FBI’s Liberty Safe Passcode Seizure Reveals Privacy Loophole: Expert
The FBI’s seizure of the code to the safe of a man accused of protesting on Jan. 6 has sparked fears over the growing power of government and the erosion of constitutional safeguards.
According to Christopher Slobogin, a criminal and procedure law professor at Vanderbilt Law School, the current interpretation of the law leaves citizens vulnerable to the corporations and businesses that handle their data. He emphasizes that people would be shocked to realize how little privacy they actually have. The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have no expectation of privacy when they voluntarily share their information with a third party, except for cell phone locations.
This means that any information you hand over to any company can be shared with anyone.
Related Stories
-
9/8/2023
-
8/31/2023
At the center of the most recent controversy is a vault belonging to Nathan Hughes, 34, of Arkansas, who has been charged in connection to the Jan. 6 protest at the U.S. Capitol. In a video posted by Mr. Hughes to social media on Sept. 6, he recounted arriving back at his home following his arrest to find his gun safe had been opened.
“I didn’t even know that was a thing and I come home to see my safe is open after I got out of jail. Pretty crazy. I didn’t know safe companies would do that,” he said.
Boycott Calls
The safe’s manufacturer, Liberty Safe, confirmed that it had turned over the passcode to authorities in response to a warrant. However, this statement did not appease critics, who immediately began calling for a boycott of the company.
“Liberty Safe is an enemy to gun owners,” wrote Charlie Kirk, founder and CEO of Turning Point USA. “Your guns are not safe with @libertysafeinc Boycott. Ridicule. Ruin their company.”
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. However, it does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, only those deemed unreasonable under the law.
According to Mr. Slobogin, Liberty Safe was not legally obligated to reveal the passcode to law enforcement and did so voluntarily. He points out that most companies would have demanded a subpoena, but Liberty Safe simply handed it over without a fight.
Third-Party Doctrine
The legal loophole allowing the sharing of data, even what most people consider private, is justified under the ”third-party doctrine.” This doctrine states that individuals who voluntarily provide information to third parties have no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. It applies to phone companies, internet service providers, e-mail servers, and banks.
The “third-party doctrine” enables the U.S. government to obtain information from third parties without a warrant or complying with the Fourth Amendment.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...