Position / Title:
jennifer at law dot stanford dot edu
High Res Photo of Jennifer Granick
Photo credit: Michael Sugrue
High Res Photo of Jennifer Granick
Photo credit: Michael Sugrue
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.
Today we sent a letter to lawmakers expressing security experts' opposition to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) as well as two other pending bills that purport to be about security information sharing, the Protecting Cyber Networks Act (PCNA), and the National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015. These experts agree that the information sharing bills unnecessarily waive privacy rights because they focus on sharing information beyond that needed for cybersecurity.
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.
In the wake of a recent appellate court’s decision that the NSA’s domestic dragnet collection of phone call records is illegal, political support for maintaining the legal provision that the government used to justify the program has all but vanished. For the first time in a dozen years, we have a real chance at ending one of the most abused and misused parts of US surveillance law. Congress should allow section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act to expire.
Last week’s dramatic Second Circuit decision in ACLU v. Clapper, invalidated the alleged legal basis for the NSA domestic phone call dragnet, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, just weeks before that provision is about to expire.
"3. How to push back against law enforcement requests
"“How can we tell if the court process is legitimate if so much of it is under seal?” asked Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society."
"“The lawsuit is asking for two things,” said Jennifer Granick, the director of civil liberties at Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society.
“That people be notified eventually, if they are spied on, and, two, it’s asking for a much more scrupulous and discriminating use of gag orders, which are now seemingly routine when they are supposed to be extraordinary.”"
"However, it's unclear how Microsoft's lawsuit will fare. It would be "premature to guess" how successful Microsoft is likely to be, Jennifer Granick, the director of civil liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, said in an email."
Jennifer Granick, Director of Civil Liberties, will speaking at the ISSA-LA Summitt.
More information: https://issalasummit9.wpengine.com/?page_id=285/#Granick
Title: American Spies, Modern Surveillance, and You
Join Just Security for a fireside chat on the current state of U.S. surveillance and a celebration of Jennifer Granick‘s new book, American Spies: Modern Surveillance, Why You Should Care, And What to Do About It. Opening remarks by Senator Ron Wyden.
US intelligence agencies - the eponymous American spies - are exceedingly aggressive, pushing and sometimes bursting through the technological, legal and political boundaries of lawful surveillance. Written for a general audience by a surveillance law expert, this book educates readers about how the reality of modern surveillance differs from popular understanding.
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."