of law specific to cell phones or other computers. If police are entitled to open a pocket diary to copy the owner’s address, they should be entitled to turn on a cell phone to learn its number. If allowed to leaf through a pocket address book, as they are, United States v. Rodriguez, 995 F.2d 776, 778 (7th Cir. 1993), they should be entitled to read the address book in a cell phone. If forbidden to peruse love letters recognized as such found wedged between the pages of the address book, they should be forbidden to read love letters in the files of a cell phone.”

    Oddly enough, there’s no real discussion of what happens when the things police find are in fact not love letters, but potential evidence of some crime. Weird!

    At no point does Posner even discuss tradeoffs. It’s just “oh, this isn’t that bad.” When he assumes “that justification is required,” he talks about how it’s possible to remotely wipe the phone. Almost as if the Fourth Amendment is designed to ensure the police have access to evidence, rather than to protect citizens. Sigh.

    Opinion here.

  • Your IP address is just like a zip code! Thanks, Google!

     

    Google has a new ad campaign in the NY subways!

    “You live in Peoria.

    Do you really need a plumber from New York?

    We didn’t think so. Imagine the service charge for a start. That’s why search engines, including Google, give you results based on your city or region.

    They can do this by using your computer’s IP address. It’s a number like 209.85.229.147, which acts like a zip code to tell them the rough area your computer is in.”

    They just want to help you out, guys! Google’s providing much better customer service!

    Sigh…

  • Natural Language Versus the Fourth Amendment on Search

    (x-posted from Coffee House Talks)

    In doing the initial framing for an article on how to apply Helen Nissenbaum’s theory of Contextual Integrity to the 4th Amendment, it has become apparent that there are differences between how natural language would classify whether something is a search, a reasonable search, or an excused or unexcused reasonable search, and how the law would classify the same action. Now this is not a mind-blowing observation, as it has been understood for some time that the fact of some things being classified as “not a search” for Fourth Amendment purposes is just kind of weird. However, I believe the differing categorizations of the two areas have implications when asking what an ideal Fourth Amendment doctrine would look like, so I’ll explore that here.

    (more…)