Image by WeMeantDemocracy via Flickr
By Ms. Smith – You realize that “officers who remotely access the computer will not knock and announce their intention to ‘enter’ it to conduct” virtual force searches — not that knocking is necessarily required in real life search-your-house situations. You have the background info now, so next time we’ll assume this snooping software is designed so the malware goes undetected by antivirus. We will focus on how Brenner theorizes remote searches, with or without a warrant, could be justified as not completely trampling the Fourth Amendment. And in some cases, perhaps paving the way in the name of combating cybercrime and botnets, it is not considered to be “spyware.” more> http://tinyurl.com/cudkozb
Related articles
- Reflections on the Oral Argument in United States v. Jones, the GPS Fourth Amendment Case (volokh.com)
- DoJ: Stingray cellphone tracking device falls under Fourth Amendment, but don’t ask about it (engadget.com)
- Obama Administration Argues For “Orwellian” New Powers To Track U.S. Citizens (jonathanturley.org)
- Supreme Court ponders constitutionality of 24/7 GPS tracking (arstechnica.com)
- Court says cellphone ‘traps’ are 4th Amendment searches (electronista.com)
