“This Court has the authority”: In re Order Requiring Apple, CR 14-90812, November 3, 2014. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1372280-apple-oakland.html.
“Backdoors create unnecessary”: Cyrus Farivar, “Irate Congressman Gives Cops Easy Rule: ‘Just Follow the Damn Constitution,’ ” Ars Technica, April 30, 2015. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/irate-congressman-gives-cops-easy-rule-just-follow-the-damn-constitution/.
Echoing this lack of understanding: Written Testimony of New York County District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary “Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy,” Washington, D.C. July 8, 2015. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3882428-07-08-15-Vance-Testimony.html#document/p17/a360447.
As 2016 rolled around: Cyrus Farivar, “Bill Aims to Thwart Strong Crypto, Demands Smartphone Makers Be Able to Decrypt,” Ars Technica, January 14, 2016. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/bill-aims-to-thwart-strong-crypto-demands-smartphone-makers-be-able-to-decrypt/; Cyrus Farivar, “Yet Another Bill Seeks to Weaken Encryption-By-Default on Smartphones,” Ars Technica, January 21, 2016. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/yet-another-bill-seeks-to-weaken-encryption-by-default-on-smartphones/; Associated Press, “Louisiana Lawmaker Shelves Bill to Give Police Access to Locked Phones,” Baton Rouge Advocate, May 3, 2016. Available at: http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_bc5ea2e0-57e0-5ab6-8181-3051e2c66834.html.
Later that day, Trump: Tim Higgins and Kevin Cirilli, “Trump Urges Boycott of Apple Until It Unlocks Terrorist’s iPhone,” Bloomberg, February 19, 2016. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/trump-calls-for-apple-boycott-until-company-unlocks-terrorist-s-iphone.
During the Friday call: Cyrus Farivar, “Apple: We Tried to Help FBI Terror Probe, but Someone Changed iCloud Password,” Ars Technica, February 19, 2016. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/apple-we-tried-to-help-fbi-terror-probe-but-someone-changed-icloud-password/.
Two days later, FBI Director: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter, February 21, 2016. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-director-comments-on-san-bernardino-matter.
The following day, February 22: “Email to Apple employees from Apple CEO Tim Cook,” February 22, 2016. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2716997-Tim-Cook-Emails-Apple-Employees.html.
While all of this was going on: David Kravets, “Trump Urges Supporters to Boycott Apple in Wake of Encryption Brouhaha,” Ars Technica, February 19, 2016. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/trump-urges-supporters-to-boycott-apple-in-wake-of-encryption-brouhaha/.
The New York case: Cyrus Farivar, “Feds: Since Apple Can Unlock iPhone 5S Running iOS 7, It Should,” Ars Technica, October 24, 2015. Available at: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/feds-since-apple-can-unlock-iphone-5s-running-ios-7-it-should/.
Nine days later, defendant: Guilty Plea, US v. Jun Feng, 1:14-cr-00387-MKB, October 30, 2015. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2499370-jun-feng-guilty-plea.html.
In the government’s own filing: Guilty Plea, US v. Jun Feng, 1:14-cr-00387-MKB, October 30, 2015. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2711972-123111286409.html#document/p1/a277213.
Later, a more senior judge: Cyrus Farivar, “Feds: Someone Gave Us the Passcode in NY Drug Case, So We Don’t Need Apple,” Ars Technica, April 22, 2016. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/feds-someone-gave-us-the-passcode-in-ny-drug-case-so-we-dont-need-apple/.
Orenstein’s conclusion largely echoed: Memorandum and Order, In re order requiring Apple, 15-MC-1902, February 29, 2016. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2728314-Orenstein-Order.html.
Days later, on March 1, 2016: Josh Constine, “Obama: ‘We Don’t Want Government to Look into Everyone’s Phones Willy-Nilly,’ ” Tech Crunch, March 11, 2016. Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/11/obama-says-we-dont-want-government-to-look-into-everyones-phones-willy-nilly/.
“A lot. More than”: Julia Edwards, “FBI Paid More than $1.3 Million to Break into San Bernardino iPhone,” Reuters, April 21, 2016. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-fbi/fbi-paid-more-than-1-3-million-to-break-into-san-bernardino-iphone-idUSKCN0XI2IB?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtechnologyNews+%28Reuters+Technology+News%29.
“I’m not going to describe”: Jon Brodkin, “FBI Can’t Break the Encryption on Texas Shooter’s Smartphone,” Ars Technica, November 8, 2017. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/fti-cant-break-the-encryption-on-texas-shooters-smartphone/.
Chapter Three
By virtually ignoring data: Arthur Miller, The Assault on Privacy (Signet, 1970).
Sachs explained to his wife: In re Application, US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, BR13-109. Availableat: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3819997-br13-09-Primary-Order-1.html#document/p6/a356443.
Sachs served as an assistant: Gadi Dechter, “Surveillance Was ‘Misguided,’ ” Baltimore Sun, October 2, 2008. Available at: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-te.md.spying02oct02-story.html.
