As a child growing up: Tim Rogers, “The Real Story of Lavabit’s Founder,” D Magazine, November 2013. Available at: https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2013/november/real-story-of-lavabit-founder-ladar-levison/.
“I didn’t like the idea that Google”: Author’s interview with Ladar Levison, August 18, 2017.
The e-mail provider then: Declan McCullagh, “How Web Mail Providers Leave Door Open for NSA Surveillance,” CNET, June 21, 2013. Available at: https://www.cnet.com/news/how-web-mail-providers-leave-door-open-for-nsa-surveillance/.
By coincidence, prior to the FBI: Ladar Levison, “Lavabit…Secure,” Web Archive, 2013. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20130505043920/http://lavabit.com:80/secure.html.
With what he later described as: Ladar Levison, “Ladar Levison—Compelled Decryption,” YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lN-RAfzRQ.
“It cannot be that a search warrant”: United States v. Under Seal (4th US Cir.). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3935582-Document-21.html#document/p96/a369639.
“It seemed only natural to turn that over”: Ladar Levison, “Ladar Levison—Compelled Decryption,” YouTube, 2016. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lN-RAfzRQ.
As he wrote: Joe Mullin, “Ed Snowden’s E-mail Service Shuts Down, Leaving Cryptic Message,” Ars Technica. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/ed-snowdens-encrypted-e-mail-service-shuts-down-leaving-cryptic-message/.
“I was faced with the choice”: Joe Mullin, “Lavabit Founder, Under Gag Order, Speaks Out About Shutdown Decision,” Ars Technica, 2013. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/lavabit-founder-under-gag-order-speaks-out-about-shut-down-decision/.
Levison appealed up: Opinion, United States v. Lavabit, 13-4625 (4th US Cir., 2014). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3924369-Document-15.html.
“Even though I expected”: Author’s interview with Ladar Levison, August 19, 2017.
When Berkeley Nutraceuticals: Anderson, p. 115.
As complaints began to mount: Federal Trade Commission, “FTC Charges Sellers of Avlimil, Rogisen, and Other Dietary Supplements,” February 2006. Available at: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2006/02/ftc-charges-sellers-avlimil-rogisen-and-other-dietary-supplements.
In that message, Cossman: Amy Wallace, “The Rise and Fall of the Cincinnati Boner King,” GQ, September 14, 2009. Available at: https://www.gq.com/story/smilin-bob-enzyte-steve-warshak-male-enhancement.
Weinberg was a good choice: United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/1/case.html
“We were alarmed to realize”: Author’s interview with Martin Weinberg, August 22, 2017.
When it was all said and done: United States v. Warshak, Brief of Appellants, 08-3997 (6th US Cir.). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4114209-US-v-Warshak-Appellants-brief-to-6C.html.
That’s exactly what the 6th Circuit: United States v. Warshak, Opinion, (6th Cir., 2010). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3924349-6C-opinion-US-v-Warshak.html.
The appeals court also: Warshak did not respond to the author’s request for an interview.
Judge Keith analogized e-mail: Leonard Deutchman, “The ECPA, ISPs, & Obtaining E-mail: A Primer for Local Prosecutors,” 2005. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3935621-Ecpa-Isps-Obtaining-Email-05.html#document/p29/a369684.
Even before the 6th Circuit: Declan McCullagh, “Tech Coalition Pushes Rewrite of Online Privacy Law,” CNET, March 29, 2010. Available at: https://www.cnet.com/news/tech-coalition-pushes-rewrite-of-online-privacy-law/.
Within months, the House: Cyrus Farivar, “Senate Committee Takes an Important Step Towards Protecting Your Inbox,” Ars Technica, November 29, 2012. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/senate-committee-takes-an-important-step-towards-protecting-your-inbox/.
But rather than wait for courts: Cyrus Farivar, “Google Stands Up for Gmail Users, Requires Cops to Get a Warrant,” Ars Technica, January 23, 2013. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/google-stands-up-for-gmail-users-requires-cops-to-get-a-warrant/.
“In order to compel”: Ibid.
