9 ms·

They are fined for improperly handing over data. It seems we have already set that standard in law.

by matt4077 8y ago

lixtra 8y ago
So who from the federal government is charged for their part of the crime?
- Scoundreller 8y ago
  Its taxpayers of course.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- matt4077 8y ago
  Sorry, I only now got OP‘s intention. I believe it’s somewhat defensible to task only one side here with protecting the data. They have that data all the time, and it’s therefore more practical for them to explore the legality of such requests. They are also the party entrusted with that data by the customer, and therefore have a fiduciary duty. It also aligns with the idea of those profiting from data to accept liability for its protection. There’s probably also a federal/state law angle here that I’m unqualified to opine on. Also: this is civil law, and therefore nobody was or will be charged (just a pet peeve).
- gamblor956 8y ago
  ICE didn't commit a crime...It is not illegal for government agencies to request information from individuals or companies. Nor did Motel 6 for that matter. It was hit with a civil lawsuit...
  - derekp7 8y ago
    This is where the laws need to be tightened -- people tend to not know what their rights or obligations are, and have to rely on expensive professionals to advise them (and it can still go wrong). When a government agent makes a request, often it can come across as a demand, with the implication that your are required by law to comply (they can even lie to you to get you to comply). Now in the case of a large business, I would expect that they have the resources to figure out when to comply or when to ask for a warrant. But individuals have a harder time -- imagine getting sued by your employer for complying with a TSA agent's demand that you open your laptop for them to search through, then you get sued or fired because of that. It should always be illegal for a government official to imply that you are required to do something, if that isn't the case (and make it clear that there is no penalty, such as not being to board your plane, for not complying).
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      "people" This is a huge motel chain. They operate in a state which defines laws as to how you are allowed to handle your customer's information. Ignorance is not an excuse. I don't see how the individual citizen argument apples here and it's all hypotheticals anyway.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        The article doesn't go into detail about how this information was obtained. Did they request it from the official company counsel? Or did they intimidate some night manager who doesn't know the law well enough to protest?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - tantalor 8y ago
    Not illegal, sure, but the lack of warrant may (should) mean the information is inadmissible in court. It's no different than if they stole it.
    - matt4077 8y ago
      That really depends on the data, doesn’t it? Say they used oogle Maps to get to your place of business. Fruit of the poisonous tree? What if they broke the license terms on some proprietary navigation software? It’s also relevant that ICE mostly deals in civil law, not criminal. While illegal entry is also a crime, deportation is a civil enforcement action. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine doesn’t quite apply. There might be something similar though, and I’d love someone more knowledgeable to chime in.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      If the information was the type covered by an expectation of privacy, then the lack of a warrant likely would make it inadmissible...until ICE asks the judge for a warrant, for a date range covered by the specific enforcement action at issue, and comes back to court with the now lawfully-obtained information.
      - tantalor 8y ago
        A backdated warrant? Surely that's not legal.
      - shawnz 8y ago
        I assume that wouldn't retroactively exonerate Motel 6, right?
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > If the information was the type covered by an expectation of privacy, then the lack of a warrant likely would make it inadmissible In a criminal trial, of the person who had the legal expectation of privacy, which in most cases is the person with possession of the documents, etc., not the subject of the documents, where those are different. But, in any cases, not in most civil proceedings, and explicitly not in civil removal (deportation) proceedings, which is what ICE is mostly concerned with here, so the Constitution is essentially irrelevant as there is no practical remedy available for violations (which is one reason states have adopted rules against information sharing with immigration officials.)
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > So who from the federal government is charged for their part of the crime? What crime? The charges were for a civil violation of state consumer protection law, which restricted the behavior of the motel, not ICE. Even if ICE officials, in the federally-lawful conduct of their duties could be subject to state law, I don't see any indication that they did anything that would have broken the law at issue, which prohibits the disclosure, not the request.
  - trhway 8y ago
    >Even if ICE officials, in the federally-lawful conduct of their duties could be subject to state law, I don't see any indication that they did anything that would have broken the law at issue, which prohibits the disclosure, not the request. i wonder whether the agents may be breaking any law if say the night manager informed them that he couldn't legally disclose the information, yet the agents would still pressure him into giving it up. Wouldn't the agents thus become participants of a conspiracy to violate that law [IANAL]?

