POSTED BY Nico Pingaro
In 2008, the United States government threatened Yahoo! Inc. with a $250,000 fine unless the tech giant complied with demands for access to multiple user accounts. Yahoo!, aware that this demand would violate countless users’ privacy rights sought to protect this information under the shield of the Fourth Amendment. Yahoo’s threat of seeking Fourth Amendment protection only caused the United States government to increase its threat, “promising a daily $250,000 fine that would double each week the business did not comply.” The demands issued by the government to Yahoo! were “to immediately provide the government with all information, facilities and assistance necessary to accomplish this acquisition in such a manner as will protect the secrecy of the acquisition and produce a minimum interference with the services Yahoo provides.” However, Yahoo stated in its court memorandum, “that the directives require Yahoo! to assist in conducting warrantless surveillance that is likely to capture private communications of United States citizens located in the U.S. and abroad.”
Details of this 2008 probe into Yahoo’s user accounts are just recently starting to leak to the media. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge, Reggie Walton, forced Yahoo! to comply, as the company was faced with a privacy issue that would surely violate the constitution that this country holds so near and dear to us. Contrary to what you might think, FISC Judge Walton ruled that the order by the government to Yahoo! was in the scope of the government’s authority via the “Protect America Act,” and thus was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Yahoo! appealed this decision but was unsuccessful.
As facts continue to come to light over something that happened over six years ago, a person cannot help but feel violated. Many will argue that the “right to privacy” is a non-textual right in our constitution. However, it is still a culmination of rights that have governed this great country since its inception. Yahoo! Inc. sought protection behind the veil of the Fourth Amendment (illegal search and seizure). Under this mythical right there was no legal safe haven for Yahoo! to hide. One may ask, “how can this be?” It is my opinion that when rights are not exercised they are lost, and results in a violation of the right that we as a nation chose not to use.
Bio: Nico Pingaro is a Staff Member of the Journal of High Technology Law. He is currently a 2L at Suffolk University Law School. He holds a B.A. in Political Science from Merrimack College.
