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.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals said no this week to tracking your movements using data from your cell phone without a warrant when it declared that this information is constitutionally protected.
Reed Hundt proposes democratic action in response to our government’s secret infrastructure for monitoring and controlling modern communications. “Citizens,” he writes, “should be encouraged to take action on behalf of their own privacy and security.”
Yesterday afternoon, the White House put out a statement describing its vulnerability disclosure policies: the contentious issue of whether and when government agencies should disclose their knowledge of computer vulnerabilities. The statement falls far short of a commitment to network security for all and fails to provide the reassurance the global public needs in the midst of the NSA’s security scandal.
Lecturer Jennifer Granick spoke with Erica E. Phillips of the Daily Journal to discuss website background checks and why the biggest argument for the screening is market-driven.
Sellers and buyers connected for commerce through Craigslist, globetrotters finding a pad on CouchSurfing.com, and perfect strangers meeting for a romantic dinner with the help of Match.com all have one thing in common - they turn Internet connections into face-to-face meetings with unknown consequences.
The American Bar Association White Collar Crime Committee Presents:
The Internet’s Own Boy: A Discussion Of U.S. v. Aaron Swartz And The Prosecution And Defense Of Cyber-Crime
Featuring Brian KNAPPENBERGER, Filmmaker And Director Of The Internet’s Own Boy, Jennifer GRANICK, Director Of Civil Liberties For The Center For Internet And Society At Stanford Law School, And More.
Only LLM and SPILS students are invited.
Lunch will be provided.
Please join Giancarlo Frosio and Jennifer Granick on Tuesday for a presentation on the activities of the Stanford Intermediary Liability Lab (SILLab).
Because of Edward Snowden’s remarkable public service, we know that the National Security Agency, with the cooperation of some large firms, has amassed an unprecedented database of personal information. The ostensible goal in collecting that information is to protect national security. The effect, according to Reed Hundt, is to undermine democracy.
Come meet CIS and hear about our exciting work and ways to get involved.
You will meet:
Barbara van Schewick - Associate Professor of Law and Helen L. Crocker Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School, Director of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, and Associate Professor (by courtesy) of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University
Jennifer Granick - Director - Civil Liberties
Aleecia McDonald - Director - Privacy
Three dimensional printing turns bits into atoms. The technology is simply amazing. These machines draw on programming, art and engineering to enable people to design and build intricate, beautiful, functional jewelry, machine parts, toys and even shoes. In the commercial sector, 3D printing can revolutionize supply chains as well. As the public interest group Public Knowledge wrote once, "It will be awesome if they don't screw it up."
Jennifer Granick appears at 46:44.
Ask Americans what the Constitution’s most important feature is, and most will say it’s the guarantees of liberty enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments of the Constitution.
Americans are fiercely proud of their freedoms but they continue to argue about what those basic rights are and how they can be sustained in a changing world. Are our rights unchangeable, or should they evolve over time? What is the proper role for the courts in interpreting rights?