Headline April 23, 2018/ ''' PRIVACY *DIGITAL* PURRING '''

''' PRIVACY *DIGITAL* PURRING '''

LAWYER ZAINAB KHAN - KING'S COLLEGE, U.K. is one very talented and one very beautiful practitioner of what I call, Majestic Law.

Young, beautiful, full of energy and drive, a voracious reader, a mother of two very beautiful girls, hailing from a sterling family background, has very graciously consented-

*To begin comprehensive legal work for the World Students Society, lovingly called !WOW!, and for every subject in the world*.

I have the great honor to nominate her as the World Students Society's Global Legal Head. And in that very context - I will very soon, display and publish her email contact, and all her communication contacts, so that-

She can provide you all with free legal advise, just as she will help legally steer the World Students Society forward . 

The World Students Society is delighted to have her consent and stands up and tall, to giver her a standing ovation.

So, as the honorable U.S. Supreme Court takes up digital privacy, the Internet, the cellphone, the storage, the law enforcing agencies, the crime, the suspect, all get defined for the near future.

Any case linked to robbery will focus on prosecutors' access to phone data.. So, in the case of  Timothy Ivory Carpenter versus the United States...........

Mr. Carpenter's lawyers said cellphone companies had turned over 127 days or records that placed his phone at 12,908 locations, based on information from cellphone towers.

Prosecutors could tell whether he had slept at home on given nights and whether he attended his usual church on Sunday mornings.

''Never before in the history of policing has the government had the time machine it has here,'' said Nathan Freed Wessier, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Mr. Carpenter.

Mr. Wessier said prosecutors should be required to obtain a warrant when they seek more than 24 hours of worth of location data.

Older Supreme Court decision indicate that no warrant was required. In 1979, for instance, in Smith vs. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that a robbery suspect had no reasonable expectation that his-

Right to privacy extended to the numbers dialed from his landline phone.

The court reasoned that the suspect had voluntarily turned over that information to third party : the phone company.

Relying on the Smith decision's ''third-party doctrine,'' federal appeals courts have said the government investigators seeking data from cellphone companies showing users movements also do not require a warrant.

A federal law. the Stored Communications Act, does require a prosecutors to go to court's to obtain tracking data, but the showing they must make under is not probable cause, the standard for a warrant.

Instead, the must demonstrate only that there were ''specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe''  that the records  sought'' are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.''

Professor Kerr said Congress was better suited than the courts to strike the right balance between the  government's need for privacy rights and information

In Mr. Carpenters case he added, the Fourth Amendment should not apply because there was no search

Mr. Carpenter's lawyers rely on two recent unanimous Supreme Court decision expressing discomfort with the collection of large amounts of digital data.

In 2014, in Riley versus California, the court said the police must generally have a warrant to search the cellphones of people they arrest..

''Modern cellphones are not just another technological inconvenience,'' Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, wrote for the court.

Even the word cellphone is a misnomer, he said. ''They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, Rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, albums, televisions, maps or newspapers,'' he wrote.

But the Riley case concerned information possessed by the person arrested. Mr. Carpenter's case concerns information held by the cellphone companies.

The second case, United States versus Jones, in 2012, concerned a GPS device that the police attached to a suspect's car, allowing them to track his movements for 28 days.

All nine justices agreed that this was problematic under the Fourth Amendment, but they were divided on the rationale for the decision.

The majority said the police was not entitled to place the device on private property.

But the justices in concurring opinions expressed unease with the government's ability to vacuum up troves of private information.

With respectful dedication to Lawyer Zainab Khan/Kings College, UK, and then All the Supreme Court Judges, the World Over-

The Leaders, Grandparents, Parents, Students, Professors and Teachers of the world. See Ya all on !WOW! - the World Students  Society and Twitter -!E-WOW! - the Ecosystem 2011:


''' Rewards & Realm '''

Good Night and God Bless

SAM Daily Times - the Voice of the Voiceless