1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,279 Speaker 1: Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief, 2 00:00:02,320 --> 00:00:04,800 Speaker 1: exploring legal issues in the news, and the law brief 3 00:00:04,840 --> 00:00:08,880 Speaker 1: is brought to you by American Arbitration Association. Business Disputes 4 00:00:08,880 --> 00:00:12,640 Speaker 1: are Inevitable Brasilve fest or with the American Arbitration Association, 5 00:00:12,920 --> 00:00:16,239 Speaker 1: the global leader and alternative dispute resolution for over ninety 6 00:00:16,320 --> 00:00:19,720 Speaker 1: years more at a d r dot org. Today, Bloomberg 7 00:00:19,760 --> 00:00:22,320 Speaker 1: Law host Jum Grosso and Michael Best discuss a case 8 00:00:22,400 --> 00:00:26,040 Speaker 1: over requirements for Internet providers and services like Facebook and 9 00:00:26,120 --> 00:00:30,080 Speaker 1: Google when they are served with search warrants for customers data. 10 00:00:30,280 --> 00:00:33,040 Speaker 1: They speak with Orang care, a professor at George Washington 11 00:00:33,159 --> 00:00:37,800 Speaker 1: University Law School, or what was Facebook's argument as to 12 00:00:37,880 --> 00:00:40,559 Speaker 1: why it should be able to challenge the search warrants 13 00:00:40,560 --> 00:00:43,640 Speaker 1: issued by a judge. Facebook has two different arguments. One 14 00:00:43,720 --> 00:00:47,559 Speaker 1: argument they made is that the statute that governs access 15 00:00:47,600 --> 00:00:50,680 Speaker 1: to warrants for email accounts gives them that right. And 16 00:00:50,680 --> 00:00:53,080 Speaker 1: then the second argument they had is that the Fourth 17 00:00:53,120 --> 00:00:58,360 Speaker 1: Amendment of the Constitution allows them to represent their users 18 00:00:58,360 --> 00:01:01,680 Speaker 1: and stand in for their position and and challenge the 19 00:01:01,680 --> 00:01:04,479 Speaker 1: warrants as if they were the users. Isn't this just 20 00:01:04,520 --> 00:01:07,319 Speaker 1: another outgrowth of the fact that the law really hasn't 21 00:01:07,360 --> 00:01:10,440 Speaker 1: figured out how to deal with the idea that we 22 00:01:10,480 --> 00:01:13,600 Speaker 1: put so much of our personal information onto third party 23 00:01:13,600 --> 00:01:15,880 Speaker 1: computer servers. Now, I don't think it's so much that 24 00:01:15,920 --> 00:01:18,800 Speaker 1: the law hasn't caught up as that the law isn't 25 00:01:18,800 --> 00:01:21,560 Speaker 1: sure of how to treat the problem. So here's what's different. 26 00:01:21,840 --> 00:01:24,720 Speaker 1: When the government wants to search your house, they get 27 00:01:24,720 --> 00:01:26,680 Speaker 1: a warrant and they break down your door and they 28 00:01:26,680 --> 00:01:29,120 Speaker 1: search your house. They don't get somebody's permission, they don't 29 00:01:29,120 --> 00:01:31,560 Speaker 1: go through your landlord, they don't go through anyone. They 30 00:01:31,600 --> 00:01:33,440 Speaker 1: just do it. On the other hand, when they get 31 00:01:33,480 --> 00:01:35,120 Speaker 1: a warrant, when the government gets a warrant to search 32 00:01:35,160 --> 00:01:38,920 Speaker 1: an email account, they don't break into the email server. 33 00:01:39,040 --> 00:01:42,240 Speaker 1: They don't themselves, you know, go to Google and and 34 00:01:42,240 --> 00:01:45,840 Speaker 1: and break into its servers. Instead, they work with the company, 35 00:01:46,000 --> 00:01:49,440 Speaker 1: the third party provider, Facebook, Google, Yahoo and the like 36 00:01:49,800 --> 00:01:53,040 Speaker 1: and say, hey, you get us the information on our behalf. 