Police have increasingly used laws allowing for the seizure of property at the time of an arrest as justification for holding on to such property indefinitely. Individuals traveling with cash, electronics, or other valuables have effectively lost ownership of them simply as a result of being arrested—regardless of whether they were found guilty or innocent of any alleged crime, in some cases absent any charges at all.

In a case that made its way to United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Circuit Judges Gregory G. Katsas and Karen L. Henderson, as well as Senior Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards, acknowledged that police are entitled to seize property in the course of an arrest.

The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Under settled law, a seizure of personal effects incident to a lawful arrest is reasonable.

The judges then addressed whether the Fourth Amendment’s protections also applied to the length of time police could hold seized property.

This case presents the question whether the Fourth Amendment requires that any continued retention of such personal property—even after release of the arrested individuals—must also be reasonable. We hold that it does.

The Cases In Question

The judges then went on to highlight what has become an all-too common refrain, namely police continuing to hold on to seized property for months or years after seizure, despite no charges being filed.

In Cameron v. District of Columbia, five plaintiffs allege that they were among some 40 individuals arrested in a protest on August 13, 2020. Upon arresting them, the Metropolitan Police Department seized their personal effects, including their cell phones. The plaintiffs were quickly released, and the MPD neither pressed charges nor sought warrants to search or continue to possess the phones. Despite many phone calls and emails to the MPD and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the plaintiffs were unable to get their phones back.

After more than a year of trying to have their property returned, the plaintiffs sued the District in federal court, a case that was ultimately dismissed. The soonest the plaintiffs were able to recover their phones was after 285 days. Others were able to do so after 312 days, and some more than a year and two months after they were arrested.

In yet another cited case, which was also dismissed by the district court, a journalist was arrested for photographing the protests. Like the original plaintiffs, hi was not charged, yet his cell phone was kept for nearly a year.

The judges again separate the validity of the initial arrest and seizure, versus the length of time the property remained in police custody.

All agree that the MPD’s arrest of the plaintiffs was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. And it is blackletter aw that, during an arrest, police may seize personal property held by the arrestee without a warrant….So the District’s initial seizure of the plaintiffs’ effects did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The question before us is whether the Fourth Amendment has anything to say about the many months in which the MPD allegedly continued to hold the plaintiffs’ effects with no legitimate investigatory or protective purpose. The District answers no. It contends that the Fourth Amendment governs the government’s taking of possession of an individual’s personal property, but not the government’s continued possession of the property.

We disagree. When the government seizes property incident to a lawful arrest, the Fourth Amendment requires that any continued possession of the property must be reasonable. We reach this conclusion based on the Fourth Amendment’s text and history, as well as modern Supreme Court precedents regarding the constitutionally permissible duration of seizures, whether of property or persons.

Supreme Court Precedent

Throughout their decision, the D.C. Circuit judges relied heavily on a 1984 decision by the Supreme Court in United States v. Jacobsen.

In United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984), the government seized white powder, tested it, and determined that it was cocaine. Id. at 111. The Court had no trouble holding that the initial seizure was lawful because it was supported by probable cause. Id. at 120–22. But the Court was not finished; it also analyzed whether the field test was reasonable, because “a seizure lawful at its inception can nevertheless violate the Fourth Amendment because its manner of execution unreasonably infringes possessory interests protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘unreasonable seizures.’” Id. at 124. The Court further explained that a seizure could become “unreasonable because its length unduly intruded upon constitutionally protected interests.”

The judges make the case that the seizure crossed into similar territory because of the length of time the MPD retained the plaintiffs’ phones, as well as the harm the plaintiffs suffered as a result.

These principles govern this case. The MPD’s initial seizure of the plaintiffs’ effects was lawful because it was incident to their arrests. Such seizures are reasonable to protect the safety of arresting officers and to prevent any destruction of evidence. See Riley, 573 U.S. at 381–85. But here, the plaintiffs allege that the government continued to possess their property for many months after it lacked any legitimate interest in protecting officers or investigating possible criminal behavior. And after the government’s legitimate interests dissipated, harm to the plaintiffs continued to accrue: It is one thing not to have access to a cell phone while spending a night in jail. It is quite another not to have access to it for the following year. Some plaintiffs allege that they had to replace their phones, a significant financial harm. And some allege that they lost access to important information like passwords, photographs, and contact information for friends and family. So the plaintiffs have alleged that the seizures at issue, though lawful at their inception, later came to unreasonably interfere with their protected possessory interests in their own property

Historical Context

The Judges also go into a lengthy analysis of whether the Fourth Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” applies only to the moment of seizure—in which case the original district court’s decision was correct—or if it applies to the entire time a person’s property remains seized.

While the Fourth Amendment does not explicitly spell out which scenario is meant, the court was able to apply historical context in their decision.

History helps resolve this semantic ambiguity. Because the Fourth Amendment codified a “pre-existing right,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), it “must be read in light of” its history, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 760–61 (1969). And history favors the plaintiffs. As explained below, the Fourth Amendment protects possessory interests against government infringement in the same way that Founding-era common law protected possessory interests against private infringement. And the common law authorized actions for damages and recovery of property that was lawfully taken, but then unlawfully possessed. History thus indicates that the government’s continued possession of the plaintiffs’ property must be reasonable.

The Fourth Amendment grew out of Antifederalist criticism of the original Constitution. Patrick Henry opposed ratification in part because “any man may be seized, any property may be taken, in the most arbitrary manner, without any evidence or reason.” 3 Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 588 (Jonathan Elliott ed., 1891). This criticism was especially salient to the many who considered the Crown’s seizures of personal property to be among the grievances justifying the Revolutionary War—with some colonists comparing British officers to “thieves” or lamenting that they would “take and carry away” their property without cause.

Taking that historical context into account, the court came to the conclusion that the Fourth Amendment must apply to the length of the seizure.

In other words, the common law recognized that property interests are impaired not only at the instant when an owner loses possession, but also for as long as the owner cannot get the property back. And it provided remedies for wrongful interference with possessory rights regardless of whether the interference became wrongful at the moment of the initial seizure or only later. This history indicates that the Fourth Amendment governs the MPD’s continued retention, as well as its taking possession, of the plaintiffs’ property.

Mixed Legal Precedent

Despite the well-reasoned explanation, the D.C. Circuit is someone unique in its decision. In a concurring opinion, Judge Henderson acknowledged that five other circuit courts―the First, Second, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh—have arrived at different decisions. As Judge Henderson points out, however, the other courts failed to take into account the Supreme Court precedent.

Granted, we should hesitate before rejecting a robust consensus from our sister circuits but here, I believe, their reasoning lacks the power to persuade because they fail to discuss the key Supreme Court precedent, United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984).

The D.C. Circuit’s decision will likely have a profound impact on police seizures moving forward, providing citizens a level of protection imagined by the Founding Fathers.

The decision comes on the heels of two other decisions strengthening citizens’ rights, one that ruled ruled the Fourth Amendment applies at the US border, and the other ruling that geofence warrants are “categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.”

The Rise and Fall of Traditional Digital Transformation

The concept of digital transformation gained widespread traction after 2011 when Capgemini, in collaboration with MIT, defined it as “the use of technology to radically improve performance or reach of businesses.” This definition catalyzed a wave of digital initiatives across industries, as companies scrambled to adopt new technologies like cloud computing, big data, and social media to stay relevant. However, as Jim Harris, a digital transformation thought leader, points out, “Generative AI exposed the incomplete nature of digital transformation investments, emphasizing the pressing need to transform for an entirely new future of business.”

In its early years, digital transformation was often misunderstood. Companies equated it with digitization—simply implementing digital tools without fundamentally changing their business processes or models. This approach led to what many now consider the underwhelming outcomes of digital transformation. As Harris observed, “Digital transformation wasn’t really about transformation. Instead, a vast majority of companies were investing in digitization. Cloud and digital technologies were used to modernize business as usual rather than focus on transformative outcomes.”

This misalignment is evident in the numbers. According to KPMG’s 2023 Technology Survey, a majority of U.S. executives reported that they had not seen a significant increase in performance or profitability from their digital transformation investments. Further research from Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that 70% of digital transformations fall short of their objectives, often with profound consequences. However, companies that genuinely embraced digital transformation—investing in competitiveness, productivity improvements, and better customer experiences—outperformed their peers, achieving 1.8 times higher earnings growth.

The Generative AI Revolution: A New Chapter in Business Transformation

The introduction of generative AI has sparked a new wave of business transformation, challenging the effectiveness of past digital transformation efforts. Unlike its predecessors, generative AI offers capabilities that extend beyond mere automation of existing processes—it enables entirely new ways of doing business. This distinction is crucial, as it marks the shift from technology-led transformation to executive-led business reformation.

Accenture’s 2024 report highlighted this shift, noting nearly 40,000 mentions of AI on earnings calls by the end of 2023, as C-Suite leaders prepared for a “massive technology shift.” The report underscores the fact that AI is no longer just a tool for efficiency; it’s a strategic asset that can fundamentally alter business models. As Harris aptly puts it, “Given its enormous potential, it should be no surprise that almost every CEO plans to invest heavily in generative AI.”

