You may have noticed “WikiLeaks” coming up in the news a few times lately. Recently, its founder, Julian Assange, saw the Swedish investigation into rape allegations levied against him suspended–although he does still face arrest if he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy in London. And Chelsea Manning, who leaked a massive number of documents to WikiLeaks, was just released from prison after her sentence was commuted by former President Barack Obama.

Wikileaks, which was launched in 2006 with the purpose of providing government and other relevant documents to citizens, has been all over the news since its inception. But what exactly is it, who is its founder, and why do you need to about it? Read on to learn more.

The Origins of WikiLeaks

Wikileaks officially launched in 2006 and the first document was posted in December of that year, but the domain name “WikiLeaks” was registered that October.

WikiLeaks calls itself a “not-for-profit media organization” that seeks to increase transparency worldwide. Despite the similarity in names, there’s no connection between WikiLeaks and Wikipedia. Instead, WikiLeaks is associated with an organization called “Sunshine Press,” which handles some of the private aspects of WikiLeaks’ business.

WikiLeaks states its mission as:

Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure, and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth.

Australian Julian Assange is usually attributed as its main founder–although there are many other people, some anonymous, who worked on the project. Also associated with the project was investigative journalist Gavin MacFadyen, Assange’s mentor. He was the director of WikiLeaks. Before his death in 2016, MacFadyen founded the Julian Assange Legal Defense Committee. Sarah Harrison, a British journalist and researcher, has also been publicly identified as one of the organization’s associates. She’s best known for aiding Edward Snowden’s trip out of the U.S. after he leaked a trove of classified documents. Many of the other people associated with WikiLeaks are anonymous, but the organization claims that they include “accredited journalists, software programmers, network engineers, mathematicians, and others.”

How Does WikiLeaks Operate?

The organization is somewhat secretive in how it operates. But it is currently funded by donors and has no one permanent location or office. It has servers in multiple countries and claims it does so to protect the organization in case one country decides to crack down on its operations. In 2016, Assange told Der Spiegel that the organization had posted over 10 million documents in 10 years. According to WikiLeaks, it is sent documents anonymously through email or other anonymous electronic means, and then those documents are vetted and uploaded–although it is important to note that there has been significant criticism about the veracity of some of those documents. WikiLeaks has occasionally worked with media organizations, including Le Monde, El Pais, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, and The New York Times, although its relationships with some of those organizations have fluctuated over the years.

WikiLeaks and Well Known Whistleblowers

Chelsea Manning

Chelsea Manning is one of the most widely-known names associated with WikiLeaks. Manning, a U.S. soldier then known as Pte First Class Bradley Manning, sent more than 720,000 secret documents to WikiLeaks in 2010. At the time, she was working as an intelligence analyst. One of the most notable things included in this leak was video footage of a U.S. helicopter firing on and killing Iraqi citizens and journalists in 2007. She also leaked State Department cables, information related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and data about the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

Manning was convicted of 20 charges associated with this leak, and sentenced to 35 years in prison. President Barack Obama commuted most of Manning’s sentence before he left office. When she was released in May 2017, she had spent seven years in prison. Manning’s sentence was controversial; many claimed it was too harsh, including advocates for whistleblower protections, transparency, and some human rights groups like Amnesty International. Others claimed that the punishment fit the crime. President Donald Trump, for instance, has called Manning an “ungrateful TRAITOR.”

Manning’s punishment was complicated by the fact that she is a transwoman who was confined in a men’s prison. Manning’s difficulty transitioning while incarcerated was made public, and her struggles to obtain that care worried human rights advocates.

The video below discusses Chelsea Manning’s case in more detail:

Edward Snowden 

Perhaps the most recognizable whistleblower in the world is Edward Snowden. Snowden worked for the CIA and then for well-known government consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton. In 2013, he leaked hundreds of thousands of documents that, among other things, revealed the NSA’s surveillance of American citizens as well as information about British surveillance programs.

Snowden did not release this information to WikiLeaks, instead, he gave the documents to media sources. According to Snowden, the only two who were given the full array of documents were Glenn Greenwald, who worked for The Guardian and Laura Poitras, who later made “Citizenfour,” the award-winning documentary about Snowden. However, in the aftermath of the leaks, Snowden was aided by WikiLeaks-associated individuals. After Snowden fled the United States, Sarah Harrison helped him get set up in Russia and avoid American detection. WikiLeaks also submitted asylum requests to multiple countries on Snowden’s behalf.

Since 2013, Snowden has been loosely associated with WikiLeaks at other times. At various points, Snowden has weighed in on the accuracy of documents leaked by the organization. For example, in March 2017, Snowden publicly said that he believed the documents related to CIA hacking techniques released by WikiLeaks were true.

But, Snowden has also been critical of WikiLeaks. In July 2016, Snowden criticized WikiLeaks for not curating the information it released, instead just indiscriminately posting documents related to the U.S. election. In response, WikiLeaks accused Snowden of trying to curry favor with the then-front-runner in the election, Hillary Clinton.

WikiLeaks Controversy and Criticisms

There are lots of criticisms consistently levied against WikiLeaks and the people associated with it. Here are some of the most prevalent:

Julian Assange’s Legal Troubles

Julian Assange has spent the last five years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Assange was accused of sexual assault by two women in Stockholm, Sweden in 2010. Assange claims that the sexual encounters with the two women were both consensual and that they were only accusing him of assault because of political reasons. In 2012, Assange sought asylum from Ecuador and was granted the ability to stay in the country’s embassy in London. While Sweden recently announced that it was no longer seeking his arrest, he still isn’t likely to leave the embassy any time soon. U.K. officials have said they can arrest him on other charges, like jumping bail. And if he’s extradited to the United States, he could be subject to a variety of charges related to WikiLeaks. If he is ever extradited to the U.S. for charges related to release of documents stolen by Chelsea Manning, he could be in serious trouble.

Redactions Wanted

WikiLeaks’ “leak all for transparency’s sake” approach to releasing information has garnered it some criticism. In July 2016, WikiLeaks claimed to publish a number of documents related to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The so-called “Erdogan emails” didn’t really appear to contain any political bombshells, but did include links to databases containing the information of Turkish citizens. One database had the personal information of almost every woman in the country. The info included things like addresses, cell phone numbers, and political information. Essentially, WikiLeaks doxxed almost half the country. While the files were eventually taken down, WikiLeaks was criticized for going beyond transparency to potentially harming private individuals.

2016 Election Hacks

WikiLeaks has recently been criticized for its role leaking documents pertaining to the 2016 election. WikiLeaks leaked DNC emails that reflected negatively on Hillary Clinton’s presidency campaign. Charlie Savage of the New York Times argued that Assange specifically timed the release of the DNC emails to come out at the most politically damaging time for Clinton, a claim bolstered by Assange’s own admission that he saw Clinton as a “personal foe.” In addition to releasing emails from the DNC, Wikileaks also published a trove of emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s personal email account. Those were also released in batches in a way that kept much of the information in the news as the campaign progressed. WikiLeaks has even been accused of colluding with Russia’s attempts to propel now-President Donald Trump to the presidency. The U.S. intelligence community issued a report that attributed the DNC hack to Russian intelligence services, which caused many to question the extent to which WikiLeaks is associated with the Russian government. WikiLeaks has refused to divulge the source of the documents and has so far denied any connection with Russia.

Conclusion

As a political topic, WikiLeaks is no doubt controversial. In the era of fake news, and distrust in the media and government institutions, WikiLeaks has often garnered credit for being willing to provide ordinary citizens with primary sources. On the other hand, WikiLeaks’ mystique, founder’s legal issues, and accusations of bias and irresponsible dissemination of information has led to plenty of criticism. In fact, in the last year, plenty of think pieces have been written, accusing WikiLeaks of “losing its friends” and “losing the moral high ground.” But given the space it has carved out as a repository for leaked information, and the relative fame of some of the people associated with it, including Julian Assange, it’s unlikely to disappear from our radars anytime soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is WikiLeaks and Who is Julian Assange? appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, WikiLeaks unleashed its latest trove of secrets: thousands of documents seemingly detailing the espionage techniques the Central Intelligence Agency has developed in recent years. Vault 7–the title WikiLeaks has given its latest series of potentially damaging info dumps–is the “largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency,” according to the anti-secrecy outfit. Here is what you need to know.

What the Leaks Reveal

Basically, the documents–nearly 9,000 in total–show that the CIA is capable of compromising smartphones, messaging systems, and televisions, and using them as modes of surveillance. Anything that connects through the internet, the CIA can hijack as a listening or viewing portal. Produced by the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence from 2013 to 2016, the documents are highly technical, and clearly meant for in-house viewing only. The documents, which have not been verified by the agency, come from an unidentified source.

Some of the programs detailed in the documents have colorful names: Wrecking Crew, CrunchyLimeSkies, ElderPiggy, AngerQuake, and McNugget to name a few. One program, called Weeping Angel, uses Samsung televisions that have internet capabilities and, according to a WikiLeaks description of the program, “operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the internet to a covert CIA server.”

It’s unclear where these documents came from. Some analysts say Russia, which provided WikiLeaks with Democratic operatives’ emails it hacked before the presidential election, could be responsible. While the CIA does not appear to penetrate already-encrypted messages, it is able to intercept messages before the content is encrypted. Encrypted messaging apps–Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram–had also been cracked by the agency.

CIA and NSA: How Are They Different?

There are a number of differences between the National Security Agency’s espionage tools–revealed in 2013 in a WikiLeak dump provided by Edward Snowden–and the CIA’s abilities. For one (and this might save the agency from the same blowback the NSA experienced) there is no evidence that the CIA has spied on Americans. There is also no evidence the CIA, unlike the NSA, has engaged in a massive data collection effort of U.S. citizens.

Instead, the picture the documents paint is one of targeted espionage, focused on foreign actors. Another key distinction: the NSA poked holes that weren’t there to peer through; the CIA uses existing holes, or vulnerabilities in an app or device for surveillance purposes. But it does not appear the agency alerts companies of the vulnerabilities it unearths.

Despite the differences between the NSA’s program and CIA’s, Snowden called the documents “a big deal.” Snowden, who has been holed up in Russia, a country that routinely interferes in the democratic processes of sovereign nations, tweeted:

The CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open. Reckless beyond words.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 7, 2017

On Tuesday’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” Michael Hayden, the former director of both the CIA and the NSA, defended the CIA’s tactics. Hayden said the agency does not spy on Americans, but “there are people out there that you want us to spy on.” He added: “You want us to have the ability to actually turn on that listening device inside the TV to learn that person’s intentions.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the WikiLeaks CIA Document Dump appeared first on Law Street.

Whistleblower Chelsea Manning is reportedly on President Barack Obama’s shortlist for a possible commutation, according to a source from the Justice Department. Manning, formerly known as Bradley, is serving a 35-year sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas for leaking almost a million classified documents while working as an intelligence analyst. More than 100,000 people signed an online petition campaigning for a commutation last month, exceeding the number of signatures needed for the White House to act within 60 days.