In the wake of Edward Snowden: Faiza Patel, “Bulk Collection Under Section 215 Has Ended…What’s Next?,” Just Security, November 30, 2015. Available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/27996/bulk-collection-ended-whats-next/.
The new version allows: Cyrus Farivar, “Even Former NSA Chief Thinks USA Freedom Act Was a Pointless Change,” Ars Technica, June 17, 2015. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/even-former-nsa-chief-thinks-usa-freedom-act-was-a-pointless-change/.
The 1979 Smith decision: David Kravets, “How a Purse Snatching Led to the Legal Justification for NSA Domestic Spying,” Wired, October 2, 2013. Available at: https://www.wired.com/2013/10/nsa-smith-purse-snatching/.
The legal reasoning of the third-party: In re Application, US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, BR 13-109. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3819997-br13-09-Primary-Order-1.html#document/p9/a356679.
“I do not believe that I am the one”: Author’s interview with Stephen Sachs, March 6, 2017.
Cardin was briefly a prosecutor: Dan Rodricks, “In Maryland Attorney General’s Race, Look Past Name,” Baltimore Sun, June 10, 2014. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-06-10/news/bs-md-rodricks-0610-20140610_1_brian-frosh-jon-cardin-attorney-general.
“What they [had was] this nexus”: Author’s interview with Howard Cardin, March 6, 2017.
“Is that right?”: Author’s interview with US Tax Judge Albert Lauber, June 30, 2017.
Even while Katz was working: Nan Robertson, “Data Bank: Peril or Aid?,” The New York Times, January 6, 1968. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766399-110088042.html; Vance Packard, “Don’t Tell It To the Computer,” The New York Times, January 8, 1967. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766305-83569846.html.
“The presence of these records”: “THE COMPUTER AND INVASION OF PRIVACY,” HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION, July 26–28, 1966. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766857-U-S-House-1966-the-Computer-and-Invasion-of.html#document/p5/a356386.
The plan was ultimately killed: “Panel Sees Peril in US Data Bank,” Associated Press, August 5, 1968. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766408-79943704.h
tml.
The New York Times warned: Ben A. Franklin, “Federal Computers Amass Files on Suspect Citizens,” The New York Times, June 28, 1970. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1970/06/28/archives/federal-computers-amass-files-on-suspect-citizens-many-among.html.
The book’s author, Arthur R. Miller: “Arthur R. Miller,” New York University. https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile.biography&personid=20130.
“Data transmissions also are more”: Miller, 183.
One of the crucial elements: INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS BOOK II FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES UNITED STATES SENATE, April 26, 1976. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766517-94755-II.html#document/p122/a356344.
America had been paying: United States, Government (2010). “Statistical information about casualties of the Vietnam War.” National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on January 26, 2010. Retrieved January 8, 2018. Available at: https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html.
The intelligence community actively: Nelson Blackstock, COINTELPRO: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom, (Pathfinder, 1975), p. 111.
Other snooping efforts: L. Britt Snider, “Recollections from the Church Committee’s Investigation of NSA,” CIA, April 14, 2007. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/winter99-00/art4.html.
Others, like Project Minaret, intercepted: Matthew Aid, “Secret Cold War Documents Reveal NSA Spied on Senators,” Foreign Policy, September 25, 2013. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/25/secret-cold-war-documents-reveal-nsa-spied-on-senators/.
On April 30, 1970, Nixon: John M. Shaw, The Cambodian Campaign (University of Kansas Press, 2005), p. 158.
Not three months later, in July 1970: INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS BOOK II FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES UNITED STATES SENATE, April 26, 1976. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766517-94755-II.html#document/p122/a356344.
One surveillance case that preceded Nixon: Christopher Zbrozek, “The Bombing of the A2 CIA Office,” Michigan Daily, October 24, 2006. Available at: https://www.michigandaily.com/content/bombing-a2-cia-office.
As the case moved ahead in 1969: Sklansky, 251.
In an affidavit, Attorney General John Mitchell: Samuel C. Damren, “The Keith Case,” The Court Legacy, November 2003. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766851-200311-Court-Legacy.html#document/p5/a356375.
The Ann Arbor case: Ibid. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766851-200311-Court-Legacy.html#document/p2/a356376.
“An idea which seems”: Agis Salpukas, “Judge Reaffirms Curb on Wiretaps,” The New York Times, January 26, 1971. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1971/01/26/archives/judge-reaffirms-curb-on-wiretaps-ruling-could-limit-power-to.html.
The Department of Justice appealed: United States v. United States District Court, No. 71-1105, (6th Cir., 1971). Available at: http://openjurist.org/444/f2d/651/united-states-v-united-states-district-court-for-eastern-district-of-michigan-southern-division-j.
The appeals court famously found: Fred P. Graham, “White House View of Wiretap Right Denied on Appeal,” The New York Times, April 9, 1971. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1971/04/09/archives/white-house-view-of-wiretap-right-denied-on-appeal-us-court-finds.html.
