DOCSLIB.ORG

DOJ Criminal Division 3Rd Interim Response

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DOJ Criminal Division 3Rd Interim Response U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Office of Enforcement Operations Washington, D.C. 20530 VIA Electronic Mail February 19, 2020 Jonathan Manes, Esq. Civil Liberties and Transparency Clinic University at Buffalo School of Law Request No. CRM-300680988 507 O’Brian Hall, North Campus Privacy International et al., v. Federal Bureau Buffalo, NY 14260 of Investigation, et al.,18-cv-1488 [email protected] (W.D.N.Y.) Dear Mr. Manes: This is the third installment of the Criminal Division’s rolling production regarding your Freedom of Information Act request dated September 10, 2018, for certain records pertaining to “computer network exploitation” or “network investigative techniques.” Your request is currently in litigation, Privacy International, et al. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al., 18-cv-1488 (W.D.N.Y.). You should refer to this case number in any future correspondence with this Office. This request is being processed in accordance with the interpretation and parameters set forth by defendants in the July 12, 2019, letter to you from Senior Trial Counsel Marcia Sowles, as well as subsequent conversations regarding the Criminal Division’s processing of the request. Please be advised that a search has been conducted in the appropriate sections, and we are continuing to review and process potentially responsive records. After carefully reviewing 521 pages of records, I have determined that 436 pages are responsive to your request: 380 pages are appropriate for release in full, copies of which are enclosed. Additionally, seven pages are appropriate for release in part and forty-nine pages are exempt from disclosure pursuant to: 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), which concerns certain inter- and intra-agency communications protected by the deliberative process privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, and the attorney-client privilege; 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), which concerns material the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties; 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), which concerns records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties; and 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E), which concerns records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law 2 enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist. You may contact Senior Trial Counsel Marcia K. Sowles by phone at (202) 514-4960, by email at [email protected], or by mail at the Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, 1100 L Street, N.W., Room 10028, Washington, D.C. 20005, for any further assistance and to discuss any aspect of your request. Although I am aware that your request is the subject of ongoing litigation and that appeals are not ordinarily acted on in such situations, I am required by statute and regulation to inform you of your right to an administrative appeal of this determination. If you are not satisfied with my response to this request, you may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States Department of Justice, 441 G Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20530, or you may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIA STAR portal by creating an account on the following website: https://foiastar.doj.gov. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within 90 days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.” Sincerely, Amanda Marchand Jones Chief FOIA/PA Unit cc: Marcia K. Sowles Senior Trial Counsel Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, N.W., Room 11028 Washington, D.C. 20005 [email protected] Michael S. Cerrone [email protected] Enclosures Framework Rule 41(b)(6) and venue for search warrants Using remote searches in your dark market cases Rule 41(b)(6) issues and pitfalls Venue Traditional (physical) searches Venue is easy Where is property to be searched located? Apply for your warrant there Rule 41(b)(6)(A) a magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if: the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; Location of Data and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district Concealment If the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; Locating Your Target NIT sent to target through document Usually to obtain true IP address (b) (7)(E) REMOTE SEARCHES Rule 41(B)(6): a court where activities relating to a crime may have occurred can issue warrant for remote search if: (A) location of computer has been concealed through technological means (i.e. proxy); or (B) victim computers of 1030(a)(5)(A) located in 5 or more districts Otherwise: CEOS Quarterly Newsletter Page 13 NITs Make Nice: Defeating an Offender’s Use of Proxies by Employing a Network Investigative Technique (NIT) By (b)(6), (7)(C)CEOS Trial Attorney Sophisticated online offenders have increasingly turned to anonymization technologies, such as proxy servers, to hide their true location and identity from law enforcement. See CEOS Quarterly Newsletter (September 2009), Proxies, Anonymizers, Private Networks and You: A Primer on Internet Misdirection, Deception, and Finger Pointing. Law enforcement is not, however, without techniques to defeat anonymization. One option is a Network Investigative Technique, or “NIT.” This article discusses the use of one type of NIT and the process required to obtain authorization for it. I. What is a NIT? (b)(7)(E) A NIT is a tool that allows law enforcement to remotely collect information from a target computer. Computer code is delivered