Manning has been imprisoned since 2010. She tried to commit suicide twice while in jail and also went on a hunger strike in an attempt to receive gender reassignment surgery. This request was eventually granted. Her critics have called her a traitor and many in the military view her with disdain for exposing secret U.S. military information. But still, her supporters say that what Manning revealed didn’t cause any harm to U.S. interests, only embarrassment. She also made a sincere apology before the sentencing. But the judge sentenced her to 35 years in prison—ten times longer than sentences some other whistleblowers have received.

Chelsea Manning has been put on President Obama’s short list for possible commutation https://t.co/aWgoJn6YKt. pic.twitter.com/dgp34Joao9

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) January 11, 2017

“After this case, I had to tell Chelsea–‘I’ve represented murderers. I’ve represented rapists. I’ve represented child molesters. And none of them received 35 years,'” said defense lawyer David Coombs. Manning was also placed in solitary confinement for almost a year before the trial. In a letter accompanying the petition that was sent to President Obama, she describes a complicated family background; she was struggling with gender identity and trying to fit in while growing up, and was kicked out from her home by her father’s new wife. After being homeless for several months, her paternal aunt Deborah Manning got in touch and took her in.

Manning’s case broke almost concurrently with Edward Snowden’s–and Snowden had leaked significantly more damaging information. Four Army intelligence officers that spoke to NBC said that what Manning leaked was nothing compared to what Snowden revealed. They believe that the sentence seems exaggerated. And her aunt agrees. “I really believe the judge felt she needed to send some sort of message,” Deborah Manning said. “I think in a way she was a scapegoat for Edward Snowden.” And Snowden showed his support in a tweet.

Mr. President, if you grant only one act of clemency as you exit the White House, please: free Chelsea Manning. You alone can save her life.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) January 11, 2017

Her aunt and Manning’s legal team have also cited the urgent need for better care, as she is suffering from gender dysphoria related anxiety, distress, and depression. Manning’s aunt said, “I would say this is someone who’s never had a chance in life, who is extremely bright, who became extremely emotionally distressed as some point, who made a bad decision, who paid for that bad decision.”

Manning spoke to VICE News through a liaison and said: “I’m staying optimistic. Regardless of the outcome, I am eternally grateful I have so much love and support out there.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Obama Commute Chelsea Manning’s Sentence? appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, FBI Director James Comey announced that after reviewing new emails found on Anthony Weiner’s computer, his decision not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton remains. Barring any new information, the FBI’s announcement effectively closes Clinton’s case–a conclusion that has left many unsatisfied.

FBI Dir just informed us “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Sec Clinton”

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) November 6, 2016

The FBI was in the process of investigating Anthony Weiner’s computer because of an alleged sexting affair with an underage girl. During the course of that investigation, the FBI found emails related to Hillary Clinton sent or received by Weiner’s estranged wife Huma Abedin, a top Clinton aide.

Soon after Comey’s announcement, conspiracy theorists and Donald Trump supporters questioned whether the FBI could review so many emails in just over a week. Michael T. Flynn, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, seemed to imply that Comey himself had looked through all of the documents.

IMPOSSIBLE:
There R 691,200 seconds in 8 days. DIR Comey has thoroughly reviewed 650,000 emails in 8 days? An email / second? IMPOSSIBLE RT

— General Flynn (@GenFlynn) November 6, 2016

It took 1 year to review 60K and 8 days to review 650K? Smart machines or not, something does not jive. Thoughts?

— General Flynn (@GenFlynn) November 6, 2016

In response to a tweeted question by journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted back an explanation of how a computer could do this:

@jeffjarvis Drop non-responsive To:/CC:/BCC:, hash both sets, then subtract those that match. Old laptops could do it in minutes-to-hours.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) November 7, 2016

Snowden, who revealed the NSA’s metadata surveillance program, said that such a review shouldn’t take very long. And according to reports, most of the emails, that were found on Weiner’s computer were duplicates of emails already reviewed by the FBI.

John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told NBC on Sunday, “In the days that come, we will have many questions about the FBI’s handling of this investigation. In the meantime, however, I welcome this news confirming again that no charges are warranted in this matter.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Snowden Debunks FBI Investigation Conspiracy Theories with One Tweet appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

No, All Chinese People Don’t Know Karate

On Monday night, the “O’Reilly Factor” showed reporter Jesse Watters on a mission to find out what people on the streets of Chinatown are thinking about the 2016 election. Instead he ended up making fun of Chinese people by using blatantly racist stereotypes. He asked people if they know karate (the Japanese martial art), or if he should bow while saying hello to them, if in China they call Chinese food just “food,” and he made fun of old people who didn’t speak English.

The segment was immediately criticized by a whole bunch of journalists and pundits as blatantly racist. Did Fox apologize? Of course not…instead, the network tweeted that it was “hilarious.”

Hilarious #WattersWorld: @JesseBWatters Goes Down to Chinatown to Find Out What They Think of @realDonaldTrump: https://t.co/HBQCGdHO01

— Fox Nation (@foxnation) October 4, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 6, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The FBI secretly arrested a National Security Agency contractor suspected of stealing and leaking highly classified material that is used for hacking foreign governments’ networks. The suspect, Harold Thomas Martin, has been in custody since August and worked for the same firm as famous whistleblower Edward Snowden, Booz Allen Hamilton. This firm is responsible for some of the most secretive and sensitive operations of the NSA.

Maryland Man Charged With Removal of Classified Materials and Theft of Government Property https://t.co/fHMngJZQ6x

— Justice Department (@TheJusticeDept) October 5, 2016

Martin is suspected of stealing a “source code” that the NSA uses to break into the computer systems of hostile foreign countries like China, North Korea, and Russia. It is unclear if he has shared the code with anyone yet. If leaked, the documents could “cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the U.S.,” according to a statement from the U.S. Justice Department.

Here’s how the criminal complaint describes the NSA contractor’s response. pic.twitter.com/TCExbnoDPl

— Eric Geller (@ericgeller) October 5, 2016

The 52-year-old Maryland man now faces one year in prison if found guilty of removing the materials, and ten more for the theft. The FBI searched his home and car, where it found several documents and digital information marked as “top secret.” They also found unspecified “government material” up to a value of $1,000.

The formal charges are theft of government property and unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials by a government employee or contractor. This case is different from Snowden’s because of the material stolen and the purpose of it. Snowden was a whistleblower who acquired classified documents and leaked them for the public benefit. Martin stole the actual code software that is used in NSA operations and that can be sold and used for cyber warfare.

Edward Snowden, currently exiled in Russia, tweeted about the news.

This is huge. Did the FBI secretly arrest the person behind the reports NSA sat on huge flaws in US products? https://t.co/otgOwB5efm

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) October 5, 2016

According to the Independent, the material in this case could be connected to the recent theft of secret material by the hacker group Shadow Brokers, which also included a source code that was traced to the NSA. The hackers also left a cryptic message in broken English, saying, “We want make sure Wealthy Elite recognizes the danger cyber weapons, this message, our auction, poses to their wealth and control.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NSA Contractor Arrested For Stealing and Leaking Classified Codes appeared first on Law Street.

Tucked away in one of Tokyo’s busiest districts is an uncommon structure in a city dominated by Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples: the powder blue domes and minaret of Japan’s largest mosque, Tokyo Camii. Japan, a nation of Shintoism–an ancient folk religion–and Buddhism, is home to roughly 15,000 Muslims and 50 or so mosques. Leaked police files from 2010 revealed an extensive, country-wide surveillance program that affected 89 percent of Japan’s Muslims, or 12,677 individuals. A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court dismissed a second appeal by 17 Japanese Muslims who were affected by the blanket policing program.

Japan’s policing of its Muslim community first came to light in 2010, when the leaked documents showed that police departments kept tabs on the vast majority of Japanese Muslims. Police recorded their names, a physical description, and personal relationships. Each profile also contained a section titled “suspicions.” Additionally, police around the country surveilled mosques, halal restaurants, and “Islam-related” organizations. A group of 17 Japanese Muslims took legal action after they found out the extent of the Japanese police’s grip on their lives. The first case was brought to the Tokyo District Court in 2014. The plaintiffs argued that the surveillance program infringed on their constitutional rights to privacy, equal treatment, and religious freedom.

The court initially ruled in favor of the government. But as a concession, and as a consequence of the leaked documents from 2010, the court offered the plaintiffs the equivalent of $880,000. And on May 31, Japan’s highest court shot down the plaintiffs’ second appeal, but agreed on the financial compensation. To Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who blew the cover off of America’s extensive surveillance program, Japan’s zealous supervision of its Muslims is born of fear.

“People of the Islamic faith are more likely to be targeted,” he said from Moscow, Russia, where he has lived since fleeing the U.S. in 2013. He spoke via a video feed at a symposium on government surveillance in Tokyo on June 4. He added: “Simply because people are afraid.” Snowden mentioned that in Japan, a place that is hardly ever mentioned as a target of terrorists, the origin of that fear should be scrutinized. After all, the country–one of the world’s safest–last saw a terrorist attack in 1995. In the spring of that year, Aum Shinrikyo, a fanatical doomsday cult, released sarin gas into the Tokyo subway system. 13 people died, and dozens more were injured.

So as the West and the Middle East are working out the best ways to repel very real terrorist threats, Japan is applying blanket surveillance techniques on nearly all of its Muslims. Junko Hayashi, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, worries how this will affect the next generation of Japanese Muslims. “It’s a really, really difficult thing to deal with, especially for the kids growing up here,” Hayashi said. “The police have been dealing with them as future terrorists.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Japan Keeps a Watchful Eye on Its Nearly 15,000 Muslims appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

What are your #Slogans4Hillary?

Twitter hasn’t really been a boon of positive hashtags for the Hillary Clinton campaign. But that doesn’t mean they’re not hilarious, right? Whether you’re #WithHer or not, check out Twitter’s #Slogans4Hillary:

“I’ll be there for you… unless it’s no longer politically advantageous, in which case, I’m ghost” #Slogans4Hillary pic.twitter.com/Fhi0A7l95w

— Progressive Greens (@ProgressivGreen) May 24, 2016

80 Percent of Aquatic Venues in Five US States Failed Health Inspections, CDC Says

Gross! No big surprise that this has been trending for the past couple days. Summer is coming up and all I daydream about is being able to relax by the community pool in shades and a ‘kini. Sadly, a recent report by the Center for Disease Control has found that nearly one out of every eight public aquatic venues in Arizona, Texas, New York, California, and Florida have serious safety violations–so serious some venues have been closed. And at eight out of 10 facilities, at least one violation was found. These violations can range from risk of waterborne illness, to drowning, and even chemical burns! Needless to say, it’s not a good year to be that friend with a pool.

Bill Cosby Will Stand Trial

Things are not looking good for Bill Cosby. Today, he is in court for his first criminal pretrial hearing and is facing three counts of indecent assault from a 2004 case involving Andrea Constand, a former employee at his alma mater, Temple University. Cosby fans are still reeling from the initial allegations and refuse to believe them, while others hope he’ll serve serious time. It should also be interesting to see the role the media plays in the heavily-covered trials.

Bill #Cosby in court: Accuser says she was dizzy, felt ‘like jelly’: https://t.co/vLuq2915LK pic.twitter.com/w06qsLO690

— Canoe (@Canoe) May 24, 2016

Former Miss Universe Opens Up About Trump’s Body Shaming

Alicia Machado, the 1996 Miss Universe Winner, says Donald Trump, who owned the pageant company until last year, called her degrading names mocking her body image and Latina heritage. Rude!