Yet, despite the enthusiasm, there is already a notable gap between expectations and reality. BCG research indicates that 66% of leaders are “ambivalent or outright dissatisfied” with their AI and generative AI progress. The main barriers include a lack of talent and skills, unclear AI roadmaps, and the absence of a dedicated AI strategy. This disconnect highlights the growing pains of a new era of transformation—one that demands more than just investment in technology, but a rethinking of business strategies and models.

From Automation to Augmentation: The Dual Nature of AI

One of the most significant distinctions between traditional digital transformation and the current AI-driven wave is the shift from automation to augmentation. Automation has long been a focus of digital transformation—using technology to streamline operations, reduce costs, and increase efficiency. While this approach has delivered benefits, it has also limited the scope of transformation to incremental improvements rather than radical innovation.

Generative AI changes this dynamic by introducing the concept of augmentation—enhancing human capabilities to achieve outcomes that were previously unattainable. Harris explains the difference: “Automation takes the work we did yesterday and repeats it at scale, saving costs while increasing efficiencies. Augmentation unlocks new opportunities to do the work we couldn’t do yesterday and achieve new value and outcomes tomorrow.”

This duality is where the true potential of AI lies. Companies that can successfully integrate both automation and augmentation into their operations will not only improve efficiency but also drive exponential growth and innovation. According to PwC’s 27th Annual CEO Survey, 70% of global CEOs see generative AI as significantly changing the way companies create, deliver, and capture value. Moreover, 64% believe that AI will increase the amount of work employees can accomplish, and 59% see it boosting productivity in their work.

Business Model Innovation: The Next Frontier

As companies grapple with the implications of AI, it’s becoming clear that the next phase of transformation will require more than just technological adoption. It will demand a fundamental rethinking of business models—how companies generate revenue, engage with customers, and deliver value. This shift from digital transformation to business model innovation represents the true endgame of the current technological revolution.

As Harris points out, the failure of many digital transformations can be traced back to a lack of clear goals, vision, and strategic alignment with the core business. “Investments hadn’t tied as much to business strategy and goals as they were to iterative improvements, digitization, shiny objects, unrealistic expectations, under-resourced budgets, training, expertise, and resources, and a lack of commitment to change management.” To succeed in the AI era, businesses must start with a clear vision of what they want to achieve and align their AI investments with strategic business objectives.

This shift is already underway. Cisco’s research identified significant gaps in companies’ readiness to embrace AI across six foundational business pillars: strategy, infrastructure, data, governance, talent, and culture. These pillars are critical for building a robust AI-driven business model that can adapt and thrive in an increasingly competitive landscape.

Leadership in the Age of AI: Driving Cultural and Organizational Change

One of the key lessons from the digital transformation era is the importance of leadership in driving change. Too often, digital initiatives were relegated to IT departments, with little involvement from top executives. This lack of leadership support contributed to the underwhelming results of many digital transformation efforts.

In contrast, the current wave of AI-driven transformation is being led by CEOs and CFOs, who recognize the strategic importance of AI in shaping the future of their businesses. As Harris notes, “Leaders are pivotal in driving change. They communicate vision, set the standards for success, and also set the bar for operationalizing future behaviors and norms. CEOs are responsible for creating the culture that the company embodies in its execution and evolution.”

This cultural shift is crucial. For AI to deliver on its potential, companies must foster a digital-first mindset that encourages agility, experimentation, and innovation. This means not just upskilling employees but also reshaping organizational culture to support transformation. Companies that succeed in this will be those that can inspire and empower their employees to embrace new tools and ways of working, driving continuous innovation and growth.

The Future of Business Transformation

As we look ahead, it’s clear that the transformation of digital transformation is just beginning. Generative AI and other emerging technologies are poised to reshape industries and redefine how businesses operate. But for companies to fully realize the benefits of these technologies, they must move beyond the limitations of past digital transformation efforts and embrace a more holistic approach to business model innovation.

This means rethinking not just how they use technology, but how they structure their organizations, engage with customers, and create value. As Harris concludes, “Let’s rethink digital transformation as business model transformation. Doing so will disrupt not only ourselves but entire industries. Not doing so will leave us open to disruption. It’s a gift we either give ourselves or our competitors.”

In the end, the companies that will thrive in this new era are those that can successfully navigate the complexities of AI and use it not just to automate, but to innovate. By placing AI at the core of their business strategies and fostering a culture of continuous learning and adaptation, they can turn the challenges of today into the opportunities of tomorrow.

A three-judge panel—Judges Carolyn Dineen King, James C. Ho, and Kurt D. Engelhardt—overturned a ruling by the Fourth Circuit to conclude that geofence warrants are unconstitutional.

We hold that the use of geofence warrants—at least as described herein—is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. In doing so, we part ways with our esteemed colleagues on the Fourth Circuit.

What Is A Geofence Warrant?

Geofence warrants are a relatively new type of warrant in which law enforcement tries to identify random individuals within a geographic area based on Google Location History data.

For example, when a crime is committed, law enforcement may approach Google and ask for anonymized identifiers for all phones within a certain radius of the crime at the time it was committed. With that data in hand, investigators can drill down, comparing it with other evidence and eventually identify the owners of specific devices, yielding potential suspects.

As the judges point out, Google is the primary recipient of goefence warrants since it received the first one in 2016. Much of this is because of the ubiquity of Google’s software and services, both on its own devices as well as Apple’s.

So far, Google has been the primary recipient of geofence warrants, in large part due to its extensive Location History database, known as the “Sensorvault.”

Google collects data from accounts of users who opt in to Google’s Location History service. Location History is disabled by default.

Google’s Android cell phones, which “comprise about 74% of the total number of smartphones worldwide,” “automatically have an Android operating system, as well as various Google apps that could potentially store a user’s location.”

Apple, which makes approximately 23% of the world’s smartphones, does not keep location data associated with its phones, but its phones still “often have various apps that . . . provide Google with a specific device’s location.”

The judges go on to describe the extremely detailed data provided by Google’s Location History.

Moreover, not only is the volume of data comprehensive, so is the quality. “Location History appears to be the most sweeping, granular, and comprehensive tool—to a significant degree—when it comes to collecting and storing location data.”

The data is “considerably more precise than other kinds of location data, including cellsite location information because [Location History] is determined based on multiple inputs, including GPS signals, signals from nearby Wi-Fi networks, Bluetooth beacons, and cell towers.”

Why Geofence Warrants Are Problematic

Geofence warrants can and do lead to innocent people being suspected of crimes. A person may be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and suddenly find themselves at the heart of an investigation. Similarly, a person may have lost their phone, forgotten it, or had it stolen, all of which could result in someone’s phone being within a geofence area, even if the owner is not.

Even more concerning is the vast amount of private data that is vacuumed up in a geofence warrant, with the location data of users who have nothing to do with the crime being collected and analyzed, all with no probable cause.

As federal judge Nina Morrison said in a recent ruling about the Fourth Amendment’s application at the US border, a person’s location data hold extremely private insights into a person’s personal life, associations, and beliefs:

In Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 311–12 (2018), the Court concluded that cell-site location data, even though it is collected by (and thus not kept private from) third party cell phone companies, requires Fourth Amendment protection for precisely this reason….It reasoned that cell-site location data “provides an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts. As with GPS information, the time-stamped data provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his ‘familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.’”

The Legal Precedent

Interestingly, in the specific case before the Fifth Circuit—the robbery of a contracted US Postal carrier—the judges decided not to suppress the information that law enforcement collected via a geofence warrant. Because geofence warrants were so new at the time they were used in this specific case, the judges ruled the Postal Inspectors “acted in good faith” in using the warrant.

Nonetheless, the judges looked at the broader scope of the geofence warrant issue and analyzed whether such warrants violate the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The judges then pointed to the precedent set by the Supreme Courts decision in Carpenter v. United States, “arguably the most relevant Supreme Court precedent addressing law enforcement’s investigatory use of cellular consumer data.

Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion in Carpenter speaks at length about the privacy interests inherent in location data, and it expresses grave concern with the government being able to comprehensively track a person’s movement with relative ease due to the ubiquity of cell phone possession. The Court acknowledged “some basic guideposts” in resolving questions related to the Fourth Amendment’s protections of privacy interests, including securing “the privacies of life against arbitrary power,” and placing “obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance.” Carpenter, 585 U.S. at 305 (internal quotations omitted). The Court also recognized the necessity of applying the Fourth Amendment to systems of advanced technology, expressing concern that CSLI is approaching “GPS-level precision,” with wireless carriers having the capability to “pinpoint a phone’s location within 50 meters.” Id. at 313; see also Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 396 (2014) (acknowledging the privacy concerns implicated by cell phone location data that “can reconstruct someone’s specific movements down to the minute, not only around town but also within a particular building”).