to the target computer; the code runs or activates on the target computer; and that information is delivered to a government-controlled computer. II. How Does a NIT Work? The exact specifications and design of a NIT will vary based upon your forensic agent or programmer and the information you are seeking. (b)(7)(E) IV. What Sort of Information Can a NIT Collect? In the context of an offender who is using a proxy server, the primary objective of a NIT is to identify the actual IP address of the offender. However, a NIT can obtain other useful -- and potentially identifying -- information as well. For example, a (b)(7)(E) Continued . Page 14 CEOS Quarterly Newsletter (b)(7)(E) (b)(5) V. What Authorization is Needed to Implement a NIT? As with many issues involving electronic evidence, technology advances faster than the law. (b)(5) (b)(5), (7)(E) (b)(5) ____________________________________ (b)(5) VII. Conclusion A NIT can be a creative technological solution to the difficult and increasingly prevalent problem of anonymization use by offenders. By measures such as causing offenders’ true IP addresses to be sent to the government, NITs can help law enforcement identify those who believe they are able to commit child exploitation crimes free of the risk of being caught. } Case 4:13-mj-00234 Document 3 Filed in TXSD on 04/22/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE WARRANT TO SEARCH A TARGET § COMPUTER AT PREMISES UNKNOWN § CASE NO. H-13-234M § § MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Government has applied for a Rule 41 search and seizure warrant targeting a computer allegedly used to violate federal bank fraud, identity theft, and computer security laws. Unknown persons are said to have committed these crimes using a particular email account via an unknown computer at an unknown location. The search would be accomplished by surreptitiously installing software designed not only to extract certain stored electronic records but also to generate user photographs and location information over a 30 day period. In other words, the Government seeks a warrant to hack a computer suspected of criminal use. For various reasons explained below, the application is denied. Background In early 2013, unidentified persons gained unauthorized access to the personal email account of John Doe, an individual residing within the Southern District of Texas, and used that email address to access his local bank account. The Internet Protocol (IP) address of the computer accessing Doe’s account resolves to a foreign country. After Doe discovered the breach and took steps to secure his email account, another email account nearly identical to Doe’s the address differed by a single letter was used to attempt a sizeable wire Case 4:13-mj-00234 Document 3 Filed in TXSD on 04/22/13 Page 2 of 13 transfer from Doe’s local bank to a foreign bank account. The FBI has commenced an investigation, leading to this search warrant request. At this point in the investigation, the location of the suspects and their computer is unknown.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Drowning in Data 15 3
    BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES WITH AMERICANS’ DATA Rachel Levinson-Waldman Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law about the brennan center for justice The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice. We work to hold our political institutions and laws accountable to the twin American ideals of democracy and equal justice for all. The Center’s work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism. A singular institution — part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group, part communications hub — the Brennan Center seeks meaningful, measurable change in the systems by which our nation is governed. about the brennan center’s liberty and national security program The Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program works to advance effective national security policies that respect Constitutional values and the rule of law, using innovative policy recommendations, litigation, and public advocacy. The program focuses on government transparency and accountability; domestic counterterrorism policies and their effects on privacy and First Amendment freedoms; detainee policy, including the detention, interrogation, and trial of terrorist suspects; and the need to safeguard our system of checks and balances. about the author Rachel Levinson-Waldman serves as Counsel to the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, which seeks to advance effective national security policies that respect constitutional values and the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election
    Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Faris, Robert M., Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33759251 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Robert Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is the result of months of effort and has only come to be as a result of the generous input of many people from the Berkman Klein Center and beyond. Jonas Kaiser and Paola Villarreal expanded our thinking around methods and interpretation. Brendan Roach provided excellent research assistance. Rebekah Heacock Jones helped get this research off the ground, and Justin Clark helped bring it home. We are grateful to Gretchen Weber, David Talbot, and Daniel Dennis Jones for their assistance in the production and publication of this study. This paper has also benefited from contributions of many outside the Berkman Klein community. The entire Media Cloud team at the Center for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab has been essential to this research.
