High Res Photo of Jennifer Granick
Photo credit: Michael Sugrue
Julia Angwin’s blog post today is incorrect. Stanford never promised not to use Google money for privacy research.
Last week, the Justice Department filed criminal charges against a North Korean operative for a malware attack that endangered hospital systems and crippled the computers of businesses, governments, and individuals around the world. Americans might be surprised to learn that the software used for this 2017 attack — known as “WannaCry” — was based on a hacking tool created by the U.S. government itself.
Included in this PDF are:
- Petitioners' Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to file Motion for Reconsideration
- Exhibit A Petitioners' [Proposed] Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsideration of the May 1, 2018 Order
- Declaration of Jennifer Stisa Granick in Support of Petitioners' Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration
- [Proposed] Order Granting Petitioners' Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9.
For decades, U.S. policies on international data sharing have balanced privacy, principles of comity (respect for the jurisdiction of other countries), and respect for Congress’ power to regulate foreign affairs. Foreign countries seeking data held by U.S. companies generally must follow a process laid out in Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties, or MLATs, which are agreements between governments that facilitate cooperation in investigations. Increasingly, however, countries have complained that the MLAT process in the U.S. is slow and that it allows the U.S.
"“Courts and police are increasingly using software to make decisions in the criminal justice system about bail, sentencing, and probability-matching for DNA and other forensic tests,” said Jennifer Granick, a surveillance and cybersecurity lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project who has studied the issue.
"“Its role in enabling a certain kind of technical innovation is unambiguous,” says Daphne Keller at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society. “It made it possible for investors to get behind companies who were in the business of transmitting so much speech and information that they couldn't possibly assess it all and figure what was legal or illegal.”
"Storing passwords in an encrypted format is “not just best practice, it’s something that industry should always do,” said Jennifer Granick, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. “Facebook’s failure to do that will really upset the FTC,” she said"
"Jennifer Granick, attorney with ACLU, points out that the arguments, or those engaging in them, are often paradoxical. The same people who don’t want Facebook to restrict job searches to people of certain age or housing by ethnicity may want Facebook to remove what they consider hateful speech. The social media companies also talk from both sides of their mouth, arguing like media companies that they need to cover both sides of, say, political issues, but then pooh-poohing calls for the kind of regulation media companies have.
"How long have you operated with that assumption?
Probably 20 years. I had an incident occur in my hotel room at Black Hat. My room was broken into, and my tech was compromised. They pulled the hard drive out of the wall safe, plugged it into my Linux laptop, booted it up off of a different drive, and then accessed files and copied it. Then they put the drive back in the safe.
Come meet CIS and hear about our exciting work and ways to get involved.
On January 19, 2012, Kim DotCom was arrested in a dramatic raid after being indicted on federal criminal charges that he knew that his website, MegaUpload, was a haven of piracy and counterfeiting. In the days that followed, the media commented on the presumed guilt of MegaUpload. In this debate, Jim argues that the law and evidence clearly point to MegaUpload's officers being found guilty, while Jennifer will argue that the MegaUpload case is built on unprecedented and wrongheaded interpretations of copyright law, and thus the principles should be found not guilty.
Prompted by the Google Street View WiFi sniffing scandal, the question of whether and how the law regulates interception of unencrypted wireless communications has become a hot topic in the courts, in the halls of the FCC, on Capitol Hill, and in the security community. Are open WiFi communications protected by federal wiretap law, unprotected, or some strange mix of the two? (Surprise: it may be the last one, so you'll want to come learn the line between what's probably illegal sniffing and what's probably not.)
Has it really been 15 years? Time really flies when keeping up with Moore's law is the measure. In 1997, Jeff Moss held the very first Black Hat. He gathered together some of the best hackers and security minds of the time to discuss the current state of the hack. A unique and neutral field was created in which the security community--private, public, and independent practitioners alike—could come together and exchange research, theories, and experiences with no vendor influences. That idea seems to have caught on. Jeff knew that Black Hat could serve the community best if it concentrated on finding research by some of the brightest minds of the day, and he had an uncanny knack for finding them.