Speaker 1: Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief,
Speaker 1: exploring legal issues in the news, and the law brief
Speaker 1: is brought to you by American Arbitration Association. Business Disputes
Speaker 1: are Inevitable Brasilve fest or with the American Arbitration Association,
Speaker 1: the global leader and alternative dispute resolution for over ninety
Speaker 1: years more at a d r dot org. Today, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law host Jum Grosso and Michael Best discuss a case
Speaker 1: over requirements for Internet providers and services like Facebook and
Speaker 1: Google when they are served with search warrants for customers data.
Speaker 1: They speak with Orang care, a professor at George Washington
Speaker 1: University Law School, or what was Facebook's argument as to
Speaker 1: why it should be able to challenge the search warrants
Speaker 1: issued by a judge. Facebook has two different arguments. One
Speaker 1: argument they made is that the statute that governs access
Speaker 1: to warrants for email accounts gives them that right. And
Speaker 1: then the second argument they had is that the Fourth
Speaker 1: Amendment of the Constitution allows them to represent their users
Speaker 1: and stand in for their position and and challenge the
Speaker 1: warrants as if they were the users. Isn't this just
Speaker 1: another outgrowth of the fact that the law really hasn't
Speaker 1: figured out how to deal with the idea that we
Speaker 1: put so much of our personal information onto third party
Speaker 1: computer servers. Now, I don't think it's so much that
Speaker 1: the law hasn't caught up as that the law isn't
Speaker 1: sure of how to treat the problem. So here's what's different.
Speaker 1: When the government wants to search your house, they get
Speaker 1: a warrant and they break down your door and they
Speaker 1: search your house. They don't get somebody's permission, they don't
Speaker 1: go through your landlord, they don't go through anyone. They
Speaker 1: just do it. On the other hand, when they get
Speaker 1: a warrant, when the government gets a warrant to search
Speaker 1: an email account, they don't break into the email server.
Speaker 1: They don't themselves, you know, go to Google and and
Speaker 1: and break into its servers. Instead, they work with the company,
Speaker 1: the third party provider, Facebook, Google, Yahoo and the like
Speaker 1: and say, hey, you get us the information on our behalf.
Speaker 1: And the question is does that change things or not?
Speaker 1: Does that introduction of the big third party company that's
Speaker 1: in charge charge of the account mean that there's a
Speaker 1: new person who can step in and say, hey, wait,
Speaker 1: we don't think this is lawful or do you treat
Speaker 1: it just like a traditional warrant, which you know, if
Speaker 1: you if the police execute a warrant at your door,
Speaker 1: you can't stop them and say, hey, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: I don't think this warrant is lawful. You've got to
Speaker 1: get out of the way while they search your house. Well,
Speaker 1: but the you know, the third party argument, what is
Speaker 1: it about the computer world that might make that different?
Speaker 1: What make that what might make that different is that
Speaker 1: the way the government is getting the materials is very
Speaker 1: similar to subpoena. So what's tricky about the way the
Speaker 1: internet works is that warrants are executed like subpoenas. Subpoenas
Speaker 1: do allow pre enforcement challenge. If the government serves a
Speaker 1: subpoena on Facebook for customer records, it's clear Facebook can
Speaker 1: challenge that subpoena. The question is whether they can challenge
Speaker 1: a warrant that's executed just like a subpoena and as
Speaker 1: or terror a professor at George Washington University Law School,
Speaker 1: speaking with Bloomberg Law host Jing Grosso and Michael Best.
Speaker 1: You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm
Speaker 1: Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio and now among
Speaker 1: the top legal stories from Bloomberg Law. JP Morgan has
Speaker 1: been accused of nicolin dimon jury members with debit cards.
Speaker 1: In handful of cities and counties. JP Morgan Chase handles
Speaker 1: juror compensation. They issue debit cards instead of paper checks
Speaker 1: for the jurors. The cards come loaded with fees for
Speaker 1: balance inquiries and for using non chase a t m S.
Speaker 1: One former jur in Washington d C. Has sued JP Morgan,
Speaker 1: claiming it's violating the Consumer Protection Act. The bank says
Speaker 1: it's getting out of the juror pay business. Spinal Tap
Speaker 1: is getting back together to demand more money. The movie
Speaker 1: Rock Band is suing the distributor of the called film
Speaker 1: This Is Spinal Tap. A lawsuit is demanding four hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars from Vivendi for fraudulent accounting and unfair business practices.
Speaker 1: Vendi says it doesn't comment on on litigation and that's
Speaker 1: this morning's Bloomberg Law Brief. You can find more legal
Speaker 1: news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg Beginning dot Com.
Speaker 1: Attorneys will find exceptional legal research and business development tools
Speaker 1: there as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Bena dot com for more information.