High Res Photo of Jennifer Granick
Photo credit: Michael Sugrue
Round Two of my debate with Orin Kerr about whether the bulk collection of phone call records is regulated by the Fourth Amendment is now published on the Just Security blog. In this round, I argue that normative considerations, including those associated with bulk data collection, are explicitly part of existing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The 1979 case of Smith v.
A new online platform launches today called Just Security, a forum on law, rights, and U.S. national security. Just Security aims to promote principled and pragmatic solutions to the problems decision-makers face in U.S. national security law and practice. The legal analysis and policy prescriptions proposed by Just Security will provide balanced and broad perspectives currently missing in the national security dialogue.
We here at CIS are delighted to welcome Giancarlo Frosio to our team. Giancarlo is our new Intermediary Liability Fellow, studying the ways that liabilities, immunities and safe harbors for global communications platforms affect freedom of expression and innovation online. Frosio is an Italian lawyer, fluent in several languages, with an S.J.D. and an LL.M. from Duke University Law School and an LL.M. from the University of Strathclyde in the U.K.
On July 30, 2013, I had the pleasure of having dinner with General Keith Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency. Just a few weeks earlier, NYU Law Professor Christopher Sprigman and I had called the NSA’s activities “criminal” in the digital pages of the New York Times, so I thought it was particularly gracious of him to sit with me. [more]
Today, Lavabit, an email service provider that promised its customers better privacy and security than other publicly available services, shut its doors. Reading between the lines of a cryptic message posted on the site’s homepage, about six weeks ago the service was served with some kind of demand for user information, as well as a gag order preventing the company from disclosing both the details of that order as well as its very existence. Rather than cooperate, owner Ladar Levison has decided to close the doors on his 10-year-old company. In his letter
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.
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.