Machado told UniVision that Trump called her “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeping.” These claims shouldn’t be hard to believe, given Trump’s penchant for nicknames.

Edward Snowden Calls for Overhaul of Whistleblower Protections

These calls come after a new source from inside the Pentagon released an account of how the system makes it impossible for personnel to expose wrongdoing in the government. According to the source, it has essentially become a trap. Snowden has stepped up to corroborate this claim, saying that leaking information to the press is the only way to make a difference. “There are no incentives for people to stand up against an agency on the wrong side of the law today, and that’s got to change.”

I love my country, but I hate this. https://t.co/zmxXYymS9O

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) May 22, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 24, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Intercept released a batch of 166 previously unseen documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The release fulfilled Snowden’s wishes for the classified information, by pairing it with context that makes it accessible and understandable to the general public. The Intercept also attempted to protect the personal welfare of innocent individuals associated with the information.

On its website, the Intercept declared that it will release the documents in batches, starting with the oldest ones from 2003 and going all the way until the most recent documents, from 2012. The documents in question are from the NSA’s internal newsletter called SIDtoday, short for Signals Intelligence Directorate.

On Tuesday, reports came that the CIA “mistakenly” destroyed a 6,700 page U.S. torture report, containing thousands of confidential files about the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation. Something that does sound very fishy, and Snowden said:

I worked @CIA. I wrote the Emergency Destruction Plan for Geneva. When CIA destroys something, it's never a mistake. https://t.co/S1VULfE4NY

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) May 18, 2016

Along with the release of information, the Intercept published four accompanying articles. One went through how closely the NSA was involved in the Guantánamo interrogations, explaining how staff were sent to the military base during the time that the torture-like interrogations took place. It states:

The NSA LNO might pull together intelligence to support an upcoming interrogation, formulate questions and strategies for the interrogation, and observe or participate in the interrogation.

The documents and corresponding articles also account for how the staff spent their free time doing water sports, going to a Tiki bars, or:

Pottery, hiking, nature walks, biking, paintball, martial arts, tennis, racquetball, basketball, softball, and bowling.

This all sounds like a relaxing, enjoyable vacation. But reports from FBI agents who were disturbed by the conditions under which the prisoners were questioned all stem from the same time period. They state that prisoners were questioned while lying chained to the floor in fetal positions, while exposed to aggressive dogs, and while starved as just a few of the examples. The reports also stated that the interrogators claimed to be FBI agents, to avoid later blame for abuse and possible repercussions.

Another article from the Intercept goes through the most intriguing spy stories that have come to light as a result of the documents. For example, it highlights North Korean nuclear plans, Russian mobsters, and information about the rescue of a kidnapped female soldier.

The Intercept was founded in 2014 and is dedicated to fearless reporting. The site is known especially for its coverage of the Snowden documents–editor Glenn Greenwald was one of the original recipients. Batches of more documents are coming shortly, so stay tuned as more of Snowden’s revelations come to light.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Intercept Releases New Snowden Documents, Details About Guantánamo appeared first on Law Street.

“Government should have lawful access to any encrypted message or device.” That was the resolution at the center of a debate between CNN’s Fareed Zakaria and Edward Snowden, former NSA contractor and infamous (or famous, depending on your opinions) leaker of classified information.

The Sides

Zakaria, the host of CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” and Washington Post columnist, supported the resolution, arguing that no one should be able to have a “zone of immunity,” and that with due process, all information should be accessible to law enforcement. Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor responsible for an unprecedented leak of classified information about the agency’s surveillance programs, took the opposing position, arguing that computer security is the preeminent challenge of our time and that making it possible for the government to access devices makes everyone’s information less safe.

The People and the Place

The debate, which took place in the New York Times Building just steps away from Times Square, was co-hosted by the Century Foundation and NYU’s Wagner School for public service. Zakaria stood before the audience in New York while Snowden was teleconferenced in from Russia.

Fareed Zakaria and Edward Snowden debate encryption. [Image courtesy of Kevin Rizzo for Law Street Media]

With the help of moderator Barton Gellman–a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who broke the story after Snowden’s leak and current Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation–the debaters managed to debate the merits of encryption. Although discussion of encryption often becomes abstract, with talk of backdoors and impenetrable walls, Snowden and Zakaria got to the crux of the issue: when possible, should companies be forced to comply with court orders to release information when law enforcement cannot access it?

The Fuss Over Encryption

Encryption tends to quickly polarize people. On one hand there are people like FBI Director James Comey who has said that one day, law enforcement officers will need to get into an encrypted device to save a kidnapped child, and without the ability to do so, someone might die. On the other are privacy advocates, who say that weakening security by making every device accessible to the government, or creating a so-called backdoor, will make devices insecure for everyone, criminals and upstanding citizens alike. But the reality is often more complicated.

Drawing from his unique position as a former NSA contractor and current privacy advocate, Snowden noted that nothing is completely protected. If someone can access their device, then it is possible for others to access it as well. He used examples from his time at the NSA, saying that he was able to get around encryption. He also cited the FBI’s success in arresting Ross Ulbricht, the man behind the infamous Silk Road website–an online black market that often facilitated illegal activity. The FBI managed to arrest Ulbricht and access his encrypted information because agents physically took his computer while he was logged into Silk Road at a public library.

But Zakaria shot back arguing that getting around encryption like that is very difficult and often extremely expensive. He noted the recent battle between the FBI and Apple, in which the FBI ended up paying more than a million dollars to break into a phone used by one of the San Bernadino shooters. Zakaria asked why wealthy law enforcement agencies should be able to break into the phones of murderers while similar crimes go unsolved in Harlem and the Bronx.

Eventually, Gellman, the moderator, raised a question that got to the heart of the issue. He noted that the messaging service WhatsApp has, based on available evidence, managed to create comprehensive end-to-end encryption for its users–meaning that even the company cannot read its users’ messages. Gellman asked Zakaria if such services should exist, noting that a bill in the Senate would require companies to be able to decrypt their customers’ data with a court order, making impenetrable encryption against the law.

Zakaria conceded that if a company was able to create a system that the company itself could not decrypt, then they would not be held liable. “If WhatsApp says we literally do not know how to write this code—WhatsApp could demonstrate to a court that they don’t have to do it,” Zakaria said. But he maintained that if uncovering the data is possible, the government should be allowed to do so with a court order.

At that point, the disagreement became clear–Zakaria, and the pro law enforcement camp in general, believe that when it is possible (and it often is) the government should be able to gain access to devices if they obtain a court order. But Snowden, technologists, and privacy advocates, counter that making companies exploit their own systems to gain access to devices makes everyone’s information less safe.

A Welcome Focus on Realism

While strong disagreement between the two sides remained at the end of the event, they managed to discuss the issue based on its merits without exclusively dealing in abstract hypothetical situations. The debate boiled down to the tension between cyber security and law enforcement’s ability to get information, echoing the larger battle between preserving privacy and providing safety. While the debate remains far from settled, Snowden and Zakaria’s discussion of encryption should help shape the conversation going forward.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fareed Zakaria and Edward Snowden Debate the Limits of Encryption appeared first on Law Street.

The Twittersphere was treated to a particularly strange dose of conspiracy theory nuttiness this week when rapper B.oB. went head-to-head with famed scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson over whether or not the earth is flat. Fellow Law Streeter Alexis Evans published an excellent rundown of the bizarre feud on Tuesday, but it got me thinking: why do so many seemingly insane conspiracy theories exist? After all, we all know that the earth is round, and vaccines don’t cause autism, and that Elvis Presley is probably dead. But then, some conspiracy theories do kind of turn out to true–take, for example, the NSA spying on Americans. So, how do we separate the crazy from the not-so-crazy? Turns out University of Oxford postdoctoral research associate David Robert Grimes has figured out a way, by determining how long it would take conspiracy theories to be debunked.

Grimes essentially set out to answer a simple question: how long would it take for the truth to come out about a conspiracy theory? In order to test the equation he developed, Grimes looked at three conspiracy theories that have turned out to be true, and compared them to four other long-standing theories, in an attempt to figure out how long it would have taken those theories to be debunked, whether intentionally or accidentally.

The three “true” conspiracy theories that Grimes looked at were:

• The NSA’s spying program, which whistle-blower Edward Snowden released information about in 2013.
• The Tuskegee syphilis experiment, a horrifying “clinical study” that involved researchers essentially experimenting on and withholding treatment from 600 African-American male participants.
• The FBI’s use of questionable techniques and pseudo-science in sworn testimony, particularly involving the FBI’s microscopic hair comparison unit, that led to hundreds of wrongful convictions.

According to Grimes, these conspiracy theories were exposed in six years, 25 years, and six years respectively. Grimes’ equation takes into account conditions like how many people would have to be involved in each coverup and the amount of effort the coverups would require. So he was able to mathematically calculate how long it should take a secret to be exposed–whether from a whistle-blower’s actions or accidentally.

Using that calculation, he was able to determine how long it would take four popular conspiracy theories to have been debunked:

• NASA faking the moon landing would have been uncovered in four years.
• Climate change, if only concealed by climate scientists, would have taken 27 years to be debunked. But, if you involved scientific bodies and agencies, the possible cover up time drops to under four years.
• The conspiracy theory that vaccines aren’t safe would take just over three years if drug companies were involved, but much longer (35 years) if it was limited to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization.
• If pharmaceutical companies knew how to cure cancer but were withholding those cures from the public, we would have found out in a little over three years.

According to Think Progress’s Lauren C. Williams:

For a conspiracy to last five years, just over 2,500 people could actively know the truth before it’s revealed. Fewer than 1,000 people can know about it to keep the conspiracy alive for 10 years, and only 125 people could be involved to keep a conspiracy going for a century, the study found.

So, is the world flat? Well, we already know it’s not, but now here’s proof that if it is, it defies what science tells us in more ways than one.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Earth isn’t Flat: The Science of Waiting Out Conspiracy Theories appeared first on Law Street.

The newest massive dump of confidential American military information came this week, and it focused on one much-criticized aspect of American foreign policy: our use of drones in conflict. The information, which was released via an eight-part report entitled “The Drone Papers” by the Intercept, doesn’t look good for the U.S. It contains many shocking revelations, including the fact that nearly 90 percent of the people killed in recent drone attacks in a five-month period in Afghanistan “were not the intended targets.”

The papers, which were released by an anonymous whistleblower only identified as “a source” are secret, classified documents. They encompass the United States’ use of drones from 2011-2013 in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Iraq, and outline the chain of command and process through which the United States government approves an attack. They also go through in detail the evolution of the United States’ drone program.

