WaPo: Volokh Conspiracy: Communications network providers opposed government surveillance — in 1928 by Orin Kerr:

A lot of readers are familiar with Olmstead v. United States, the 1928 Supreme Court case ruling that wiretapping a telephone line is not a Fourth Amendment search. These days, Olmstead is mostly known for later being overruled and for Justice Brandeis’s stirring dissent. But few people know about the fascinating amicus brief filed in Olmstead by a coalition of telephone companies. The brief opposed the government’s surveillance using language that rings a bell with our post-Snowden uptick in provider challenges to government surveillance.

I couldn’t find a copy of the brief online, so I obtained a copy through the GW Law library and have posted it here: Olmstead Telephone Company Amicus Brief.

Privacy nerds will want to read the whole thing. That’s easy to do, as the brief is only eight pages long. But here’s a taste for everyone else: …

NYTimes: Technology Doesn’t Change the Need for Legal Protection by Kami N. Chavis:

Technology is playing a greater role in law enforcement — from robots to “predictive policing” software to “shot spotter” technology — and it can increase efficiency in investigations and offer better protection to both police and the public.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable seizures, so any use of force (deployed by robot or human) must be reasonable in light of the circumstances.
During a time of heightened tensions over policing, however, policy makers must scrutinize the implementation of technological devices, particularly those that can involve the use of deadly force. And police departments with access to this equipment must be trained and adhere to clear guidelines.