NATIONAL SECURITY, SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW
June 1 – 2, 2015
Workshop for the Federal Judicial Center
Georgetown Law
Gewirz Center, 12th Floor
120 F Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
TECHNOLOGY SOURCEBOOK
I.
Session One – Interception and Location Tracking
A. Technology Readings
1. Marshall Brain & Tom Harris, How GPS Receivers Work,
HOWSTUFFWORKS.COM, September 2006.
2. C.M. Roberts, Radio Frequently Identification (RFID), 25 Computers
& Security 18 (2006).
3. StingRay
a. Devlin Barrett, U.S. Will Change Stance on Secret Phone
Tracking, WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 3, 2015.
b. Cyrus Farivar, Department of Justice Will Review How it
Deploys Cell Phone Snooping Tech, ARS TECHNICA, May 3,
2015.
c. Ryan Gallagher, Meet the Machines that Steal your Phone’s
Data, ARS TECHNICA, September 25, 2013.
d. Megan Geuss, Cops Hid Use of Phone Tracking Tech in Court
Documents at Feds’ Request, ARS TECHNICA, June 20, 2014.
e. David Kravets, FBI Says Search Warrants Not Needed to Use
“Stingrays” in Public Places, January 5, 2015.
f. Pierluigi Paganini, StingRay Technology: How Government
Tracks Cellular Devices, INFOSEC INSTITUTE, November 10,
2014.
B. Legal Readings
1. Statutory Authority
a. 18 U.S.C. § 3121 et seq.
b. Electronic Surveillance Manual Procedures and Case Law
Forms, DOJ (June 2005).
2. Judicial Decisions
a. U.S. v. Davis, 2015 WL 2058977 (11th Cir. May 5, 2015) (en
banc).
b. Riley v. California, 573 U.S.
(2014).
c. U.S. v. Rigmaiden, 844 F. Supp. 2d 982 (D. Ariz. 2012).
II.
III.
3. Commentary
a. Susan Freiwald, Cell Phone Location Data and the Fourth
Amendment: A Question of Law, not Fact, 70 MARYLAND LAW
REVIEW 681 (2010).
b. Brian L. Owsley, The Fourth Amendment Implications of the
Government’s Use of Cell Tower Dumps in its Electronic
Surveillance, 16 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 (2013).
c. Stephanie K. Pell & Christopher Soghoian, Can You See Me
Now?: Toward Reasonable Standards for Law Enforcement
Access to Location Data that Congress Could Enact, 27
BERKELEY TECH. LAW JOURNAL 117 (2012).
d. Stephanie K. Pell & Christopher Soghoian, Your Secret
StingRay’s No Secret Anymore: The Vanishing Government
Monopoly over Cell Phone Surveillance and Its Impact on
National Security and Consumer Privacy, 28 HARVARD
JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY 1 (2014).
e. Marc Rotenberg & Alan Butler, In Riley v. California, a
Unanimous Supreme Court Sets out Fourth Amendment for
Digital Age, SCOTUSBLOG, June 26, 2014.
Session Two – The Internet of Things
A. Technology Readings
1. Luigi Atzori et al., The Internet of Things: A Survey, 54 Computer
Networks 2787 (2010).
2. Andrew Whitmore et al., The Internet of Things—A Survey of Topics and
Trends, 17 Information Systems Frontiers 261 (2015).
B. Legal Readings
1. Commentary: Scott R. Peppet, Regulating the Internet of Things: First
Steps Toward Managing Discrimination, Privacy, Security, and Consent,
93 TEXAS LAW REVIEW 85 (2014).
Session Three – Computer Architecture and Remote Access
A. Technology Readings
1. Networks in COMPUTER STRUCTURE AND LOGIC (Pearson Certification
2011).
2. Kevin Poulsen, Visit the Wrong Website and the FBI Could End up in
Your Computer, WIRED, August 5, 2014.
3. Philip Sealey, Remote Forensics, Digital Investigation (2004).
B. Legal Readings
1. Statutory Authority
a. Preliminary Draft to the Proposed Amendment of Rule 41 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
b. Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Criminal
Division, SEARCHING AND SEIZING COMPUTERS AND OBTAINING
EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS (Office of Legal
Education Executive Office for United States Attorneys 2009).
2. Judicial Decisions
a. U.S. v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010).
b. In re Warrant to Search a Target Computer at Premises
Unknown, 958 F. Supp. 2d 753 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (denying the
warrant).
c. Third Amended Application for a Search Warrant, In the Matter of
the Search of Network Investigative Technique for email address
texan.slayer@yahoo.com, Case 1:12-sw-05685-KMT (D.Colo.