The Intercept–which was founded in the wake of Edward Snowden’s release of NSA documents that clued Americans into the spying being conducted by the U.S. government–has been hinting that it has a new source of information for a while now. So, while this drone report release doesn’t necessarily come as a surprise, it’s hard to deny that the revelations are anything other than grim, and echo the concerns that human rights activists have been uttering since we began using drones as tools for warfare. As the Intercept puts it, what should be understood as a result of the release of these documents is clear:

Taken together, the secret documents lead to the conclusion that Washington’s14-year high-value targeting campaign suffers from an overreliance on signals intelligence, an apparently incalculable civilian toll, and — due to a preference for assassination rather than capture — an inability to extract potentially valuable intelligence from terror suspects. They also highlight the futility of the war in Afghanistan by showing how the U.S. has poured vast resources into killing local insurgents, in the process exacerbating the very threat the U.S. is seeking to confront.

The source also explained his motivations for releasing the information to the Intercept, explaining that the public deserves to know the truth about the American drone program, and stating:

This outrageous explosion of watchlisting — of monitoring people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers, assigning them ‘baseball cards,’ assigning them death sentences without notice, on a worldwide battlefield — it was, from the very first instance, wrong,

The Obama Administration has long assured the American people that the use of drone strikes attempted to mitigate civilian deaths–this information seems to indicate that those assurances are simply not accurate. So far the various American government agencies involved, including the Pentagon, the White House, and the Defense Department have all avoided public comment. While mum may be the word for now, Americans will almost certainly start demanding answers, similar to the controversy over the NSA and the Patriot Act after Snowden’s papers were released. That leak fundamentally changed the conversation about privacy in this country–this newest release threatens to do the same when it comes to the use of American military force via drone.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Drone Papers: The Intercept Releases Massive Report on America’s Use of Drones appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

In the two years since former government contractor Edward Snowden released information about the extent to which the United States government was surveilling its citizens, the push to be able to protect private information has gotten much stronger. Protected email accounts and versions of the web existed well before Snowden’s leaks; however, discussions over how to truly protect online communication have proliferated since. One important aspect of these conversations is whether it’s appropriate to continue to allow the government to have access to citizens’ communications, but there’s simply no easy answer to these questions.

It’s within this wholly uncertain context that lawyers and law schools are beginning to address these questions. Southwestern Law School, a leading voice in media law located in Los Angeles, California, is one of the institutions tackling these issues head on. Recently, Southwestern Law’s Donald E. Biederman Entertainment and Media Law Institute hosted its annual online privacy conference, featuring a panel entitled “Government Access to Data: Surveillance, Privacy and Security After Snowden.” The panel featured leading voices in the field of online privacy: Jon Callas, a cofounder of both Blackphone and Silent Circle, and Timothy Edgar, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a visiting fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies. It was moderated by Lee Tien, Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Read on to learn about the panel’s discussions on the topic of private email and its role in the legal field.

Protecting Online Communication: A History

In order to explore the discussion about online privacy that the Southwestern Law panel undertook, it’s important to understand the context of protected communication. Even before Snowden’s leak, no one liked to imagine that their private communications were easily readable. More importantly, so many of us now store our most important information online–whether that is bank accounts, identification information, or medical records. Pieces of our personal information that used to be kept under lock and key in paper form are now stored in electronic, intangible ways. So it makes sense that ever since this kind of online storage has existed, some have sought to protect their information from prying eyes.

But after Snowden’s leak the urge to protect information became particularly focused on one set of prying eyes: the U.S. government. During the Southwestern Law panel, Tien introduced the complicated conversation about protected communication as follows:

That issue has come back in the post-Snowden world. Because one of the things that became really, really clear from his revelations is that the government spends a lot of time and energy thinking about how it can subvert and undermine the technology we use to protect our privacy.

Email Encryption

This brings us to the concept of encrypted email–one of the most basic building blocks of protected communication. There are multiple ways to encrypt email, but at its most simplistic form, encryption means that a message cannot be read by anyone who is not authorized to do so–whether it’s a government agency, employer, or a hacker looking for vulnerable personal information to exploit.

Encrypted email usually involves public and private “keys.” As the names indicate, public keys are available to the public–essentially anyone with whom you want to trade emails–and private keys are kept by the owner of the email account. Imagine Person A wants to exchange emails with Person B. Person A gives Person B her public key, and Person B writes an email, then uses the public key to encrypt it. When Person A receives the email, she needs to use her private key to unlock the email that has been encrypted with the public key–and because she’s the only one who has the private key, she’s the only one who is able to do so.

Of course, that is just encryption at a very basic level and it can be significantly more nuanced than that. The encryption described above requires some people to have keys–usually an account provider such as Gmail, for example. The next level of encryption that is said to be on the horizon will place the encryption process on the computer rather than on servers, so even the company providing the service won’t have the key. But that’s also where the legal concerns the Southwestern Law panel discussed start to come into play.

The Legality of Encrypted Email

There’s nothing inherently illegal about encrypting emails, but that hasn’t stopped those who create the programs and services from running into legal trouble here and there, particularly with the United States government. One case discussed by the Southwestern Law panel surrounded an email service called Lavabit, founded by entrepreneur Ledar Levison. Snowden used Lavabit, and when he fled the country after revealing information about the NSA’s surveillance program, the FBI wanted to access his account. However, the government requested the private encryption key for Lavabit generally in its attempt to access Snowden’s key. Lavabit provides encrypted email to nearly half a million people. Levison at first was unwilling to give that information, and chose to shut down the company after a very long legal back and forth in which he was served multiple times. The dominant narrative about what happened to Lavabit focuses on the complicated nature of what the FBI was asking for. During the panel, Tien explained the sheer difficulty of what the government was asking Levison to do:

After Lavabit shut down, some similar companies followed in its wake. SilentCircle, also offering encrypted email services, shut down in anticipation of similar issues with the government at some point in the future. Callas, a co-founder of SilentCircle, explained the decision to shut down while at the Southwestern panel, citing fear of a reputation hit, and saying that “when the house next door gets raided, you wonder if you’re next, and that’s when you make sure that your shredder is working.”

Despite Lavabit’s abrupt closure, companies haven’t stopped their quests to create truly private, encrypted email–they’ve just had to become more careful. One of the new companies that sprung up in the wake of the Snowden revelations and the subsequent focus on encrypted email is called ProtonMail. It promises that new frontier of encryption: a company that doesn’t have the keys to encrypted email. If a company doesn’t have the keys itself–the way Lavabit did–it can’t provide them when the government comes to call. Andy Yen, one of the founders of Proton Mail, explained:

We encrypt the data on the browser before it comes to the server. By the time the data comes to the server it’s already encrypted, so if someone comes to us and says we’d like to read the emails of this person, all we can say is we have the encrypted data but we’re sorry we don’t have the encryption key and we can’t give you the encryption key.

ProtonMail isn’t the only new service that’s attempting to make encrypted email even more private. Levison, along with a number of like-minded partners, created the Dark Mail Project, which is working on a new set of email protocols called Dime. Dime is specifically focused on metadata in addition to the actual messages being sent. Metadata includes things like location and time when a message was sent. That kind of information has also been highly coveted by the government. Again, like with ProtonMail, the logic is that if the provider doesn’t have the information the government is looking for, the government can’t go after the company.

Whether or not that’s strictly legal, however, does appear to be a gray area. Since some of these features are so cutting edge, it’s hard for American law to keep up with it. As Dailydot explains it:

As the law currently stands, people aren’t required to build online services that are accessible by a government request; but, if your service is in any way penetrable, the operators of those services can be compelled to turn over what information the government could theoretically access.

This lack of clear guidelines has sparked frustration from both email encryption companies and the government, which has led to the government asking for something called a “backdoor.”

Backdoors

A backdoor to encrypted email is pretty much exactly what it sounds like: a special entrance for the U.S. government–normally the FBI–to use in order to access data in case it needs to do so. But whether or not they should be instituted is a contentious point of debate. While the Southwestern Law panelists tended to argue against backdoors, in order to understand their points, it’s important to acknowledge the arguments for backdoors purported mainly by the government.

Arguments in Favor of Backdoors

The FBI’s argument for a backdoor is multi-faceted, but it all essentially boils down to a single idea: national security and safety. The most compelling argument is that if these types of software are used to arrange terror plots or other nefarious acts, the FBI, or any other relevant agency, needs to be able to gain access to that information. As President Barack Obama put it in January 2015: “If we find evidence of a terrorist plot…and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem.”

Those who espouse the necessity of backdoors also point out that it has nearly always been possible for the government–particularly the American government–to listen in on or read private correspondence between citizens if there is a national security issue at risk. While there are rules about reading citizens’ mail or wiretapping conversations, those options have almost always been open to government officials if the proper channels and rules were followed. The idea that a type of communication could be created in which the government simply could not access the messages is not consistent with American security practices to date.

Arguments Against Backdoors

One of the strongest arguments on this side is that creating a backdoor for the government weakens the system as a whole. There’s really no way to create a backdoor that only the U.S. government can use–it creates vulnerabilities that enterprising hackers, terrorist groups, or foreign governments can also exploit, albeit with a bit more difficulty. So, allowing the government to have access to encrypted emails in order to fight terrorism could backfire and weaken national security.

There’s also a counter-argument to the idea that the U.S. government has traditionally had access to our private communication. This argument posits that the government’s ability to search private citizens doesn’t entitle it to whatever it wants, but rather gives it permission to try to gain access. As Edgar put it during the Southwestern Law panel:

The FBI director has been making the government’s traditional argument, which is the government has a right to monitor communications as long as they get a lawful order for it, under whatever that legal standard is. And I’ve always thought, even since law school, that just gets it completely backwards. The government’s warrant isn’t a right, it’s a permission. It’s a judge saying you are permitted under the law to do something that if you were a private citizen would be illegal because we think it’s important for law enforcement or national security.

There’s also the concern that the U.S. government would use backdoors to continue one-size-fits-all surveillance on American citizens. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 73 percent of Americans think it is acceptable for the U.S. government to monitor suspected terrorists, yet only 37 percent of Americans think it’s acceptable for the government to spy on American citizens. Given the significant evidence that that type of monitoring was exactly what was happening, it makes sense that many would be hesitant to allow the American government in to monitor “terrorists” if that means giving it access to non-suspects as well.

So is it actually possible to have entirely private email?

It’s not an easy question to answer. Instead, it’s a matter of weighing priorities and sacrifices, and those aren’t consistent from person to person, let alone the American government as a whole. Southwestern Law, as well as other legal and academic institutions, is working to answer these questions, but it’s important to keep in mind that there may never be a cut-and-dry answer.

In order for communication to be completely and fully protected, we have to realize that we may get to the point where companies and developers are building systems so protected that no one can break them, not even their creators. That is viewed by some as deeply problematic, because there really will be no ability for surveillance or access for the government at that point.

While we aren’t yet at that point, it’s indubitable that Snowden changed the way that we look at privacy, national security, and communication, and his releases sparked a larger national debate about how to protect email. But the reality is that there may never really be an answer to the question of how to protect our online communications.

Resources

Primary

Southwestern Law: Biederman Institute: Online Privacy Conference

Additional

Lifehacker: How to Encrypt Your Email and Keep Your Conversations Private

Forbes: The Only Email System the NSA Can’t Access

Guardian: Secrets, Lies, and Snowden’s Email: Why I Was Forced to Shut Down Lavabit

Time: Hackers Unveil Their Plan to Change Email Forever

Center for Democracy and Technology: A “Backdoor” to Encryption For Government Surveillance 

Wall Street Journal: Obama Sides With Cameron in Encryption Fight

Slate: Obama Wants Tech Companies to Install Backdoors for Government Spying

Economist: Going Dark

Pew Research Center: Global Opinions of U.S. Surveillance

Southwestern Law School

Southwestern Law School, home of the #1 Entertainment Law program in the country, offers more than 60 courses, seminars, externships and clinics in entertainment and media law through its J.D. curriculum and LL.M. program in Entertainment and Media Law. Southwestern Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

http://www.swlaw.edu/

The post Protecting Email Communication: Is it Possible? appeared first on Law Street.