“We agree, for example”: Acting Assistant Attorney General Elana Tyrangiel Testifies Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, Department of Justice, 2013. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/acting-assistant-attorney-general-elana-tyrangiel-testifies-us-house-judiciary.
“I assumed they just knew”: Author’s correspondence with Orin Kerr, August 21, 2017.
“The plummeting costs”: Orin Kerr, “The Next Generation Communications Privacy Act,” University of Pensylvania Law Review 162, 2013. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3935636-Kerr-Next-Gen.html#document/p4/a370250.
“Californians shouldn’t be forced”: ACLU of Northern CA, “Tech Industry Stands with Sen. Leno to Modernize Digital Privacy Protections,” February 2015. Available at: https://www.aclunc.org/news/tech-industry-stands-sen-leno-modernize-digital-privacy-protections.
The law, which was signed: Author’s interview with Nicole Ozer, September 7, 2017.
CalECPA goes further than: Susan Freiwald, “At the Privacy Vanguard: California’s Electronic Communications Privacy Act,” Research Paper No. 2017-01, University of San Francisco Law, 2017. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3940947-SSRN-id2939412.html.
Faced with increased pressure: Email Privacy Act, H.R.699, 114th Congress (2015–2016). Available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/699.
However, when it moved to the Senate: Jennifer Daskal, “Beware of the Emergency Exception Loophole in the Email Privacy Act,” Just Security, June 7, 2016. Available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/31427/beware-emergency-exception-loophole-email-privacy-act/.
Among others, then Senator Jeff Sessions: Mario Trujillo, “Senate Amendments Could Sink Email Privacy Compromise,” The Hill, May 26, 2016. Available at: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/281329-senators-float-amendments-that-could-sink-email-privacy-compromise.
Specifically, it wanted the federal: Delayed Notice, 18 U.S. Code § 2705. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2705.
“We believe that with rare”: Brad Smith, “Keeping Secrecy the Exception, Not the Rule: An issue for Both Consumers and Businesses,” Microsoft on the Issues, 2016. Available at: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2016/04/14/keeping-secrecy-exception-not-rule-issue-consumers-businesses/#sm.0001ut4dod8kidtcyuj1ufxeui8fi.
In February 2017, the judge: Cyrus Farivar, “Judge Sides with Microsoft, Allows ‘Gag Order’ Challenge to Advance,” Ars Technica, February 9, 2017. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/judge-sides-with-microsoft-allows-gag-order-challenge-to-advance/.
However, in October 2017: Cyrus Farivar, “DOJ Changes ‘Gag Order’ Policy, Microsoft to Drop Lawsuit,” Ars Technica, October 24, 2017. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/doj-changes-gag-order-policy-microsoft-to-drop-lawsuit/.
Meanwhile, the day after: Joe Mullin, “After Lavabit Shutdown, Another Encrypted E-mail Service Closes,” Ars Technica, August 8, 2013. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/in-wake-of-lavabit-shutdown-another-secure-e-mail-service-goes-offline/.
Silent Circle went so far: Somini Sengupta, “2 E-Mail Services Shut Down to Protect Customer Data,” Bits Blog, The New York Times, August 8, 2013. Available at: https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/two-providers-of-encrypted-e-mail-shut
-down/?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y.
Two companies committing: Kashmir Hill, “Lavabit’s Ladar Levison: ‘If You Knew What I Know About Email, You Might Not Use It,’ ” Forbes, August 9, 2013. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/09/lavabits-ladar-levison-if-you-knew-what-i-know-about-email-you-might-not-use-it/#441283b1648a.
He was still required: Cyrus Farivar, “Lavabit Got Order for Snowden’s Login Info, Then Gov’t Demanded Site’s SSL Key,” Ars Technica, 2013. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/lavabit-defied-order-for-snowdens-login-info-then-govt-asked-for-sites-ssl-key/.
“This is just another transport”: Cyrus Farivar, “Silent Circle and Lavabit Launch ‘DarkMail Alliance’ to Thwart E-mail Spying,” Ars Technica, October 2, 2013. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/silent-circle-and-lavabit-launch-darkmail-alliance-to-thwart-e-mail-spying/.
