Arbitrary and Outdated: Reforming the Stored Communications Act

Mitchol Dunham
{"title":"Arbitrary and Outdated: Reforming the Stored Communications Act","authors":"Mitchol Dunham","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3258774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States had the opportunity to revisit the Stored Communications Act and decide the question of whether the Act could be applied extraterritorially. Instead of answering the question directly, the Court left the question for Congress to decide. Congress took this opportunity and passed the CLOUD Act, legislation that acts more as a temporary fix instead of addressing the real issue: the Stored Communications Act no longer properly accommodates modern technology. This article begins with a reading of the Stored Communications Act, describing the limits of law enforcement’s ability to obtain a warrant, including the seemingly arbitrary decisions that Congress made with respect to certain kinds of data. The article then analyzes the issue that Congress addressed through the CLOUD Act and how the paradigm shifted for extraterritorial data before turning to a different example of where the Stored Communications Act falls short: distributed storage technology. The article provides a detailed examination of how this technology works and why it does not fit within the CLOUD Act paradigm. Finally, the article concludes that the Stored Communications Act cannot be fixed through patchwork legislation; instead, the entire Act needs to be reformed to accommodate current and emerging technology. The article recognizes that although there are two diametrically opposed approaches that Congress can take, a privacy-first approach is preferable and better supported both historically and when examining society’s utilization of the internet.","PeriodicalId":179517,"journal":{"name":"Information Privacy Law eJournal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information Privacy Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3258774","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States had the opportunity to revisit the Stored Communications Act and decide the question of whether the Act could be applied extraterritorially. Instead of answering the question directly, the Court left the question for Congress to decide. Congress took this opportunity and passed the CLOUD Act, legislation that acts more as a temporary fix instead of addressing the real issue: the Stored Communications Act no longer properly accommodates modern technology. This article begins with a reading of the Stored Communications Act, describing the limits of law enforcement’s ability to obtain a warrant, including the seemingly arbitrary decisions that Congress made with respect to certain kinds of data. The article then analyzes the issue that Congress addressed through the CLOUD Act and how the paradigm shifted for extraterritorial data before turning to a different example of where the Stored Communications Act falls short: distributed storage technology. The article provides a detailed examination of how this technology works and why it does not fit within the CLOUD Act paradigm. Finally, the article concludes that the Stored Communications Act cannot be fixed through patchwork legislation; instead, the entire Act needs to be reformed to accommodate current and emerging technology. The article recognizes that although there are two diametrically opposed approaches that Congress can take, a privacy-first approach is preferable and better supported both historically and when examining society’s utilization of the internet.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
武断和过时:改革存储通信法案
2018年,美国最高法院有机会重新审议《存储通信法案》,并决定该法案是否可以适用于治外法权。最高法院没有直接回答这个问题,而是把这个问题留给国会来决定。国会抓住了这个机会,通过了《云法案》(CLOUD Act),这一法案更多的是作为一个临时解决方案,而不是解决真正的问题:《存储通信法案》(Stored Communications Act)不再恰当地适应现代技术。本文首先解读《存储通信法案》(Stored Communications Act),描述执法部门获得搜查令的能力的限制,包括国会对某些类型的数据做出的看似武断的决定。然后,文章分析了国会通过CLOUD法案解决的问题,以及域外数据的范式如何转变,然后转向存储通信法案不足的另一个例子:分布式存储技术。本文详细介绍了这项技术是如何工作的,以及为什么它不适合CLOUD Act范式。最后,文章得出结论,存储通信法不能通过拼凑立法来解决;相反,整个法案需要进行改革,以适应当前和新兴的技术。这篇文章承认,尽管国会可以采取两种截然相反的方法,但从历史和研究社会对互联网的利用情况来看,隐私优先的方法更可取,也更受支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Policy Responses to Cross-border Central Bank Digital Currencies – Assessing the Transborder Effects of Digital Yuan Artificial Intelligence in the Internet of Health Things: Is the Solution to AI Privacy More AI? Comments on GDPR Enforcement EDPB Decision 01/020 Privacy Rights and Data Security: GDPR and Personal Data Driven Markets Big Boss is Watching You! The Right to Privacy of Employees in the Context of Workplace Surveillance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1