Many of the concerns expressed by Chief Justice Roberts in his Carpenter opinion are highly salient in the context of geofence warrants. Perhaps the most alarming aspect of geofences is the potential for “permeating police surveillance.” As Chief Justice Roberts explained, modern cell phones enable the government to achieve “near perfect surveillance”; carrying one of these devices is essentially a prerequisite to participation in modern society, and users “compulsively carry cell phones with them all the time.” Id. at 311–12, 315. Geofences also exemplify the Court’s concern with pinpoint location data—this technology provides more precise location data than either CSLI or GPS. Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment, supra at 2510. Furthermore, obtaining data through geofences, like obtaining data through CSLI, is “remarkably cheap, easy, and efficient compared to traditional investigative tools.” Carpenter, 585 U.S. at 311. With “just the click of a button,” the government can search the pinpoint locations of over half a billion people with Location History enabled.

The Court’s Conclusion

After carefully considering all of the above factors, as well as how hard it is to keep Google from collecting Location History, the judges revealed their ruling.

Having concluded that the acquisition of Location History data via a geofence is a search, it follows that the government must generally obtain a warrant supported by probable cause and particularity before requesting such information. Carpenter, 585 U.S. at 316. Accordingly, we turn to the issue of whether geofence warrants satisfy this mandate, addressing Appellants’ argument that these novel warrants resemble unconstitutional general warrants prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

The judges then drive the point home in their comparison of geofence warrants and illegal general warrants.

Geofence warrants present the exact sort of “general, exploratory rummaging” that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent.

The judges also addressed the governments assertion that geofence warrants should be exempt since they pertain “to a particular crime at a particular place and time.”

This argument misses the mark. While the results of a geofence warrant may be narrowly tailored, the search itself is not. A general warrant cannot be saved simply by arguing that, after the search has been performed, the information received was narrowly tailored to the crime being investigated. These geofence warrants fail at Step 1—they allow law enforcement to rummage through troves of location data from hundreds of millions of Google users without any description of the particular suspect or suspects to be found.

In sum, geofence warrants are “[e]mblematic of general warrants” and are “highly suspect per se.”

We hold that geofence warrants are modern-day general warrants and are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. However, considering law enforcement’s reasonable conduct in this case in light of the novelty of this type of warrant, we uphold the district court’s determination that suppression was unwarranted under the good-faith exception.

The Decision Will Hamper Law Enforcement

In a concurring opinion, Judge Ho acknowledged that the decision would make law enforcement’s jobs more difficult. Nonetheless, Judge Ho pointed out that this was the entire point of the Constitution.

His concurring opinion is a fascinating look into the balancing act that exists between protecting the public, while also protecting the rights of the individual. His opinion bears being included in its entirety.

Geofence warrants are powerful tools for investigating and deterring crime. The defendants here engaged in a violent robbery—and likely would have gotten away with it, but for this new technology. So I fully recognize that our panel decision today will inevitably hamper legitimate law enforcement interests.

But hamstringing the government is the whole point of our Constitution. Our Founders recognized that the government will not always be comprised of publicly-spirited officers—and that even good faith actors can be overcome by the zealous pursuit of legitimate public interests. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” The Federalist No. 51, at 349 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Id. But “experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Id. It’s because of “human nature” that it’s “necessary to control the abuses of government.” Id.

Our decision today is not costless. But our rights are priceless. Reasonable minds can differ, of course, over the proper balance to strike between public interests and individual rights. Time and again, modern technology has proven to be a blessing as well as a curse. Our panel decision today endeavors to apply our Founding charter to the realities of modern technology, consistent with governing precedent. I concur in that decision.

First spotted by Kotaku, Game Informer’s official X account announced the news.

The Final Level: Farewell from Game Informer

After 33 thrilling years of bringing the the latest news, reviews, and insights from the ever-evolving world of gaming, it is with a heavy heart that we announce the closure of Game Informer.

From the early days of pixelated adventures to today’s immersive virtual realms, we’ve been honored to share this incredible journey with you, our loyal readers. While our presses may stop, the passion for gaming that we’ve cultivated together will continue to live on.

Thank you for being part of our epic quest, and may your own gaming adventures never end.

Game Informer (@gameinformer) | August 2, 2024

Game Informer’s closure is the end of an era, as it was the last print magazine in the US gaming industry. According to Kotaku, the entire staff was laid off as part of the closure.

Background

Judge Nina Morrison, of the Eastern District of New York, ruled that Customs and Border Patrol needs probable cause and a valid warrant to seize and search travelers’ cell phones.

The ruling—at least in the Eastern District of New York—is a major blow to federal agents, who have long maintained that the Fourth Amendment does not apply at the border. As a result, it has become increasingly common for individuals to be forced to hand over their device and passcode, giving agents the ability to peruse their private information. In many cases, agents have made full copies of the contents of a person’s phone before returning it.

Judge Morrison’s ruling joins a number of similar decisions, helping set a legal precedent that may one day provide nationwide protection for travelers and their private data.

Why It Matters

Unfortunately, a number of the cases that have tackled the issue of data privacy at the border have involved individuals engaging in despicable behavior. For example, the plaintiff in the case before Judge Morrison was accused of possessing child sexual abuse material.

Criminal behavior is far from the only reason for protecting one’s data at the border, however. In fact, there are many legitimate reasons why perfectly law-abiding citizens should be concerned. Below are just a few examples.

Journalists

As Judge Morrison noted in her ruling, journalists have increasingly been targeted by CBP agents intent on searching their devices. This has especially been true among journalists who write about privacy and other politically sensitive topics. As Judge Morrison described, this action appears to be a coordinated effort to surveil journalists.

After formal complaints were filed regarding a series of such incidents in 2019, it was revealed that they may not have been the isolated acts of individual border agents who suspected that a particular traveler’s device contained contraband but instead part of a targeted effort to surveil journalists in particular: a non-public CBP database that contained the names of journalists covering migration issues and which pushed “alerts” to flag those journalists for secondary screening when they returned from international travel.

Judge Morrison goes on to say that this kind of surveillance, whether coordinated or not, severely undermines the ability of journalists to do their job.

And even without the specter of a larger, insidious effort targeting journalists at the border, there remains a considerable and undue risk that — without the safeguards of a judicial warrant — journalists’ sources in and outside the United States will be fearful of relaying information about matters of public concern to them.

Medical and Science Professionals

Medicals professionals are bound by law to protect their patients’ privacy. What happens, however, when agents seize a doctor’s devices, devices which may contain sensitive information?

Similarly, what about a scientist en route to a conference with sensitive research in their possession?

Entrepreneurs and Executives

Entrepreneurs and corporate executives often have access to sensitive information and corporate, and it’s not uncommon for them to bring projects with them so they can continuing working while traveling.

Unfortunately, under CBP’s interpretation of the law, such individuals could see their life’s work literally ripped from their hands and copied by other individuals. While that doesn’t mean the US government is going to steal their intellectual property, government agencies are no more immune to outside hackers or internal corruption than any other organization.

In short, once an individual loses control of their information, all bets are off on what may happen to it.

Religious Leaders

Religious leaders are another demographic that often are privy to private information, with a moral and ethical responsibility to protect the privacy of individuals who have confided in them. If a religious leader’s devices are confiscated, unlocked, and copied, is there any guarantee that sensitive information contained on those devices will remain private?

Other Considerations

As the above examples show, there are any number of situations—far more than what has been covered here—in which violating travelers’ privacy can have profoundly negative implications. And none of the above examples address the emotional toll of having one’s private data accessed by complete strangers, something Judge Morrison made special note of.

A person’s search history can reveal the questions that keep him up at night, including questions he might be too ashamed to ask his spouse or doctor. Data on a person’s cell phone may reflect information about her that is so private, she would not disclose it to her therapist or closest friend. It is not just that cell phones often contain intimate information available in microscopic detail — the number of steps the phone’s user took that day and where she took them, the results of recent blood work in the application where her doctor uploads all her medical records, or the calendar reminder for a meeting with her local Alcoholics Anonymous chapter or prayer group. It i s that the details, taken together, can provide a kaleidoscopic view of the user’s whole life.

In view of what’s at stake, what can travelers do?

Practical Steps to Protect Your Data

The first thing travelers must do is realize they must be proactive in protecting their data, especially in jurisdictions that are not covered by favorable decisions, like Judge Morrison’s. Unfortunately, this may at times result in a fair amount of inconvenience, but not nearly as much as losing control of one’s private data and having to deal with the fallout.

Below are a few steps travelers should consider taking.

Limit the Number of Devices

One of the biggest precautions travelers can take is limiting the number of devices they bring when traveling. A single smartphone is much easier to protect than a smartphone, tablet, and computer. The more devices that are in play, the more attack vectors agents have to compromise an individual’s privacy.

Disable Biometrics In Favor of Passwords/Passcodes

While fingerprints and facial recognition are convenient ways to unlock a device, they also represent a legal gray area.

A number of courts have ruled that law enforcement cannot force a person to hand over their password or passcode. Some of those courts, however, have ruled that biometric security measures do not have the same legal protection, meaning there is more of a legal basis for agents to force a user to provide a fingerprint or facial recognition unlock.

As a result, it’s better to simply disable biometrics and rely on good old-fashioned passcodes when traveling.

Log Out of Cloud Accounts

Most modern devices should be viewed as a doorway to an individual’s life, rather than the destination itself. In other words, with the rise of cloud computing, most users don’t just keep everything on a single device. Instead, that device is often connected to any number of cloud services that contain infinitely more data than resides on the device alone.

