The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School is a leader in the study of the law and policy around the Internet and other emerging technologies.
CIS in the news.
"However, the most interesting filing of all may be the one filed by a group of iPhone Security and Applied Cryptography Experts, and put together by Jennifer Granick and Riana Pfefferkorn from Stanford's Center for Internet and Society. That brief is super educational in getting down into the weeds of just how dangerous it would be for Apple to create this code.
"Barbara van Schewick, Director of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society and a leading expert on net neutrality, argues that Stream TV contravenes the FCC’s open internet policy because Comcast is engaging in economic discrimination, through zero-rating, and technical discrimination, by giving its own video service preferential treatment.
"On Thursday, a group of those iPhone hackers and other security researchers filed an amicus brief siding with Apple in its intensifying legal battle over the FBI’s court order to assist in cracking an encrypted iPhone that belonged to San Bernadino killer Syed Rizwan Farook.
"Unlike AT&T and Verizon, T-Mobile doesn’t charge companies to allow users access to zero-rated data. But that hasn’t exempted it from controversy.
"However, Bryant Walker Smith, a risk, technology and mobility expert at Stanford University and assistant professor in both law and engineering at the University of South Carolina, suggested that the accident doesn't mean much in the overall debate over self-driving cars.
"I'm no more or less optimistic about the technology or the rate of deployment after this crash," Smith said. "It is simply something that was going to happen eventually and doesn't change my sense that the technology has not yet been demonstrated to be ready over a wide range of conditions.""
"Duo Security, a cloud-based trusted access provider protecting the world's largest and fastest-growing companies, today announces winners for its Women in Security Awards 2016.
"The ruling should help in the California case because Orenstein fully supported Apple’s arguments, a company executive said on a call with reporters. The Justice Department said it will appeal his decision.
Orenstein’s decision “lays out in excruciating detail for the government all the reasons why they’ve overreached here,” according to Albert Gidari, director of privacy at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School."
“There are a lot of ways in which the debate over the past year and a half has been déjà vu all over again,” says Riana Pfefferkorn, a cryptography fellow at Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society. “We’re seeing a lot of the same arguments on behalf of law enforcement that they made in the 1990s.”"
"“The human equivalent of the company signing code is basically saying, ‘We believe that this code is safe for you to run,'” says Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties for the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School. “So I think that when you force Apple to cryptographically sign the software, it has a communicative aspect to it that I think is compelled speech to force them to do it.”
"Robot legal theorist Ryan Calo writes, "I thought you might enjoy my new paper, canvassing decades of American case law involving robots. Courts have had to decide, for instance, whether a robot represents something 'animate,' whether the robot band at Chuckie Cheese 'performs,' and whether a salvage crew 'possesses' a ship wreck by visiting it with a robot sub."
""Mapping will be essential to automated driving," said Bryant Walker Smith, professor at the University of South Carolina and autonomous driving expert. "We've seen different approaches so far, whether partnering with a company like Mobileye, teaming to buy Nokia's former mapping unit, developing in-house expertise, or doing a combination.""
""Can you force Apple to design their product in a particular way and that also could have a speech component?" wondered Ryan Calo, an assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Law. "If what's being compelled here is a change to the way we speak, then it's not the company and its bits and bytes at issue — it's yours and mine.""
Q: What does net neutrality mean?
A: Net neutrality is a principle that has allowed the Internet to serve as a platform for free speech, innovation and economic growth. According to that principle, Internet service providers like Verizon or Comcast that connect us to the Internet should not control what happens on the Internet. That means that ISPs should not have the power to block or slow down websites, make some sites more attractive than others, or charge Internet companies fees to reach people faster.
"All of these companies' efforts fall into one of two kinds of technologies, said Bryant Walker Smith, an engineer and lawyer at the University of South Carolina: cars that do something everywhere or cars that do everything somewhere.
"The current state of technology," Smith said, "is that we don't have vehicles that can do all of the driving all of the time." Vehicles like those at Gateway will be limited to specific conditions, community, and geography. Those vehicles require slow speed, simplified environment, and some form of supervision.
"Le premier amendement protège la liberté d’expression, qui comprend également “le droit de ne pas s’exprimer”, explique aux “Echos” Rianna Pfefferkorn, chercheuse spécialisée en cryptographie et vie privée à l’école de droit de Stanford.
"“This case can’t be a one-time deal,” said Neil Richards, a professor at the Washington University School of Law. “This is about the future.”
"Lots of people, mainly those supporting the DOJ/FBI's view of the Apple fight, have been arguing that this isn't a big deal. They're just asking for one small thing. Other people have tried to examine "what's at stake" in the case, with a number of the arguments falling into the typical "privacy v. security" framing, or even something around precedents related to privacy and security. However, Jennifer Granick recently wrote a great piece that does a much better job framing what's truly at stake. It's not privacy vs.
"“When they leave, they all recognize the extraordinary power the government has,” said Albert Gidari, a recently retired privacy lawyer who worked with Google and referred Zwillinger to Apple. Zwillinger sends Gidari brownies each holiday season as a thank you.
“They know from their time on hand that power can be abused,” Gidari said."
"Albert Gidari, a leading surveillance lawyer who has represented Google and other companies and is now director of privacy at Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society, argues that the government is over-reaching in its request.
"There are all sorts of interesting (and frustrating and challenging) legal questions raised by the FBI's use of the All Writs Act to try to force Apple to build a system to allow the FBI to hack Apple's customers.