Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The Trump administration
Speaker 1: is ready to declare mission accomplished on reuniting migrant families
Speaker 1: torn apart during a border classic crossing crackdown, but the
Speaker 1: American Civil Liberties Union says the mission is far from over.
Speaker 1: Here's a c l you lawyer league learned speaking outside
Speaker 1: the courthouse yesterday after a hearing in front of the
Speaker 1: judge overseeing the reunifications. There are many other people that
Speaker 1: will ultimately need to be reunified, So when they say
Speaker 1: they're going to meet the deadline, it's only for those
Speaker 1: individuals they've declared to be eligible for reunification by the deadline.
Speaker 1: There are still many many people who were deported. Joining
Speaker 1: me is Kevin Appleby, Senior d Ector of International Migration
Speaker 1: Policy at the Center for Migration Studies. Kevin explain what
Speaker 1: the a c LU attorney was referring to their So
Speaker 1: there are about three thousand close to three thousand family
Speaker 1: separations under the Family Separation Policy, and the administration has
Speaker 1: only reunited um a little over eight hundred fifty uh families.
Speaker 1: They've approved reunifications for about five fifty and and they've deported,
Speaker 1: believe it or not, four hundred and sixty nine parents
Speaker 1: without their children. So wouldn't the attorney says they haven't
Speaker 1: finished the job. It's because they certainly have not meet
Speaker 1: met that three thousand family separation threshold which they are
Speaker 1: responsible for. Not to mention that there are several hundreds
Speaker 1: that they've said say are ineligible for reunifications because of
Speaker 1: certain criminal penalties that they've accrued. So when the administration
Speaker 1: says mission accomplished, uh I would disagree as with uh
Speaker 1: h LU, because they certainly haven't reunited the three thousand
Speaker 1: families that they should be reuniting. So apparently the number
Speaker 1: is four hundred sixty three parents that are under review
Speaker 1: according to the Trump administration, and the judge or the
Speaker 1: government to provide a list of those four and sixty
Speaker 1: three parents. He said, what would be the explanation of
Speaker 1: not knowing where the parents are? Is it that they
Speaker 1: don't know where the parents are or that they're not
Speaker 1: giving that information out. Well, let's let's not get confused
Speaker 1: as to groups. The four sixty three I misspoke, I
Speaker 1: said four sixty nine. They're about four and sixty three
Speaker 1: parents that have been deported to Central America. That's one group.
Speaker 1: They certainly don't know where they are in Central America
Speaker 1: and the prospect of being reunified with their children at
Speaker 1: this point it's not high. There are other smaller groups
Speaker 1: that may of parents that may not be be able
Speaker 1: to be located within the country, but that's a much
Speaker 1: smaller number. But the four three you referred to her
Speaker 1: parents that had been deported, and many say there's evidence
Speaker 1: that they were they were compelled to find waivers to
Speaker 1: be deported because they were told that was the only
Speaker 1: way that they would be reunited with their children, So
Speaker 1: that needs to be investigated as well. It's it's very
Speaker 1: confusing because you're one thing from one side and one
Speaker 1: thing from the other, and then the judge questioning everything.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration said that once immigrant families are reunited,
Speaker 1: any parents that are targeted for deportation shouldn't be allowed
Speaker 1: to leave their children behind to apply for political asylum,
Speaker 1: but that contradicts with what Homeland Security Secretary Kristen Nielsen
Speaker 1: said on Fox News. She said that she said, the
Speaker 1: way the process works is the parents always have the
Speaker 1: choice to take the children with them. So referring to
Speaker 1: those those foreign secret parents, these are parents that made
Speaker 1: the choice not to bring the children with them. So
Speaker 1: what's the real story. Well, the real story is that
Speaker 1: when these parents signed these waivers, the children were not
Speaker 1: with them. They had already been separated. So if if
Speaker 1: the case, if the federal government and the hs UH,
Speaker 1: we're serious about reunited and they would have brought those
Speaker 1: kids to their parents before they would have been deported,
Speaker 1: But they didn't, so the children remain in the country.
Speaker 1: And and the other aspect you got to think about
Speaker 1: here is some of the parents might have thought that
Speaker 1: they were going to be reunited with their children, but
Speaker 1: some might have said, it's okay if my child stays
Speaker 1: with a relative here. That might have been part of
Speaker 1: the purpose of them coming so that their children could remain,
Speaker 1: and they might have signed knowing that. So you can't
Speaker 1: get into mind of the parents because they've been deported.
Speaker 1: But there's been evidence that there's been you know, that
Speaker 1: they coerced to sign these these waivers um on the
Speaker 1: pretense that they would be reunited with their children, and
Speaker 1: that hasn't happened. So what does the A C. L.
