|
JiHyunParkFirstEssay 3 - 09 Feb 2025 - Main.JiHyunPark
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Ownership of Data in light of the Government's Subpoena Powers | >
> | Power of the Subpoena and Shifting away from the Current Prosecutorial Model | | | -- By JiHyunPark - 23 Oct 2024
Introduction | |
<
< | The era of the internet as it is today creates an enormous amount of surveillance towards individuals which presents a concerning breach of privacy to those using the internet and associated tools such as a smartphone. This results in a massive and concerning amount of data collection which can be used to track and monitor personal information from preferences to location data at any given time. On the one hand, the gathered data may be a critical tool to track down dangerous criminals through tools such as subpoena of private companies for information such as emails, bank information, and even GPS location at a certain time without the user knowing. While private corporate third-party control over our data poses a significant concern and risk to our liberty and control over our personal information, the government’s access imposes another layer of concern due to the intrusive and reaching power of the government. Specifically, the government’s access to the data provided by the companies may result in direct loss of liberty through the criminal adjudication process. Through criminal investigation, the information collected by these companies could become the critical piece of evidence that takes away your personal rights and physical freedom through incarceration. At the same time, these tools provide critical pieces of evidence to capture and prevent crimes ranging from fraud to horrific criminal activity such as child pornography. How can we balance the desire to have protection from the intrusiveness granted by third-party information databank access by the government and our desire to create a safer society from abhorrent criminal activity? | >
> | As technological progression continues, the internet today has become more and more individualized as it has become publicized. By individualized, the internet has become more specific and tailored to each individual and by publicized, the information that would’ve been considered private is now available for access by multiple people across the world. The individualized aspect of internet stems from our overreliance on technological tools that use third-party services. Take the smart phone, for example. The tool relies on multiple different third-party services, such as google maps, which relay back individualized private information of the holder to a third-party databank. While due to the enormous number of people that use these services, and thus, relay the information to this “databank” make it difficult to really track information about a person in a general basis, it makes it easy to receive private information about a person if you were to seek information about that person intentionally. As such, the era of internet increases an enormous amount of surveillance to individuals. This in turn presents a concerning breach of privacy to individuals using the internet and associated tools such as the smartphone. While the private corporate control over our data poses a significant concern and risk to our liberty and control over our personal information, the government’s access imposes another layer of concern due to the intrusive and reaching power of the government. To limit governmental overreach into our private lives, it’s important to consider how cutting off third parties would impact the government’s subpoena use. By cutting third parties out, enforcement would look be more centered in cooperation as well as raising the bar for the government to access any private information. | | | The Subpoena Power | |
<
< | The subpoena power by the Department of Justice and enforced by the courts is one of the greatest breaches of our privacy regarding Internet data. The government could access the enormous amount of data collected by several third parties to gather incredibly revealing information about individuals. The government could obtain (and they frequently obtain) significant personal information about an individual such as medical and financial records, contents of email messages, and phone company/ Internet service provider logs (1). The amount of information that third parties hold is massive and can be used to individually target and link your actions to the charged crime. The reach of government power to demand data from third-party companies has extended beyond just American citizens into the possibility of the government being able to demand data from overseas (2). The amount of data and breach of privacy implied by this grant of power by the courts is astounding as it is concerning. Not only can our government reach and access the personal information of its citizens and inhabitants, but it can also reach beyond its borders (3). Even if the private third-party companies were, in a perfect world, to provide airtight protections over the data that they acquire from their users, the concern over government access to these data through a subpoena would remain as large as it is now (4). | >
> | The subpoena power by the Department of Justice and enforced by the courts is one of the greatest breaches of privacy regarding internet data. The government could access the enormous amount of data collected by several different companies to gather incredible revealing information about individuals. The government has access to (and they frequent access) significantly personal information about an individual such as medical and financial records, contents of email messages and phone company/ Internet service provider logs [1. The amount of information that third parties hold are vast and can be used to individually target and link your actions to the charged crime. The reach of government power to demand data from third party companies has extended beyond just American citizens into the possibility of the government being able to demand data from overseas 2. The amount of data and breach of privacy implied by this grant of power by the courts is astounding as it is concerning. Not only can our government reach and access the personal information of its citizens and inhabitants, but it can also reach over to beyond its borders3. Even if the private third party companies were, in a perfect world, provide airtight protections over the data that they acquire from its users, the concern over government access to these data through a subpoena would still remain as large as it is now4. | | | | |
<
< | Cutting out Third Parties
If society were to shift away from using the internet and relevant technology that is overseen and controlled by private companies as it is now, how would this look for the government’s criminal investigation and trial procedures? In one spectrum, as Professor Moglen suggested, is absolute ownership of our personal data through creating and establishing our own servers and other relevant technology away from third parties. This would prevent a third-party subpoena from being effective, especially since the only way to access this data would be to directly serve the subpoena to the person being investigated. In such a world, you would be exchanging privacy and ownership of personal information with the loss of an effective criminal investigation and enforcement system. In the current scheme, the use of subpoena data plays such a crucial role in criminal investigations that the denial of such information may cripple current investigation methods. It may result in a situation where for privacy, criminals would run free. | >
