Truthout is an indispensable resource for activists, movement leaders and workers everywhere. Please make this work possible with a quick donation.
The Brennan Center for Justice, The Constitution Project, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union jointly filed a brief in this digital privacy case. O’Melveny & Myers LLP served as pro bono counsel.
The Fourth Amendment protects digital data the moment it is copied and seized by law enforcement, not just when it is searched, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and others argued in an amicus brief filed this week.
In the “Microsoft Ireland” case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether the US-based Microsoft Corporation must comply with a government warrant to turn over the digital records of an individual stored on servers outside the United States. The government contends that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to copying data, only to searching it. In its brief, the Brennan Center and its partners hold that copying data constitutes “seizure” and warrants Fourth Amendment protection.
“This case could have far-reaching consequences for the future of digital privacy, including tech companies’ ability to protect the privacy of their customers’ personal information,” said Michael Price, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. “If the court accepts the government’s argument that Fourth Amendment protections only apply when data is searched rather than when it is physically collected, police would be allowed to copy every single file on every single American’s computer without a warrant.”
“As we develop new rules for the digital world, we must remain true to the principles reflected in the Constitution,” said Faiza Patel, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “The personal information stored in our e-mail accounts is not a Microsoft business record that the government can get with a subpoena — they need a warrant.”
The brief also argues against the government’s position that a domestic warrant can be used to search and seize email because it is similar to a subpoena. While a subpoena can be used to obtain certain business records, it is not sufficient to obtain the e-mails, photos, and chat messages that are stored on the cloud.
To learn more about this case, visit the Brennan Center’s case page here.
Important Message: Please Read
For 25 years, Truthout has survived by publishing impactful investigative journalism and analysis; distributing full editions 365 days a year; and building a community of readers who support us with small, hard-earned donations.
Eighty percent of our $3 million yearly budget comes from small donors alone. Of those, 8,000 readers support us with monthly donations. Back in 2018, when Facebook decided to suppress the circulation of posts made by organizations, thereby cutting readers off from seeing many articles shared by the news organizations they had intentionally decided to follow, Truthout’s total traffic declined by 40 percent, as nearly all of our traffic from that platform disappeared.
Now, Google has recently rolled out its AI search bar, providing AI summaries instead of directing readers to our site. Google Search is our single largest source of traffic; it’s the route by which nearly one third of our readers find us. Much like in 2018, a shocking 40 percent of our Google traffic has disappeared overnight.
It will not be easy for Truthout to shoulder this blow. Nor will it be easy for our peers and collaborators — news sites that depend on traffic and aren’t bankrolled by large corporations.
If you can support Truthout with a donation today, you can help us resist the AI onslaught. Please give today.