Daily Archives: April 26, 2025

WaPo: U.S. autism data project sparks uproar over ethics, privacy and intent

WaPo: U.S. autism data project sparks uproar over ethics, privacy and intent by Ariana Eunjung Cha, Caitlin Gilbert and Fenit Nirappil (“Administration health officials walked back a plan to register people with autism after criticism from scientists, privacy experts and … Continue reading

Posted in Informational privacy | Comments Off on WaPo: U.S. autism data project sparks uproar over ethics, privacy and intent

techdirt: Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare

techdirt: Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare by Cathy Gellis:

Posted in Digital privacy | Comments Off on techdirt: Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare

N.D.Miss.: An actual “bare bones” affidavit for SW leads to suppression

A “bare bones” affidavit for search warrant in a drug case attested to over Facetime with no real support showed “A lackadaisical approach to constitutional safeguards demonstrates a disregard for the judicial system.” Motion to suppress granted; no good faith … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception | Comments Off on N.D.Miss.: An actual “bare bones” affidavit for SW leads to suppression

CA9: Electronic monitoring condition of pretrial release was essentially a contract between def and court, thus consent

The Superior Court of San Francisco imposes electronic monitoring as a condition of pretrial release. Because it’s essentially a contract between the defendant and court, it’s consent to EM for release. It also does not violate state separation of powers. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, GPS / Tracking Data, Inventory, Private search, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA9: Electronic monitoring condition of pretrial release was essentially a contract between def and court, thus consent