Speaker 1: You want to happen going forward? Well, they want accounting
Speaker 1: for all the three thousand families that you know, parents
Speaker 1: that lost their that were separated from their children, and
Speaker 1: the administrations really hasn't met that task in terms of
Speaker 1: all the numbers have been separated. And in this case,
Speaker 1: there can't be room for error. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: you can't have separate you know, you can't reunite you
Speaker 1: know hundred and then have two hundreds that you just
Speaker 1: don't reunite for because you can't find them. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a mess created by the administration which they
Speaker 1: didn't have to do. They weren't forced to do, despite
Speaker 1: what they say. So they haven't the ultimate responsibility to
Speaker 1: really make whole all of these families, and they're falling
Speaker 1: short of It. Will be interesting to see what the
Speaker 1: court and what the judge says tomorrow, which is the
Speaker 1: deadline for that reunification, what he will say to that,
Speaker 1: if they'll give them more time or if he'll want
Speaker 1: a more full accounting of what they've done. About a
Speaker 1: minute here. Does it look as if they're going to
Speaker 1: meet any part of the deadline? Are they reuniting more
Speaker 1: families today? Well, they have a plan to reunite families
Speaker 1: at several locations. They haven't really disclosed where those locations are,
Speaker 1: so they could, you know, present to the judge tomorrow
Speaker 1: a more full list. Thanks Kevin. Kevin Appleby, Senior director
Speaker 1: of International Migration Policy at the Center for Migration Study.
Speaker 1: A new report released today about a Center for Strategic
Speaker 1: and International Studies found that law enforcement agencies are increasingly
Speaker 1: asking tech companies for access to digital evidence on mobile
Speaker 1: phones and apps, and about of the requests are granted.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Jennifer Daxel dasco professor at American University
Speaker 1: Washington College of Law and a senior associate at the
Speaker 1: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Jennifer, you were a
Speaker 1: co author of the report and it says that the
Speaker 1: number of law enforce and requests at least as directed
Speaker 1: at the major US based tech and telecom companies has
Speaker 1: significantly increased over time. What does that increase, sure, and
Speaker 1: thanks for having us on. The increase is the number
Speaker 1: of requests that law enforcement is making to the major
Speaker 1: six major tech companies UM obvious ones Google, Facebook, Microsoft, UM, Apple,
Speaker 1: And what we're seeing is an increase in request for
Speaker 1: digital evidence. Now this isn't surprising if you think about
Speaker 1: how much information UM has been increasingly digitalized over the
Speaker 1: last UM several years. UM law enforcement is finding increasingly
Speaker 1: that information it needs to solve criminal cases is both
Speaker 1: digital and in the hands of these service providers. What
Speaker 1: I'm looking for is how much is that increase? You
Speaker 1: say it's increased, but how much should you have a number?
Speaker 1: Yes over the last in two thousand and seventeen or
Speaker 1: about and requests UM compared that to two thousand and
Speaker 1: fourteen where the numbers were about eighty thousand or so,
Speaker 1: so so that's a pretty significant jump. You also write
Speaker 1: that the response rates have been consistent, So does that
Speaker 1: mean that tech companies are complying more often? Well, the
Speaker 1: the rates have been consistent over time, But if you
Speaker 1: if you take the rates in the absolute numbers, then
Speaker 1: there's more cases in which law enforcement is having UM
Speaker 1: difficulty and accessing evidence even if the rates are the same.
Speaker 1: And importantly, these numbers only capture those cases in which
Speaker 1: law enforcement has in fact made the request. So our report,
Speaker 1: which drew on a survey of state, local, and federal
Speaker 1: law enforcement entities and also a number of qualitative interviews,
Speaker 1: UM found that law enforcement was facing significant problems in
Speaker 1: just identifying which service providers had the kinds of information
Speaker 1: that they need in order to UM for their investigates.
Speaker 1: There there the criminal activity that they were investigating, and
Speaker 1: that was one of it. That was really the biggest
Speaker 1: problem that they were facing in terms of dealing with
Speaker 1: digital evidence. So service providers meeting whether it's UM, you know,
Speaker 1: Verizon or a T and T, Yeah, anybody, So those
Speaker 1: so those are are the easier ones. But we're talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, the the law enforcements investing in crime. They
Speaker 1: don't know whether Facebook holds the data or Google are
Speaker 1: more importantly, which of the you know, gazillion apps that
Speaker 1: are on our phones might have the relevant information. And
Speaker 1: so law enforcement is facing challenges and figuring out where
Speaker 1: to go UM and determining how to ask for for
Speaker 1: the data that they that they seek in investigating activity.
