VoteKansas.org

LATimes: Who's got your back online? by Michelle Maltais:

Twitter may be full of a bunch of followers, but the social networking site has proved itself a leader when it comes to protecting its users' privacy.

In an annual survey of who's got your back, the Electronic Frontier Foundation gave Twitter three and a half gold stars out of four. New to the list this year, Sonic.net was the only four-star company.

EFF examined the policies of 18 major Internet companies to assess whether they publicly commit to standing with users when the government seeks access to user data. The companies included email providers, ISPs, cloud-storage providers, and social networking sites.

GREENSBORO, N.C. — Jurors in John Edwards campaign corruption trial said Friday they were deadlocked on most charges because the former presidential contender never actually received any money from two wealthy donors to hide his pregnant mistress, and they didn't believe the star witness' account of the cover-up.

On network ...

GREENSBORO, N.C. — Jurors in John Edwards campaign corruption trial said Friday they were deadlocked on most charges because the former presidential contender never actually received any money from two wealthy donors to hide his pregnant mistress, and they didn't believe the star witness' account of the cover-up.

On network ...

NEW YORK — A federal health official is expected to decide within days whether to expand an aid program for anyone sickened by World Trade Center dust to cover cancer, a move that would be cheered by many former ground zero workers, but could also prove costly and come at ...

NEW YORK — A federal health official is expected to decide within days whether to expand an aid program for anyone sickened by World Trade Center dust to cover cancer, a move that would be cheered by many former ground zero workers, but could also prove costly and come at ...

Speaking of the "mosaic theory":

Most cell phone providers keep location data for a year. AT&T has it going back to 2008.
--Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies, The Cato Institute (June 1, 2012)

As cells get smaller, the tracking data gets more accurate.
--Greg Najeim, Senior Counsel, Center for Democracy & Technology (June 1, 2012)

[I just added it up: There were 1572 posts to this website 6/1/11-5/31/12]

The Amvest Post, a private club, had an Ohio liquor license, and health inspectors showed up to investigate complaints of violation of the Ohio's Smoke Free Workplace Act, and they went into areas not open to the public. The entry and inspection did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the club was closely regulated under New York v. Burger. Amvets Post #711 v. Rutter, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74743 (N.D. Ohio May 30, 2012):

Ohio's Smoke Free Act authorizes warrantless administrative searches to protect its citizens against the well-documented dangers of and harms from secondhand smoke. The regulation complies with the requirements the Supreme Court set out in Burger. The Act, therefore, does not violate plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. Because defendants have not violated plaintiff's constitutional rights, they are entitled to dismissal of plaintiff's complaint.

[Note: The court does not differentiate between the liquor licensing authorities and the health department. The point of Burger is the expectation of privacy vis-a-vis one's license. What about inspections unrelated to the license, like here?]

Reasonableness for due process purposes can equal reasonableness for Fourth Amendment purposes. Kinnison v. City of San Antonio, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10937 (5th Cir. May 31, 2012):

"As the text of the Fourth Amendment indicates, the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a government search is 'reasonableness.'" Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 652 (1995). "[A] 'reasonableness' determination[] involves a balancing of all relevant factors," Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 817 (1996), and for Fourth Amendment purposes generally "requires no more of government officials than that of due process of law. Both constitutional provisions recognize an exigency exception, and, thus, lead to no practical distinction in" the summary action context. Flatford v. City of Monroe, 17 F.3d 162, 170 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (1993)); see also Freeman, 242 F.3d at 652 (noting that Supreme Court precedent "forecasts, even if it does not compel, that a balancing of the public and private interests at stake will favor the public interest in nuisance abatement after the conclusion of adequate administrative proceedings" (citing GM Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338 (1977))).

We see no reason to depart from the general practice of tethering the outcome of the Fourth Amendment inquiry to whether the property deprivation offended due process. In light of the procedural due process analysis above, we conclude that the district court should not have granted summary judgment on Kinnison's Fourth Amendment claim. Cf. Samuels v. Meriwether, 94 F.3d 1163, 1168 (8th Cir. 1996) ("[A]n abatement carried out in accordance with procedural due process is reasonable in the absence of any factors that outweigh governmental interests.") (citations omitted).