Jennifer Granick is the Director of Civil Liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. Jennifer returns to Stanford after working with the internet boutique firm of Zwillgen PLLC. Before that, she was the Civil Liberties Director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Jennifer practices, speaks and writes about computer crime and security, electronic surveillance, consumer privacy, data protection, copyright, trademark and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. From 2001 to 2007, Jennifer was Executive Director of CIS and taught Cyberlaw, Computer Crime Law, Internet intermediary liability, and Internet law and policy. Before teaching at Stanford, Jennifer spent almost a decade practicing criminal defense law in California. She was selected by Information Security magazine in 2003 as one of 20 "Women of Vision" in the computer security field. She earned her law degree from University of California, Hastings College of the Law and her undergraduate degree from the New College of the University of South Florida.
High Res Photo of Jennifer Granick
Photo credit: Michael Sugrue
On Monday, I wrote a post for Just Security where I reflected on last week's news concerning the FBI's attempts to coerce Apple into creating a forensic bypass to the iPhone passcode lockout. I wrote that we live in a software-defined world. In 2000, Lawrence Lessig wrote that Code is Law — the software and hardware that comprise cyberspace are powerful regulators that can either protect or threaten liberty. A few years ago, Mark Andreessen wrote that software was eating the world, pointing to a trend that is hockey sticking today. Software is redefining everything, even national defense.
Last Friday, a New York federal judge joined in the contentious current debate over whether tech companies should be forced to provide law enforcement the ability to decipher encrypted data stored on smartphones and in the cloud.
In two years, section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act will expire. It is essential the public to have confidence that any reforms to section 702 will actually address problems with PRISM and Upstream surveillance. To get that confidence, we have to know a lot more about how the intelligence community is using section 702. That understanding requires more investigation.
After the Estate of James Joyce refused to allow a scholar to quote Joyce in her book, we successfully defended her right under the fair use doctrine to use the quotes she needed to illustrate her scholarship. After we prevailed in the case, the Estate paid $240,000 of our client’s legal fees.
In this case, two archives challenged statutes that extended copyright terms unconditionally—the Copyright Renewal Act and the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA)—as unconstitutional under Copyright Clause and the First Amendment.
Last week’s big cybersecurity news was that the FBI obtained a court order to force Apple to develop new software that would bypass several iPhone security features so the FBI can attempt to unlock the work phone of one of the San Bernardino shooters. Apple plans to challenge that order. (Full disclosure: I am planning on writing a technologists’ amicus brief on Apple’s side in that challenge.)
On Friday, Congress will vote on a mutated version of security threat sharing legislation that had previously passed through the House and Senate. These earlier versions would have permitted private companies to share with the federal government categories of data related to computer security threat signatures. Companies that did so would also receive legal immunity from liability under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and other privacy laws.
Here’s the latest in the encryption case we’ve been writing about in which the Justice Department is asking Magistrate Judge James Orenstein to order Apple to unlock a criminal defendant’s passcode-protected iPhone. The government seized and has authority to search the phone pursuant to a search warrant.
Pending before federal magistrate judge James Orenstein is the government’s request for an order obligating Apple, Inc. to unlock an iPhone and thereby assist prosecutors in decrypting data the government has seized and is authorized to search pursuant to a warrant.
"Jennifer Granick, a law professor at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, said that the legal questions around the hack are still murky, but a few things are clear. Researchers using this data would not, she said, be guilty of any federal crime, because they are not involved in any way in the hack itself. She said a researcher who downloaded the data might theoretically run afoul of their state's statute on possession of stolen property.
"Last week, I came across two separate speeches that were given recently about the future of the internet -- both with very different takes and points, but both that really struck a chord with me. And the two seem to fit together nicely, so I'm combining both of them into one post. The first speech is Jennifer Granick's recent keynote at the Black Hat conference in Las Vegas.
""The End of the Internet Dream," cyberlawyer Jennifer Granick's keynote at Black Hat, was all anyone could talk about at this year's Defcon -- Black Hat being the grown-up, buttoned-down, military-industrial cousin to Defcon's wild and exuberant anarchy.
Jennifer Stisa Granick’s keynote address is a comprehensive and illuminating account of the past, present, and troubling future of “internet freedom.” It also raises uncomfortable questions for government officials, corporate leaders, and hackers. Let’s look at a few of them, in each category. The overarching concern may be: can we step back from our positions as advocates, and talk openly about what an ideal balance of power and freedom, surveillance and privacy, may look like?
"Granick was at some of the first DEF CON meetings and is a geek and lawyer who is passionate about the possibilities of a connected society. But we're in deep trouble, she warned – a message echoed by her warm-up guy Moss.
When Granick first got online in the 1980s it was hoped that the internet would enable a global conversation where gender, race, and creed became unimportant compared to ideas, she said. Censorship would be routed round, governments would become more open, and the spread of information would benefit humanity, was the assumption.
On Wednesday, February 17, The Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford, The Center for International Governance Innovation, and the Research Advisory Network of the Global Commission on Internet Governance will present an all-day conference entitled "New Alliances in Cybersecurity, Human Rights and Internet Governance." The conference will discuss the challenges of creating a regime of internet governance that pays attention to security and human rights in the digital context.
Over the course of two days in February 2016, the Strauss Center at the University of Texas-Austin will host a unique and timely conference focused on the legal and policy dimensions of cybersecurity.
Co-hosted and presented by The Tech Museum of Innovation and the San Jose Museum of Art.
""What was remarkable was that the public hadn't seen the argument surfaced," says Jennifer Granick at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. She says Judge Orenstein was trying to stoke a public debate. "Judge Orenstein had concerns about whether the government's legal argument was a valid legal argument."
Jennifer Granick, Director of Civil Liberties, is in this episode discussing Stingray technology.
"Truth and Power" highlights Daniel Rigmaiden, the young tech-genius who exposed STINGRAY - a secret government surveillance technology that hacks into your cell phones. All New Episodes - Fridays at 10 p.m. ET / PT on Pivot. Learn more at http://bit.ly/TruthAndPowerPivot.
ABOUT THE SHOW
""The phone companies may already have data retention obligations under the Communications Act, but there's no additional obligation as a result of USA Freedom having passed," says Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society.
"A year ago, a European Court said people had a right to demand Google take down certain search results about them. Theright to be forgotten was born.
“That idea is spreading in some areas,” says Jennifer Granick, Director of Civil Liberties for the Stanford Center for Internet and Society.