Speaker 1: These interesting, These are problems that can be solved. This
Speaker 1: is not an insurmountable problem, and in our report we
Speaker 1: call for a new national Digital Evidence of says that
Speaker 1: can that can consolidate resources and provide training and UM
Speaker 1: kind of a one stop shop for law enforcement to
Speaker 1: go to get some of these answers to their questions.
Speaker 1: So what would that cost to have a National Digital
Speaker 1: Evidence Office and to have it staffed, so you know,
Speaker 1: this can probably done it relatively low cost. Obviously, the
Speaker 1: more money, the more there can be done in terms
Speaker 1: of training, in terms of providing brands to the programs
Speaker 1: that already do exist at the state and local level
Speaker 1: that are quite good into rationalizing those UM. But a
Speaker 1: lot of this can be done simply by you know,
Speaker 1: reallocating UM certain grant programs UM detailing individuals in the
Speaker 1: federal government to specifically focus on these issues. I think
Speaker 1: the biggest cost comes from the need to really staff
Speaker 1: up UM a team of experts who can help distribute
Speaker 1: the technical tools that can help interpret data once it's
Speaker 1: been disclosed and can stand top of UM of changes
Speaker 1: that tech companies make to their own products, which than
Speaker 1: law enforcement has to also be on top of in
Speaker 1: order to be able to determine where to go and
Speaker 1: to interpret data that's being turned over. Currently, there is
Speaker 1: such an entity of federal entity it's within the FBI.
Speaker 1: UM it is expected to service all state and local
Speaker 1: law enforcement across the country. There's about eighteen thousand different
Speaker 1: offices across the country, and this center has a budget
Speaker 1: of just eleven million dollars, which is nowhere near adequate
Speaker 1: to the need. So we call for adequate resourcing of
Speaker 1: that entity, UM, giving it it's kind of its own platform,
Speaker 1: its own authorization, and obviously the more money the better,
Speaker 1: But we think that there can be a lot done
Speaker 1: at relatively UM low cost. So is it different in
Speaker 1: each case where to go to find the information? For example,
Speaker 1: someone may have a Facebook account, someone else may not.
Speaker 1: Exactly I mean, so in each case, um, I mean, obviously,
Speaker 1: the the investigating agent needs to understand the case. They
Speaker 1: need to know what they're looking for. But um where
Speaker 1: to go depends on the specific facts of the case.
Speaker 1: And different providers have different protocols for per requesting data,
Speaker 1: all of which law enforcement needs to be able to
Speaker 1: know and to utilize effectively. Well, well, could some of
Speaker 1: this information that the agencies are looking for be protected? Um?
Speaker 1: So so certainly, and so we're talking about law enforcement
Speaker 1: making requests UM via a warrant so approved by a
Speaker 1: judge pursuance of probable cause, making requests pursuant to legal
Speaker 1: processes UM that have been laid out in statute UM,
Speaker 1: often involving court authorization. So so, certainly, just because law
Speaker 1: enforcement wants it doesn't mean that it's either available or
Speaker 1: necessarily appropriate for law enforcement to get UM. But we
Speaker 1: also have found that there are cases a number of
Speaker 1: cases in which just about everybody would agree that there
Speaker 1: is a lawful basis UM and and consistent with rules
Speaker 1: on privacy and norms on privacy and civil liberties UM
Speaker 1: to access certain information, and they're being stymied not because
Speaker 1: of a lack of legal authority, but because of much
Speaker 1: more practical problems in terms of knowledge and expertise. And
Speaker 1: it seems to us that this is something that can
Speaker 1: be solved, and that's given that's been given not enough
Speaker 1: attention to date, because there's been so much focus on
Speaker 1: problems associated with encryption and the debates about whether or
Speaker 1: not companies should be forced to decrypt data, and that
Speaker 1: there's other what we call low hanging fruit that's out
Speaker 1: there that could significantly improve law enforcement access while those
Speaker 1: other debates kind of continue to um to to rerady
Speaker 1: e on so less than a minute. Here is there
Speaker 1: any one kind of information that law enforcement agencies are
Speaker 1: looking for more than others? Um? You know unclear, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know into that. I mean, obviously, you know,
Speaker 1: often location information is often quite quite important to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Just to shoot a big case on that,
Speaker 1: um that that law enforcement, at least for historical information
Speaker 1: that's longer than a certain location, information over a certain
Speaker 1: time period has to be acquired by a warrant signed
Speaker 1: off by a judge pursuance of probable cause. Um. So
Speaker 1: that's a legal standard. But here we're talking about the
Speaker 1: practical problems. All right, question up where to go to
Speaker 1: get it? Thanks so much, Jennifer's the Carpenter case the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decided last term. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the
Speaker 1: show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com
Speaker 1: slash podcast. I'm June Brolso. This is Bloomberg