Fifth Circuit: USA v. Henry Reddick

After hash values of suspect images were flagged by the private vendor, subsequent opening of the files by law enforcement did not violate the Fourth Amendment, as the opening didn't expand the scope of the search.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-41116-CR0.pdf

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Malik Farrad

Sufficient evidence for the finder of fact to have determined that the gentleman in the Facebook photos with the gun was the deft.

Social media photos are not self-authenticating business records, but there is no need for the identity of the page to be established -- the identity of the subject of the photo is a matter for the finder of fact, and are admissible so long as there is sufficient evidence that they are what they appear to be.

Shaky qualifications for expert testimony on Facebook photo-posting habits of suspects ultimately harmless.

Predicate offenses properly counted for sentencing where each is defined as happening on or about a certain day, despite being connected by a common conspiracy.

No plain error in counting convictions in absentia as predicate convictions.

Sentence increase due to predicate offenses didn't need to be separately charged.

Warrant not defective when it identifies the Facebook data as present in the jurisdiction.

Year and a half delay after service of warrant on FB didn't invalidate the warrant.

Execution of warrant outside of district not plain error, cf. 2703(A). 

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0141p-06.pdf

Sixth Circuit: American Tooling Center, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Surety Co

Funds were lost under the policy when they were transferred to the fraudulent interloper, despite the fact that they were owed to a third party.

The policy's definition of computer fraud includes funds transferred as a result of fraudulent emails; the scope is not limited to losses incurred by hacking.

Loss was sufficiently proximate to the computer fraud, as each review step before the transfer of funds was prompted by the initial fraudulent email.

As the exclusions only preclude payment for losses caused by entry of data into the computer system, the employees entry of the details of the fraudulent money transfer were the entry of instructions to the machine, which are definitionally excluded under the the policy.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0138p-06.pdf

First Circuit: US v. Powell

App developer's sending of screenshots to a private actor working as an agent of the gov't did not trigger the private search doctrine, as the second party's search was precisely coterminous with that of the app developers, and no new information could have been obtained in the second search.

[Seems to be an obvious typo in the First Circuit's URL for this on the public-facing page.  This link is to the opinion list, which will likely be corrected by now. Search for case # 17-1683]

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/opinions

Second Circuit: Microsoft v. United States

Computers, Fourth Amendment, ECPA


When legislation referenced warrants, it used the term as a legal term of art, one that distinguishes them from subpoenas.  Extraterritorial application is therefore precluded.

As the statute focuses on the act of invasion of the user's privacy, data that would be accessed extraterritorially cannot be reached by warrants under the statute.


Concurrence in J -- Particularity of location is problematic in an electronic context, so the presumption against extraterritoriality doesn't afford a clear bar to conduct that the Act seems to proscribe.  Law needs to be rewritten.



Microsoft v. United States

Ninth Circuit: COMPLETELY SEALED CASE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA

FRCP, Fourth Amendment, Computers


Subpoena target has a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails on personal account that dealt with personal matters.  Error not to quash overbroad subpoena that would have returned them.

Public official's conversations with state attorneys relating to ethics and conflicts of interest are not privileged here, as the state owns the privilege.


COMPLETELY SEALED CASE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA

Ninth Circuit: FACEBOOK, INC. V. STEVEN VACHANI

Computers, CFAA


For purposes of the federal anti-spam law, social networking messages sent to internal and external accounts by a third party on behalf of a user were not misleading, as the user, the third party, and the social networking site were co-authors, and the internal messages were appropriately identified.

Where a third party uses the logon credentials of a site's user with the users permission, but after the explicit revocation of permission by the site and subsequently circumvents a technological barrier erected against it, the access is unauthorized for purposes of the relevant statute.

Personal liability and discovery sanctions upheld, damages run from the receipt of the C&D.


FACEBOOK, INC. V. STEVEN VACHANI

Ninth Circuit: USA V. DAVID NOSAL

Computers, White Collar

Federal statute barring unauthorized access to computers refers to the authorization of the computer's owner, not the process of technical authorization.  Affirmative revovcation of access to the system precluded use of the system by any other means.

Trade secrets can be composed of publicly available information.

Error to award the corporate victim attorneys' fees, given brief actual duration of misconduct.

Dissent - It's a hacking law.


USA V. DAVID NOSAL