In fact, this concern was specifically mentioned by the Ninth Circuit Court in one of its rulings (via the Electronic Frontier Foundation).

With the ubiquity of cloud computing, the government’s reach into private data becomes even more problematic. In the “cloud,” a user’s data, including the same kind of highly sensitive data one would have in “papers” at home, is held on remote servers rather than on the device itself. The digital device is a conduit to retrieving information from the cloud, akin to the key to a safe deposit box. Notably, although the virtual “safe deposit box” does not itself cross the border, it may appear as a seamless part of the digital device when presented at the border.

Because of this, it’s important to log out of any cloud services before traveling, that way agents cannot gain access to the data stored on those accounts, even if they gain access to the device’s contents.

Importantly, this also means making sure that passwords to online accounts are properly cleared before traveling. Otherwise, agents could still gain access.

Use Full Disk Encryption

Every major operating system—Linux, macOS, Windows, Android, and iOS—provide the option for full disk encryption (FDE), with some enabling it by default. This is different than encrypting specific folders, such as a user’s home directory, and is far stronger.

Power Off Devices Rather Than Suspend

Travelers should make sure that devices are powered off when crossing a border, rather than merely suspending them. This is especially true of computers, but applies to mobile devices as well.

While computers, phones, and tablets have login screens designed to protect data when a device is suspended, or the screen is locked, these measures are not foolproof. There are a number of ways that lock screens can sometimes be bypassed.

As a result, for the best protection, it’s a good idea to completely power devices off.

Use Secure Boot On Windows and Linux Computers

Travelers should make sure Secure Boot is enabled on computers. Secure Boot is designed to protect the boot process and ensure that no outside software is introduced in an effort to gain access.

In many cases, Secure Boot is enabled by default, but one should check their UEFI settings to be sure.

Use Panic Mode, Lockdown Mode, or Duress Code

Most mobile devices have some form of feature designed to shut down the most vulnerable forms of attack. This is useful for those situations when a traveler must keep their phone while traveling.

For example, iOS has Panic Mode that disables facial recognition and fingerprint scanning, requiring the user enter a passcode. When the feature is activated, via Settings > Emergency SOS, a user can tap the power button five times to activate it.

Android has a similar feature called Lockdown. A user can simply hold the power button down and choose Lockdown from the on-screen popup.

GrapheneOS—a security hardened version of Android used by Edward Snowden, yours truly, and many other journalists—takes things a step further with a duress code. In other words, a user can set a duress code in GrapheneOS that can be given to someone instead of the phone’s real passcode. When the duress code is entered, the phone immediately and securely wipes all data from itself.

Legal Steps to Protect Private Data

While the above steps are practical measures travelers can take, there are legal factors to consider, as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

As the EFF highlights, even in areas not covered by the recent favorable court rulings, the border is not completely a legal Wild West.

However, the U.S. border is not a Constitution-free zone. The powers of border agents are tempered by our Fourth Amendment right to digital privacy, our First Amendment rights to speak and associate privately and to gather the news, our Fifth Amendment right to freedom from self-incrimination, and our Fourteenth Amendment right to freedom from discrimination.

The EFF goes on to point out that travelers must be aware of the distinction between routine searches and non-routine ones. For example, it is completely normal and routine for agents to search one’s bags or belongs, either via a metal detector or manually.

In contrast, the EFF maintains that searching, let alone copying, the contents of one’s digital devices constitutes a non-routine search, a position that at least some court decisions have supported.

In view of these issues, what should a person do?

Do Not Be Quick to Waive Constitutional Rights

The EFF makes the case that travelers—especially US citizens—should not be quick to waive their constitutional protections.

The constitutional protections described above can be waived. For example, the Fourth Amendment allows law enforcement officials to search people or their property if those people voluntarily consent to the search.

That said, whether consent is truly “voluntary” depends on the totality of the circumstances, such as the nature of the questioning and the youth of the person being questioned.66 There is a strong argument that a traveler’s compliance when border agents demand the unlocking of a device, the device password, or social media information, should never be treated as voluntary consent. Border screening is an inherently coercive environment, where agents exercise extraordinary powers, and travelers are often confused, tired after international travel, and/or rushing to make a connecting flight.

However, courts may rule otherwise. It is possible that if you unlock your device, and agents then search your device, a court will rule that you consented to the search. It will depend upon the totality of the unique circumstances surrounding your particular border crossing.

…the best way to avoid an inadvertent “consent” to search is to decline to unlock your device, provide the device password, or provide any social media information.

The EFF’s report is well worth a read, and goes into detail on the various factors that come into play when the individual is a foreign visitor or a permanent resident.

Conclusion

Until legislation or a Supreme Court ruling provides clear guidelines and protections that apply nationwide, the border will continue to be a gray area that affords more protections in some regions than in others.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed, and nowhere is that more true than when it comes to protecting one’s private data.

Following the steps in this article, as well as the excellent EFF report, can help travelers be as well-equipped as possible to protect their data at the border.

EFF Full Report.

The US government and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) has long maintained that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply at the border. As a result, agents will detain individuals without probable cause or a warrant, demanding they hand over their electronic devices and passwords, often copying the entire contents of the devices before returning them.

In a case brought by Kurbonali Sultanov, Judge Morrison called out the government’s position that cell phones should be searchable without a warrant, saying it was a “remarkable” claim (documents courtesy of Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University).

The government takes the remarkable position here that cell phones should not be treated any differently for Fourth Amendment purposes than any other property a traveler carries across a border. Opp’n Br. It urges this Court to deem such searches “routine” and to hold that no individualized suspicion whatsoever is needed for border officials to search a traveler’s cell phone upon entry into the United States….In essence, the government argues that no practical limits should be placed on cell phone searches at the border whatsoever, as long as they fall into what agents categorize as a “manual” search (i.e., one unaided by extrinsic technology but limited only by the border agents’ time and interest in examining the phone’s contents).

And the government’s position fails to account for both the substantial privacy intrusions at issue here, as well as the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence concerning other advanced technologies that carry with them the potential to reveal vast amounts of the owner’s personal data.

Legal Precedent

Judge Morrison emphasized the sensitive nature of data that is available through a forcible search of one’s phone, and the intimate details of a person’s life such a search would reveal.

Until technology that can “translate people’s brain activity — like the unspoken thoughts swirling through our minds — into actual speech” meaningfully advances,8 reviewing the information in a person’s cell phone is the best approximation government officials have for mindreading. A person’s search history can reveal the questions that keep him up at night, including questions he might be too ashamed to ask his spouse or doctor. Data on a person’s cell phone may reflect information about her that is so private, she would not disclose it to her therapist or closest friend. It is not just that cell phones often contain intimate information available in microscopic detail — the number of steps the phone’s user took that day and where she took them, the results of recent blood work in the application where her doctor uploads all her medical records, or the calendar reminder for a meeting with her local Alcoholics Anonymous chapter or prayer group. It i s that the details, taken together, can provide a kaleidoscopic view of the user’s whole life.

Judge Morrison compares the situation to previous rulings that applied the Fourth Amendment to cell phone location data.

In Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 311–12 (2018), the Court concluded that cell-site location data, even though it is collected by (and thus not kept private from) third party cell phone companies, requires Fourth Amendment protection for precisely this reason….It reasoned that cell-site location data “provides an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts. As with GPS information, the time-stamped data provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his ‘familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.’”

Judge Morrison then makes the point that, if protections apply to location data, they should apply even more to data on one’s phone.

The logic of Carpenter applies with even greater force to the information contained on cell phones, which includes not only the historic and specific location information captured by cell-site data, but droves of other sensitive information that is “detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled.” Id. at 297. If the cell-site location records at issue in Carpenter hold “the privacies of life,” id.at 305 (citation omitted), then surely the heightened privacy interests associated with the far greater trove of information in a traveler’s cell phone data strike at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment.

The case also shown a spotlight on issues involving journalists, in which many have seemingly been targeted by border agents, especially after writing pieces about sensitive political topics.

The amici brief filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press makes a persuasive case that warrantless searches of cell phones not only constitute an unjustified governmental intrusion into travelers’ private expressions of religion, personal associations, and journalistic endeavors — they also risk chilling the exercise of those rights. Specifically, amici assert that border searches of electronic devices burden freedom of the press by chilling reporter-source communications. Amici Br. 12. They argue that “[j]ournalists are particularly vulnerable to the chilling effects of electronic device searches, both because confidential or vulnerable sources may refuse to speak with reporters for fear that anything they say may end up in the government’s hands, and because such searches can be used to retaliate against or deter reporting critical of the government.”

Judge Morrison said there is evidence to support the belief that incidents with journalists were not random, nor were they the work of overzealous agents, but likely a “targeted effort to surveil journalists.”

Amici’s concerns are not hypothetical but instead are based on the recent experience of numerous journalists who were flagged for secondary inspection and were required to surrender their electronic devices for warrantless searches and, in some cases, downloading of the devices’ contact lists and contents based on these journalists’ ongoing coverage of politically sensitive issues, like migration through the U.S.-Mexico border.12 After formal complaints were filed regarding a series of such incidents in 2019, it was revealed that they may not have been the isolated acts of individual border agents who suspected that a particular traveler’s device contained contraband but instead part of a targeted effort to surveil journalists in particular: a non-public CBP database that contained the names of journalists covering migration issues and which pushed “alerts” to flag those journalists for secondary screening when they returned from international travel.13 And even without the specter of a larger, insidious effort targeting journalists at the border, there remains a considerable and undue risk that — without the safeguards of a judicial warrant — journalists’ sources in and outside the United States will be fearful of relaying information about matters of public concern to them. If journalists cannot reasonably assure their sources that border officials will not have broad discretion to access and download their contacts, notes, electronic messages, and recordings, the risk of chilling fundamental press activities is unduly high.

Conclusion

In her final conclusion, Judge Morrison ruled that probable cause and a warrant must be the bar that is met for the government to be given access to such an intimate look into the life of individuals.

The right to dissent is the “fixed star in our constitutional constellation.” W.Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Courts must be vigilant in protecting that right, whether in the context of barring compelled speech, see id., or — as here — guarding against government intrusion into the private, expressive activities of those who may hold disfavored viewpoints. Where the government seeks access to private devices that hold such a vast array of expressive content, only the standard conceived by the Founders and codified in the Fourth Amendment — probable cause and the approval of a neutral magistrate — can bear the weight of that obligation.

Judge Morrison’s ruling is a welcome one for journalists and non-journalists alike, shutting down what many believed to be a blatant example of unconstitutional government overreach. While the ruling applies primarily to the Eastern District of New York, Judge Morrison’s decision joins a growing list of similar decisions that have placed the burden on CBP to have a legitimate basis to search a traveler’s phone.

With the growing number of cases upholding the Fourth Amendment, a legal precedent is slowly being set that should lead to greater protections for individual privacy. In the wake of Judge Morrison’s ruling—at least in New York—users’ private data should be a bit more secure at the US border than it has been in decades.

More Information

Please see How to Protect Your Data At the US Border for more info and practical steps every traveler can take to protect their data.

The FCC voted in April to restore net neutrality. The rules, which ensure companies cannot penalize or throttle certain internet traffic, were originally passed during the Obama administration, before being repealed by the Trump-era FCC.

The current FCC voted 3-2 to restore net neutrality, even closing loopholes that experts warned could be abused by internet service providers. Michael Powell, President & CEO of NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, wasted no time promising “years of litigation and uncertainty.”

According to The Verge, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ panel of judges said a temporary “administrative stay is warranted.” The judges are weighing the merits of the case brought by broadband providers.

The administrative stay is in effect till August 5, at which point the judges will hopefully have reached a final decision.

The complaint was filed by noyb (none of your business), a privacy-focused EU non-profit. While praising the EU’s efforts to implement digital learning post-pandemic, nyob says that a small number of companies are abusing the situation “with the intention of getting children used to their systems and creating a new generation of future ‘loyal’ customers.”

The non-profit specifically calls out Microsoft, saying the company is trying to skirt the GDPR—the EU’s privacy regulation—by saying that schools control student data.

Software vendors like Microsoft have an enormous market power, allowing them to dictate the terms and conditions of contracts with anyone who wants to use their products. At the same time, these software providers try to dodge responsibility by insisting that almost all of it lies with local authorities or schools. In reality, neither has the power to influence how Microsoft actually processes user data. Instead, they are faced with a take-it-or-leave-it situation where all the decision-making power and profits lie with Microsoft, while schools are expected to bear most of the risks. Schools have no realistic way of negotiating or changing the terms.

According to the complaint, Microsoft and other companies are putting schools in a no-win scenario by trying to shift the responsibility to them, while maintaining control of the relevant data.

In practice, this leads to a situation where Microsoft is trying to contractually dump most of its legal responsibilities under the GDPR on schools that provide Microsoft 365 Education services to their pupils or students. This means, for example, that access requests to Microsoft go unanswered – while schools have no realistic way of complying with such requests because they don’t hold the necessary data.

Maartje de Graaf, data protection lawyer at noyb: “This take-it-or-leave-it approach by software vendors such as Microsoft is shifting all GDPR responsibilities to schools. Microsoft holds all the key information about data processing in its software, but is pointing the finger at schools when it comes to exercising rights. Schools have no way of complying with the transparency and information obligations.”

To make matters worse, nyob says that Microsoft is tracking minors’ activity.

But this is not the only issue at hand. Although the complainant did not consent to tracking, Microsoft 365 Education still installed cookies that, according to Microsoft’s own documentation, analyse user behaviour, collect browser data and are used for advertising. Such tracking, which is commonly used for highly-invasive profiling, is apparently carried out without the complainant’s school even knowing. As Microsoft 365 Education is widely used, the company is likely to track all minors using their educational products. The company has no valid legal basis for this processing.

Felix Mikolasch, data protection lawyer at noyb: “Our analysis of the data flows is very worrying. Microsoft 365 Education appears to track users regardless of their age. This practice is likely to affect hundreds of thousands of pupils and students in the EU and EEA. Authorities should finally step up and effectively enforce the rights of minors.”

Microsoft has already faced multiple complaints within the EU that have led to the company making significant changes to its business. If this latest complaint gains traction, Microsoft may be forced to make yet more changes to its operations.

Another problem with official apps is that they offer paid content, for which users need to take a subscription plan. Now, many users wish to stream free content like movies and TV shows, and third party apps make it available for them. This is one of the major reasons for the popularity of third party apps. 

To access more content, most users install third party apps on their streaming device. These third party apps offer more entertainment through their free and paid services. However, despite many advantages, there are also some disadvantages of using third party apps. Let us explore the pros and cons of using third party apps to conclude whether they are good to go for streaming movies. 

Pros of Third Party Apps 

There are multiple benefits of installing and using third party apps on any streaming device. These benefits are more than just getting access to entertainment content. Before we talk about the advantages, though, I should warn you that, unless you modify the settings, Firesticks and similar gadgets do not let you use third-party apps.

You have two options: jailbreak your device to enable the installation of third-party apps, or modify the settings to do so. There are limitless ways to stream on Jailbroken device. You can install third party apps and steam both free and paid content from different platforms. Now coming to the third party apps, let us find out all the pros of using such apps. 

Low Cost Entertainment

Not all third party apps are free, but some charge their users a subscription fee. However, the subscription fee of third party apps is less affordable than the mainstream apps like Netflix and Amazon Prime. Users looking for affordable entertainment plans can look into third party apps. So, users get more entertainment at affordable prices, which is another reason for the growing popularity of these apps. 

High Quality Streaming

Third party apps allow you to access high quality videos for free or for a fraction of the cost that major apps like Netflix and Prime Video charge. Therefore, you get high quality resolution at drop-dead prices. So, if you are looking for high quality streaming at reasonable prices, you can look out for third party apps for your streaming device. However, it is best to check the quality of streaming with free trials before subscribing to a paid plan. 

Free Entertainment

Most people install third party apps on their device in order to access free content. The built-in apps on any streaming device require you to pay for a subscription to access the content. 

However, there are many third party apps that offer you access to entertainment content including movies, music and TV shows for free. Some apps offer both free and paid services. You can access free content and access more content and higher quality like 4K on their paid subscription. 

For example, there is a Kodi app that lets you stream content from a variety of streaming platforms. It comes with various addons like The Crew, Scrubs V2, Seren and Umbrella which lets you watch on demand content. 

Users can explore the latest movies, TV shows, sports events and kids’ content available to watch on the Crew Kodi addon. Such apps allow you to watch both free and paid content. However, free entertainment is the primary reason for the popularity of third party apps. 

Variety of Content

Most standard apps are dedicated to one category, like movies or TV shows. On the other hand, third party apps offer you a variety of content including movies, TV shows, family shows and web series. For example, some kids apps also offer educational videos in addition to entertainment for kids. So, with third party apps, users get more variety of content in a single app. This helps users to install fewer apps and save storage space on their TV or streaming device. 

Enhanced Security for your Device

As we use our devices connected to the internet, we download multiple cookies and some are infected with viruses and malware. There are many third party security apps that scan your device for viruses, malware and harmful cookies. Therefore, you can install a security app to scan your AI devices and remove the viruses, malware or harmful cookies Compatible with multiple devices

As most third party apps are compatible with multiple devices, you can install and use them on different devices. For example, you can use an app to stream content on your TV, smartphone and computer as well.

Customization Options

Third party apps allow you to customize their interface to offer you a seamless streaming experience. You can change the themes, and options to make the app look appealing and easy to use. So, you are not bound to use that boring interface and customize your UI by choosing the theme you like. Most apps offer you multiple UI and theme options to choose the one that appeals to you the most. 

Support for multiple languages

Many third party streaming apps allow you to use the app in multiple languages. This is especially useful for users who don’t know the English language. They can use the app in their local language to understand it better and use it effectively. Using an app in your native language allows you to use it more easily and freely. It makes you understand the options and settings easily and makes it convenient to use.