Portions of a law known as the Patriot Act were allowed to expire on May 31, 2015. The Patriot Act is one of the most controversial laws in U.S. history, originating in a time of fear and later being at the heart of leaks by Edward Snowden that revealed a massive data gathering effort by the NSA of Americans’ information. Read on to learn more about what exactly the Patriot Act is, where it originated from, and the future outlook of its laws.

The Patriot Act

The Patriot Act is one of most divisive laws passed in recent history; however, like many other boogeymen, the actual details of what it entails are unclear to much of the American public. So what exactly is the Patriot Act?

What is the Patriot Act?

The USA Patriot Act or the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, was passed in October 2001. The act dramatically expanded the ability of the United States government to conduct surveillance and investigate citizens without their knowledge.

Unlike similar preceding pieces of legislation, this act lacked the familiar protections that preserve rights in the face of legislation; its statutes were also hard to define and limit. This was due to the speed at which the law passed through congress and was signed by President George W. Bush. The bill was passed quickly due to widespread fear mongering immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attack on U.S. soil, including on the part of Attorney General John Ashcroft who warned any delay could result in another devastating attack.  Watch the video below for more details on the Patriot Act.

Illegality

In the first legal challenge to the act, despite it being in place since 2001, a three-judge panel ruled the law illegal. The panel, however, did not say the law was unconstitutional; instead that the federal government’s mass-data collections had gone beyond what the original creators of the act envisioned when they signed it into law. This is an important distinction in that it effectively says that lawmakers have power to create such an all-encompassing law, but that the Patriot Act was no such law.

Expired Provisions

While the recent ruling may have impacted the decision to let parts of the law expire, the Patriot Act was actually created with built in sunset provisions that were designed to expire unless extended by congress. Thus, after much deliberation, key components of the act were allowed to expire. One such aspect was the so-called Lone Wolf provision, which basically allowed the U.S. intelligence system to monitor individual people even if they had no known terrorist affiliation. This clause was supposedly never used and it was only allowable against non-citizens.

Another major aspect allowed to expire was the roving wiretap. As the name implied, it allowed the surveillance network to maintain taps on any one of a person’s devices, not just a single phone.

Probably the most well-known provision of the law allowed to expire was section 215. This section was the grounds the NSA used to collect data on a large number of Americans without their express permission, even if they were not suspected of terrorism or of any other crime. This section had also been used by agencies such as the CIA and FBI to track financial records of suspected terrorists and criminals.  The video below highlights what provisions of the Patriot Act will expire and what that means, specifically in relation to section 215.

Its Future and Its Successors

While these unpopular parts of the Patriot Act were allowed to expire, a similar successor was quickly passed. Known as the Freedom Act, this new law allows for greater transparency and puts the onus for compiling phone records on companies. Additionally, the Freedom Act also requires the disclosure of how often data collection is requested and allows for more opinions from judges from the mysterious Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In the aftermath of the expiration of parts of the Patriot Act and following the passage of the Freedom Act, opinions quickly poured in. While those who supported the Patriot Act claim that this has led to a degradation in U.S. security, many others actually view the two bills as essentially the same. In fact, for this latter group, the new Freedom Act does little more than privatize the collection of people’s data while offering the vaguest efforts at greater transparency. Under the Patriot Act, the NSA was compiling the data, but now the onus will fall on the telecom companies themselves. Now the companies will store the data and whenever the NSA or FBI wants to use it they will need to get a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Aside from changing who collects the data, the new law really does not do much. This new collection method may actually cost more due to private inefficiencies and also the money the government will pay the companies for their efforts. It also protects these same companies, such as AT&T, from lawsuits. Meaning, regardless of opinion, Americans may now be paying more money to spy on themselves. The video below explains the specifics of the new Freedom Act, even suggesting that it might lead to more widespread surveillance.

When the Freedom Act successfully passed through congress, despite repeated efforts by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, President Barack Obama immediately signed the legislation. While he and others in the government and business community lauded the new act and its potential for greater oversight and transparency, the reality remains to be seen.

The Origins of the Act

Most people associate the Patriot Act with the events of 9/11. In actuality, many of the ideas contained in the act had been debated for years but had not won the necessary support. The Patriot Act was actually the result of a compromise over another proposed bill known as the Anti-terrorism Act. Nevertheless, while the events of 9/11 did not necessarily spawn the ideas for the Patriot Act, they did serve as the catalyst to convince lawmakers that a law of that type was at last needed to prevent any further attacks.

However, how they came to this decision and how it was passed has only added fuel to the fire of those who find it controversial and even illegal. The law was originally introduced to congress by Ashcroft, who gave congress a week to pass the bill or risk the consequences of another attack. Members in both houses attempted to make changes to the law, but most were scrapped in order to meet the deadline. Certainly no one wanted to be responsible for another terrorist attack against the United States due to idleness.

While the law itself has generated controversy, extending its provision has also led to extended debates. In 2009 when it was first up for review, certain provisions were set to expire, which led to a lengthy debate and even a delayed vote. In the end, though, President Obama reauthorized the act in 2010 for one more year.

The president had another opportunity the following year, in 2011, to refuse to authorize the act or at least to add amendments. One such amendment, suggested by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), called for government oversight and transparency for how the act was used by the FBI. Leahy had actually been the one leading the charge for more oversight measures for the original act, too. Despite these attempts, the amendment was ignored once more and President Obama confirmed the act yet again.

Public Sentiment

An act this controversial and requiring so much support would seem to be a likely candidate for the legislative trash heap; however, even following the disclosure made by Edward Snowden about the NSA monitoring civilians’ phones, this law is still far from unpopular. In fact, the opposite is true. In light of the act expiring, CNN polled people across party lines to gather their opinions. According to that poll, 61 percent of people felt the law should have been renewed.

Additionally, while lawmakers in Washington did not agree that the Patriot Act as it was originally constructed should be renewed, they did agree that something similar was still needed to support America’s anti-terrorism efforts. In an odd coupling, Democrats and Tea-Party Republicans united to defeat the expiring Patriot Act and then pass its successor, the Freedom Act. While the Freedom Act was overwhelmingly passed, small groups on both sides held out. On one side were those in the old-guard of Republicans, such as McConnell and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who felt the Patriot Act should have been renewed as it was. Conversely, some legislators such as Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) wanted it scrapped altogether. Paul and his like-minded supporters viewed the whole program as an example of government overreach.

The public and congress therefore still view the Patriot Act and its successor as necessary and vital to national security, even after the Snowden revelations revealed that security is coming at a cost to everyone’s privacy.

Conclusion

The Patriot Act is an extremely controversial law, passed during a time of public terror in the wake of the greatest attack on the United States in the nation’s history. The law itself gave the American intelligence community widespread powers to spy on and investigate its own citizens, without discretion and often without reason.

After much public outcry, the most contested parts of the law were allowed to die off; however, its  successor the Freedom Act guarantees nearly the same all-encompassing powers for the intelligence community, while merely shifting the effort to compile data onto communications companies. All this, even in the face of revelations, that data compiled through the Patriot Act did not aid in any major terror investigation.

Sources

Primary

Electronic Privacy Information Center: USA Patriot Act

Additional

USA Today: Here’s what happens now that the Patriot Act provisions expired

Reuters: USA Freedom Act vs. expired Patriot Act Provisions: How Do the Spy Laws Differ?

Daily Tech: Despite Support From Senator Sanders, Senator Paul Loses USA Freedom Act Fight

Politifact: Revise the Patriot Act to Increase Oversight on Government Surveillance

CNN: Six in Ten Back Renewal of NSA Data Collection

Law Street Media: NSA’s Surveillance of Americans’ Phone Conversations Ruled Illegal

NPR: NSA’s Bulk Collection of American’s Phone Data is illegal, appeals court rules

Business Insider: Obama’s Signature on the Freedom Act Reverses Security Policy That Has Been in Place Since 9/11

CNN: NSA Surveillance Bill Passes After Weeks-Long Showdown

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Expiration of Patriot Act Reignites Security v. Privacy Debate in America appeared first on Law Street.

The latest development in the saga over the National Security Administration’s (NSA) bulk data collection just occurred, as an appeals court ruled that the NSA’s actions were illegal. This is big, as this ruling may pave the way for changes in the surveillance programs conducted on the American people by the NSA.

The American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) led a case against the NSA’s bulk data collecting procedures that developed in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations. As soon as this information was brought to light, many Americans reacted with outrage, demanding an explanation and justification from the government. Immediately, the NSA and the Obama Administration cited the Patriot Act as a defense–the broad piece of legislation passed in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The intention of the Patriot Act is to combat terrorism and prevent an attack like 9/11 from ever occurring again on American soil. While the Patriot Act originally passed with incredibly strong support–only Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted against it–it has since come under intense criticism for its breadth and implications.

One particularly broad section of the Patriot Act was used to justify the NSA bulk collection of phone records. There’s a provision in it that permits the collection of “business records deemed relevant to a counterterrorism investigation.” However, the Appeals Court ruled that this provision simply does not allow a bulk collection of any and all phone records, which is pretty much what the NSA was doing.

Interestingly enough, the appeals court did not rule on the actual constitutionality of the NSA’s data collection. Rather the court stated that the provision of the Patriot Act being used to defend it simply did not apply. As the Wall Street Journal explains:

The court declined to address the issue of whether the program violates Americans’ rights, because, they found, it was never properly authorized by existing law.

The case was also sent back to a lower court for review in light of this decision; however, this ruling, no matter how specific and limited, does create an interesting conundrum in the halls of Congress. The much-maligned Patriot Act is currently up for debate. The provision that the government was relying upon to justify NSA spying will actually expire on June 1 if no action to reauthorize or extend it is taken by Congress. By stating that the provision of the Patriot Act used to justify this spying is not applicable, the judges have put another task on Congress’ to do list if they want the NSA data collection program to continue. The move to shift the responsibility to Congress’ lap wasn’t particularly subtle either. The three judge panel even stated:

We do so comfortably in the full understanding that if Congress chooses to authorize such a far‐reaching and unprecedented program, it has every opportunity to do so, and to do so unambiguously.

While this ruling by no means ensures any sort of end to the NSA’s heavily criticized phone data collection program, it certainly is a blow to the administrations that touted its legality under the Patriot Act, and a blow to the Patriot Act itself. Given the Congress’ lack of productivity and rampant disagreement there’s no way to tell what ramifications this ruling will have.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NSA’s Surveillance of Americans’ Phone Conversations Ruled Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

The American Bill of Rights includes some fundamental freedoms to which we all, as American citizens, are entitled. One of them is called “Freedom of the Press.” It’s a freedom we may take for granted; it’s easy to assume that a nation whose President is often dubbed “the leader of the free world” also has the freest press; however, this year the United States ranked #49 out of 180 nations on Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index 2015.