> | Furthermore, most of the time, the person being investigated is not knowledgeable about the situation. Private information from their emails, locations, and even bank information is being reviewed by the government to examine your relation (if any) to the crime in question. This presents a shocking breach of privacy. | | | | |
<
< | Because the person (the suspected criminal defendant) who can provide any incriminating data is the sole owner of that data, investigation and subsequent presentation of evidence in a criminal trial will become increasingly onerous if not impossible. The current law regarding the subpoena of individual papers directly from the defendant is murky. Although there originally was clear protection that the Fifth Amendment prohibited access to personal papers held by the target, subsequent cases by the Supreme Court have suggested otherwise (5)? " target="_top">https://academic.oup.com/chicago-scholarship-online/book/17233/chapter/174630093][(5)]]. A part of it is likely due to the expansive use and lack of clear constitutional protections for third-party subpoenas (6). However, if the only way to obtain clear and convincing evidence is by the defendant giving up incriminating personal information, it would result in the evidence standards and criminal defendant protections favoring the prosecution even more than it does now. | >
> | Denial of Access to these Third-Party Subponeas
If society were to shift away from using the internet and relevant technology that is overseen and controlled by private companies as it is now, how would this look for the government’s criminal investigation and trial procedures? In one spectrum, as Professor Moglen suggested, is absolute ownership of our personal data through creating and establishing our own servers and other relevant technology away from third parties. This would prevent a third-party subpoena from being effective, especially since the only way to access this data would be to directly serve the subpoena to the person being investigated. In one sense, this may cripple the government’s ability to capture sophisticated criminals. On the other hand, the government has always had multiple types of tools in their hands that they’ve been able to use successfully to target criminals. Removal of these tools may mean that they will be able to shift and develop new mechanisms that does not involve a third-party and a breach of privacy. | | | | |
>
> | Enforcement without Third Parties
If third-party subpoenas are no longer usable, what are some options that law enforcement could utilize? Some concern is that the other tools utilized by law enforcement during an investigation to gather evidence may also present significant breaches of privacy. For example, surveillance, search warrants, and wiretaps are clear indicators of direct breaches of a person’s privacy. However, unlike third-party subpoenas, there are rules in place that somewhat minimize (although the actual effect must be studied) the effect of the breach. A third-party subpoena, however, is an easy method by the government because it can be done without the defendant’s notice and without having to go specific procedures like going through a judge. The ease of which a third-party subpoena can be issued vs. the other methods indicate that the subpoena presents a more critical concern and issue. | | | | |
<
< | The Right Balance?
Could there be a right balance between privacy and criminal investigations? Finding individual culpability may become increasingly difficult as specific data becomes hidden behind individual privacy protections and third-party subpoenas become unavailable. However, I can foresee that for the investigations of large criminal organizations and enterprises, it may be possible to gather evidence through old methods of physical search warrants (of grabbing the individual’s own computer records) and directly going undercover to become part of the organization to directly obtain evidence. However, based on society’s propensity for some measure of criminal enforcement (the majority of Americans feel it is acceptable for the government to use surveillance tools during criminal investigations(7)), the rights of privacy may result in losing some protections in the criminal justice system.
It's not clear to me what this draft is about. There seems to be a basic legal error involved in the claim that self-hosted data is somehow exempt from the process of criminal investigation. Search warrants exist, of course. Seizure and search of witness's and targets' devices is routine.
So all the rather bot-like rhetoric about balancing "safety from horrendous crimes" against privacy rights based on unrealistic speculation that self-hosting will destroy law enforcement doesn't make much sense.
The two routes to improvement are more substantive insight and clarity of expression. Chart-bot drafting has to go: we need clear, simple sentences each presenting an idea that advances a well-defined and closely-outlined thesis. And we need that thesis. Perhaps an office-hour discussion will help.
| >
> | Additional methods that law enforcement already use includes voluntary cooperation. Especially for people who privatized their server and cut out the third-party in their use of technology, pushing for cooperation may be the most effective method. For crimes like white collar crimes, individuals can be encouraged to push for compliance and self-reporting. Furthermore, just like how third-party subpoenas became a popular tool, with this new technological age, the development of these privacy standards may push for new and novel techniques that does not infringe upon privacy in the way the current system does. | | | |
|
|
JiHyunParkFirstEssay 2 - 11 Nov 2024 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Ownership of Data in light of the Government's Subpoena Powers | | | The Right Balance?
Could there be a right balance between privacy and criminal investigations? Finding individual culpability may become increasingly difficult as specific data becomes hidden behind individual privacy protections and third-party subpoenas become unavailable. However, I can foresee that for the investigations of large criminal organizations and enterprises, it may be possible to gather evidence through old methods of physical search warrants (of grabbing the individual’s own computer records) and directly going undercover to become part of the organization to directly obtain evidence. However, based on society’s propensity for some measure of criminal enforcement (the majority of Americans feel it is acceptable for the government to use surveillance tools during criminal investigations(7)), the rights of privacy may result in losing some protections in the criminal justice system. | |
>
> |
It's not clear to me what this draft is about. There seems to be a basic legal error involved in the claim that self-hosted data is somehow exempt from the process of criminal investigation. Search warrants exist, of course. Seizure and search of witness's and targets' devices is routine.
