Skip to main content

Court Weighs Facebook’s Right to Challenge Search Warrants on Users’ Behalf

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
The thorny issue of Internet privacy was taken up by a New York State appeals court on Thursday, as judges seemed to be troubled that prosecutors in Manhattan had secretly searched the entire Facebook accounts of about 300 people who were not charged with a crime.
But the judges also questioned whether Facebook had a legal right to challenge the search warrants on behalf of its users, no matter how broad or questionable in scope the warrants were.
The five-judge panel in Manhattan, led by Presiding Justice Luis A. Gonzalez, of the Appellate Division for the First Department, must determine if Facebook and other social media companies can challenge search warrants in court when they believe the government’s request tramples on the right of their customers to be protected from unreasonable searches.
The case — known formally as “In Re 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook Inc.” — is being closely watched by civil libertarians and other social media companies. Several tech giants, including Google, LinkedIn and Twitter, have filed amicus briefs. So has the New York Civil Liberties Union.
The search warrants were signed last year by Justice Melissa Jackson on the strength of a 96-page affidavit that has never been made public.
The warrants ordered Facebook to turn over every scrap of information in the accounts of 381 people, including private photos and conversations. That trove of information was used to obtain indictments for disability fraud against more than 130 police officers and other former public employees. Justice Jackson also prohibited Facebook from informing its customers about the searches.
Ben Rosenberg, an assistant prosecutor, told the appellate judges that 302 of the people whose accounts were searched were never charged with fraud, though photos and other data from about 30 of those accounts were used as evidence against others.
That the government had seized the accounts of hundreds of people not charged troubled some of the judges. Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels sharply asked Mr. Rosenberg why prosecutors continued to “keep 302 people’s lives in their offices.”
“There is no question these Facebook accounts are like someone’s home,” she said. “Pictures, letters, conversations. You could do a physical search warrant and not get a smidgen of what you get out of Facebook.”
Justice Judith J. Gische said “nobody wants the district attorney to have personal files” on people who are not indicted or the subject of a continuing investigation. But she noted that state law does not allow people to appeal search warrants, a point later echoed by Justice Dianne T. Renwick.
“I think it’s clear that we as a bench perceive something troubling about what’s going on, but is this something that should be addressed legislatively?” Justice Gische said. “Is it really a legislative fix and not a court fix?”
The Manhattan district attorney’s office contends Facebook and other social media companies have no more right to challenge a search warrant than the landlord of a physical storage company would when it is searched. Search warrants are approved by state judges and generally can be challenged only by criminal defendants in pretrial hearings, Mr. Rosenberg said.
But Facebook’s lawyer, Thomas Dupree, argued the company was being directed to perform the searches, format the data and deliver it to prosecutors. That makes the warrants “different from a typical search warrant where you stand aside and let the police come in with a box,” and gives a media company the right to refuse to do the search if it thinks it is illegal, just as it can challenge an overly burdensome subpoena in court.
“There is no possible justification for the warrants they served on us,” Mr. Dupree said, adding that the private information of hundreds of people was “swept up in the government dragnet.”
“The government’s logic is chilling,” he said. “Under the government’s position, they could seize the accounts for everyone in New York City and indict one person.”
Justice Gonzalez focused his questions on whether the government’s request for information could be considered a subpoena, or some hybrid mix of a warrant and a subpoena, under the federal Stored Communications Act. If so, he said, that would give Facebook the standing to contest them. He noted that the language used in the warrants seemed to resemble the broad language in subpoenas, which a company may challenge as overly broad or burdensome.
“I think it is reasonable for Facebook to argue this language may turn what the people characterize as a warrant into a hybrid of a subpoena,” he said.

Popular posts from this blog

Hidden Wiki

Welcome to The Hidden WikiNew hidden wiki url 2015 http://zqktlwi4fecvo6ri.onion Add it to bookmarks and spread it!!!
Editor's picks Bored? Pick a random page from the article index and replace one of these slots with it.
The Matrix - Very nice to read. How to Exit the Matrix - Learn how to Protect yourself and your rights, online and off. Verifying PGP signatures - A short and simple how-to guide. In Praise Of Hawala - Anonymous informal value transfer system. Volunteer Here are five different things that you can help us out with.
Plunder other hidden service lists for links and place them here! File the SnapBBSIndex links wherever they go. Set external links to HTTPS where available, good certificate, and same content. Care to start recording onionland's history? Check out Onionland's Museum Perform Dead Services Duties. Introduction - Clearnet search engine for Tor Hidden Services (allows you to add new sites to its database). DuckDuckGo - A Hidden S…


Good News [May 08, 2015]: IDM developers got smarter, but the crackers are always a step ahead. Follow this article and send an email to if you are desperate. I can NOT post any crack here for legal reasons. Happy Downloading with IDM. ;) *********** first tip is to use latest crack for idm from idm universal web crack and make sure u are using all latest vers I am sure many of us are too much dependent on Internet Download Manager a.k.a. IDM. The main reason didn’t permanently switch to linux was IDM. I mainly use it for batch downloading and download streaming videos. Till yesterday, IDM was working fine with me (of course with fake serial numbers, keygen, crack, patch etc. which could be found with little effort). But few days ago, with the latest update version 6.18 build 7 (released on Nov 09, 2013) Internet Download Manager was literally had a breakthrough and crushed all the serial numbers, …

DoubleAgent Attack Turns Your Antivirus Into Malware And Hijacks Your PC

Short Bytes: Cybellum security researchers have uncovered a new attack mechanism that can be used to take control of your antivirus and turn it into a malware. Called DoubleAgent, this attack exploits an old and undocumented vulnerability in Windows operating system. This Zero Day code injection technique affects all major antivirus vendors and has the power to hijack permissions. The security researchers from Cybellum have found a new technique that can be used by the cybercriminals to hijack your computer by injecting malicious code. This new Zero-Day attack can be used to take full control over all the major antivirus software. Instead of hiding from the antivirus, this attack takes control of the antivirus itself. Called DoubleAgent, this attack makes use of a 15-year-old legitimate feature of Windows (read vulnerability)–that’s why it can’t be patched. It affects all versions of Microsoft Windows. Cybellum blog mentions that this flaw is still unpatched by most antivirus v…