37 00:01:53,600 --> 00:01:55,960 Speaker 1: And the question is does that change things or not? 38 00:01:56,040 --> 00:01:59,680 Speaker 1: Does that introduction of the big third party company that's 39 00:01:59,680 --> 00:02:03,240 Speaker 1: in charge charge of the account mean that there's a 40 00:02:03,280 --> 00:02:06,040 Speaker 1: new person who can step in and say, hey, wait, 41 00:02:06,080 --> 00:02:08,600 Speaker 1: we don't think this is lawful or do you treat 42 00:02:08,639 --> 00:02:10,920 Speaker 1: it just like a traditional warrant, which you know, if 43 00:02:10,960 --> 00:02:13,120 Speaker 1: you if the police execute a warrant at your door, 44 00:02:13,240 --> 00:02:14,960 Speaker 1: you can't stop them and say, hey, wait a minute, 45 00:02:14,960 --> 00:02:16,720 Speaker 1: I don't think this warrant is lawful. You've got to 46 00:02:16,720 --> 00:02:18,919 Speaker 1: get out of the way while they search your house. Well, 47 00:02:18,919 --> 00:02:21,760 Speaker 1: but the you know, the third party argument, what is 48 00:02:21,800 --> 00:02:25,040 Speaker 1: it about the computer world that might make that different? 49 00:02:25,280 --> 00:02:27,920 Speaker 1: What make that what might make that different is that 50 00:02:28,000 --> 00:02:32,720 Speaker 1: the way the government is getting the materials is very 51 00:02:32,760 --> 00:02:36,560 Speaker 1: similar to subpoena. So what's tricky about the way the 52 00:02:36,600 --> 00:02:41,200 Speaker 1: internet works is that warrants are executed like subpoenas. Subpoenas 53 00:02:41,240 --> 00:02:44,519 Speaker 1: do allow pre enforcement challenge. If the government serves a 54 00:02:44,560 --> 00:02:49,880 Speaker 1: subpoena on Facebook for customer records, it's clear Facebook can 55 00:02:49,960 --> 00:02:53,120 Speaker 1: challenge that subpoena. The question is whether they can challenge 56 00:02:53,200 --> 00:02:56,960 Speaker 1: a warrant that's executed just like a subpoena and as 57 00:02:57,120 --> 00:03:00,359 Speaker 1: or terror a professor at George Washington University Law School, 58 00:03:00,400 --> 00:03:03,440 Speaker 1: speaking with Bloomberg Law host Jing Grosso and Michael Best. 59 00:03:03,720 --> 00:03:05,919 Speaker 1: You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm 60 00:03:05,960 --> 00:03:09,160 Speaker 1: Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio and now among 61 00:03:09,200 --> 00:03:12,680 Speaker 1: the top legal stories from Bloomberg Law. JP Morgan has 62 00:03:12,680 --> 00:03:16,760 Speaker 1: been accused of nicolin dimon jury members with debit cards. 63 00:03:17,240 --> 00:03:20,320 Speaker 1: In handful of cities and counties. JP Morgan Chase handles 64 00:03:20,400 --> 00:03:24,040 Speaker 1: juror compensation. They issue debit cards instead of paper checks 65 00:03:24,080 --> 00:03:27,840 Speaker 1: for the jurors. The cards come loaded with fees for 66 00:03:28,080 --> 00:03:31,919 Speaker 1: balance inquiries and for using non chase a t m S. 67 00:03:32,440 --> 00:03:35,320 Speaker 1: One former jur in Washington d C. Has sued JP Morgan, 68 00:03:35,360 --> 00:03:39,480 Speaker 1: claiming it's violating the Consumer Protection Act. The bank says 69 00:03:39,760 --> 00:03:43,840 Speaker 1: it's getting out of the juror pay business. Spinal Tap 70 00:03:43,880 --> 00:03:46,840 Speaker 1: is getting back together to demand more money. The movie 71 00:03:47,000 --> 00:03:50,840 Speaker 1: Rock Band is suing the distributor of the called film 72 00:03:50,840 --> 00:03:53,680 Speaker 1: This Is Spinal Tap. A lawsuit is demanding four hundred 73 00:03:53,680 --> 00:03:57,640 Speaker 1: million dollars from Vivendi for fraudulent accounting and unfair business practices. 74 00:03:58,000 --> 00:04:01,680 Speaker 1: Vendi says it doesn't comment on on litigation and that's 75 00:04:01,720 --> 00:04:05,080 Speaker 1: this morning's Bloomberg Law Brief. You can find more legal 76 00:04:05,080 --> 00:04:08,320 Speaker 1: news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg Beginning dot Com. 77 00:04:08,600 --> 00:04:12,440 Speaker 1: Attorneys will find exceptional legal research and business development tools 78 00:04:12,480 --> 00:04:15,720 Speaker 1: there as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg 79 00:04:15,840 --> 00:04:18,320 Speaker 1: Bena dot com for more information.