So all the rather bot-like rhetoric about balancing "safety from horrendous crimes" against privacy rights based on unrealistic speculation that self-hosting will destroy law enforcement doesn't make much sense.
The two routes to improvement are more substantive insight and clarity of expression. Chart-bot drafting has to go: we need clear, simple sentences each presenting an idea that advances a well-defined and closely-outlined thesis. And we need that thesis. Perhaps an office-hour discussion will help.
| | |
|
|
|
JiHyunParkFirstEssay 1 - 23 Oct 2024 - Main.JiHyunPark
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Ownership of Data in light of the Government's Subpoena Powers
-- By JiHyunPark - 23 Oct 2024
Introduction
The era of the internet as it is today creates an enormous amount of surveillance towards individuals which presents a concerning breach of privacy to those using the internet and associated tools such as a smartphone. This results in a massive and concerning amount of data collection which can be used to track and monitor personal information from preferences to location data at any given time. On the one hand, the gathered data may be a critical tool to track down dangerous criminals through tools such as subpoena of private companies for information such as emails, bank information, and even GPS location at a certain time without the user knowing. While private corporate third-party control over our data poses a significant concern and risk to our liberty and control over our personal information, the government’s access imposes another layer of concern due to the intrusive and reaching power of the government. Specifically, the government’s access to the data provided by the companies may result in direct loss of liberty through the criminal adjudication process. Through criminal investigation, the information collected by these companies could become the critical piece of evidence that takes away your personal rights and physical freedom through incarceration. At the same time, these tools provide critical pieces of evidence to capture and prevent crimes ranging from fraud to horrific criminal activity such as child pornography. How can we balance the desire to have protection from the intrusiveness granted by third-party information databank access by the government and our desire to create a safer society from abhorrent criminal activity?
The Subpoena Power
The subpoena power by the Department of Justice and enforced by the courts is one of the greatest breaches of our privacy regarding Internet data. The government could access the enormous amount of data collected by several third parties to gather incredibly revealing information about individuals. The government could obtain (and they frequently obtain) significant personal information about an individual such as medical and financial records, contents of email messages, and phone company/ Internet service provider logs (1). The amount of information that third parties hold is massive and can be used to individually target and link your actions to the charged crime. The reach of government power to demand data from third-party companies has extended beyond just American citizens into the possibility of the government being able to demand data from overseas (2). The amount of data and breach of privacy implied by this grant of power by the courts is astounding as it is concerning. Not only can our government reach and access the personal information of its citizens and inhabitants, but it can also reach beyond its borders (3). Even if the private third-party companies were, in a perfect world, to provide airtight protections over the data that they acquire from their users, the concern over government access to these data through a subpoena would remain as large as it is now (4).
Cutting out Third Parties
If society were to shift away from using the internet and relevant technology that is overseen and controlled by private companies as it is now, how would this look for the government’s criminal investigation and trial procedures? In one spectrum, as Professor Moglen suggested, is absolute ownership of our personal data through creating and establishing our own servers and other relevant technology away from third parties. This would prevent a third-party subpoena from being effective, especially since the only way to access this data would be to directly serve the subpoena to the person being investigated. In such a world, you would be exchanging privacy and ownership of personal information with the loss of an effective criminal investigation and enforcement system. In the current scheme, the use of subpoena data plays such a crucial role in criminal investigations that the denial of such information may cripple current investigation methods. It may result in a situation where for privacy, criminals would run free.
Because the person (the suspected criminal defendant) who can provide any incriminating data is the sole owner of that data, investigation and subsequent presentation of evidence in a criminal trial will become increasingly onerous if not impossible. The current law regarding the subpoena of individual papers directly from the defendant is murky. Although there originally was clear protection that the Fifth Amendment prohibited access to personal papers held by the target, subsequent cases by the Supreme Court have suggested otherwise (5)? " target="_top">https://academic.oup.com/chicago-scholarship-online/book/17233/chapter/174630093][(5)]]. A part of it is likely due to the expansive use and lack of clear constitutional protections for third-party subpoenas (6). However, if the only way to obtain clear and convincing evidence is by the defendant giving up incriminating personal information, it would result in the evidence standards and criminal defendant protections favoring the prosecution even more than it does now.
The Right Balance?
Could there be a right balance between privacy and criminal investigations? Finding individual culpability may become increasingly difficult as specific data becomes hidden behind individual privacy protections and third-party subpoenas become unavailable. However, I can foresee that for the investigations of large criminal organizations and enterprises, it may be possible to gather evidence through old methods of physical search warrants (of grabbing the individual’s own computer records) and directly going undercover to become part of the organization to directly obtain evidence. However, based on society’s propensity for some measure of criminal enforcement (the majority of Americans feel it is acceptable for the government to use surveillance tools during criminal investigations(7)), the rights of privacy may result in losing some protections in the criminal justice system.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|