News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Congress Starts to Get Serious About Online Privacy by dragonwriter on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @01:48PM (#11074952)
> Remember, whenever a warrant is required to get data, that means the defendant cannot get stored data through ANY legal process.

At a minimum, the defense can subpoena the person to whom the data belongs, who is obligated to provide it. The warrant requirement might prevent them from bypassing the data owner and going to the entity storing the data; if this is the case (I'm not sure it is) and if it is a serious issue in practice, it could be addressed -- nothing in the Constitution limits warrant applications to prosecutors, even if that is the usual practice. So, incorporate in statutes creating warrant requirements shall-issue provisions requiring, on a showing of probable cause that material evidence exists, courts to issue warrants on behalf of the defense (either leaving the defense to execute the warrant, or giving the defense the option of executing the warrant themselves or having bailiffs/marshals execute it on behalf of the court) -- the authority to adopt such a rule applicable to federal courts is obvious, to apply it to state authorities one would invoke the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment.

Re:Congress Starts to Get Serious About Online Privacy by dtrizzle on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @02:04PM (#11075110)
About subpoenaing the person who the data belongs to, I agree. However, realistically speaking, this is not an effective way to get the data. In my experience, someone who is about to be exposed and subjected to criminal liability would simply delete the video or remove their access to it.

Note that under 18 U.S. Code § 2704, a related problem is that only governmental entities can require preservation of data.

I have not seen any legal authority for the defense getting a search warrant. If you can find any authority or precedent for that, I would love to see it. It's an awesome idea.

Re:Congress Starts to Get Serious About Online Privacy by dragonwriter on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @02:11PM (#11075154)
> I have not seen any legal authority for the defense getting a search warrant.

I wouldn't expect so, since I proposed creating statutory authority for them as a solution to the problem you described that would seem to be well within the parameters of the Constitution, so that we don't have to sacrifice protection against warrantless searches and seizures by government in order to preserve the rights of defendants to secure evidence for their defense.

I'm quite aware that defense-initiated warrants are not an existing thing.

Re:Congress Starts to Get Serious About Online Privacy by jacquesm on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @03:18PM (#11075650)
> someone who is about to be exposed and subjected to criminal liability would simply delete the video or remove their access to it.

Doesn't that count as obstruction of justice?

Re:Congress Starts to Get Serious About Online Privacy by wyldfire on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @03:49PM (#11075865)
Proving that crime would be a great challenge and the defense has little leverage to bring that charge about.
Re:Congress Starts to Get Serious About Online Privacy by NeutronBoy on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @10:42PM (#11078097)
(IANAL) Probably not if they do it before a warrant is issued.