ERIC WILSON – ENGAGE.DC
In February of 2007, Eric started on Capitol Hill as a Policy Analyst for the House Republican Policy Committee. While working for the Chairman of the HRPC — an elected leadership post — he was introduced to the emerging realm of social media, which House Republicans lead the way in embracing. In 2009, Eric started as the Executive Director of the Congressional Health Care Caucus under the leadership of Rep. Michael C. Burgess, M.D. Eric joined the Engage Team in December of 2009. At Engage, Eric is focused on House races, social media, and political trends. Engage is a full-service interactive agency with a track record of winning the toughest battles in politics and public policy. We have held senior new media roles on presidential campaigns, the Republican National Committee and, dozens of statewide campaigns and policy initiatives. From the web’s earliest days, we were leaders at harnessing its political potential. Today, digital media is changing the fundamental dynamics of how public policy fights are won. Once relegated to the sidelines, “new” media is now a primary strategic vehicle driving victory or defeat. You need a new kind of partner who recognizes this new reality and can shape the field of battle in your favor. We thrive at the nexus of strategy, media, and technology — and bring this holistic approach to winning elections.
(1) UNITED STATES V. JONES (U.S. SUPREME CT. JAN. 23, 2012)
The Government obtained a search warrant permitting it to install a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle regis- tered to respondent Jones’s wife. The warrant authorized installa- tion in the District of Columbia and within 10 days, but agents in- stalled the device on the 11th day and in Maryland. The Government then tracked the vehicle’s movements for 28 days. It subsequently secured an indictment of Jones and others on drug trafficking con- spiracy charges. The District Court suppressed the GPS data ob- tained while the vehicle was parked at Jones’s residence, but held the remaining data admissible because Jones had no reasonable expecta- tion of privacy when the vehicle was on public streets. Jones was convicted. The D. C. Circuit reversed, concluding that admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment. Held: The Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3–12. SOTOMAYOR CONCURRENCE:
More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expecta- tion of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976). This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellu- lar providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medi- cations they purchase to online retailers. Perhaps, as JUSTICE ALITO notes, some people may find the “tradeoff” of privacy for convenience “worthwhile,” or come to accept this “diminution of privacy” as “inevitable,” post, at 10, and perhaps not. I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Gov- ernment of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection. See Smith, 442 U. S., at 749 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“Privacy is not a discrete commodity, possessed absolutely or not at all. Those who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone company for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purposes”); see also Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352 (“[W]hat [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitu- tionally protected”). Resolution of these difficult questions in this case is unnecessary, however, because the Government’s physical intrusion on Jones’ Jeep supplies a narrower basis for decision. I therefore join the majority’s opinion.
(2) MegaUpload Indictment
MORE INFO ON MegaUpload – watch video
|Sonia Sotomayor’s Heartening Defense of Privacy|
|A Supreme Court Justice’s Radical Proposal Regarding The Privacy of Your Google Searches, Facebook Account & Phone Records|
|Megaupload Drops Lawsuit Against Universal Music Over Viral Video (Exclusive)|
|Megaboned? Long odds against legal success, say law profs Why Feds Smashed Megaupload|
|Megaupload Mayhem: Vengeful Hackers Wreak Havoc Across Web|
|NEW FEATURE – 2012 HACK EXCHANGE. MONITOR PROMINENT GROUPS THAT HAVE BEEN HACKED.|