Reporters Without Borders explains its goal as follows:

The aim of the index is to measure freedom of information in 180 countries. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists, news media and netizens (Internet citizens) enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. It should not be seen as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned.

The top ten on the list were Finland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand, Austria, Canada, Jamaica, and Estonia. The lowest ten were Eritrea, North Korea, Turkemenistan, Syria, China, Vietnam, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, and Laos.

The rankings include both quantitative and qualitative data. In order to compile the list, Reporters Without Borders “scores” nations based on seven criteria categories:

• Pluralism: Are different opinions present in the media?
• Media Independence: Does the media function independently of other spheres of influence?
• Environment and Self-Censorship: What sort of journalistic environment is there in the nation?
• Legislative Framework: What sorts of laws govern the news?
• Transparency: How transparent are the institutions that produce the news?
• Infrastructure: How strong are the institutions that produce the news and what support do they have?
• Abuse: What is the violence and harassment toward those in the media like?

This format allows Reporters Without Borders to create a “score” for each nation; the lower the better. A score of 0-15 points shows a “Good Situation;” 15.01-25 points is a “Satisfactory Situation;” 25.01-35 points indicates “Noticeable Problems;” 35.01-55 points is a “Difficult Situation;” and 55.01-100 points is a “Very Serious Situation.” The United States scored a 24.41, so barely in the “Satisfactory Situation” category.

The United States’ place on the list at 49 is tied for the lowest its ever been–it was also 49 in 2007. Last year, the U.S. was three places higher. Reporters Without Borders explained the drop, stating:

In the Americas, the United States (49th, down three places) continues its decline. In 2014, the New York Times journalist James Risen came under government pressure to reveal his sources. Although the Obama administration backed away in that case, it continues its war on information in others, such as WikiLeaks.

Reporters Without Borders also cited the American treatment of Edward Snowden as another reason for the U.S.’s slip down the list. In addition, the treatment of the press in hostile situations, such as the environment in Ferguson, Missouri after the shooting of Michael Brown, was a reason for concern.

The United States’ commitment to Freedom of the Press doesn’t appear to go as far as it could. It’s concerning–hopefully some positive changes will be made in the New Year and we’ll move further up the list when the next rankings are released.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Drops to 49th Place For Global Freedom of the Press appeared first on Law Street.

On December 24, the National Security Agency (NSA) released 12 years of internal reports that detailed improper surveillance procedures used on Americans. It was either the world’s weirdest attempt at an early Christmas present, or the NSA was just trying to release the news while no one was paying attention. Either way, the NSA essentially detailed a twelve year history of spying on the American people.

The NSA put out the following statement when they released the reports:

These materials show, over a sustained period of time, the depth and rigor of NSA’s commitment to compliance. By emphasizing accountability across all levels of the enterprise, and transparently reporting errors and violations to outside oversight authorities, NSA protects privacy and civil liberties while safeguarding the nation and our allies

The reports weren’t just released out of the benevolence of the NSA’s heart, of course. The agency released the documents as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The reports were originally prepared for the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board. They stretched from the end of 2001 to the middle of 2013. After Edward Snowden released information about the NSA’s transgressions in June of 2013, the American people have been concerned about the extent to which the NSA has kept a close watch on electronic means of communication.

While heavily redacted, the documents detail instances in which NSA employees either conducted unauthorized surveillance, made mistakes, shared data with others, and/or committed other types of transgressions. While none of what was released by the NSA was particularly surprising, it definitely included many incidences that could be seen as embarrassing to the agency.

One such incident was a situation in which an NSA employee snooped into her spouse’s personal communications. According to the report this employee:

reported that, during the past two or three years, she had searched her spouse’s personal telephone directory without his knowledge to obtain names and telephone numbers for targeting.

Apparently that’s a common enough problem that such violations have earned the name “LOVEINT,” presumably some abbreviation of a phrase like “Love Intelligence,” although it is difficult to be completely sure.

It’s understandable that an agency the size of the NSA would occasionally have mistakes occur, but the reports really just seem to confirm the suspicions of American people that there’s been unauthorized spying for the last decade or so. While it’s difficult to see how many times laws were actually broken, there’s definitely evidence of privacy violations here. While it was certainly no surprise, people have every right to be mad about the confirmation of misbehavior by the NSA.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NSA Confirms Improper Surveillance of Americans appeared first on Law Street.

In June 2013, Edward Snowden changed the course of American history when he released thousands of classified documents to the media. He has since fled the country, and remains on the run. His choice to disclose those documents fundamentally altered the perceptions that Americans have about the ways in which the government monitors them. It sparked national conversations about the role that the Patriot Act and other legislation have played in our national security landscape. A year and a half after these revelations, the United States is still collectively reeling from the information that Snowden provided. And a year and a half later, it’s easy to wonder where all of that info is today.

What exactly did Snowden leak?

Leaked by Edward Snowden, PRISM is the code name for a data-mining program operated by the National Security Agency (NSA) since 2007. It accesses user audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs from nine internet companies: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Apple, Facebook, Skype, YouTube, AOL, and Paltalk. Government officials involved with the program claim that PRISM is only used to focus on foreign communications that are potentially dangerous to the security of the United States. Foreign communication often flows through American servers even when sent from one overseas location to another overseas location; however, experts who analyzed the most recently leaked slides of the operation claim that PRISM guidelines require NSA analysts to be only 51 percent confident to reasonably believe that a potential “target” is a foreigner. A 51 percent confidence level can leave ample room for Americans to inadvertently become targets of this operation.

PRISM is still in operation, although there are pending legal cases against the Obama Administration over it. Since the first disclosure of information by Edward Snowden, more revelations have come to light that show very specific targeting. In addition, PRISM, has raised criticism from our international allies. President Obama has, in many cases, had to go on the defensive, and explain that PRISM is intended for legitimate intelligence collection, not Big-Brother style spying.

Courtesy of BackgroundChecks.org

Prism – Everything you need to know. [Infographic]

What is the argument against PRISM?

Opponents of the PRISM program claim that it is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They argue  that the collection and surveillance of data by the NSA is too broad and “akin to snatching every American’s address book.” Yahoo initially fought the order to participate in PRISM in 2008. It argued that even if PRISM’s main goal is to focus on foreign communication, the incidental collection and gathering of American data is unconstitutional because such surveillance violates the “warrant clause” and “unreasonable searches clause” of the Fourth Amendment. Yahoo lost the case.

What is the argument in favor of PRISM?

Proponents of the PRISM program claim that cases in which the goal is to gain foreign intelligence are exempt from being subject to the Fourth Amendment’s “warrant” and “unreasonable searches” clauses. For the warrant clause, the Supreme Court has recognized a general “special needs” exception in cases like Vernonia School District v. Acton, where insisting upon a warrant would interfere with the accomplishment of that purpose. Proponents argue that there is a high degree of probability that requiring a warrant would hinder the NSA’s ability to collect time-sensitive information, and therefore would impede national security interests.

For the unreasonable searches clause, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court, in Yahoo’s case, held that PRISM’s operations were not unreasonable in light of the extremely important goal of national security. It found that PRISM’s procedures for targeting, minimization, and ensuring existence of a surveillance purpose to obtain foreign intelligence information serve to mitigate potential abuse of this power and risk of error to a reasonable level. Proponents also point to United States v. Miller to argue that people have no Fourth Amendment rights after they have already divulged their personal information to third parties, such as the internet companies participating in PRISM.

Conclusion

PRISM’s depth and extensiveness were a huge revelation for the American public after the secret documents were leaked by Edward Snowden. It raises a few important questions, first and foremost: is it constitutional? That will have to be decided by the courts, but it also raised interesting questions about the tradeoff between privacy and protection. As our technological abilities continue to increase, it will be fascinating to see the steps that this administration and any future administrations take to stem or expand PRISM.

Resources

Primary

ProPublica: NSA Surveillance Lawsuit Tracker

Additional

The New York Times: Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of NSA

Huffington Post: America’s Take on the Fourth Amendment and the NSA

Concurring Opinions: Does the Fourth Amendment Regulate the NSA’s Analysis of Call Records? The FISC Might Have Ruled it Does

Assasination Archives: The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights

The Peoples’ View: A Crash Course in the NSA and the Fourth Amendment

Reason: Why the NSA’s Snooping Supposedly Complies With the Fourth Amendment

Washington Post: U.S., British Intelligence Mining Data from Nine U.S. Internet Companies in Broad Secret Program

Washington Post: NSA Slides Explain the PRISM Data-Collection Program

Brennan Center for Justice: Are They Allowed to Do That? A Breakdown of Selected Government Surveillance Programs

Cato Institute: NSA Spying, NSA Lying, and Where the Fourth Amendment Is Going

Washington Post: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

POLITICO: NSA Memo Pushed to ‘Rethink’ 4th Amendment

Salome Vakharia

Salome Vakharia is a Mumbai native who now calls New York and New Jersey her home. She attended New York School of Law, and she is a founding member of Law Street Media. Contact Salome at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Eighteen Months After Snowden Leak, What’s Next for PRISM? appeared first on Law Street.

Twitter is suing the the United States Department of Justice for violating its First Amendment rights, the company announced on Tuesday. The social media service is arguing that it has the right to disclose to the public how often the government requests data from it for national security purposes.

Currently, the government requests information for such investigations from tech companies like Twitter in the form of national security letters and Foreign Intelligence Security Act court orders. The government does let these companies disclose how many times it requests information, but not down to the exact number. Instead they can report ranges of the requests they’ve received in “bands” of 1,000. For example, a firm can report that it has received between 0 and 999 government information requests, without being any more specific.

Twitter’s complaint is that these restrictions inhibit its freedom of speech. It argues that it should be allowed to disclose to its users a more precise number of government information requests. In particular, if it hasn’t received any requests in a certain category, Twitter wants to say publicly that the number is zero.

Ben Lee, a Twitter Vice President, said in a blog post on Tuesday:

It’s our belief that we are entitled under the First Amendment to respond to our users’ concerns and to the statements of U.S. government officials by providing information about the scope of U.S. government surveillance – including what types of legal process have not been received.

Twitter tried to accomplish the same thing earlier this year without going to court, by sending a sample transparency report in April to the DOJ, asking which information it could or couldn’t publish. Unfortunately, that attempt wasn’t fruitful. “After many months of discussions, we were unable to convince them to allow us to publish even a redacted version of the report,” Tuesday’s blog post also disclosed.

The current restrictions stem from a January settlement between the DOJ and Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook, and LinkedIn. At that time, the companies were were looking for permission to publish any number at all related to national security requests. That settlement allowed these companies and “similarly situated companies” (that includes Twitter) to use the bands of 1,000 rule to report the number of government requests. Twitter hints in its formal complaint that the number of requests it receives is relatively small, and argues that it  should be allowed to reflect “limited scope” of government surveillance on its accounts in its transparency reports.

In the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks that revealed the vast extent of government surveillance online, tech companies have tried to show their users that they care about privacy. Apple and Google made news last month when they announced that their new generation of mobile operating systems would encrypt user data with the user’s passcode, making it impossible for either the company or the government to access private information without the passcode. Even if the government requests it, the company can’t reach it.

