Welcome to this module on the Constitutional Protection and the Bill of Rights. In this lecture, we'll notably deal with the Fourth Amendment and its landmark cases. First, the goals and what in this case is the most important one is that we will go through the legal elements that play a role in this constitutional protection and these elements might play a role when designing IT equipped or security systems. What is exactly that the Fourth Amendment and its jurisprudence from the Supreme Court protect against? They protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. When there is a judge in-between that supplied a warrant, that warrant makes the search reasonable. Of course, apart from the warrant, there's a whole bunch of other exceptions like, for instance, when you consent in the search, he says, okay or when there is a motor vehicle stopped and then being searched or when there is evidence in plain view so that you can see the police officer and the government officer can see that you are transporting illegal stuff, for instance. Of course, at the border searches maybe applied. When we go to the landmark cases, there's three which are very important. One is on Olmstead versus the United States in 1928, Katz versus the United States in 1967, and Carpenter versus the United States in 2018, very recent. Let's first go to Olmstead in '28. The main conclusion there was that Fourth Amendment protection can only be applied in physical environments. So there is only protection against physical intrusion and not as it was in this case for the first time wiretapping was being used, and the telephone wires was by the Supreme Court considered not to be an intrusion, a physical intrusion and therefore not protecting your Fourth Amendment rights. Mr. Brandeis, Justice Brandeis in this Olmstead case, when back to his own article that he wrote with Warren on when privacy, when the right to be let alone was so strong that even when the technical means or whatever means that were employed showed warrant on protection under the Fourth Amendment. So where the whole court said, no, Fourth Amendment protection, Brandeis already had a very foreseen vision on what was happening that the technology would be so encompassing that there was a reason to protect from governmental intrusion and all different means could be used. We can see that in 1967 when Charles Scott who was running an illegal gambling ring across the United States and used phone booths to manage his organization, his criminal organization. But then the FBI was phone tapping, eavesdropping and the device was placed on the exterior of the phone booth, and they were using the microphones that were attached to the phone booth. Then the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether this listening device on the glass of the phone booth was indeed an intrusion into the private sphere of this Mr. Katz. What they said is that it was not. So that the government was indeed using the right and correct way of intruding into the private life of this Mr. Katz but what they also did was that one of the justices said that there should be a two-prong test to find out whether Mr. Katz had a reasonable expectation of privacy, for instance, a subjective reasonable expectation of privacy. The second test that was used was whether the societal opinion on when something could be seen as a intrusion or not as an intrusion and what reasonable expectation of society would be. So this two-prong test was later really used by the Supreme Court. Then we go back to 2018, only very recent, Mr. Carpenter being a crook and was already sentenced for a large time in prison and he was convicted also because the law enforcement officer used his cell-site phone records and Mr. Carpenter's defense was that there only could have been used those records from the phone company with a warrant and not without passwords, in this case what happened. What is nice to see is that the Supreme Court reached back into 1928 and what Mr. Brandeis had said at that moment that the invasion of privacy by governmental means is still growing and growing and therefore it is indeed necessary to make a search warrant available in cases of this phone records being asked for by law enforcement offices. So individuals do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is going to be very important basic requirement for software and IT system that those Penn-risk registers as they are called that they are no longer available to law enforcement without a warrant. Then there remains to be one somewhat strange or peculiar way of looking upon whether non-US citizens do have Fourth Amendment protection in the United States. Well, being there physically in the United States then you will most certainly have the protection probably. But the question here is whether an Icelandic member of parliament and a Dutch national that were involved together with an American national and playing a role in the WikiLeaks, establishment of leaking files. Then these four people, the boss of WikiLeaks, so to speak on these three people, they together had an exchange of messages through Twitter, and then the Security Organization of the United States asked Twitter to give them the messages and Twitter refused. As a consequence, it came out and they went to court for that and then the other question was whether foreigners or better said non-US citizen, do they have a reasonable expectation of privacy? The court said that they had serious doubts as to whether Ms. Jonsdottir and Mr. Gonggrijp indeed enjoyed rights under the US constitution. They denied the appeal under which the Twitter messages where they were put available for the NSA and the Security of Organizations. So the two people from outside of the United States did not get the protection. This ends this lecture and the next lecture will be on what exactly is meant with reasonable expectation of privacy. Thank you for your attention.