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Communications Surveillance
    Electronic Communications Surveillance LAUREN REGAN “I think you’re misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr. President. No one is saying you broke any laws. We’re just saying it’s a little bit weird that you didn’t have to.”—John Oliver on The Daily Show1 The government is collecting information on millions of citizens. Phone, Internet, and email habits, credit card and bank records—vir- tually all information that is communicated electronically is subject to the watchful eye of the state. The government is even building a nifty, 1.5 million square foot facility in Utah to house all of this data.2 With the recent exposure of the NSA’s PRISM program by whistleblower Edward Snowden, many people—especially activists—are wondering: How much privacy do we actually have? Well, as far as electronic pri- vacy, the short answer is: None. None at all. There are a few ways to protect yourself, but ultimately, nothing in electronic communications is absolutely protected. In the United States, surveillance of electronic communications is governed primarily by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), which is an extension of the 1968 Federal Wiretap act (also called “Title III”) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Other legislation, such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), sup- plement both the ECPA and FISA. The ECPA is divided into three broad areas: wiretaps and “electronic eavesdropping,” stored messages, and pen registers and trap-and-trace devices. Each degree of surveillance requires a particular burden that the government must meet in order to engage in the surveillance.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Use Encryption and Privacy Tools to Evade Corporate Espionage
    How to use Encryption and Privacy Tools to Evade Corporate Espionage An ICIT White Paper Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology August 2015 NOTICE: The recommendations contained in this white paper are not intended as standards for federal agencies or the legislative community, nor as replacements for enterprise-wide security strategies, frameworks and technologies. This white paper is written primarily for individuals (i.e. lawyers, CEOs, investment bankers, etc.) who are high risk targets of corporate espionage attacks. The information contained within this briefing is to be used for legal purposes only. ICIT does not condone the application of these strategies for illegal activity. Before using any of these strategies the reader is advised to consult an encryption professional. ICIT shall not be liable for the outcomes of any of the applications used by the reader that are mentioned in this brief. This document is for information purposes only. It is imperative that the reader hires skilled professionals for their cybersecurity needs. The Institute is available to provide encryption and privacy training to protect your organization’s sensitive data. To learn more about this offering, contact information can be found on page 41 of this brief. Not long ago it was speculated that the leading world economic and political powers were engaged in a cyber arms race; that the world is witnessing a cyber resource buildup of Cold War proportions. The implied threat in that assessment is close, but it misses the mark by at least half. The threat is much greater than you can imagine. We have passed the escalation phase and have engaged directly into full confrontation in the cyberwar.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Surveillance
    Mass Surveillance Mass Surveillance What are the risks for the citizens and the opportunities for the European Information Society? What are the possible mitigation strategies? Part 1 - Risks and opportunities raised by the current generation of network services and applications Study IP/G/STOA/FWC-2013-1/LOT 9/C5/SC1 January 2015 PE 527.409 STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment The STOA project “Mass Surveillance Part 1 – Risks, Opportunities and Mitigation Strategies” was carried out by TECNALIA Research and Investigation in Spain. AUTHORS Arkaitz Gamino Garcia Concepción Cortes Velasco Eider Iturbe Zamalloa Erkuden Rios Velasco Iñaki Eguía Elejabarrieta Javier Herrera Lotero Jason Mansell (Linguistic Review) José Javier Larrañeta Ibañez Stefan Schuster (Editor) The authors acknowledge and would like to thank the following experts for their contributions to this report: Prof. Nigel Smart, University of Bristol; Matteo E. Bonfanti PhD, Research Fellow in International Law and Security, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa; Prof. Fred Piper, University of London; Caspar Bowden, independent privacy researcher; Maria Pilar Torres Bruna, Head of Cybersecurity, Everis Aerospace, Defense and Security; Prof. Kenny Paterson, University of London; Agustín Martin and Luis Hernández Encinas, Tenured Scientists, Department of Information Processing and Cryptography (Cryptology and Information Security Group), CSIC; Alessandro Zanasi, Zanasi & Partners; Fernando Acero, Expert on Open Source Software; Luigi Coppolino,Università degli Studi di Napoli; Marcello Antonucci, EZNESS srl; Rachel Oldroyd, Managing Editor of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism; Peter Kruse, Founder of CSIS Security Group A/S; Ryan Gallagher, investigative Reporter of The Intercept; Capitán Alberto Redondo, Guardia Civil; Prof. Bart Preneel, KU Leuven; Raoul Chiesa, Security Brokers SCpA, CyberDefcon Ltd.; Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Depths of the Net by Sue Halpern | the New York Review Of
    Font Size: A A A In the Depths of the Net Sue Halpern OCTOBER 8, 2015 ISSUE The Dark Net: Inside The Digital Underworld by Jamie Bartlett Melville House, 308 pp, $27.95 freeross.org Ross Ulbricht, who was recently sentenced to life in prison for running the illegal dark-Net marketplace Silk Road Early this year, a robot in Switzerland purchased ten tablets of the illegal drug MDMA, better known as “ecstasy,” from an online marketplace and had them delivered through the postal service to a gallery in St. Gallen where the robot was then set up. The drug buy was part of an installation called “Random Darknet Shopper,” which was meant to show what could be obtained on the “dark” side of the Internet. In addition to ecstasy, the robot also bought a baseball cap with a secret camera, a pair of knock-off Diesel jeans, and a Hungarian passport, among other things. Passports stolen and forged, heroin, crack cocaine, semiautomatic weapons, people who can be hired to use those weapons, computer viruses, and child pornography—especially child pornography—are all easily obtained in the shaded corners of the Internet. For example, in the interest of research, Jamie Bartlett—the author of The Dark Net: Inside the Digital Underworld, a picturesque tour of this disquieting netherworld—successfully bought a small amount of marijuana from a dark-Net site; anyone hoping to emulate him will find that the biggest dilemma will be with which seller—there are scores—to do business. My own forays to the dark Net include visits to sites offering counterfeit drivers’ licenses, methamphetamine, a template for a US twenty-dollar bill, files to make a 3D-printed gun, and books describing how to receive illegal goods in the mail without getting caught.
