{"id":61521,"date":"2025-07-23T09:46:39","date_gmt":"2025-07-23T14:46:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=61521"},"modified":"2025-07-23T09:46:39","modified_gmt":"2025-07-23T14:46:39","slug":"law-review-encryption-backdoors-and-the-fourth-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=61521","title":{"rendered":"Law Review: Encryption Backdoors and the Fourth Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Robert M. White, <a href=\"https:\/\/scholarship.law.marquette.edu\/mulr\/vol108\/iss2\/5\/\">Encryption Backdoors and the Fourth Amendment<\/a>, 108 Marq. L. Rev. 465 (2024). Abstract:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<!--more-->\n\n\n\n<p>The National Security Agency (NSA) reportedly paid and pressured technology companies to trick their customers into using vulnerable encryption products. This Article examines whether any of three theories removed the Fourth Amendment\u2019s requirement that this be reasonable. The first is that a challenge to the encryption backdoor might fail for want of a search or seizure. The Article rejects this both because the Amendment reaches some vulnerabilities apart from the searches and seizures they enable and because the creation of this vulnerability was itself a search or seizure. The second is that the role of the technology companies might have brought this backdoor within the private-search doctrine. The Article criticizes the doctrine\u2014 particularly its origins in Burdeau v. McDowell\u2014and argues that if it ever should apply, it should not here. The last is that the customers might have waived their Fourth Amendment rights under the third-party doctrine. The Article rejects this both because the customers were not on notice of the backdoor and because historical understandings of the Amendment would not have tolerated it. The Article concludes that none of these theories removed the Amendment\u2019s reasonableness requirement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Robert M. White, Encryption Backdoors and the Fourth Amendment, 108 Marq. L. Rev. 465 (2024). Abstract:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[76],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-surveillance-technology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61521","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=61521"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61521\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61522,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61521\/revisions\/61522"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=61521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=61521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=61521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}