by Tim Brown, Freedom OutPost:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
On Sunday, I reported on documents released in the Oregon trial involving journalist Pete Santilli who was present at both the Bundy Ranch standoff and the Malheur Wildlife Refuge protest. These documents present both violations on Facebook’s part of presenting bulk data on users to the US government that was not specific to the constraints of the warrant and the government receiving that information and continuing to store data they obtained that was not a part of that warrant in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. As a result, more Americans were caught up in this data dump and Fourth Amendment violations than just those who stood in protest in Oregon or Nevada, and is now resulting in a class action lawsuit against Facebook.
Due to the size and nature of the information I received from Santilli, I decided to break things up in 2-3 articles.
I’ll link to individual documents in the article, but you may obtain them in a downloadable zip file by clicking here.
Understand that all the information obtained was fun through CIA-funded Palantir to sort the data, and most likely, Palantir still has that data in its records.
In the previous report, attorney Per Olson wrote, “These provisions do not narrow the scope of the overbroad warrant. As for Section II, despite the impression one might obtain from the heading ‘Information to be Seized by the Government,’ the search warrant does not provide for the seizure of anything less than all raw data provided by Facebook.”
“Once Facebook complied with the search warrant by disclosing the entirety of defendants’ accounts, the government thereby ‘seized’ those accounts in their entirety,” he added. “There is no separate act of ‘seizure’ that occurs simply by virtue of defining a subset of all data and proclaiming only that subset ‘seized.’ Also, Section III provides that ‘nonresponsive’ material will be placed in ‘secure medium’ in a ‘secure location.’ But securing this material as described does not cause it to lose its character of having been ‘seized.’”
However, that was not all. He blasts the behavior as a violation of the rights of the defendants, as well as anyone caught up in the raw bulk data dump to the government.
“The warrant also contains no narrowing function when it comes to “searching” the Facebook accounts. Section III requires law enforcement to segregate nonresponsive material, but of course, law enforcement personnel must search all data provided by Facebook in order to cull out the nonresponsive material. Also, the government informs us that the FBI forensic agents conducting this review are working for the prosecution team; they are not walled off like a filter team. For Fourth Amendment purposes, this process is the equivalent of a prohibited general rummaging into every Facebook file. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467 (a warrant may not allow for a “general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings.”); see also Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4 (1990).”
If that was not enough, Olson then wrote, “The face of the warrant itself rules out a meaningful distinction between what is “disclosed” by Facebook and what is “seized” by the government.”
In other words, the federal government unconstitutionally seized information that they did not have a warrant for and sorted through it. Not only did they violate the rights of the defendants, as well as possibly millions of Americans, but they violated their own warrant, and Facebook was all too happy to help them do this.