High Res Photo of Jennifer Granick
Photo credit: Michael Sugrue
Law Professor and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act expert Orin Kerr wrote today in his usual thorough and well-informed fashion about the legal claims in Aaron Swartz's case. While his analysis of the law is, as usual, spot on, I nevertheless disagree with its treatment of Aaron's case as routine and, by implication, unremarkable. I am in the process of explaining why , but want to address here a few of Orin's arguments.
Over the weekend, I learned that Aaron Swartz had taken his own life. I cried, and am still crying, for him, his family, for the close friends who loved him, and for our community. We lost a rare and special person, one who did so much in his short life to make the world a better place. Any do-gooder, including myself, could be proud were we to accomplish as much. We don't know what else he would have acheived were he to have lived. But I admit that I also cried for myself, because I felt guilty that I didn't do more to help Aaron in his criminal case. This post is about part of that challenge, the challenge to improve computer crime laws, and the criminal justice system more generally. Hopefully in the end, there'll be something that I, and you, can do about it.
Today, Senator Ron Wyden agreed to forego his procedural hold that would prevent the Senate from voting on extending the FISA Amendments Act, due to expire at the end of this year. In exchange, Wyden will get a floor vote on two important amendments to the proposal.
Advocates for renewal of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) often argue that the statute poses no more harm to the privacy of innocent Americans than does the Wiretap Act, also known as Title III. After all, when FBI agents are tapping a suspected drug courier’s phones, his friends or mother may also call. How is the FAA any different?
Actually, there are many important differences between Title III, the FAA and even traditional FISA intercept orders. These differences mean that FAA is far more intrusive than Title III and poses a categorically different threat to the privacy of innocent Americans.
Encryption helps human rights workers, activists, journalists, financial institutions, innovative businesses, and governments protect the confidentiality, integrity, and economic value of their activities. However, strong encryption may mean that governments cannot make sense of data they would otherwise be able to lawfully access in a criminal or intelligence investigation.
Arguing that a defendant’s conviction for website hacking should be overturned because legitimate, highly valuable security and privacy research commonly employs techniques that are essentially identical to what the defendant did and that such independent research is of great value to academics, government regulators and the public even when – often especially when — conducted without a website owner’s permission.
Arguing that if the court should not compel Apple to create software to enable unlocking and search of the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone, it will jeopardize digital and personal security more generally.
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.
Reply brief of Movants-Appellants EFF, ACLU, and Riana Pfefferkorn to the Ninth Circuit in our appeal from the district court's denial of our motion to unseal filings in a sealed case wherein the Department of Justice allegedly sought to compel Facebook to comply with a wiretap order for Facebook's end-to-end encrypted voice calling app, Messenger.
Opening brief of Movants-Appellants EFF, ACLU, and Riana Pfefferkorn to the Ninth Circuit in our appeal from the district court's denial of our motion to unseal filings in a sealed case wherein the Department of Justice allegedly sought to compel Facebook to comply with a wiretap order for Facebook's end-to-end encrypted voice calling app, Messenger.
Brief of amici curiae ACLU, ACLU of Georgia, and Riana Pfefferkorn in support of appellant Victor Mobley in Mobley v. State, a Georgia Supreme Court case presenting the question of whether the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for the seizure of digital data stored by a vehicle -- specifically, a car's event data recorder (EDR).
Reply brief in support of January 2019 objections to magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
"The Apple-FBI fight over encryption was a rare event. Most of the time, the public never has a clue when authorities come knocking and ask a company for “technical assistance” to help get access to digital communications. That makes the true scale of U.S. government surveillance hard to assess—even if we can glean that it’s pervasive nowadays. And probably equally as important, it doesn’t really allow the public to tell just how difficult it is for prosecutors to convince a judge that communications should be turned over.
"Jennifer Granick had harsh words at the Our Security Advocates Conference for the growing state of mass surveillance and government hacking in the United States.
Granick, surveillance and cybersecurity counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, took the stage at OURSA on Tuesday to discuss the state of modern surveillance and hacking performed by the U.S. government, arguing that both cross the line of traditional legal searches.
"Jennifer Granick, surveillance and cybersecurity counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), noted that “increasingly, modern surveillance is mass surveillance” which can be facilitated by new technologies and the internet.
Secretive large scale surveillance differs from warrant-directed searches by the volume and depth of data and could be abetted by the ease of converting in-home appliances with microphones and cameras into “surveillance machines”, she said."
"Even Hutchins’s defenders say if he’s guilty some punishment is in order, but his prosecution also sends a mixed message. Hutchins had been a model of public-private cooperation at a time when the government was having difficulty recruiting cybersecurity talent. (James Comey irritated the community in 2014 when he said the FBI struggled to hire people because “some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview.”) Some security researchers said they would stop sharing information with the government in protest.
"“The law is clearly targeted at economic activity and is being applied to an entirely different category to suppress speech,” said Jennifer Granick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union."
Jennifer Granick, CIS Director of Civil Liberties will be a speaker at World Affairs 2014.
“The best venue for a timely, honest discussion about our world and where it is going.”
WorldAffairs offers fresh insights and new perspectives on current global topics. This year's program will spotlight the critical issues and countries poised to impact our world and affect our decision making.
Come meet CIS and hear about our exciting work and ways to get involved.
RSVP for the event here: https://www.facebook.com/events/520390394700141/
Come out to rally for your privacy and learn about surveillance from a distinguished group of speakers this Sunday afternoon at Embarcadero Plaza!
This Conference is cordially hosted by Stanford Law School and Peking University, and is sponsored by Tencent, China’s largest Internet company and one of the largest worldwide, and Microsoft, the largest software maker in the world. The main organizers include the China Guiding Cases Project, the Stanford Program in Law, Science, & Technology, the China Law and Policy Association, and the Stanford Law School Programs.
Jennifer Granick talks about how notions of privacy have changed over the years and where she thinks things are headed in the future. She is a professor at the Stanford School of Law and Director of Civil Liberties at the Center for Internet and Society, where she specializes in the intersection of engineering, privacy and the law.
What kind of surveillance assistance can the U.S. government force companies to provide? This issue has entered the public consciousness due to the FBI's demand in February that Apple write software to help it access the San Bernardino shooter's encrypted iPhone. Technical assistance orders can go beyond the usual government requests for user data, requiring a company to actively participate in the government's monitoring of the targeted user(s).
In this week's feature interview we're chatting with Stanford's very own Jennifer Granick about a recent ruling in a Virginia court that appears to give the FBI permission to hack into any computer it wants, sans warrant. Well that's what the headlines are screaming, anyway. But as you'll hear, it's not quite that black and white.
""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."