dagblog - Comments for "The Myth of the Progressive Prosecutor" http://dagblog.com/link/myth-progressive-prosecutor-23698 Comments for "The Myth of the Progressive Prosecutor" en Should Federal Prosecutors Be http://dagblog.com/comment/243992#comment-243992 <a id="comment-243992"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/myth-progressive-prosecutor-23698">The Myth of the Progressive Prosecutor</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div> <p><a class="c-feature__hed-link" href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/microsoft-email-warrant-case/543027/">Should Federal Prosecutors Be Able to Search Americans' Emails Overseas? </a></p> <p><em>The Supreme Court will resolve a standoff between Microsoft and federal prosecutors who want access to customer data stored in Ireland.</em></p> <p>By Matt Ford @ The Atlantic, Oct. 16</p> <blockquote> <p>The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether American courts can issue warrants for data stored overseas under current federal law, adding another major case on digital privacy and the Fourth Amendment to its docket this term.</p> <p>The justices agreed to hear <em>U.S. v. Microsoft</em> on Monday at the request of the federal government. A three-judge panel of federal appellate judges sided with Microsoft last year to quash a warrant issued for emails stored on the tech giant’s servers in Ireland. At stake is whether federal prosecutors can compel Silicon Valley to hand over data from anywhere in the world under existing law, or whether that immense power is bounded by the borders of the United States.</p> <p>Monday’s addition joins <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/supreme-court-carpenter-cases/541524/">a series of major criminal-justice cases</a> on the justices’ plate this term. Foremost among them is <em>Carpenter v. United States</em>, in which the high court will ponder whether the government needs a warrant to obtain the location history of a suspect’s cellphone. Because the existing precedents are four decades old, whatever decision the justices reach will likely be a landmark ruling on the Fourth Amendment’s application to modern technology [....]</p> </blockquote> </div> </div></div></div> Tue, 17 Oct 2017 06:13:25 +0000 artappraiser comment 243992 at http://dagblog.com