They are fined for improperly handing over data. It seems we have already set that standard in law.

lixtra 8y ago

So who from the federal government is charged for their part of the crime?

Scoundreller 8y ago
Its taxpayers of course.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
matt4077 8y ago
Sorry, I only now got OP‘s intention. I believe it’s somewhat defensible to task only one side here with protecting the data. They have that data all the time, and it’s therefore more practical for them to explore the legality of such requests. They are also the party entrusted with that data by the customer, and therefore have a fiduciary duty. It also aligns with the idea of those profiting from data to accept liability for its protection. There’s probably also a federal/state law angle here that I’m unqualified to opine on. Also: this is civil law, and therefore nobody was or will be charged (just a pet peeve).
gamblor956 8y ago
ICE didn't commit a crime...It is not illegal for government agencies to request information from individuals or companies. Nor did Motel 6 for that matter. It was hit with a civil lawsuit...
- derekp7 8y ago
  This is where the laws need to be tightened -- people tend to not know what their rights or obligations are, and have to rely on expensive professionals to advise them (and it can still go wrong). When a government agent makes a request, often it can come across as a demand, with the implication that your are required by law to comply (they can even lie to you to get you to comply). Now in the case of a large business, I would expect that they have the resources to figure out when to comply or when to ask for a warrant. But individuals have a harder time -- imagine getting sued by your employer for complying with a TSA agent's demand that you open your laptop for them to search through, then you get sued or fired because of that. It should always be illegal for a government official to imply that you are required to do something, if that isn't the case (and make it clear that there is no penalty, such as not being to board your plane, for not complying).
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    "people" This is a huge motel chain. They operate in a state which defines laws as to how you are allowed to handle your customer's information. Ignorance is not an excuse. I don't see how the individual citizen argument apples here and it's all hypotheticals anyway.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      The article doesn't go into detail about how this information was obtained. Did they request it from the official company counsel? Or did they intimidate some night manager who doesn't know the law well enough to protest?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- tantalor 8y ago
  Not illegal, sure, but the lack of warrant may (should) mean the information is inadmissible in court. It's no different than if they stole it.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    That really depends on the data, doesn’t it? Say they used oogle Maps to get to your place of business. Fruit of the poisonous tree? What if they broke the license terms on some proprietary navigation software? It’s also relevant that ICE mostly deals in civil law, not criminal. While illegal entry is also a crime, deportation is a civil enforcement action. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine doesn’t quite apply. There might be something similar though, and I’d love someone more knowledgeable to chime in.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    If the information was the type covered by an expectation of privacy, then the lack of a warrant likely would make it inadmissible...until ICE asks the judge for a warrant, for a date range covered by the specific enforcement action at issue, and comes back to court with the now lawfully-obtained information.
    - tantalor 8y ago
      A backdated warrant? Surely that's not legal.
    - shawnz 8y ago
      I assume that wouldn't retroactively exonerate Motel 6, right?
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > If the information was the type covered by an expectation of privacy, then the lack of a warrant likely would make it inadmissible In a criminal trial, of the person who had the legal expectation of privacy, which in most cases is the person with possession of the documents, etc., not the subject of the documents, where those are different. But, in any cases, not in most civil proceedings, and explicitly not in civil removal (deportation) proceedings, which is what ICE is mostly concerned with here, so the Constitution is essentially irrelevant as there is no practical remedy available for violations (which is one reason states have adopted rules against information sharing with immigration officials.)
dragonwriter 8y ago
> So who from the federal government is charged for their part of the crime? What crime? The charges were for a civil violation of state consumer protection law, which restricted the behavior of the motel, not ICE. Even if ICE officials, in the federally-lawful conduct of their duties could be subject to state law, I don't see any indication that they did anything that would have broken the law at issue, which prohibits the disclosure, not the request.
- trhway 8y ago
  >Even if ICE officials, in the federally-lawful conduct of their duties could be subject to state law, I don't see any indication that they did anything that would have broken the law at issue, which prohibits the disclosure, not the request. i wonder whether the agents may be breaking any law if say the night manager informed them that he couldn't legally disclose the information, yet the agents would still pressure him into giving it up. Wouldn't the agents thus become participants of a conspiracy to violate that law [IANAL]?