WEBVTT - Bloomberg Law Brief:Facebook Fight Digital Search Warrant Rules

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.279
<v Speaker 1>Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief,

0:00:02.320 --> 0:00:04.800
<v Speaker 1>exploring legal issues in the news, and the law brief

0:00:04.840 --> 0:00:08.880
<v Speaker 1>is brought to you by American Arbitration Association. Business Disputes

0:00:08.880 --> 0:00:12.640
<v Speaker 1>are Inevitable Brasilve fest or with the American Arbitration Association,

0:00:12.920 --> 0:00:16.239
<v Speaker 1>the global leader and alternative dispute resolution for over ninety

0:00:16.320 --> 0:00:19.720
<v Speaker 1>years more at a d r dot org. Today, Bloomberg

0:00:19.760 --> 0:00:22.320
<v Speaker 1>Law host Jum Grosso and Michael Best discuss a case

0:00:22.400 --> 0:00:26.040
<v Speaker 1>over requirements for Internet providers and services like Facebook and

0:00:26.120 --> 0:00:30.080
<v Speaker 1>Google when they are served with search warrants for customers data.

0:00:30.280 --> 0:00:33.040
<v Speaker 1>They speak with Orang care, a professor at George Washington

0:00:33.159 --> 0:00:37.800
<v Speaker 1>University Law School, or what was Facebook's argument as to

0:00:37.880 --> 0:00:40.559
<v Speaker 1>why it should be able to challenge the search warrants

0:00:40.560 --> 0:00:43.640
<v Speaker 1>issued by a judge. Facebook has two different arguments. One

0:00:43.720 --> 0:00:47.559
<v Speaker 1>argument they made is that the statute that governs access

0:00:47.600 --> 0:00:50.680
<v Speaker 1>to warrants for email accounts gives them that right. And

0:00:50.680 --> 0:00:53.080
<v Speaker 1>then the second argument they had is that the Fourth

0:00:53.120 --> 0:00:58.360
<v Speaker 1>Amendment of the Constitution allows them to represent their users

0:00:58.360 --> 0:01:01.680
<v Speaker 1>and stand in for their position and and challenge the

0:01:01.680 --> 0:01:04.479
<v Speaker 1>warrants as if they were the users. Isn't this just

0:01:04.520 --> 0:01:07.319
<v Speaker 1>another outgrowth of the fact that the law really hasn't

0:01:07.360 --> 0:01:10.440
<v Speaker 1>figured out how to deal with the idea that we

0:01:10.480 --> 0:01:13.600
<v Speaker 1>put so much of our personal information onto third party

0:01:13.600 --> 0:01:15.880
<v Speaker 1>computer servers. Now, I don't think it's so much that

0:01:15.920 --> 0:01:18.800
<v Speaker 1>the law hasn't caught up as that the law isn't

0:01:18.800 --> 0:01:21.560
<v Speaker 1>sure of how to treat the problem. So here's what's different.

0:01:21.840 --> 0:01:24.720
<v Speaker 1>When the government wants to search your house, they get

0:01:24.720 --> 0:01:26.680
<v Speaker 1>a warrant and they break down your door and they

0:01:26.680 --> 0:01:29.120
<v Speaker 1>search your house. They don't get somebody's permission, they don't

0:01:29.120 --> 0:01:31.560
<v Speaker 1>go through your landlord, they don't go through anyone. They

0:01:31.600 --> 0:01:33.440
<v Speaker 1>just do it. On the other hand, when they get

0:01:33.480 --> 0:01:35.120
<v Speaker 1>a warrant, when the government gets a warrant to search

0:01:35.160 --> 0:01:38.920
<v Speaker 1>an email account, they don't break into the email server.

0:01:39.040 --> 0:01:42.240
<v Speaker 1>They don't themselves, you know, go to Google and and

0:01:42.240 --> 0:01:45.840
<v Speaker 1>and break into its servers. Instead, they work with the company,

0:01:46.000 --> 0:01:49.440
<v Speaker 1>the third party provider, Facebook, Google, Yahoo and the like

0:01:49.800 --> 0:01:53.040
<v Speaker 1>and say, hey, you get us the information on our behalf.

0:01:53.600 --> 0:01:55.960
<v Speaker 1>And the question is does that change things or not?

