McKelvey v. State, 474 P.3d 16, 27 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020) (Quoting 1 Wayne R. Lafave, (2012) Search and Seizure, § 2.3(g), at 799-800).

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Ending Privacy’s Gremlin: Stopping the Data-Broker Loophole to the Fourth Amendment’s Search Warrant Requirement

  AUTHORS: Samantha B. Larkin, Shakour Abuzneid

  KEYWORDS: Access Control, Access Rights, Artificial Intelligence, Consumer Behavior, Consumer Protection, Criminal Law, Data Brokers, Data Handling, Data Privacy, Data Processing, Data Profiling, Digital Forensics

  JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Information Security, Vol.15 No.4, October 29, 2024

  ABSTRACT: Advances in technology require upgrades in the law. One such area involves data brokers, which have thus far gone unregulated. Data brokers use artificial intelligence to aggregate information into data profiles about individual Americans derived from consumer use of the internet and connected devices. Data profiles are then sold for profit. Government investigators use a legal loophole to purchase this data instead of obtaining a search warrant, which the Fourth Amendment would otherwise require. Consumers have lacked a reasonable means to fight or correct the information data brokers collect. Americans may not even be aware of the risks of data aggregation, which upends the test of reasonable expectations used in a search warrant analysis. Data aggregation should be controlled and regulated, which is the direction some privacy laws take. Legislatures must step forward to safeguard against shadowy data-profiling practices, whether abroad or at home. In the meantime, courts can modify their search warrant analysis by including data privacy principles.