Law in the Internet Society

View   r2  >  r1  ...
ExpectationSetting 2 - 29 Sep 2014 - Main.MathewKenneally
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"
In reference to the WSJ article I just added to On the Radar (hope it was ok to add there as well), it really surprised me to see how quickly the government's expectations were set when initially receiving such broad access to data. The reaction to a potential pull back in widespread availability and private sector cooperation indicates a sense of entitlement to all data and an expectation that the private sector is working for them, backed up by the help such access would give in an abduction scenario. Is this entitlement warranted? What does this encryption really mean for consumers and for law enforcement? For anyone who knows more about computers, does the encryption mean law enforcement still cannot get at the information without a warrant, as the article suggests, or just that they would need individualized warrants, like they would in the case of personalized servers discussed in Professor Moglen's speech? Would the encryption guard against access by other private actors to this data?
Line: 6 to 6
 

 
<--/commentPlugin-->
\ No newline at end of file
Added:
>
>

I find law enforcement's response is astonishing. It is an ideological argument that all information should be potentially available (except of course their own). I look forward to forthcoming calls for bans on shredders and paper. In relation to the abduction scenario it reminded me of the "ticking time bomb" scenario often used to justify torture. These clear cut scenarios never actually happen. Partly its because by the time authorities no there is a bomb, have the suspect, and a timeline they usually have enough information to avert catastrophe without torturing the suspect. Similarly if you know there has been a kidnapping, know who has done it, and have access to that person's phone it is unlikely listening to their voice mail and checking their calender will add for the investigation. I cannot really comment on the technology of encryption beyond what I have read online. I found these links helpful see Cops locked out?; Cops Can Still Pull Data Off a Locked iPhone


ExpectationSetting 1 - 24 Sep 2014 - Main.AnnaShifflet
Line: 1 to 1
Added:
>
>
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"
In reference to the WSJ article I just added to On the Radar (hope it was ok to add there as well), it really surprised me to see how quickly the government's expectations were set when initially receiving such broad access to data. The reaction to a potential pull back in widespread availability and private sector cooperation indicates a sense of entitlement to all data and an expectation that the private sector is working for them, backed up by the help such access would give in an abduction scenario. Is this entitlement warranted? What does this encryption really mean for consumers and for law enforcement? For anyone who knows more about computers, does the encryption mean law enforcement still cannot get at the information without a warrant, as the article suggests, or just that they would need individualized warrants, like they would in the case of personalized servers discussed in Professor Moglen's speech? Would the encryption guard against access by other private actors to this data?

-- AnnaShifflet - 24 Sep 2014

 
<--/commentPlugin-->

Revision 2r2 - 29 Sep 2014 - 16:23:22 - MathewKenneally
Revision 1r1 - 24 Sep 2014 - 17:12:11 - AnnaShifflet
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM