Photo of Jonathan S. Feld

Jonathan S. Feld

Subscribe to Jonathan S. Feld's Posts
Contact:Read more about Jonathan S. Feld
shutterstock_387276565

While public attention focused on the federal and state elections, Michigan voters made an important decision—they adopted Proposal 20-2, which amended Michigan’s Constitution to extend its protection from unreasonable searches and seizures to electronic data and communications. With the proliferation of personal electronic devices and storage of business information on computers used at home in the past few decades, federal and state courts, including the Supreme Court, have grappled with how to apply Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in a digital age. Although Proposal 20-2 might not change investigative practice, it clarifies that electronic data and communications are subject to the same protection against unreasonable search and seizure as other “traditional” information, such as paper records.
Continue Reading Michigan Voters Add Constitutional Protections for Electronic Data and Communications

shutterstock_702701905

The perils of personal identity theft are well-known, but criminals target more than individuals and their credit card numbers. In recent years, businesses have become a popular target for identity thieves aiming to exploit brand recognition and customer expectations in the pursuit of illicit gains. Corporate identity theft’s effect on businesses can range from brand dilution to the exposure of sensitive company information. Hackers and data thieves have employed a number of identity-theft techniques that have proven catastrophic for some businesses.

Many corporate identity thefts begin with “typosquatting,” where thieves register look-alike domain names that vary only by a single letter or domain extension from the address of a business’s actual domain name (for example, “goggle.com” as a typosquatter for Google, or verizon.org for Verizon, which uses a .com extension). Typoquatting can be used in several ways.
Continue Reading What’s Our Name Again? – Cyber Imposters Pose A Business Threat

Biometric Image 62

On January 19, 2019, federal Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore of the Northern District of California denied the Government’s application for a search warrant that sought:

  1. “all digital devices” present at a California residence; (Order at 3), and
  2. “any individual present at the time of the search to press a finger (including thumb) or utilize other biometric features…for the purposes of unlocking the digital devices found in order to permit a search of the contents,” (Order at 1).

The request for the “use of biometrics” was stunning. Magistrate Judge Westmore denied the Government’s initial request, but invited the Government to submit a new search warrant. A day later when the Government submitted an amended application, it omitted the request to use biometrics. The court granted that amended application. Since the Government’s application named only two suspects in its affidavit, the Government’s request to compel any other individual present at the time of the execution of the search warrant to unlock their digital device(s) was too expansive.

Continue Reading Biometrics and Search Warrants: The Intersection of Your iPhone and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments