The DEA is frustrated they can't crack Apple's iMessage encryption to spy on citizens.

Encryption used in Apple's iMessage chat service has stymied attempts by federal drug enforcement agents to eavesdrop on suspects' conversations, an internal government document reveals.

An internal Drug Enforcement Administration document seen by CNET discusses a February 2013 criminal investigation and warns that because of the use of encryption, "it is impossible to intercept iMessages between two Apple devices" even with a court order approved by a federal judge.

The DEA's warning, marked "law enforcement sensitive," is the most detailed example to date of the technological obstacles -- FBI director Robert Mueller has called it the "Going Dark" problem -- that police face when attempting to conduct court-authorized surveillance on non-traditional forms of communication.

When Apple's iMessage was announced in mid-2011, Cupertino said it would use "secure end-to-end encryption." It quickly became the most popular encrypted chat program in history: Apple CEO Tim Cook said last fall that 300 billion messages have been sent so far, which are transmitted through the Internet rather than as more costly SMS messages carried by wireless providers.

iMessages are encrypted messages that can be sent between Apple devices, including iPhones, iPads and even Macs running the OS X platform. The service launched with iOS 5 in 2011, and Apple publicly revealed that all sent and received iMessages would be securely encrypted.

A spokeswoman for the DEA declined to comment on iMessage and encryption. Apple also declined to comment.

The DEA's "Intelligence Note" says that iMessage came to the attention of the agency's San Jose, Calif., office as agents were drafting a request for a court order to perform real-time electronic surveillance under Title III of the Federal Wiretap Act. They discovered that records of text messages already obtained from Verizon Wireless were incomplete because the target of the investigation used iMessage: "It became apparent that not all text messages were being captured."

 DEA officials first discovered that iMessages could be a hinderance to their efforts when a real-time electronic surveillance under the Federal Wiretap Act failed to yield all of a target's text messages. The agency then discovered that the person was using iMessage, which bypassed the text messaging services of carrier Verizon.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/04/04/us-dea-upset-it-cant-break-apples-imessage-encryption
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57577887-38/apples-imessage-encryption-trips-up-feds-surveillance/

ACLU to argue the 4th. Amendment requires a warrant before the DEA can spy on citizens prescription records:

A federal judge has granted the ACLU’s motion to intervene in an Oregon case that raises the question of whether the Fourth Amendment allows Drug Enforcement Administration agents to obtain confidential prescription records without a judge’s prior approval. (We’ve previously written about the case here).

Like most states, Oregon operates a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), which tracks prescriptions for certain drugs dispensed in the state. As one of the chief sponsors of the legislation creating the PDMP recently explained, the program is intended to be a public health tool to help physicians and pharmacists prevent drug overdoses and abuse by their patients. It was not created for use by law enforcement. Recognizing that records of a person’s prescriptions can reveal private information about their underlying medical conditions, the Oregon legislature instituted robust privacy protections, including a requirement that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before requesting records for use in an investigation.

Despite this requirement, the DEA has been requesting prescription records from the PDMP using administrative subpoenas which, unlike warrants, do not involve demonstrating probable cause to a neutral judge. The State of Oregon sued the DEA in federal court to defend its right to require law enforcement, including federal agencies, to obtain the warrants required by state law. The dispute between Oregon and the DEA concerns whether the DEA’s federal investigative powers preempt Oregon state law, but neither party represents the privacy rights of Oregon patients themselves. So, we filed a motion to intervene on behalf of individual clients in Oregon who believe the DEA’s warrantless access to the database violates their constitutional right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of whether the DEA’s authority trumps state law.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/court-agrees-consider-aclu-arguments-fourth-amendment-requires-warrant