More than four years: “Dark Mail Technical Alliance,” Dark Mail, 2017. Available at: https://darkmail.info/.
Chapter Seven
Jones and eight others: “Crime and Justice,” The Washington Post, October 25, 2005. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102501638.html.
According to US Attorney Kenneth L. Wainstein: “Levels Nite Club Nightclub in Washington, DC—2022690100,” ClubPlanet, 2017. Available at: http://www.clubplanet.com/Venues/104019/Washington/Levels-Nite-Club.
The case took years to unfold: United States v. Jones and Maynard, Brief of Appellants (US Ct. App. DC, 2000). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3983150-Jones-Maynard-Brief-for-Appellants.html#document/p33/a372238.
At that point, GPS: David Schumann, “Wisconsin Lawyer: Tracking Evidence with GPS Technology,” Wisbar, May 2004. Available at: http://www.wisbar.org/newspublications/wisconsinlawyer/pages/article.aspx?Volume=77&Issue=5&ArticleID=810.
One of the most prominent GPS cases: United States v. Garcia, Opinion, 06-2741 (7th Cir., 2007). Available at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1046181.html.
A year after Jones’ original: United States v. Maynard, Opinion, 08-3030 (DC Cir., 2010). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3982802-Bloomberg-Law-Document-United-State-C-2527-D-C.html.
In March 2007, prosecutors: United States v. Jones et al, Indictment, 1:05-cr-00386. (DC Dist., 2007). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3982985-Gov-Uscourts-Dcd-124801-344-0.html.
These points of sale included: Ibid.
On May 2, 2008, Jones: United States v. Jones, Judgment in a Criminal Case, 1:05-cr-00386. (DC Dist., 2008). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3983014-Gov-Uscourts-Dcd-117572-509-0.html.
“I thought he was stark-raving mad”: Author’s interview with Stephen Leckar, May 26, 2017.
Leckar wasn’t convinced: United States v. Jones, In the Matter of the Application…Affidavit, 1:05-cr-00386. (DC Dist., 2006). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3982974-Gov-Uscourts-Dcd-117572-144-5.html.
“To have somebody subject”: Author’s interview with Stephen Leckar, August 29, 2017.
“The GPS logged all”: United States v. Jones and Maynard, Brief of Appellants, (DC Cir., 2000). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3983150-Jones-Maynard-Brief-for-Appellants.html#document/p33/a372238.
Citing a 2003 opinion: State v. Jackson, 76 P.3d 217 (2003) 150 Wash. 2D 251 Opinion. Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2003/72799-6-1.html.
Meanwhile, when the government: United States v. Maynard and Jones, appeal, 08-3030 (DC Dist., 2009). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3983310-Gov-Brief.html#document/p16/a372402.
Years later, Leckar called: Author’s interview with Stephen Leckar, August 29, 2017.
The latter judge also: T. Jay Matthews, “Operation Match” The Harvard Crimson, 1965. Available at: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1965/11/3/operation-match-pif-you-stop-to/?page=single.
“Prolonged surveillance reveals”: United States v. Maynard, Opinion, 08-3034 (DC Dist., 2010). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3983093-Document-30.html#document/p29/a372201.
So that’s exactly what: United States v. Jones, Appellee’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc, 08-3034 (DC Dist., 2010). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3983462-US-v-Jones-appeal-for-en-banc-rehearing-at-DC.html#document/p15/a372525.
On November 19, 2010: United States v. Jones, 10-1259. Available at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-1259.
Leckar, sitting at the other: Author’s interview with Stephen Leckar, August 29, 2017.
Plus, Alito continued: United States v. Jones, 10-1259, Opinion (2011). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3984039-10-1259.html#document/p23/a372763.
“Law enforcement is now on notice”: Adam Liptak, “Police Use of GPS Is Ruled Unconstitutional,” The New York Times, January 24, 2012. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us/police-use-of-gps-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?mcubz=0.
The FBI put out a guidance: “Law Enforcement Panel (Pt. 3),” University of San Francisco Law Review Symposium, 2012. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5f6VDUbGXs.
