老澳门开奖结果

If the government wants to search your Facebook account鈥攕nooping through everything from your posts, photographs, and videos to your private messages, check-ins, likes, and search history鈥攕houldn鈥檛 you know about it in time to protect your constitutional rights? We certainly think so. And that鈥檚 what we told the D.C. Court of Appeals last week when we filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a largely secret case concerning the government鈥檚 search of Facebook accounts.

In practice, the targets of electronic searches of Facebook accounts and similar data often don鈥檛 learn about them until months after they have occurred and the materials have already been handed over to the government. That鈥檚 because the government regularly obtains gag orders to prevent Internet companies like Facebook from notifying their users about government searches of their data. In our brief, which we filed together with the 老澳门开奖结果 of DC and Public Citizen, we argued that, absent an overriding government interest in secrecy, the government should not be allowed to block Facebook from notifying its users about the search warrants targeting them.

The case is entirely sealed, save for a three-page public notice drafted by Facebook announcing its effort to lift the gag order and calling for friend-of-the-court briefs in support of its position. From that notice, we know that the government issued search warrants to Facebook demanding 鈥渁ll contents of communications, identifying information, and related records鈥� over a three-month span for three accounts. Along with the warrants, Facebook received a gag order that prohibits the company from telling the targets of the search about the warrants.

That gag order was issued under the same statute that Microsoft is challenging in a separate case, and for good reason. Microsoft has said that, of the more than 5,000 federal demands for customer data it received over 18 months, almost half came with gag orders鈥攁nd most of those were indefinite, resulting in an alarming number of secret searches.

To our knowledge, Facebook has not challenged the warrants themselves in the D.C. case, but it has argued that the accompanying gag order is unconstitutional. A lower court limited the gag so that it would expire 30 days after Facebook produced the records to the government. Laudably, Facebook refused to accept that limitation and appealed the order, arguing that notice should not be delayed because 1) the events underlying the investigation are public, 2) the search targets anonymous political advocacy and speech, and 3) Facebook has already retained all of the relevant records, which means that the subjects of the search can't destroy them when they receive notice.

Given the limited facts presented, it is hard to imagine how these warrants can be lawful. The government鈥檚 demand for 鈥渁ll contents of communications鈥� over a three-month period is extraordinarily broad. It almost certainly defies the Fourth Amendment鈥檚 requirement that a search warrant describe with particularity what the government may search and seize, especially where the search targets materials protected by the First Amendment and threatens to unmask anonymous speakers. The warrants at issue in this case would allow government investigators to examine the targets鈥� communications with an untold number of Facebook users, including family members, romantic partners, and political allies. They would also reveal the targets鈥� political affiliations, reading habits, and their views on everything from politics and religion to movies and television shows.

The Constitution exists to prevent such harms, but it can do so adequately only if targeted users know their rights are in jeopardy. The users are in the best position to show how the warrants infringe their constitutional rights鈥攁nd to do so before production to the government brings about the very harms the First and Fourth Amendments are meant to stop, including unwarranted invasions of privacy, unmasking of anonymous speakers, and chilling of protected speech. Without a convincing reason for secrecy, the government should not be allowed to prevent Facebook from telling its users that their accounts are being searched. We hope the D.C. Court of Appeals agrees.