High Res Photo of Jennifer Granick
Photo credit: Michael Sugrue
Last week, we argued that the public discussion surrounding two of the government’s most controversial mass surveillance programs – PRISM and Upstream – has not sufficiently acknowledged the broad scope of collection under these programs, which take place under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In short, hiding behind the counterterrorism justifications for section 702 is a broad surveillance program that sucks up massive amounts of irrelevant private data.
The legal authority behind the controversial PRISM and Upstream surveillance programs used by the NSA to collect large swaths of private communications from leading Internet companies – Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) – is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2017. In recent months, Congress began to review these programs to assess whether to renew, reform, or retire section 702. Unfortunately, it appears the debate has already been skewed by misconceptions about the true scope of surveillance conducted under the contentious provision.
Slides from the BlackHat 2016 presentation by Jennifer Granick and Riana Pfefferkorn titled "When the Cops Come A-Knocking: Handling Technical Assistance Demands from Law Enforcement."
"“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.
Stanford CIS brings together scholars, academics, legislators, students, programmers, security researchers, and scientists to study the interaction of new technologies and the law and to examine how the synergy between the two can either promote or harm public goods like free speech, innovation, privacy, public commons, diversity, and scientific inquiry
Co-hosted and presented by The Tech Museum of Innovation and the San Jose Museum of Art.
For more information and to purchase tickets visit: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/death-of-the-open-internet-a-black-hat-qa-w...
Welcome to Startup Policy Lab’s The Policy Series, hosted by Runway! For our first October session, we go one-on-one with Jennifer Granick, Director of Civil Liberties at Stanford Center for Internet and Society (CIS).
The Lifecycle of a Revolution
Speaker: Jennifer Granick, Stanford University NSA stands for National Security Agency, but the agency is at odds with itself in its security mission. Undermining global encryption standards, intercepting Internet companies' data center transmissions, using auto-update to spread malware, and demanding law enforcement back doors in products and services are all business as usual. What legal basis does NSA and FBI have for these demands, and do they make the country more or less safe?
In the realm of big data, privacy is a significant, and often controversial, issue. In this clip, Jennifer Granick takes on the alleged trade-off between “privacy versus security,” and proposes an alternate framing. She is the Director of Civil Liberties at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School.
This video is a preview of Worldview Stanford's unique online and on-campus course, Behind and Beyond Big Data. We are currently accepting applications for the course. Learn more and apply here: worldview.stanford.edu/course/behind-and-beyond-big-data
The director of civil liberties for the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School discusses net neutrality, privacy and the NSA.
"State of Surveillance" examines new technologies police departments are using to fight crime and the civil liberties concerns raised by these tools.
Law enforcement agencies say that many of the technologies make it easier to solve and, in some cases, even prevent crime. But privacy advocates warn that expanded databases could become dragnets that are increasingly populated with information about law-abiding citizens.
The following is audio of the conference last week in Austin hosted by the Intelligence Studies Project, a joint venture of the Strauss Center and Clements Center at the University of Texas at Austin. The conference was entitled, “The National Security Agency at the Crossroads.”
The Internet makes lives better, around the world, in ways people couldn't have imagined not even a decade ago. It sparks prosperity, inspires dissent, improves education, and encourages freedom. But all of the good it does is under threat, largely from governments. David Drummond will discuss where those threats are coming from, and the critical importance for us all that we overcome them. Drummond joined Google in 2002, initially as vice president of corporate development.