Lawful Illegality: Authorizing Extraterritorial Police Surveillance
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper examines Lisa Austin’s (2015) concept of lawful illegality, which interrogates the legal foundations for potentially unlawful surveillance practices by United States (US) signals intelligence (SIGINT) agencies. Lawful illegality involves the technically lawful operation of surveillance powers that might be considered unlawful when examined through a rule of law framework. We argue lawful illegality is expanding into domestic policing through judicial decisions that sanction complex and technically sophisticated forms of remote online surveillance, such as the use of malware, remote hacking, or Network Investigative Techniques (NITs). Operation Pacifier targeted and dismantled the Playpen dark web site, which was used for distributing child exploitation material (CEM), and has generated many judicial rulings examining the legality of remote surveillance by the FBI. We have selected two contrasting cases that demonstrate how US domestic courts have employed distinct logics to determine the admissibility of evidence collected through the NIT deployed in Operation Pacifier. The first case, United States v. Carlson (2017 US Dist. LEXIS 67991), offers a critical view of the use of NITs by the FBI, with physical geography constraining the legality of this form of surveillance in US criminal procedure. The second case, United States v. Gaver (2017 US Dist. LEXIS 44757), authorizes the use of NITs because the need to control crime is believed to justify suspending the geographic limits on police surveillance to identify people involved in the creation and dissemination of CEM. We argue this crime control emphasis expands the reach of US police surveillance while undermining due process of law by removing the protective function of geography. We conclude by suggesting the permissive geographic scope of police surveillance reflected in United States v. Gaver (2017 US Dist. LEXIS 44757), and many other Playpen cases, erodes due process for all crime suspects, but is particularly acute for people located outside the US, and suggest a neutral transnational arbiter could help limit contentious forms of remote extraterritorial police surveillance.
Article Details
Surveillance & Society uses a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
- The author. The author licenses the article to the Surveillance Studies Network (SSN) for inclusion in Surveillance & Society (S&S), right of first publication. The copyright to the article remains with the author and any subsequent commercial reuse must be agreed by both parties.
- Non-commercial Users. SSN authorises all persons to use material published in S&S in any manner that is not primarily intended for or directed to commerical advantage or private monetary compensation, also provided that it is not modified and retains all attribution notices.
- Commercial Users. SSN retains the right to benefit from commerical reuse, in each specific case subject to the agreement of the author, and payment to SSN of a standard per-page fee (set by a vote of the Network and Editorial Board) by the Commercial User.
- Surveillance & Society supports open access archives and the free distribution of the results of academic work. Authors are encouraged to place copies of the final published version of their article in their university and / or other open access archives. We only ask that you make sure to include a link to the original published version on the Surveillance & Society website.
References
American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontiers Foundation, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (ACLU/EFF/NACDL). 2017. Challenging Government Hacking in Criminal Cases. ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/malware_guide_3-30-17-v2.pdf [accessed Apr 10, 2017].
Austin, Lisa M. 2015. Lawful Illegality: What Snowden Has Taught US about the Legal Infrastructure of the Surveillance State. In Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era, edited by Michael Geist, 103–125. Ottawa, CA: University of Ottawa Press.
Bambauer, Jane R., and Toni M. Massaro. 2015. Outrageous and Irrational. Minnesota Law Review 100 (1): 281–354.
Bauman, Zygmunt, Didier Bigo, Paulo Esteves, Elspeth Guild, Vivienne Jabri, David Lyon, and R.B.J. Walker. 2014. After Snowden: Rethinking the Impact of Surveillance. International Political Sociology 8 (2): 121–124.
Blakesley, Christopher L., and Dan Stigall. 2004. Wings for Talons: The Case for the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction over Sexual Exploitation of Children Through Cyberspace. Wayne Law Review 50 (1): 109–159.
Boister, Neil. 2015. Further Reflections on the Concept of Transnational Criminal Law. Transnational Legal Theory 6 (1): 9–30.
Bowling, Benjamin and James Sheptycki. 2015. Global Policing and Transnational Rule with Law. Transnational Legal Theory 6 (1): 141-173.
Chin, Gabriel J. 2012. The Story of Jacobson: Catching Criminals or Creating Crime? In Criminal Law Stories, edited by Donna Coker and Robert Weisberg, 299–328. New York, NY: Foundation Press.