Unlike on most social media platforms, anything the average Twitter user tweets is publicly visible. So, intuitively, the government doesn’t need to request from Twitter too much information; it’s there for the picking. That seems to be what Twitter is hinting at when it says that it would like to be allowed to report that it has received zero national security requests. That being said, it would be nice to know what other information the government is asking to have – information that supposedly isn’t public. Twitter comes off in this story as the noble tech company trying to stay accountable to its 271 million active users. The company can stay even truer to the value of transparency by letting its users know what non-public information the government wants, and this suit will decide whether they get to do just that.

—

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Tech Company That Has Your Back: Twitter Sues the DOJ appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, January 20, 2014, President Obama nominated Vice Admiral Michael S. Rogers to replace General Keith Alexander to be the new Chief of the National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA has been buffeted by controversy after controversy due to the documents leaked by Edward Snowden. Considering all of the new allegations coming to light on a continual basis, it is important to ask how Michael Rogers, if confirmed by the Senate, can change the NSA — and if he can change it for the better.

Vice Admiral Rogers is a decorated, longtime member of the armed forces, specializing in cryptology in the Navy shortly after graduating Auburn University in 1981. Beginning in 2003, Rogers served the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the Iraq War as part of the Joint Staff, the advisory team tasked with analyzing current and future strategies in warfare, including the network defense capabilities overseen by Rogers himself. The Vice Admiral has had a smooth career progression since that stint, shooting up to Director of Intelligence for Pacific Command in 2007, Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2009, and finally becoming the first-ever commander, U.S. Fleet Cyber Command.

Rogers’ Senate confirmation most likely will take another month, and citing a tradition barring any media interviews until after confirmation, it is unlikely that average Americans will get to know their future NSA Chief ahead of that. He is most likely going to be asked about his operations in Cyber Command, as that agencies, as well as the NSA, are pertinent to national cybersecurity. President Obama, ignoring recommendations from an NSA advisory panel and Director of Intelligence James Clapper, Jr., has decided to keep the NSA and Cyber Command leadership posts under the same roof.

Yet, now that we know Vice Admiral Rogers is an exemplary officer, the question arises whether he’ll be looking to safeguard Americans’ privacy in this new digital age. The Snowden documents have outlined numerous programs designed to collect bulk data from Americans every day, and there is a new public shift in opinion toward reigning in these programs. According to an Associated Press/GfK poll released January 27, 60 percent of respondents reported valuing privacy over terrorism concerns regarding NSA activities. In a statement following Rogers’ nomination, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said, “I am…confident that Adm. Rogers has the wisdom to help balance the demands of security, privacy, and liberty in our digital age.” Confidence in Rogers would be appropriate considering his admirable service to our country, but it remains to be seen how Rogers will deal with the politics that come along with the country’s concerns over domestic surveillance programs.

One issue to ponder during Rogers’ confirmation hearings include possible clemency for Edward Snowden, as interest in this topic has picked up in recent weeks. A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that the majority of Americans think Snowden should be charged with committing a crime, as opposed to allowing full clemency (52-38%). Reconciling this information with editorial boards, such as the New York Times, calling for forgiveness for the former systems administrator, will be tough, indeed. Rogers will have to work with the NSA’s new privacy advocate, Rebecca Richards, in order to properly safeguard Americans’ privacy rights. On top of these new responsibilities of the newest NSA leader, there are reports that privacy advocates aren’t too sure of the President’s nominee. This is natural, considering Rogers’ extensive experience within the nation’s armed forces.

President Obama introduced new reforms into the government’s phone metadata collection program, one of the first operations revealed by the Snowden leaks through the Guardian and the Washington Post. It is not clear as of now how Vice Admiral Rogers will handle changes such as acquiring a warrant before searching the metadata database; tracking individuals two steps removed from a suspected terrorist as opposed to the former three steps; and deciding where the metadata information will be stored. The pressure’s on for the experienced cryptologist, as there are conflicting court decisions over the legality of the phone surveillance program, as well as a federal commission voting 3-2 that the metadata practices are unconstitutional.

Whether one thinks that the National Security Agency programs are constitutional or illegal, it will take some time for there to be a consensus within the federal court system — most likely to be determined by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it’ll be important to see how Vice Admiral Rogers answers the questions at his upcoming Senate confirmation hearings. This will be the key to how America’s spy programs will be run for the time being.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Joshua J. Rogers via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just Who Is Our Next NSA Chief? appeared first on Law Street.

One name has been making headlines around the country since June 2013. There have been many terms used to describe him, whether you see him as a traitor or a patriot, Edward Snowden has become a well known character within the United States. His name continues to circulate the news press this week, as the government privacy board is set to release a report on Thursday January 23rd, saying that the National Security Agency’s wide spread collection of phone records, violates the law and should be shut down.  

Let us go back to the beginning, where this controversy first ignited. In June 2013, Snowden released the operations of the United State’s global surveillance program including the monitoring of both Internet and phone use of US citizens to The Washington Post and The Guardian. Rather than staying in the shadows and remaining anonymous, this whistleblower chose to take responsibility for his actions, saying, “my sole motive is to inform the public, as to which is done in their name.”

This leak of secret NSA documents spurred debate across the country. Just as Snowden had hoped, citizens have become more informed about governmental actions. American’s are now questioning the link between national security and privacy as well as wondering what else the government is going to great lengths to hide.

The NSA claims that they have the right to obtain phone records under section 215 of the Patriot Act, which states that it is within the power of the government to collect records that are relevant to terrorist investigations. However, pressure from the privacy board has caused key governing figures to question the constitutionality of this surveillance program, specifically in regards to phone monitoring.

Last Friday, President Obama announced his plan to change the system of the mass collection of phone records, shifting it from the hands of the government to a private company such as AT&T or Verizon. Along with a possible shift in power, Obama suggested a requirement of approval from the courts in order to obtain records. While the President did explain these future reforms, he maintained the idea that the government should have access to phone records if needed. Not everyone is satisfied with these changes and some would like to see an end put to the phone surveillance program completely.

The New York Times and the Washington Post have obtained the 238 page report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which has not yet been released. The report calls to shut down the mass collection of phone records previously exposed by Edward Snowden. The Privacy and Liberties board in charge of protecting the privacy rights of the citizenry, admits that the program has not prevented any terrorist attacks and instead, has infringed upon the privacy of American citizens. The board further opposes the protection of the program under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which grants the government the power to use phone records in order to obtain relevant information. The privacy board argues that it is not possible to obtain only relevant information when using a tool that allows unlimited access to phone content.

The board further states that the NSA phone program is questionable in regards to both the first and fourth amendments. They turned to the 1979 ruling of the Supreme Court, stating that the police do not need a warrant to search through phone numbers or call durations. However, the board points to the fact that the surveillance being done today is on a mass scale, and is not comparable to the specific cases investigated by police.

Whether the NSA phone program will come to a complete end in the near future is not known at this time. It can be seen that there is current pressure being put on the government, in order, to make the program less intrusive on private citizens. I agree that the program must be altered, as it can be considered harmful to freedom of speech. The conversations that we have over the phone are of our own choice, which should be respected by the government. On the other hand, I do agree that if the security of our nation is being threatened based on a phone call, it is within the best interest of the public for the government to intervene. It seems that the best solution would be for the government to focus on the threatening situations at hand rather than eavesdropping on where my friends and I are meeting for lunch.

[Time] [Nationaljournal] [Theguardian] [Politico]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn13)

Featured image courtesy of [EFF via Wikipedia]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Privacy Board Calls NSA Eavesdropping Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

This year promises to be an interesting one in law. Here are some of the most interesting cases, trials, and legal topics y’all might want to keep your eyes on in 2014.

(Note: I have tried not to include Supreme Court cases that were heard in 2013 but will be ruled upon in 2014, as most of those have already been heavily covered by the media during oral arguments.)

8. Lavabit and Ladar Levison 

The case: After Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying, it was discovered that he was using an encrypted email service called Lavabit. The owner, Ladar Levison, was court-ordered to hand over access to the entire site to the government, because Lavabit’s programming made it impossible to hand over access to just Snowden’s account. In protest, Levison shut down the site, defied a gag order, and has now filed an appeal.

Why it matters: This year, mainly from the NSA spying scandal, we learned about the technological abilities our government uses to monitor US citizens. This court ruling will either stifle or extend those abilities. For those who oppose the government having access to personal information, this Lavabit case may set important precedent — and it really will be a case to watch.

7. Jodi Arias Sentencing

The case: In 2013, we saw the extremely weird case involving Jodi Arias in Arizona. She was eventually convicted of murdering her boyfriend, Travis Alexander. It was a gruesome and disturbing case in which the jury found her guilty; however, they could not agree on whether to sentence her to life in prison, or death. A mistrial was declared on the sentencing portion of her trial and the new sentencing trial will also have new jurors.

Why it matters: The Defense has gone so far as to request a change of venue for the resentencing portion. They have argued that the huge media attention directed at the case has the potential for bias. That may be true, and it certainly wasn’t the first case with a big media blitz –Casey Anthony ring a bell? But if that’s actually the case, a change in venue won’t help — this case was huge all over the country. I’m reminded of an SNL skit from a few years ago about choosing jurors for OJ Simpson’s 2007 robbery and assault case. Watch it here, it’s really funny. But all joking aside, it’s the truth. It will be incredibly hard to find jurors who haven’t heard of Jodi Arias. Is it possible that our obsession with watching justice unfold is getting in the way of justice itself? Maybe we’ll get some answers with this retrial. 

6. McCullen v. Coakley 

The case: Oral arguments for McCullen v. Coakley are scheduled before the Supreme Court later this month. This case has been waiting for its day in court since 2001; there was appeal after appeal before the Justices agreed to hear it. It involves a law that Massachusetts instituted to create a 35-foot buffer zone around reproductive health facilities.

Why it matters: First of all, as I mentioned, this case has been going on for a very long time. The Supreme Court’s decision will add some sort of finality to it, no matter what the decision may end up being. Second, it could reverse a much-relied upon precedent, Hill v. Colorado, which allowed an eight-foot buffer zone. Finally, it raises an important constitutional issue about which right is more important: the right to free speech, assembly, and protest, or the right to seek an abortion without harassment?

Hopeful finality for this case.

5. Silkroad Case

The case: The infamous illegal-good site Silk Road was removed from the web this Fall, and its alleged creator, Ross Ulbricht, was arrested. The site sold drugs and fraudulent IDs, among other things. In addition to being indicted for his work on the site, he has now been accused of hiring assassins. The $80 million he allegedly made through the site is now in government custody. In 2014, he’ll either work out some sort of deal with the government, or face trial.

Why it matters: Silkroad had a huge market. It was relied upon by many people to get illegal goods relatively safely. Most of the Bitcoins (an electronic currency) in existence went through this site. And it was really only a matter of time until it shut down.

But, and this point is becoming a common trend on my list, it’s also another mark of how the government’s ability to use technology for prosecutorial purposes is evolving. I can assure you that this will have ramifications in the future, because people aren’t going to stop buying illegal stuff over the Internet. They’ll just get better at it.