    [Show full text]
  • S. 1123, the USA Freedom Act of 2015 Dear Members of the Senate
    WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE OFFICE May 23, 2015 RE: S. 1123, the USA Freedom Act of 2015 Dear Members of the Senate: Section 215 of the Patriot Act expanded the reach of the intelligence agencies in unprecedented ways and is the basis for collecting and retaining records on AMERICAN CIVIL millions of innocent Americans. The ACLU opposed Section 215 when it LIBERTIES UNION WASHINGTON was introduced, has fought it at each successive reauthorization, and urges LEGISLATIVE OFFICE Congress to let it sunset on June 1st. 915 15th STREET, NW, 6 TH FL WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T/202.544.1681 F/202.546.0738 This week, the Senate is scheduled to vote on S. 1123, the USA Freedom Act WWW.ACLU.ORG of 2015, which proposes modest reforms to Section 215, Section 214 (the pen MICHAEL W. MACLEOD-BALL register and trap and trace device provision, “PR/TT”), and national security ACTING DIRECTOR letter authorities. The bill also seeks to increase transparency over government NATIONAL OFFICE surveillance activities but could be construed to codify a new surveillance 125 BROAD STREET, 18 TH FL. regime of more limited, yet still massive scope. NEW YORK, NY 10004-2400 T/212.549.2500 Earlier this month, the Second Circuit unequivocally ruled that the OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS 1 SUSAN N. HERMAN government’s bulk metadata program violated the law. In light of this PRESIDENT decision, it is clear that more robust surveillance reform is needed. Though an ANTHONY D. ROMERO improvement over the status quo in some respects, the USA Freedom Act EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR does not go far enough to rein in NSA abuses and contains several concerning ROBERT REMAR provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Usa Patriot Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011
    Calendar No. 18 112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 1st Session SENATE 112–13 THE USA PATRIOT ACT SUNSET EXTENSION ACT OF 2011 APRIL 5, 2011.—Ordered to be printed Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T together with MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany S. 193] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 193), to extend the sunset of certain provisions of the USA PA- TRIOT Act and the authority to issue national security letters, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with amendments, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Background and Purpose of The USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 .................................................................................................. 2 II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 20 III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 22 IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 27 V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 31 VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 31 VII. Minority Views ............................................................................................... 32 VIII. Changes to Existing Law Made
    [Show full text]
  • HJS 'Putin Sees and Hears It All' Report.Qxd
    Putin SeeS and HearS it all: How ruSSia’S intelligence agencieS Menace tHe uK BY DR ANDREW FOXALL DEMOCRACY | FREEDOM | HUMAN RIGHTS November 2018 First published in 2018 by The Henry Jackson Society. The Henry Jackson Society Millbank Tower 21-24 Millbank London SW1P 4QP Registered charity no. 1140489 Tel: +44 (0)20 7340 4520 www.henryjacksonsociety.org © The Henry Jackson Society, 2018. All rights reserved. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and are not necessarily indicative of those of The Henry Jackson Society or its Trustees. Title: “PuTiN SEES AND HEARS iT ALL: HOW RuSSiA’S iNTELLigENcE AgENciES MENAcE THE uK” By: Dr Andrew Foxall Putin SeeS and HearS it all: How ruSSia’S intelligence agencieS Menace tHe uK BY DR ANDREW FOXALL November 2018 PuTiN SEES AND HEARS iT ALL “Dr. Foxall’s report forcefully reminds us that Russian Intelligence activity in the West is still large scale and intrusive, and that we need to devote significant resources and expertise ourselves to monitoring and blunting this threat to our national security. As during the Cold War an effective counterintelligence capability remains an essential part of our own intelligence and security community.” Sir richard dearlove KcMg oBe chief of the Secret intelligence Service (Mi6) (1999-2004) “Anyone who is relaxed or complacent about Russian intelligence activity in the United Kingdom should read this Report. Not only have we experienced the murder of Litvinenko and the attempted murder of the Skripals on British soil, Britain and the West as a whole face an