“The price of lawful public dissent”: United States v. United States Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/297/case.html.
In 1971, Assemblymember Kenneth Cory: Right of Privacy California Proposition 11 (1972). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3678199-RIGHT-of-PRIVACY.html.
Today, California is just one: Privacy Protections in State Constitutions, National Conference of State Legislatures, May 5, 2017. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/privacy-protections-in-state-constitutions.aspx.
“For all practical purposes”: Burrows v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.3d 238. Available at: http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/burrows-v-superior-court-27860.
“On March 8, 1971”: Betty Medsger, The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI (Vintage, 2014).
The group, whose members: Michael Isikoff, “After 43 Years, Activists Admit Theft at FBI Office That Exposed Domestic Spying,” NBC News, January 6, 2014. Available at: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/06/22205443-after-43-years-activists-admit-theft-at-fbi-office-that-exposed-domestic-spying?lite.
Banner replied: “I think it was legal”: SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 5 THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY AND FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OCTOBER 29 AND NOVEMBER 6, 1975. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766735-94intelligence-Activities-V.html#document/p48/a35637.
The story of Smith v. Maryland: Smith v. Maryland, No. 78-5374, On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3762087-SUPC-USSC1978-5374-04-i1-40-1.html#document/p8/a356025.
At the time, anonymous and: “Albany Outlaws Threats by Phone,” The New York Times, April 25, 1960. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3762241-105191721.html.
In April 1965, The Atlantic: Pat Watters, “Telephone Terrorism,” The Atlantic, April 1965, p. 118.
By 1966, the New York Telephone Company: “Bureau is set up for Crank Calls,” The New York Times, April 27, 1966. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3762242-79094571.html.
That same year, AT&T: Richard D. Lyons, “Obscene Phone Calls Stir Concern,” The New York Times, February 26, 1967. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3762228-90272875.html#document/p1/a356026.
One common way that telephone companies: Fred P. Graham, “US to Limit Use of Bugging Aids,” The New York Times, August 29, 1965. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3762232-99463008.html#document/p1/a356027.
In September 1970, William Claerhout: William A. Claerhout, “The Pen Register,” 20 Drake L. Rev. 108 (1970-1971). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3762473-Claerhout.html#document/p2/a356031.
By 1971, The New York Times: Robert A. Wright, “For Privacy from Cranks, Creeps and Crooks, Millions Getting Unlisted Phone Numbers,” The New York Times, December 22, 1971. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1971/12/22/archives/for-privacy-from-cranks-creeps-and-crooks-millions-getting-unlisted.html.
With this new information: Smith v. Maryland, No. 78-5374, On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3762087-SUPC-USSC1978-5374-04-i1-40-1.html#document/p9/a356030.
Cardin knew that he had an uphill battle: Author’s interview with Howard Cardin, March 6, 2017.
In a 4–3 decision on July 14, 1978: Smith v. Maryland, No. 78-5374, On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3762087-SUPC-USSC1978-5374-04-i1-40-1.html#document/p14/a356110.
“everyman’s master”: Ibid. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3762087-SUPC-USSC1978-5374-04-i1-40-1.html#document/p29/a356113.
“Technologically, a distinction”: Ibid. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3762087-SUPC-USSC1978-5374-04-i1-40-1.html#document/p31/a356115.
The FISC, unlike all others: Cyrus Farivar, “Ame
rica’s Super-Secret Court Names Five Lawyers as Public Advocates,” Ars Technica, November 28, 2015. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/americas-super-secret-court-names-five-lawyers-as-public-advocates/.
Sachs pulled a wooden chair: Author’s interview with Stephen Sachs, March 6, 2017.
“I may have started in [the] Circuit Court”: Author’s interview with Howard Cardin, March 6, 2017.
“Mr. Chief Justice and may”: Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
He also pointed out: Robert B. Parrish, “Circumventing Title III: The Use of Pen Register Surveillance in Law Enforcement,” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1977:751. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3859337-Circumventing-Title-III-Parrish-1977.html#document/p9/a356505.
The Supreme Court published: Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
“Telephones, credit cards, computers”: Federal Government Information Technology: Electronic Surveillance and Civil Liberties (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA CIT-293, October 1985). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3859634-Fgit-1985.html#document/p12/a357129.
One section of the law: 18 U.S. Code Chapter 121. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-121.
Yet another portion mandates: 18 U.S. Code § 3123. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3123.
Both of these are lesser legal standards: 396 F.Supp.2d 747 (2005) In re APPLICATION FOR PEN REGISTER AND TRAP/TRACE DEVICE WITH CELL SITE LOCATION AUTHORITY No. H-05-557M. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. October 14, 2005. Available at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8980502027187529652&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38.
Fundamentally, it seems quite: US Postal Inspection Service, “Frequently Asked Questions.” Available at: https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/contactUs/faq.aspx.
Habeas Data Page 33