Cons of Third Party Apps 

Despite the above-mentioned benefits, third party apps also have several disadvantages. Let us explore all those cons of using third party apps on streaming devices.

Low Quality Videos

Not all, but some third party apps may offer low quality resolution of videos. In some apps you may find videos buffering endlessly. So, low quality is a major issue in using third party apps. So, while choosing any third party app, it is essential to test the resolution and streaming quality. If they offer the resolution that meets your expectation, you can install it on your device and stream movies or TV shows. 

Risk of shutting down

Some apps stream exclusive content like live sports events, that is illegal. Yes, users can enjoy the broadcast of live events, but as third party apps don’t own the rights to telecast those events, the apps having the exclusive rights of the event can file a lawsuit against such apps. So, it is beneficial to check whether the apps you use have the rights to telecast the content you wish to watch. If not, you should go for some other option. 

Viruses and Malware

There is a probability of viruses and malware downloading with third party apps. Usually, when you download apps from unofficial sources, there are chances of viruses and malware that can damage your device memory and software. Therefore, it is always better to download third party apps from their official websites or app stores. 

Unavailability of Updates

All official apps come up with regular updates to fix the bugs and tech issues. But with third-party apps, updates may or may not be available. These apps don’t get updated automatically. Also, they might not work after an update on your streaming device, leaving you frustrated and longing for simpler times.

Storage Struggles

Third-party programs take up memory on streaming devices, which typically have limited storage space. Your device may get slower and you may run out of space for the apps you really use if you install too many. To preserve storage on your device, it is usually preferable to install fewer apps than you really need. 

Summing Up

Using third-party apps on your TV or streaming device may offer you many benefits, but it doesn’t mean you can ignore the risks associated with their use. While they might offer access to a world of content, these risks, from security concerns to legal troubles. It is always better to do your research about the legitimacy of the apps before installing and using them on your device. 

Yes, in today’s digital age, it’s easier than ever to spy on your partner’s phone discreetly. From concerns about infidelity to ensuring their safety, there are various reasons why you might consider spying on your partner’s phone.

Why Might It Be Necessary?

Trust forms the very basis of a relationship. However, certain circumstances may give rise to doubts that might cloud the trust. There are valid reasons why you might feel the need to spy on your partner’s phone.

Infidelity, unfortunately, is one of the most common concerns that can shake the core of any relationship. If you notice suspicious behavior or if your partner has given you reasons to doubt their fidelity, it’s natural to seek reassurance. Monitoring their phone activity might offer clarity and provide peace of mind by either dispelling your suspicions or confirming them.

Beyond infidelity, ensuring your partner’s safety is paramount. In today’s world, where unforeseen dangers lurk both online and offline, tracking your partner’s phone can serve as a precautionary measure. Whether they’re traveling alone, going through a challenging situation, or simply navigating unfamiliar territories, being able to monitor their location and communication can offer a sense of security for both parties involved.

How to Track Your Spouse’s Phone?

If you’ve ever wondered how to spy on my partner’s phone for free and with minimal effort, there are several methods you can explore. Accessing iCloud or Android backups is one option, allowing you to view their data remotely. Setting up WhatsApp Desktop as the second option provides full access to their conversations, albeit with some visibility on their end. Finally, See What Someone Is Doing on Their Phone Through Wi-Fi by using apps like Eyezy, Find My Phone or Google Maps can also help pinpoint their location discreetly.

iCloud or Android Backup

One method to track your spouse’s phone activity is by accessing their iCloud or Android backups. By gaining access to their iCloud account, you can remotely activate a backup of their device, granting you access to their data, including messages, photos, and app activity. Similarly, Android users can utilize the backup feature to retrieve information from their partner’s device. This method allows for discreet monitoring without the need for physical access to the phone. However, the backup information can be pretty limited and you also must have their iCloud/Google credentials to log in.

Set Up WhatsApp Desktop

Another approach to tracking partner’s phone is by setting up WhatsApp Desktop. This option provides full access to their WhatsApp account, enabling you to view their messages, photos, and calls in real-time. However, it’s worth noting that the linked desktop will be visible in the settings of their WhatsApp account, potentially alerting them to the monitoring activity. Despite this visibility, it remains a convenient method for tracking their conversations discreetly.

Use Find My Phone or Google Maps

For tracking your partner’s location, apps like Find My Phone or Google Maps can be invaluable tools. By using these applications, you can pinpoint the exact whereabouts of your spouse without their knowledge. Whether you’re concerned about their safety or simply curious about their whereabouts, these tracking features offer a discreet way to monitor their movements.

Eyezy- The Ultimate Solution

One of the most effective ways to monitor your partner’s phone is through an app. While there are a lot of apps to monitor your partner’s phone, Eyezy stands out as the number one choice. This powerful tool is designed for families concerned about their loved one’s well-being.

With Eyezy, you can track calls, messages, browsing history, and even GPS location in real-time. Its intuitive interface and comprehensive features make it the number-one choice for those seeking peace of mind. With Eyezy, you can discreetly ensure your partner’s safety and gain valuable insights into their digital activity, fostering trust and transparency in your relationship.

Features of Eyezy include:

• Call Monitoring
• Text Message & Email Tracking
• Browsing History & Online Activity Viewing
• GPS Location Tracking
• Geo-Fencing
• Social Media Monitoring
• Remote Camera & Ambient Recording
• Device Storage Access
• Keylogger & Screen Recording
• Keyword Alerts
• Centralized Control Panel

Conclusion

Your decision to spy on partner’s phone may seem intrusive. However, sometimes it becomes necessary for your peace of mind or their safety.

By using discrete methods and reliable apps like Eyezy, you can gain insight into their activities without jeopardizing trust. Remember to use these tools responsibly and prioritize open communication in your relationship.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was reauthorized and expanded, giving intelligence agencies and law enforcement broader scope to collect data on US citizens. The bill is so expansive that it was nicknamed the “Stasi Amendment,” a reference to the notorious East German secret police force.

Despite the FBI aggressively pushing for reauthorization of the expanded bill, it appears the agency knows such surveillance powers are not necessary. In an email leaked to WIRED, Deputy Director Paul Abbate urges FBI employees to use the ability to search for data on US citizens in an effort to prove that the capability is needed.

“To continue to demonstrate why tools like this are essential to our mission, we need to use them, while also holding ourselves accountable for doing so properly and in compliance with legal requirements,” Abbate wrote in the email. [Emphasis his.]

“I urge everyone to continue to look for ways to appropriately use US person queries to advance the mission, with the added confidence that this new pre-approval requirement will help ensure that those queries are fully compliant with the law,” added Abbate.

As a general rule, if the program was truly necessary, wouldn’t its value already be apparent? Wouldn’t the FBI have plenty of data to show how much it needs the program if it was truly yielding results? Why should the FBI’s employees need to use warrantless surveillance more to provide why they need to use it in the first place?

Lawmakers are evidently beginning to ask the same questions.

“The deputy director’s email seems to show that the FBI is actively pushing for more surveillance of Americans, not out of necessity but as a default,” says US representative Zoe Lofgren. “This directly contradicts earlier assertions from the FBI during the debate over Section 702’s reauthorization.”

Section 702 allows US intelligence agencies to monitor the communications of foreign individuals for national security reasons. As part of that surveillance, the communications of US citizens is often scooped up as well, and the bill allows for those communications to be stored for years. What’s more, the FBI has the authority to go back and search those communications in conjunction with things that have nothing to do with national security, such as a criminal investigation, and can share that information with other law enforcement.

If the FBI had a well-established track record of responsibly using its ability there might be slightly less concern. By the FBI’s own admission, however, the agency has a terrible track record of abusing its access to said data.

It’s little wonder that Senator Ron Wyden slammed the expansion of Section 702.

“The House bill represents one of the most dramatic and terrifying expansions of government surveillance authority in history,” Senator Wyden said. “It allows the government to force any American who installs, maintains, or repairs anything that transmits or stores communications to spy on the government’s behalf. That means anyone with access to a server, a wire, a cable box, a wifi router, or a phone. It would be secret: the Americans receiving the government directives would be bound to silence, and there would be no court oversight. I will do everything in my power to stop this bill.”

And that was before the leaked email that “directly contradicts earlier assertions from the FBI during the debate over Section 702’s reauthorization.”

The FCC voted to restore net neutrality in late April, leveling the playing field for large and small internet companies alike. The agency released its final ruling yesterday, containing some changes that closed a potential loophole by nixing so-called “fast lanes.”

The Issue

At the heart of the issue was the possibility that some ISPs could create internet fast lanes for certain types of traffic. Although the net neutrality rules prohibited paid fast lanes, a loophole existed for fast lanes as long as ISPs did not charge the companies providing the content, services, or applications to customers.

Stanford Law Professor Barbara van Schewick warned the FCC before the final vote that ISPs could abuse fast lanes, essentially bypassing net neutrality by coming at the issue from a different direction: don’t slow undesirable traffic down, simply speed up desirable traffic.

Professor van Schewick outlined the issue with such an approach:

Net neutrality means that we, the people who use the internet, get to decide what we do online, without interference from ISPs. ISPs do not get to interfere with our choices by blocking, speeding up or slowing down apps or kinds of apps. Apps compete on a level playing field, and users, not ISPs, determine which apps are successful.

