High Res Photo of Jennifer Granick
Photo credit: Michael Sugrue
NOVEMBER 1 UPDATE: I fixed the chart to correctly reflect that both bills authorized Amici participation and also allow the Constitutional Advocate to initiate and appeal to the FISA Court of Appeals.
I have a new post up at Just Security today. In it, I point to the fact that ongoing NSA revelations show that significant surveillance activities are taking place without either Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) or congressional oversight, even though these policies directly impact Americans’ privacy. For example, this past Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the
Ongoing revelations show that significant NSA surveillance activities take place outside of either Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) or congressional oversight, even though these policies directly impact Americans’ privacy. These activities should, at the very least, be subject to congressional review, since American interests are being adversely impacted by them.
In my latest blog post at Just Security, I discuss a new bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Senators Wyden and Udall, two of the most vocal critics of the NSA, as well as Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). The Intelligence Oversight and Surveillance Reform Act's language is not available yet, but a two-page fact sheet explains its provisions.
Reply brief in support of January 2019 objections to magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
At one point, Jennifer Granick, the director of civil liberties at the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society, asked the large audience of security professionals who they trusted less, Google or the government? The majority raised their hands for Google.
A few days ago, my colleague Eric Jackson wrote a post on speculation that recent changes to Skype’s architecture may have made it easier for Microsoft to tap the service’s VoIP calls. The piece was hyperbolically headlined, “It’s Terrifying and Sickening that Microsoft Can Now Listen In on All My Skype Calls.” There are several problems with this piece.
Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at Stanford University, asked the crowd to raise their hands for a quick straw poll: “Who is more afraid of Google? The government?” The crowd overwhelming raised their hands to signal their fear of Google.
To celebrate the 15th anniversary of the Black Hat Conference here, a panel of experts got together to expound on what they see as the privacy and security mess of our times, and they had plenty to say about the U.S. government, cyberwar and Google.
Eight years ago, Barack Obama arrived in Washington pledging to reverse the dramatic expansion of state surveillance his predecessor had presided over in the name of fighting terrorism. Instead, the Obama administration saw the Bush era’s “collect it all” approach to surveillance become still more firmly entrenched. Meanwhile, the advanced spying technologies once limited to intelligence agencies have been gradually trickling down to local police departments.
Join Mozilla and Stanford CIS for the second installment in a series of conversations about government hacking. Information from our first event, discussing the upcoming changes to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, are available at that event’s page here.
On December 1, 2016, significant and controversial changes to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 are scheduled go into effect. Today, Rule 41 prohibits a federal judge from issuing a search warrant outside of the judge’s district, with some exceptions.Traditionally, federal judges may only issue warrants that will be executed within their own districts. The revised Rule 41 would permit judges to issue search and seizure warrants for computers outside their jurisdictions, in two circumstances: if the computer’s true location has been hidden through technological means (such as Tor), or, in a computer-hacking investigation under the CFAA, if the affected computers are located in five or more districts.
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. Come hear CIS Directors Jennifer Granick + Daphne Keller and Resident Fellows Riana Pfefferkorn + Luiz Fernando Marrey Moncau talk about our work, and the assistance CIS provides to students in learning about these issues, selecting courses, identifying job opportunities, and making professional connections.