0:01:56.040 --> 0:01:59.680
<v Speaker 1>Does that introduction of the big third party company that's

0:01:59.680 --> 0:02:03.240
<v Speaker 1>in charge charge of the account mean that there's a

0:02:03.280 --> 0:02:06.040
<v Speaker 1>new person who can step in and say, hey, wait,

0:02:06.080 --> 0:02:08.600
<v Speaker 1>we don't think this is lawful or do you treat

0:02:08.639 --> 0:02:10.920
<v Speaker 1>it just like a traditional warrant, which you know, if

0:02:10.960 --> 0:02:13.120
<v Speaker 1>you if the police execute a warrant at your door,

0:02:13.240 --> 0:02:14.960
<v Speaker 1>you can't stop them and say, hey, wait a minute,

0:02:14.960 --> 0:02:16.720
<v Speaker 1>I don't think this warrant is lawful. You've got to

0:02:16.720 --> 0:02:18.919
<v Speaker 1>get out of the way while they search your house. Well,

0:02:18.919 --> 0:02:21.760
<v Speaker 1>but the you know, the third party argument, what is

0:02:21.800 --> 0:02:25.040
<v Speaker 1>it about the computer world that might make that different?

0:02:25.280 --> 0:02:27.920
<v Speaker 1>What make that what might make that different is that

0:02:28.000 --> 0:02:32.720
<v Speaker 1>the way the government is getting the materials is very

0:02:32.760 --> 0:02:36.560
<v Speaker 1>similar to subpoena. So what's tricky about the way the

0:02:36.600 --> 0:02:41.200
<v Speaker 1>internet works is that warrants are executed like subpoenas. Subpoenas

0:02:41.240 --> 0:02:44.519
<v Speaker 1>do allow pre enforcement challenge. If the government serves a

0:02:44.560 --> 0:02:49.880
<v Speaker 1>subpoena on Facebook for customer records, it's clear Facebook can

0:02:49.960 --> 0:02:53.120
<v Speaker 1>challenge that subpoena. The question is whether they can challenge

0:02:53.200 --> 0:02:56.960
<v Speaker 1>a warrant that's executed just like a subpoena and as

0:02:57.120 --> 0:03:00.359
<v Speaker 1>or terror a professor at George Washington University Law School,

0:03:00.400 --> 0:03:03.440
<v Speaker 1>speaking with Bloomberg Law host Jing Grosso and Michael Best.

0:03:03.720 --> 0:03:05.919
<v Speaker 1>You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm

0:03:05.960 --> 0:03:09.160
<v Speaker 1>Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio and now among

0:03:09.200 --> 0:03:12.680
<v Speaker 1>the top legal stories from Bloomberg Law. JP Morgan has

0:03:12.680 --> 0:03:16.760
<v Speaker 1>been accused of nicolin dimon jury members with debit cards.

0:03:17.240 --> 0:03:20.320
<v Speaker 1>In handful of cities and counties. JP Morgan Chase handles

0:03:20.400 --> 0:03:24.040
<v Speaker 1>juror compensation. They issue debit cards instead of paper checks

0:03:24.080 --> 0:03:27.840
<v Speaker 1>for the jurors. The cards come loaded with fees for

0:03:28.080 --> 0:03:31.919
<v Speaker 1>balance inquiries and for using non chase a t m S.

0:03:32.440 --> 0:03:35.320
<v Speaker 1>One former jur in Washington d C. Has sued JP Morgan,

0:03:35.360 --> 0:03:39.480
<v Speaker 1>claiming it's violating the Consumer Protection Act. The bank says

0:03:39.760 --> 0:03:43.840
<v Speaker 1>it's getting out of the juror pay business. Spinal Tap

0:03:43.880 --> 0:03:46.840
<v Speaker 1>is getting back together to demand more money. The movie

0:03:47.000 --> 0:03:50.840
<v Speaker 1>Rock Band is suing the distributor of the called film

0:03:50.840 --> 0:03:53.680
<v Speaker 1>This Is Spinal Tap. A lawsuit is demanding four hundred

0:03:53.680 --> 0:03:57.640
<v Speaker 1>million dollars from Vivendi for fraudulent accounting and unfair business practices.

0:03:58.000 --> 0:04:01.680
<v Speaker 1>Vendi says it doesn't comment on on litigation and that's

0:04:01.720 --> 0:04:05.080
<v Speaker 1>this morning's Bloomberg Law Brief. You can find more legal

0:04:05.080 --> 0:04:08.320
<v Speaker 1>news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg Beginning dot Com.

0:04:08.600 --> 0:04:12.440
<v Speaker 1>Attorneys will find exceptional legal research and business development tools

0:04:12.480 --> 0:04:15.720
<v Speaker 1>there as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg

0:04:15.840 --> 0:04:18.320
<v Speaker 1>Bena dot com for more information.