Differences in performance, including relative differences in performance, matter. Even small differences in load times affect how long people stay on a site, how much they pay, and whether they’ll come back. Those differences also affect how high up sites show in search results.

Thus, letting ISPs choose which apps get to be in a fast lane lets them, not users, pick winners and losers online.

The FCC’s Final Ruling

In its final ruling, the FCC cited Professor van Schewick’s letter before making the following clarification:

Our interpretation of “throttling” encompasses a wide variety of conduct that could impair or degrade an end user’s ability to access content of their choosing. We clarify that a BIAS provider’s decision to speed up “on the basis of Internet content, applications, or services” would “impair or degrade” other content, applications, or services which are not given the same treatment.

Essentially, the FCC is taking the approach that any prioritization of certain traffic will ultimately lead to ISPs playing favorites, giving them the ability to pick winners and losers and put smaller companies at an unfair advantage.

Chairwoman Rosenworcel’s Statement

“I think in a modern digital economy we should have a national net neutrality policy and make clear the Nation’s expert on communications has the ability to act when it comes to broadband,” said Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. “This is good for consumers, good for public safety, and good for national security. And that is why we are taking this action today under Title II of the Communications Act.”

Chairwoman Rosenworcel emphasized the widespread support for net neutrality that consumers expressed to the agency.

“Let’s start with consumers,” she continued.”They spoke out in droves when this agency repealed net neutrality. They jammed our in-boxes, overwhelmed our online comment system, and clogged our phone lines. They clamored to get net neutrality back. In the intervening years, they have not stopped. Thousands of consumers write us month after month seeking to have this agency help them navigate issues with their broadband service. Yet, as a result of the last FCC throwing these policies out and backing away from broadband, we can only take action when they have issues with their long distance voice service. There is nothing modern about that.

Chairwoman Rosenworcel then addressed the fast lane issue directly.

“Consumers have made clear to us they do not want their broadband provider cutting sweetheart deals, with fast lanes for some services and slow lanes for others,” she said. “They do not want their providers engaging in blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. And if they have problems they expect the Nation’s expert authority on communications to be able to respond. Because we put national net neutrality rules back on the books, we fix that today.”

A Free and Open Internet

The reinstatement of net neutrality helps ensure a level playing field for companies of all sizes and prevents ISPs from acting as gatekeepers that decide what companies succeed or fail based on the quality of internet traffic they receive.

Essentially, the reinstatement of net neutrality helps codify the principles of a free and open internet that was very much a critical component in the minds of its founders.

The FCC announced in late April that it was fining AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon a combined $200 million for illegally sharing customer location data with third-party companies, as well as failing to put sufficient safeguards in place to protect that data.

“Our communications providers have access to some of the most sensitive information about us. These carriers failed to protect the information entrusted to them. Here, we are talking about some of the most sensitive data in their possession: customers’ real-time location information, revealing where they go and who they are,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said at the time. “As we resolve these cases – which were first proposed by the last Administration – the Commission remains committed to holding all carriers accountable and making sure they fulfill their obligations to their customers as stewards of this most private data.”

In statements to Mashable, all three carriers said they plan to fight the fines in court, and accused the FCC of placing blame in the wrong place.

“The FCC order lacks both legal and factual merit,” an AT&T spokesperson told the outlet. “It unfairly holds us responsible for another company’s violation of our contractual requirements to obtain consent, ignores the immediate steps we took to address that company’s failures, and perversely punishes us for supporting life-saving location services like emergency medical alerts and roadside assistance that the FCC itself previously encouraged.”

At the heart of the issue is how data aggregators the carriers had deals with used the data they had access to, with all three companies blaming these other companies for the misuse of customer data. Further complicating the issue is that both Verizon and T-Mobile shut down the aggregator location services several years ago.

“In this case, when one bad actor gained unauthorized access to information relating to a very small number of customers, we quickly and proactively cut off the fraudster, shut down the program, and worked to ensure this couldn’t happen again,” a Verizon spokesperson told Mashable.

The Transportation Security Administration has been increasingly rolling out facial recognition to airports around the US. While travelers can opt-out, in favor of traditional screenings, some passengers are unaware of this and other choose facial recognition screening out of convenience or a lack of understanding of the privacy issues involved.

Senators are calling on Schumer and McConnell to take the lead in restricting TSA’s use of facial recognition “until rigorous congressional oversight occurs,” citing TSA’s plans to make facial recognition mandatory.

Congress must address this issue in the 2024 Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization. TSA announced in July that they plan to expand facial recognition surveillance from 25 to over 430 airports. While TSA states the program is optional, it is the stated intent of the TSA to expand this technology beyond the security checkpoint and require that passengers undergo facial recognition scans every time they travel. In 2018, TSA released their Biometrics Roadmap detailing their goal of a “biometrically-enabled curb-to-gate passenger experience.” In April 2023, TSA Administrator Pekoske admitted at the South by Southwest Conference that “we will get to the point where we will require biometrics across the board.”

As the senators point out, people becoming comfortable with facial recognition at airports is a slippery slope that could lead to mass surveillance across the board, with little to no objection from citizens:

The potential for misuse of this technology extends far beyond airport security checkpoints. Once Americans become accustomed to government facial recognition scans, it will be that much easier for the government to scan citizens’ faces everywhere, from entry into government buildings, to passive surveillance on public property like parks, schools, and sidewalks.

The senators go on to state that TSA’s plans are disingenuous since there is no evidence that facial recognition makes air travel safer:

Furthermore, this powerful surveillance technology as deployed by TSA does not make air travel safer. In response to congressional inquiries, TSA has not produced evidence that more false identification documents have been discovered since their implementation of facial recognition. The 3% error rate cited by TSA represents more than 68,000 mismatches daily if used on all 2.3 million daily travelers. Recent news reports that hundreds of passengers have bypassed TSA security checkpoints entirely in recent years suggests that TSA should focus on the fundamentals, not expanding its facial recognition program.

With the TSA’s announcement in July 2023 that they plan to expand facial recognition surveillance from 25 to over 430 airports, it is clear that we are at a critical juncture. The scope of the government’s use of facial recognition on Americans will expand exponentially under TSA’s plans, with little to no public discourse or congressional oversight.

Given the myriad of abuses TSA agents have been accused and/or found guilty of—everything from overly aggressive screenings and pat-downs to sexual assault—it’s little wonder that senators are concerns about the abuses that come result from the agency’s widespread and mandatory use of facial recognition.

The letter was signed by Senators Jeffrey A. Merkley, John Kennedy, Edward J. Markley, Roger Marshall, M.D., Kevin Cramer, Ron Wyden, Steve Daines, Elizabeth Warren, Mike Braun, Bernie Sanders, Cynthia Lummis, Chris Van Hollen, Peter Welch, Laphonza Butler.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was recently reauthorized and expanded, widening the scope of individuals and professions that can be pressed into helping authorities surveil others. Despite the reauthorization, the FBI says warrantless surveillance of Americans is down significantly in its Annual Statistical Transparency Report.

The FBI says the number of US person queries in the period from November 2022 to December 2023, dropped to 57,094. In contrast, the previous year saw 119,383 queries, and the year before that saw 2,964,643. The FBI says its figures are almost certainly over-counted as a result of how the FBI counts queries:

While the FBI’s methodology closely matches that used by other IC elements, it still is almost certainly
an overcount with respect to queries that are part of batch jobs. This is because, as indicated elsewhere
in this report, if even one query term in a batch job is identified by a user as a U.S. person query term
and labeled as such, FBI systems apply the U.S. person label to every query term in that batch. The FBI’s
counting methodology does not correct for this type of over-counting.

The FBI also says the variance in queries from one year to the next based on the investigations being conducted. For example, in the first half of 2021, there were a large number of queries related to a single investigation pertaining to foreign actors trying to launch cyberattacks on US critical infrastructure. This accounted for 1.9 million of the 2,964,643 queries in that period.

Interestingly, the FBI acknowledges that it uses the data it queries reasons other than its intended purpose, to foil and catch terrorists.

As noted above, FBI is the only intelligence agency with Section 702 querying procedures that allow for
queries that are reasonably likely to retrieve evidence of a crime, in addition to queries that are reasonably
likely to return foreign intelligence information. Recognizing that unrelated crimes can be discovered in
the course of conducting FISA activities, Congress required that FISA minimization procedures contain
provisions addressing how to treat evidence of unrelated crimes acquired in the course of a foreign intelligence activity….There are also instances where the FISA-derived information
sought is both relevant to foreign intelligence information and a criminal act (e.g., information relating
to international terrorism).

In recent years, both Congress and the FISC have focused particular attention on instances in which
FBI’s purpose at the time of the query is solely to retrieve evidence of a crime and that are not designed
to retrieve foreign intelligence information. There are two specific requirements related to these queries:
(1) a statutory requirement for FBI to obtain a court order to review the results of certain evidence of
a crime-only queries related to a predicated criminal investigation and (2) a FISC quarterly reporting
requirement to provide the number of U.S. person evidence of a crime-only queries that resulted in
content review, whether or not they are associated with a predicated criminal investigation. Both are
explained below with corresponding statistics.