Within several months of Weissmann’s talk: Cyrus Farivar, “ACLU to FBI: Tell the Public How You Interpret GPS Tracking Ruling,” Ars Technica, August 15, 2012. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/aclu-to-fbi-tell-the-public-how-you-interpret-gps-tracking-ruling/.
That’s still true today: Nathan Wessler e-mail to the author, August 31, 2017.
“Technological progress: United States v. Garcia, Opinion, 06-2741 (7th Cir., 2007). Available at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1046181.html.
By contrast, the mosaic theory: Orin Kerr, “The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment,” April 2012. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3515438-SSRN-id2032821.html#document/p18/a372969.
In fact, in the wake of the Jones ruling: “How to Define Fourth Amendment Doctrine for Searches in Public?” USvJones.com (2013). Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20130818174432/http://usvjones.com/.
In essence, it prescribes: Christopher Slobogin, “Making the Most of United States v. Jones in a Surveillance Society: A Statutory Implementation of Mosaic Theory,” Vanderbilt University Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper Number 12-29 (2012). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3515498-SSRN-id2098002.html.
In another 2016 legal academic paper: Kevin Bankston and Ashkan Soltani, “Tiny Constables and the Cost of Surveillance: Making Cents Out of United States v. Jones,” The Yale Law Journal, 2013. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3733116-1231-jjd1qz1e.html.
“Without that technology”: Ibid.
In that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: Florida v. Riley, Opinion, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/445/case.html.
As of April 2017: Dan Gettinger, “Public Safety Drones,” April 2017. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3986046-CSD-Public-Safety-Drones-Web.html.
By comparison, as of July 2009: “Bureau of Justice Statistics Preview,” Bureau of Justice, 2017. Available at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/aullea07pr.cfm.
A September 2016 study: Final Report NIJ Law Enforcement Aviation Technology Program, 2016. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3986048-Aviation-Report-Final-09202016.html#document/p18/a373275.
Case in point: in August 2017: Elaina Sauber, “Spring Hill Police First in Williamson to Purchase Drone,” The Tennessean, August 28, 2017. Available at: http://www.t
ennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/2017/08/28/spring-hill-pd-first-local-williamson-county-police-force-buy-drone/530679001/.
As of 2017, a fully equipped: Chris Aadland, “Madison Police Are Now in the Air, Thanks to Two New Drones,” Madison.com, July 25, 2017. Available at: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime/madison-police-are-now-in-the-air-thanks-to-two/article_f7a4fefb-1024-5d52-ac0d-dc2c961166fb.html.
(This is one: United States v. Jones, Opinion, 10-1259 (2011). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3984039-10-1259.html#document/p23/a372763.
“What the Framers wanted”: Author’s interview with Paul Ohm, May 25, 2017.
Unless one wishes to be a total hermit: Paul Ohm, “Don’t Build a Database of Ruin,” Harvard Business Review (2012). Available at: https://hbr.org/2012/08/dont-build-a-database-of-ruin.
“Requiring the use of surveillance”: Raymond Shih Ray Ku, Faculty Publications Paper 274, 2002. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3984710-The-Founders-Privacy-the-Fourth-Amendment-and.html#document/p52/a373077.
Chapter Eight
We determine: State of Maryland v. Andrews, N. 1496 (2016). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2780529-1496s15.html.
A 2010 FBI press release: “Hacker Indicted in Massive Tax, Mail, and Wire Fraud Scheme,” FBI, April 8, 2010. Available at: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/phoenix/press-releases/2010/px040810.htm.
According to an Internal Revenue Service: In Matter of the Seizure 08-3397MB, Affidavit, April 2010. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4165323-Rigmaiden-Seizure-Affidavit.html.
Rigmaiden’s case dates: Kim Zetter, “Identity Thieves Filed for $4 Million in Tax Refunds Using Names of Living and Dead,” Wired, April 8, 2010. Available at: https://www.wired.com/2010/04/fake-tax-returns/.
Authorities identified Carter: “Hacker Indicted in Massive Tax, Mail, and Wire Fraud Scheme,” FBI, 2010. Available at: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/phoenix/press-releases/2010/px040810.htm.
Habeas Data Page 36
