Catherine Crump is an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. She litigates cases on many issues, from challenges to invasive government surveillance programs, to protecting the right to engage in political protest, to suing police officers for excessive force. Current cases include constitutional challenges to the government’s authority to engage in suspicionless searches of laptops at the international border and to its assertion that it can track the location of cell phones without a warrant.
On Friday, the ACLU of Delaware filed a brief with the Delaware Supreme Court arguing that law enforcement agents should not be permitted to attach a GPS device to a car without getting a search warrant.
Last week, The Washington Post reported that six women, all former law clerks and legal externs, have accused federal appeals court Judge Alex Kozinski of “inappropriate sexual conduct or comments,” with allegations that included showing them pornography and suggesting that they exercise naked.
Across California, young people in the juvenile justice system are routinely tracked 24/7 with GPS ankle monitors that are often touted as “better than jail.” That’s too low a standard for a technology used on children.
Palo Alto lawmakers have proposed legislation granting the community greater control over police surveillance — including the Police Department’s purchase and use of equipment such as drones, license plate readers and social media monitoring software. Palo Alto and 10 other cities around the country that have proposed similar laws are part of a movement to bring the community and elected representatives into decisions by local police to acquire such powerful and invasive surveillance technologies. We all should urge our own elected representatives to take similar steps.
After months of consideration, the San Francisco Police Commission approved rules Wednesday for use of the latest innovation sweeping law enforcement nationwide — police body-worn cameras. Toney Chaplin, San Francisco’s acting police chief, had announced on his first full day in the job last month that deploying body cameras was his top priority.
"Catherine Crump, a law professor at the University of California-Berkeley, found that horrifying. “Our social media profiles contain sensitive, private information. The circumstances under which police access those profiles raise important public policy questions that should be decided in a transparent public process, not by police departments acting on their own and certainly not by individual officers make it up as they go along,” she said by email. “Police departments should have written policies explaining when they will go undercover to access our social media profiles.
"“If you install a private corporation’s microphone-enabled device in your house, you should count on the fact that third parties may well access the information these devices detect,” Catherine Crump, co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, said in an email.
"“We learned that the monitors may be setting kids up for failure,” said Catherine Crump, director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at Berkeley Law, which partnered with the East Bay Community Law Center to produce the report. “The terms are too onerous, kids are monitored for too long, and the rules are arbitrarily enforced.”"
""People in one county didn't even know what the county next door's policies were," said Catherine Crump, an assistant clinical professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law."
"On the other side of the argument, Catherine Crump, acting director of Samuelson Law for the Berkeley School of Law, focused her argument on the dangers of providing a backdoor to any device to the government and expect it to only be used by the “good guys.”
She drew a parallel between handing the FBI a second master key to iPhones and recent worldwide WannaCry ransomware attack, which was launched using leaked National Security Agency (NSA) exploits.
Advanced technologies are revolutionizing how the government investigates, charges and prosecutes criminal cases—and defense attorneys must keep pace. Even small police departments can purchase powerful surveillance technologies, and internet companies collect vast troves of data on virtually everyone. This two-day CLE conference will discuss the government's use of technologically advanced investigative techniques in criminal cases, and the issues raised by those techniques under the Fourth Amendment and other federal law.
WHAT: “Separating fact from fantasy: Is fake news undermining the truth?” The proliferation of fake news and what can be done about it comes under scrutiny by a multidisciplinary panel of experts assembled at the University of California, Berkeley.
After a deluge of criticism and widespread expression of concern, Facebook announced steps to partially address the threat of never-ending information wars.
The 5th annual Privacy Identity Innovation conference, pii2014 Silicon Valley, will explore where innovation is heading, what it means for the future of privacy and identity, and how to build trust in emerging technologies and business models.
For more information and to register for this event please visit UC Hasting's website.
Thursday, November 6, 2014 6:00 PM (Room A, 198 McAllister)
Screening, The Conversation (Coppola, 1974)
Friday, November 7, 2014 9:00 AM – 5:30 PM (L.B. Mayer Auditorium, 198 McAllister)
Presentations by nationally prominent scholars, historians, litigators and policy makers:
Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western University School of Law, and Catherine Crump, Professor at Berkeley Law School, discuss whether or not police departments can collect and store vast amounts of data collected from license plate readers. They speak with Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio’s "Bloomberg Law." Bob Moon and Karen Moscow discuss the days top legal stories.