This is at the heart of issue critics have with Section 702, namely that it allows law enforcement to mine data collected expressly for intelligence gathering to be used in investigations completely unrelated to national security.

As the FBI highlights, some measures have been put in place to regulate these instances, but evidence consistently shows that the FBI has played fast and loose with its access to this data. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), citing the FBI’s own internal documents, outlines the abuses that continue to occur:

Despite reassurances from the intelligence community about its “culture of compliance,” these documents depict almost no substantial consideration of privacy or civil liberties. They also suggest that in the years before these guidelines were written, even amidst widespread FBI misuse of the databases to search for Americans’ communications, there were even fewer written guidelines governing their use. Above all, FBI agents can still search for and read Americans’ private communications collected under Section 702, all without a warrant or judicial oversight.

The EFF minces no words in its description of Section 702:

Section 702 has become something Congress never intended: a domestic spying tool. Congress should consider ending the program entirely, but certainly not reauthorize Section 702 without critical reforms, including true accountability and oversight.

While critics will no doubt be happy to see the number of US persons queries dropped significantly in 2023, most will not be satisfied until the FBI and law enforcement is required to get a warrant to access and use the data collected on Americans.

According to the FCC, the four carriers illegally shared access to customer location data and failed to put proper protection in place to safeguard such data. The FCC has fined Sprint $12 million, T-Mobile $80 million, AT&T more than $57 million, and Verizon nearly $47 million, for just under $200 million total.

The FCC Enforcement Bureau investigations of the four carriers found that each carrier sold access to its customers’ location information to “aggregators,” who then resold access to such information to third-party location-based service providers. In doing so, each carrier attempted to offload its obligations to obtain customer consent onto downstream recipients of location information, which in many instances meant that no valid customer consent was obtained. This initial failure was compounded when, after becoming aware that their safeguards were ineffective, the carriers continued to sell access to location information without taking reasonable measures to protect it from unauthorized access.

“Our communications providers have access to some of the most sensitive information about us. These carriers failed to protect the information entrusted to them. Here, we are talking about some of the most sensitive data in their possession: customers’ real-time location information, revealing where they go and who they are,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. “As we resolve these cases – which were first proposed by the last Administration – the Commission remains committed to holding all carriers accountable and making sure they fulfill their obligations to their customers as stewards of this most private data.”

As the FCC points out, section 222 of the Communication Act requires that carriers “take reasonable measures to protect certain customer information, including location information.” The law also requires carriers to protect customer confidentiality and get customers’ consent before sharing their data.

“The protection and use of sensitive personal data such as location information is sacrosanct,” said Loyaan A. Egal, Chief of the FCC Enforcement Bureau and Chair of its Privacy and Data Protection Task Force. “When placed in the wrong hands or used for nefarious purposes, it puts all of us at risk. Foreign adversaries and cybercriminals have prioritized getting their hands on this information, and that is why ensuring service providers have reasonable protections in place to safeguard customer location data and valid consent for its use is of the highest priority for the Enforcement Bureau.”

Under the DMA, products and services that meet certain criteria can be labeled gatekeepers and forced to abide by certain rules. Gatekeepers must take steps to ensure interoperability with rival services, not push their own apps and services over competing option, and more.

The EU had already determined that iOS, Safari, and the App Store met the criteria to be classified as gatekeepers, but there was question as to whether iPadOS should be classified as such, given that iPads are not nearly as popular as iPhones. The EU acknowledged that iPadOS does not quite meet the quantitative thresholds to be classified as a gatekeeper, but it did meet the other criteria, including:

• Apple’s business user numbers exceeded the quantitative threshold elevenfold, while its end user numbers were close to the threshold and are predicted to rise in the near future.
• End users are locked-in to iPadOS. Apple leverages its large ecosystem to disincentivise end users from switching to other operating systems for tablets.
• Business users are locked-in to iPadOS because of its large and commercially attractive user base, and its importance for certain use cases, such as gaming apps.

“The Digital Markets Act is a dynamic tool which allows us to tackle the realities of digital markets,” said Margrethe Vestager, Executive Vice-President in charge of competition policy. “Today, we have brought Apple’s iPadOS within the scope of the DMA obligations. Our market investigation showed that despite not meeting the thresholds, iPadOS constitutes an important gateway on which many companies rely to reach their customers. Today’s decision will ensure that fairness and contestability are preserved also on this platform, in addition to the 22 other services we designated last September. Apple has six months to make iPadOS compliant with the DMA.

“Today we conclude the first market investigation for qualitative designation under the DMA finding that also iPadOS is an important gateway for businesses to reach consumers,” said Thierry Breton, Commissioner for Internal Market. “Apple has now six months to comply with the DMA obligations. We continue monitoring market developments and will not hesitate to open new investigations should other services below the thresholds present characteristics to be considered important gateways for business users.

Net neutrality was originally passed during the Obama administration, repealed during the Trump administration, and was restored in a vote Thursday. The rule ensures that ISPs cannot penalize or throttle certain types of internet traffic, leveling the playing field for tech companies and streaming services.

Through its actions today, the Commission creates a national standard by which it can ensure that broadband internet service is treated as an essential service. Today’s vote also makes clear that the Commission will exercise its authority over broadband in a narrowly tailored fashion—without rate regulation, tariffing, or unbundling—to foster continued innovation and investment.

Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel emphasized the fact that nearly a dozen states stepped in after net neutrality was repealed to enact net neutrality rules of their own in the absence of a national solution. She also highlighted the changing role and importance of broadband access in the wake of the pandemic, a major factor that drove the restoration of net neutrality.

“Four years ago the pandemic changed life as we know it,” Rosenworcel wrote. “We were told to stay home, hunker down, and live online. So much of work, school, and healthcare migrated to the internet. If we wanted to engage with the world, we needed to do it all through a broadband connection.

“It became clear that no matter who you are or where you live, you need broadband to have a fair shot at digital age success. It went from nice-to-have to need-to-have for everyone, everywhere. Broadband is now an essential service. Essential services—the ones we count on in every aspect of modern life—have some basic oversight.

“So let’s be clear about what we are doing today. This agency—the Nation’s leading communications authority—believes every consumer deserves internet access that is fast, open, and fair. That is why we determine that the Federal Communications Commission should be able to assist consumers and take action when it comes to the most important communications of our time—and that’s broadband.”

Support for a ban on the sale of smartphones to minors has been growing in popularity, with a recent poll by Parentkind revealing 58% of parents supporting the idea. Despite the majority supporting such a ban, a solid 33% of parents are opposed.

According to The Guardian, ministers are considering moving forward with a ban, in the interests of protecting children. Nonetheless, not all ministers are comfortable with the idea.

“It’s not the government’s role to step in and microparent; we’re meant to make parents more aware of the powers they have like restrictions on websites, apps and even the use of parental control apps,” a Tory government source told the outlet.

Only time will tell if the UK government moves forward with the ban. If it does, however, it will be among the most drastic action taken by a government to protect children.

The FCC voted in favor for requiring ISPs to provide a Broadband Consumer Label—much like the nutrition label on food—to give consumers clear information about the service they are paying for. The move sparked predictable pushback from ISPs, with claims the labels would create a “burden on providers to generate and maintain their labels.”

Google Fiber appears to be bucking the trend, coming out in favor of the FCC’s requirement. Jain outlined the company’s support in a blog post:

As part of its effort to improve broadband service nationwide — not just in terms of speed but also in terms of customer experience — the federal government is requiring all ISPs to provide broadband “nutrition labels” on their websites when purchasing service. The point of these labels is similar to the nutrition label on a cereal box (or any other food). They are designed to help consumers make clear comparisons between broadband plans based on key factors such as price and speed and to help them understand what they get for their money.

Jain goes on to say that transparency has always been a part of Google Fiber.

This type of transparency is a part of Google Fiber’s origin story. Google was built on the idea that information is powerful. And finding the information you need when you need it can change the game. In fact, doing this made the internet navigable — a digital world where information was readily and easily accessible to anyone online. Historically, easy and transparent are not words that many people would associate with ISPs, and that has to change. Nutrition labels are a start in the right direction for our industry.

Jain then reinforces what the FCC has already said, that ISPs have a well-established reputation of trying to confuse customers instead of being upfront and transparent.

Choice, and even more importantly, understanding that choice, benefits customers. Informed customers are happier customers. Since the very beginning, ISPs have played confusing games when it comes to price and speed. From that mysterious 13-month price bump to incurring extra fees for everything from equipment to data usage, it can be impossible to know what you are actually getting for your monthly payment (or even what that monthly payment will be).

That’s why GFiber has been fully supportive of the FCC’s broadband labels from the very beginning, and why we launched them early last October — six months ahead of this month’s deadline. These labels empower the consumer and set up a strong foundation for what will hopefully be an extremely long term & satisfying relationship for customers.

Internet service providers are among the most hated industries in America. In that environment, it’s refreshing to see one put customers first and support commonsense measures to improve the customer experience.