Cox, Joseph. 2016. Child Porn Sting Goes Global: FBI Hacked Computers in Denmark, Greece, Chile. Motherboard, January 23. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkj8q3/child-porn-sting-goes-global-fbi-hacked-computers-in-denmark-greece-chile?utm_source=vicefbuk&fbclid=IwAR0A_UUsm2oLM-SQCS-kIiX2_dLtRHv_zB4I8dZDInSWLyOtFoC5Sqx4e4g [accessed Mar 1, 2019].
Cuddihy, William J. 2009. The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning 602-1791. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Daskal, Jennifer. 2015. The Un-Territoriality of Data. The Yale Law Journal 125 (2): 326–398.
———. 2018. Borders and Bits. Vanderbilt Law Review 71 (1): 179–240.
Dowdell, Eva Marie. 2005. You Are Here—Mapping the Boundaries of the Fourth Amendment with GPS Technology. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 32 (1): 109–139.
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2006. Five Misunderstandings about Case Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry 12 (2): 219–245.
Friedman, Barry. 2017. Unwarranted: Policing Without Permission. New York, NY: Farram, Straus, and Giroux.
Gehl, Robert W. 2018. Weaving the Dark Web: Legitimacy on Freenet, Tor, and I2P. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ghappour, Ahmed. 2017. Searching Places Unknown: Law Enforcement Jurisdiction on the Dark Web. Stanford Law Review 69 (4): 1075–1136.
Gillum, Jack. 2019. Prosecutors Dropping Child Porn Charges After Software Tools Are Questioned. ProPublica, April 3. https://www.propublica.org/article/prosecutors-dropping-child-porn-charges-after-software-tools-are-questioned?fbclid=IwAR39f9Z9Pk902blP9sQD-ej3GgUrcMlc1KICVGYCuYn5_8TLo3Z9GXzXBqo [accessed April 3, 2019].
Gless, Sabine. 2015. Bird’s-Eye View and Worm’s-Eye View: Toward a Defendant-Based Approach to Transnational Criminal Law. Transnational Legal Theory 6 (1): 117–140.
Goldsmith, Jack, and Tim Wu. 2006. Who Controls the Internet: Illusions of a Borderless World. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Grant, J.A.C. 1941. Circumventing the Fourth Amendment. Southern California Law Review 14 (4): 359–372.
Haggerty, Kevin D. 2012. Surveillance, Crime and the Police. In The Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies, edited by Kirsty Ball, Kevin D. Haggerty, and David Lyon, 235–250. London, UK: Routledge.
Hickson, Richard F. 1988. Privacy, Pornography and the Supreme Court. The John Marshall Law Review 21 (4): 755–776.
Hutchins, Renée McDonald. 2007. Tied up in Knotts? GPS Technology and the Fourth Amendment. UCLA Law Review 55 (2–3): 409–465.
Joh, Elizabeth E. 2013. Privacy Protests: Surveillance Evasion and Fourth Amendment Suspicion. Arizona Law Review 55 (4): 997–1029.
Kerr, Orin S., and Sean D. Murphy. 2017. Government Hacking to Light the Dark Web: Risks to International Relations and International Law? Stanford Law Review 70 (1): 58–69.
Lee, Murray. 2018. Crime and the Cyber Periphery: Criminological Theory Beyond Time and Space. In The Palgrave Handbook of Criminology and the Global South, edited by Kerry Carrington, Russell Hogg, John Scott, and Massimo Sozzo, 223–243. Cham, CH: Springer.
Mann, Monique, and Ian Warren. 2018. The Digital and Legal Divide: Silk Road, Transnational Online Policing and Southern Criminology. In The Palgrave Handbook of Criminology and the Global South, edited by Kerry Carrington, Russell Hogg, John Scott, and Massimo Sozzo, 245–260. Cham, CH: Springer.
Mann, Monique, Ian Warren, and Sally Kennedy. 2018. The Legal Geographies of Transnational Cyber-Prosecutions: Extradition, Human Rights and Forum Shifting. Global Crime 19 (2): 107–124.
Mayer, Jonathan. 2018. Government Hacking. The Yale Law Journal 127 (3): 570–662.
McClain, Noah. 2019. Caught Inside the Black Box: Criminalization, Opaque Technology and the New York Subway MetroCard. The Information Society 35 (5): 251–271.