Dec. 11, 2012) (approving the warrant).
d. Third Amended Search and Seizure Warrant, In the Matter of the
Search of Network Investigative Technique (“NIT”) for email
address texan.slayer@yahoo.com, Case 1:12-sw-05685-KMT
(D.Colo. Dec. 11, 2012) (approving the warrant).
e. Warrant Return Inventory, In the Matter of the Search of NIT for
email address texan.slayer@yahoo.com, Case 1:12-sw-05685KMT (D.Colo. Feb. 15, 2013) (approving the warrant).
f. Application for a Search Warrant, In the Matter of the Search of
NIT for email 512SocialMedia@gmail.com, Case No. 1:12mj00748-ML (W.D.Tex. Dec. 18, 2012) (approving the warrant).
g. Search and Seizure Warrant, In the Matter of the Search of NIT for
email 512SocialMedia@gmail.com, Case No. 1:12-mj00748-ML
(W.D.Tex. Dec. 18, 2012) (approving the search and seizure
warrant).
3. Commentary
a. Report on Proposed Amendments to Rule 41, Advisory Committee
on Rules of Practice and Procedure, May 5, 2014.
b. Letter from the DOJ to the Advisory Committee re Proposed
Amendments to Rule 41, September 18, 2013.
c. Letter from the DOJ to the Advisory Committee re Further Issues
Concerning Proposed Amendments to Rule 41. December 22,
2014.
d. Testimony and Statement on Proposed Amendments to Rule 41 of
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial
Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, Alan Butler,
Senior Counsel, Electronic Privacy Information Center, November
5, 2014.
IV.
V.
e. Letter to Attorney General Holder and Secretary Johnson from
Sen. Patrick Leahy and Sen. Charles Grassley re Use of Cell Phone
Tracking Program, December 23, 2014.
f. Press Release, Leahy and Grassley Press Administration on Use of
Cell Phone Tracking Program, December 31, 2014.
g. Matthew Tokson, Automation and the Fourth Amendment, 96
IOWA LAW REVIEW 581 (2009).
Session Four – Metadata and Social Network Analytics
A. Technology Readings
1. Social Network Analysis: An Introduction in THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF
SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS (John Scott & Peter J. Carrington ed., Sage
2011.
2. Jonathan Mayer & Patrick Mutchler, MetaPhone: The Sensitivity of
Telephone Metadata, WEBPOLICY, March 12, 2014.
3. Valdis E. Krebs, Mapping Networks of Terrorist Cells, 24 CONNECTIONS 3
(2002).
B. Legal Readings
1. Statutory Authority
a. 50 U.S.C § 1861 (Section 215)
b. USA FREEDOM Act
2. Judicial Decisions
a. ACLU v. Clapper, Docket 14-42-cv (May 7, 2015, 2d Cir.).
b. U.S. v. Ganias, 755 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014).
c. Klayman v. Obama, 957 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013).
d. U.S. v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012).
e. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
3. Commentary
a. Obama Administration White Paper on the Bulk Collection of
Telephony Metadata Under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT
Act, August 9, 2013.
b. Laura K. Donohue, Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and
Constitutional Considerations, HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW &
PUBLIC POLICY (2014).
c. Beryl A. Howell, Seven Weeks: The Making of the USA PATRIOT
Act, 72 GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 1145 (2004).
d. David S. Kris, On the Bulk Collection of Tangible Things, 7
JOURNAL OF NATIONAL SECURITY LAW & POLICY 209 (2014).
Session Five – Classification and Case Management
A. Technology Reading: KEEPING GOVERNMENT SECRETS: A POCKET GUIDE ON THE
STATE-SECRETS PRIVILEGE, THE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT, AND
VI.
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION SECURITY OFFICERS (Robert Timothy Reagan, 2d ed.
2013).
B. Legal Readings
1. Judicial Decision: ACLU v. Clapper, No. 14-42 (2d Cir. May 7, 2015).
2. Commentary:
a. National Security Case Studies: Special Case-Management
Challenges (Robert Timothy Reagan, 2013).
b. Offices of Inspectors General, Report on the President's
Surveillance Program (July 10, 2009).
Session Six – Cloud Computing and Global Communications
A. Technology Readings
1. Peter Mell, Timothy Grance, THE NIST DEFINITION OF CLOUD
COMPUTING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, September 2011.
2. Shyam Patidar et al., A Survey Paper on Cloud Computing, 2012 Second
International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication
Technologies, 394-98 (2012).
B. Legal Readings
1. Statutory Authority
a. 50 U.S.C § 1881 et seq. (Section 702)
b. Executive Order 12333 (as amended)
2. Judicial Decisions
a. U.S. v. Mohamud, case 3:10-cr-00475-KI, (D.Ore. Mar. 19, 2014).
b. Memorandum Opinion re: NSA’s Surveillance under Section 702,
Judge Bates (FISC Oct. 3, 2011).
c. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).
d. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
3. Commentary
a. Laura K. Donohue, Section 702 and the Collection of International
Telephone and Internet Content, 38 HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW &
PUBLIC POLICY (2015).
b. Orin Kerr, The Fourth Amendment and the Global Internet, 67
STANFORD LAW REVIEW 285 (2015).