For a primer on the state of the law relating to searches and surveillance I'd like everyone to read at least part of this "Surveillance Self Defense" handbook from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, one of the leading 'privacy watchdog groups'. There is some overlap with the material in our textbook, but the EFF account includes discussion of some things missing from Quinn's account (especially FISA, the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act). (It also offers practical advice on how to protect yourself from surveillance, should you be interested in that.):
Minimally, read the following pages (most of these are quite short):
https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/fourth-amendment
https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy
https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/sneak-and-peek
https://ssd.eff.org/wire/govt/wiretapping
https://ssd.eff.org/wire/govt/wiretapping-protections
https://ssd.eff.org/foreign/nsl
https://ssd.eff.org/foreign/fisa
https://ssd.eff.org/foreign/beyond-fisa
If you have time for more, here are some things I found useful:
Very recently, "U.S.seeks Ways To Wiretap the Internet":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/27/AR2010092706637.html
Should we care? Civil Libertarian Glenn Greenwald certainly thinks so:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/27/privacy/index.html
A quote from Greenwald: "For those insisting that the Government must have the technological ability to eavesdrop on any and all communications in order to stop Terrorists and criminals, what are you going to do about in-person communications? By this logic, the Government should install eavesdropping devices in all private homes and public spaces, provided they promise only to listen in when the law allows them to do so (I believe there was a book written about that once [Link to Orwell's 1984]). For those insisting that the Government must have the physical ability to spy on all communications, what objections could one have to such a proposal? We've developed this child-like belief that all Bad Things can be prevented -- we can be Kept Safe from all dangers -- provided we just vest enough power in the Government to protect us all. What we lose from that mentality, however, is quite vast yet rarely counted. A central value of the Internet was that it was supposed to enable the flow of information free from the surveillance and control of governmental and other authorities."
There's a good run down of the legal and Constitutional issues with the NSA's warrantless electronic surveillance program from libertarian Julian Sanchez:
http://www.juliansanchez.com/2010/09/08/a-surveillance-state-coda/
One ongoing issue in this area is how our understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights may need to change to accommodate new technologies. Obviously , when the 4th Amendment was written we did not have any form of electronic communication or electronic surveillance. So, how should we interpret the Amendment's requirement that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"? As a sample of the sort of debate that this problem generates check out the following pair of articles:
Julian Sanchez explores some recent court decisions having to do with thermal imaging, GPS tracking and when these surveillance methods amount to a "search" that falls under the 4th Amendment requirement of 'probable cause':
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/gps-tracking-and-a-mosaic-theory-of-government-searches/
The decision Sanchez likes is criticized here by conservative law professor Orin Kerr:
http://volokh.com/2010/08/06/d-c-circuit-introduces-mosaic-theory-of-fourth-amendment-holds-gps-monitoring-a-fourth-amendment-search/
Here's a page aimed at people running call centers, addressing the rules around recording calls:
http://www.five9.com/call-center-resources/learning-center/call-recording-fundamentals.htm
Older:
Here is a Washington Post story about the problems some people are having when their names turn up on terrorist watch lists:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802971_pf.html
FBI adopts ‘vacuum cleaner’ approach to data collection:
http://news.com.com/FBI+turns+to+broad+new+wiretap+method/2100-7348_3-6154457.html
Should we have a national DNA database? Bioethics professor Hilary Bok says no:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/02/what_part_of_in.html