unrelenting assault from Putin’s bloated intelligence and security agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Notice Problem, Unlawful Electronic Surveillance, and Civil Liability Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 61 Number 2 Volume 61 Number 2 (January 2007) Article 5 1-1-2007 The Notice Problem, Unlawful Electronic Surveillance, and Civil Liability Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Andrew Adler Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew Adler, The Notice Problem, Unlawful Electronic Surveillance, and Civil Liability Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 61 U. Miami L. Rev. 393 (2007) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol61/iss2/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES The Notice Problem, Unlawful Electronic Surveillance, and Civil Liability Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ANDREW ADLER* I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 393 II. ORIGIN AND BASIC FRAMEWORK OF FISA ............................... 399 III. THE NOTICE PROBLEM ................................................ 404 IV. ERRORS IN THE FISA PROCESS ......................................... 408 A. Application Process .............................................. 408 B. Implementation Process ........................................... 412 1. INTERNAL FBI COMMUNICATIONS:
    [Show full text]
  • THE BRIDGE BETWEEN the WAR on DRUGS and the WAR on TERRORISM Gerald G. Ashdown* the Reaction to The
    THE BLUEING OF AMERICA: THE BRIDGE BETWEEN THE WAR ON DRUGS AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM Gerald G. Ashdown* I. INTRODUCTION The reaction to the Vietnam War protest years, the presidency of Richard Nixon, and ultimately that of Ronald Reagan, ushered in a conservative revolution in the United States that still endures. Republican Presidents during this period have appointed eleven Justices to the United States Supreme Court,1 seven of whom serve on the Court today.2 Coinciding with this historical phenomenon was the proliferation of drug usage in the country: first marijuana, hallucinogenic drugs, and amphetamines during the counterculture years of the late ’60s and ’70s, and later powder and then crack cocaine. When prosecutorial emphasis shifted, especially at the federal level,3 to meet the increased fascination with narcotics, courts in the country became deluged with drug cases, many if not most of which presented Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues. This, of course, was because the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule could make the corpus of the crime unavailable to the prosecution.4 Due to the presence of this important Fourth Amendment issue in drug prosecutions, both state and federal, a significant number of these cases found their way to the United States Supreme Court for review. In most of these cases, the Court did not disappoint the Republican Presidents who had appointed a majority of the Justices. Under the tutelage of Chief Justices * James A. “Buck” & June M. Harless Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law. 1. Justices Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist were appointed by Richard M.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Responses and Countermeasures to National Security Letters
    Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 47 Intellectual Property: From Biodiversity to Technical Standards 2015 Legal Responses and Countermeasures to National Security Letters Brett Weinstein Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Brett Weinstein, Legal Responses and Countermeasures to National Security Letters, 47 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 217 (2015), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol47/iss1/15 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Legal Responses and Countermeasures to National Security Letters Brett Weinstein INTRODUCTION In early June of 2013, governmental surveillance suddenly and dramatically entered the public consciousness, prompting a torrent of debate and backlash. The Guardian published a top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all telephone call records to the National Security Agency (NSA); the Washington Post disclosed a secret but widespread Internet surveillance program, and months of similar revelations followed, all stemming from leaks by former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden.1 As a result, the public and the press began to question the tools that the government uses for surveillance, including National Security Letters (NSLs), and the relationship between the government and the technology and telecommunications companies that seemingly possess all personal and private information generated in the modern, digital world.2 J.D.
    [Show full text]