Molnar, Adam, Christopher Parsons, and Erik Zouave. 2017. Computer Network Operations and “Rule-with-law” in Australia. Internet Policy Review 6 (1): 1–14.
Moore, Daniel, and Thomas Rid. 2016. Cryptopolitik and the Darknet. Survival 58 (1): 7–38.
Mützel, Daniel. 2019. Meet the Hacker Who Busts Child Pornographers on the Dark Net. Translated by Daniel Stächelin. Vice, February 27. https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/ywbmyb/meet-the-hacker-who-busts-child-pornographers-on-the-dark-net?fbclid=IwAR1mj3eRqCsJuJt0pKHAHuTGGSbYxfWC24qct0XRTaYt2UZHLxKc785iJJ0 [accessed April 3, 2019].
Nadelmann, Ethan. 1993. Cops Across Borders: The Internationalization of US Criminal Law Enforcement. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Owsley, Brian L. 2017. Network Investigative Source Code and Due Process. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 14 (1): 39–46.
Packer, Herbert. 1968. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Raustiala, Kal. 2009. Does the Constitution Follow the Flag: The Evolution of Territoriality in American Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Roach, Kent. 1999. Four Models of Criminal Process. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 89 (2): 671–716
Russell, Zoe. 2017. First They Came for the Child Pornographers: The FBI’s International Search Warrant to Hack the Dark Web. St Mary’s Law Journal 49 (1): 269–315.
Slobogin, Christopher. 2010. Government Dragnets. Law and Contemporary Problems 73 (3): 107–143.
Svantesson, Dan Jerker B. 2017. Solving the Internet Jurisdiction Puzzle. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
United States Department of Justice. 1986. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography: Final Report. Washington: US Department of Justice.
United States Department of Justice. 2019. Promoting Public Safety, Privacy and the Rule of Law Around the World: The Purpose and Impact of the CLOUD Act. Washington: US Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153446/download [accessed February 12, 2020].
Walden, Ian, and Anne Flanagan. 2003. Honeypots: A Sticky Legal Landscape? Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 29 (2): 317–370.
Warren, Ian. 2015. Surveillance, Criminal Law and Sovereignty. Surveillance and Society 13 (2): 300–305.
Warren, Ian, and Darren Palmer. 2015. Global Criminology. Pyrmont, NSW: Thomson Reuters.
Weidenhouse, Kurt C. 2017. Playpen, the NIT, and Rule 41(b): Electronic Searches for those Who Do Not Wish to Be Found. Journal of Business and Technology Law 13 (1): 143–69.
Statutes, Legislation, and Case Law
Carroll v. United States, 1925 267 US 132.
Grady v. North Carolina, 2015 135 S. Ct. 1368.
In re Warrant to Search a Target Computer at Premises Unknown, 2013 958 F. Supp. 2d 753.
Jacobson v. United States, 1992 503 US 540.
United States v. Carlson, 2017 US Dist. LEXIS 67991 (D. Minn Mar. 23).
United States v. Carlson, 2017 US Dist. LEXIS 124452 (D. Minn Aug. 7).
United States v. Croghan, 2016 US Dist. LEXIS 127479 (S.D. Iowa Sep. 29).
United States v. Darby, 2016 190 F. Supp 3d 520 (E.D. Va. Aug. 12).
United States v. Gaver, 2017 US Dist. LEXIS 44757, (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27).
United States v. Jean, 2016 US Dist. LEXIS 123869 (W.D. Ark. September 13).
United States v. Henderson, 2016 US Dist. LEXIS 118608 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 8)
United States v. Jones, 2012 565 US 400 (Jan. 23)
United States v. Kim, 2017 US Dist. LEXIS 11770 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17).
United States v. Levin, 2016 US Dist. LEXIS 52907, (D. Mass Apr. 20).
United States v. Matish, 2016 193 F. Supp 3d 585 (E.D. Va. Jun. 23).
United States v. McLamb, 2016 US Dist. LEXIS 163990 (E.D. Va. Nov. 28).
United States v. McLamb, 2017 US Dist. LEXIS 7766 (E.D. Va. Jan. 19).
United States v. Tippens, 2016 US Dist. LEXIS 184174 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 30).
United States v. Torres, 2016 US Dist. LEXIS 122086 (D.N.M. Jun 9).