4. Marriage Rights

The case(s): The Supreme Court already put a stop to Utah’s same-sex marriage licenses in 2014. The case will now go to the nearest appeals court. This is just one example; there are other cases regarding the rights of homosexuals to marry all over the United States.

A spontaneous reaction after the DOMA ruling last year.

Why it matters: 2013 was a banner year for gay rights in a lot of ways, but it’s important to note that the court cases will probably continue for years to come. There’s a lot of work to be done, and it doesn’t seem like the Supreme Court would unilaterally rule to legalize gay marriage. In 2014 we will continue to see more cases, trials, and hopefully, victories.

3. Voting Rights Cases

The case(s): There have been a lot of efforts at the state level to change voting rights laws, and the DOJ and various special interest groups have stood up to these changes when needed. But in 2013, part of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. So, each challenge to voting rights has to be filed against separately. As a result, many suits will be heard in 2014 to states’ attempted voting rights changes.

Why it matters: The change to the Voting Rights Act makes it more difficult for suits to be filed against voting rules, but special interest groups will also be under pressure to make changes before the 2014 midterms and 2016 national elections.

2. Contraception

The case(s): There were contraception cases regarding coverage through the Affordable Care Act that made it to the court in 2013, but many more will be on deck in 2014. One involves a nonprofit called Little Sisters of the Poor, and others involve for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby.

Why it matters: Not only is contraception a hot political issue, these cases involve parts of the Affordable Care Act. Parts of the ACA have already made it to the Supreme Court, but this will be a new decision will have ramifications as to whether or not companies are required to cover contraception for their employees, regardless of religious beliefs.

1. NSA Cases

The case(s): A lot of cases have been filed regarding the NSA’s monitoring of US citizens. A few may make it to the high court. US District Court Judge Richard Leon in Washington recently ruled that the NSA monitoring was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, District Court Judge William Pauley in New York dismissed a similar case. That kind of contradiction could lead to a big legal showdown in 2014.

Why it matters: The NSA surveillance debate was one of the biggest controversies of the year, and raised many legal questions about the ability of the government to monitor its people. What happens in these cases could set a serious precedent.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Dan Moyle via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cases to Watch in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

2013 was the year that brought us the NSA spying scandal, thanks to Edward Snowden. 2014 may be the year that brings us answers about what the NSA was doing, thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Today, the ACLU filed a lawsuit that if successful, would require the NSA to disclose the details of their spying program, under the parameters of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The two sides of the argument are anything but clear. The ACLU is filing in regards to Act 12333, signed in 1981, which allows surveillance of foreign targets. The ACLU is claiming that the actions taken by the NSA go beyond what is allowed by the Act 12333. This is just the latest in multiple ACLU lawsuits agains the NSA and other related government agencies and departments. Other lawsuits have included arguments that the NSA spying in unconstitutional under the First and Fourth amendments, or that it goes beyond what is allowed by the Patriot Act.

The government has obviously not lain out a public defense yet, but there has been speculation about how this lawsuit will fare. One of the ways that the government might address the controversy is to emphasize a long history of the third party doctrine. The third party doctrine was born out of a few different Supreme Court cases, originally Smith v. Maryland and United States v. Miller. In the Miller case regarding government access of a citizen’s bank account, the Supreme Court stated,

The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government. This Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed.

Essentially, this means that our right to privacy does not guarantee our privacy from warrantless searches if the information has been provided to third-parties on a voluntary basis.  This third party doctrine was obviously much different before our constant use of technology. Now, almost everything we do online can fall under the third party doctrine–meaning that almost everything we do is hypothetically fair game for the NSA. Another way in which the government could defend their actions could be a Patriot Act based argument.

Of course, we don’t know if these arguments, or something completely different, will be how the Government defends their actions in court, or even if it will make it that far. A spokesman for the Justice Department has stated that the government plans to respond to the lawsuit in court. Given the amount of similar lawsuits by the ACLU that have been rejected and are now up for appeal, this could very well lead to a very public Supreme Court battle that will decide the future of government oversight through electronic means.

[The Atlantic]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [National Security Agency via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ACLU Files New NSA Suit appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we are very interested in the changing world of law. So as the wild ride that was 2013 comes to an end, I thought it would be fun to count down the biggest changes, innovations, and crazy moments in the world of law and politics this year.

8. George Zimmerman Trial 

What happened: On July 14, 2013, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of the murder of Trayvon Martin. This verdict was understandably met with widespread shock. Some people were angry, some were vindicated, but everyone had an opinion.

Protests like this happened all over the country. Courtesy of Werth Media via Flickr.

Why it matters: Anyone who regularly reads my pieces knows that I’m a big fan of talking. I think, maybe misguidedly, that open dialogue is a great thing and solves 80 percent of problems. And if you’re looking for strong dialogue in 2013, look no further than the debate that occurred immediately after the Zimmerman acquittal. We saw conversations about the implications of stand your ground laws, gun control, and institutionalized racism. Now my hopeless naiveté won’t go so far as to say that these conversations were productive. But they happened, they’ve been introduced, and my dearest hope is that next year I’ll be able to say that we’ve made progress out of the tragedy that was Trayvon Martin’s death.

7. Jeff Bezos Buys the Washington Post 

What happened: Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, bought The Washington Post this summer in a $250 million deal. Now this might seem a little off topic — what does the purchase of a newspaper have to do with law and politics?

Why it matters: The world is changing. Media is changing, and we know this because a multi-billionaire who made his fortune from an internet sales company just bought one of the most influential papers in the country. That’s big because it means our media is getting smarter, it’s gaining control, and the internet is increasingly becoming a one-stop-shop for all we need. Plus, if Amazon follows through on its promises, we might get our newspaper delivered by drones, which would be pretty cool.

I’m mostly really excited about this drone delivery idea, guys.

6. Pope Francis Begins His Papacy

What happened: On March 13, 2013, Pope Francis became the head of the Catholic Church.

Why it matters: He immediately enacted some pretty serious changes. He downgraded the extravagant Vatican facilities. He has been advocating for more inclusive Church policies. He stated, “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?” He has said that the the Catholic Church needs to stop being so obsessed with social issues. The Pope changing his views on this could push some big changes for American politics. Don’t get me wrong, he is still a Catholic Pope and he is still a conservative man. But he works with the poor and he seems to be a man of the 21st century, and I have to give him props for that.

High Five, Pope Francis.

5. The Manti Te’o Girlfriend Hoax

What happened: This is probably an odd one to put so high on my list, but it was a very, very weird story. A Notre Dame linebacker, who now plays for the San Diego Chargers, told a story about his girlfriend, a Stanford University student named Lennay Kekua who had died of Leukemia. In January 2013, it was discovered that Lennay Kekua never existed. Her relationship with Te’o was purely online. The culprit behind the hoax turned out to be a man named Ronaiah Tuiasosopo, who may have fallen in love with Te’o while pretending to be his fictional girlfriend.

This refers to the online part, not the falling in love part. That part’s slightly less weird.

Why it matters: We’re at the point where a convincing and moving relationship can be forged 100 percent online. I know I’m a millennial who does everything online, but maybe I’m a bad one, because I simply can’t fathom that. I think this marks a big change in our world. Five years ago, if a professional athlete revealed that he had an online relationship with a woman he had never met, it would be completely ridiculous. Now, it was ridiculed, and commentators were surprised, but people understood how it could happen. Online presences can supersede our real lives now, and that’s scary.

4. Dems Detonate “Nuclear Option”

What happened: After a series of failed judicial nominees, Senate Democrats took drastic action. They changed the rules so that federal judicial nominees can move to the confirmation process with a simple majority of Senators, rather than a super majority of 60.

Why it matters: This will fundamentally change the way in which federal judicial nominees are confirmed. It may also permanently change the courts. If Presidents no longer need to pick moderates who can garner a 60-vote confirmation, the courts will get more liberal during a Democratic presidency, or more conservative during a Republican presidency.

3. NSA Spying Scandal

What happened: Although this event started in 2012, it got really big in 2013. Edward Snowden’s release of the extent of NSA monitoring shocked the American public. Snowden has since fled the United States.

The American reaction.

Why it matters: The intersection of politics, law, and technology continues to weave a tangled web, and the NSA scandal was the greatest proof of that phenomenon. We are being watched, and there’s nothing that we can do about it. Comparisons to Big Brother and 1984 were made, but that’s the truth, and people realized that this year. There’s a different level of trust in the government now.

2. The Affordable Care Act Mess

What happened: The rollout of the Affordable Care Act was the biggest mess I’ve seen in a long time. From the government shutdown that preceded it, to the internet issues, to the logistical problems, it was kind of a hot mess.

See another hot mess for context.

Why it matters: The ACA is still in place. It’s not perfect. It has problems. But it’s still a law and despite the Republicans’ best efforts, it will continue. That was an important lesson for everyone to learn this year. We will have hot mess laws and these laws will create problems;  however, they will remain the law. We can fix or repeal them, but we can’t pretend they don’t exist, and we can’t pretend that we can will them away.

1. Gay Rights

What happened: 2013 was a huge year for gay rights. In June, the Supreme Court handed down big successes for federal and state gay marriage rights. Gay marriage became legal in Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, Hawaii and Illinois.

Why it matters: Obviously there’s still a long way to go, but any slow, small steps down the right path are good. Notably conservative states — Utah and New Mexico — even got in on the action, albeit through court-mandated measures.

So here’s to 2013. It was wild, it was weird, and it was revolutionary. I don’t know about you all, but I’m excited to see what 2014 brings.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sally Mahoney via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Most Influential News Events of 2013 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a week since the last Lavabit court documents were filed and here I am, still trying to make sense of the whole charade. When I first heard of the case, I wondered how it is possible that law enforcement agents can rummage around unchecked, even when their investigations bring them past the proverbial doorsteps of regular people.

Such was the case this past June when the FBI demanded the “master keys” to secure-email provider Lavabit’s servers. The order was part of an investigation into the Internet correspondence of Edward Snowden: one of Lavabit’s customers.

“But wait,” you say, “doesn’t a ‘master key’ mean that they could then monitor data on all of Lavabit’s customers? Even the ones that hadn’t done anything wrong?” To which I respond, “Elementary, dear Watson.”

So in light of this fact, the obvious question is then: does secure email even exist?

End-to-end security: the key is having more than one.

In a conversation with Johns Hopkins University cryptography professor Matthew Green, Green said that the answer is yes. It does exist. But according to him, the name of the game is “end-to-end” security. In short, end-to-end security is a type of program where data is encrypted locally on a user’s device before it’s sent through the server to a recipient. The recipient then uses his or her own password to decrypt the message. This bars even the provider from being able to untangle the data in a way that’s readable.

Green, who has written about the subject in The New Yorker, says that the way the company’s servers revolved around SSL decryption, or essentially one set of master keys, was “the real problem with Lavabit.”

“The mail that came in was not encrypted using your password,” he said. “It was encrypted using SSL. And so anyone who got that SSL could be able to read all the data. And so it wasn’t a very good design from that perspective.”

But end-to-end security is not exactly a perfect science either. More geared toward text messaging and phone communications, there are only a few programs that use end-to end security technology with email. They usually come in the form of add-ons such as Pretty Good Privacy or Privacy Guard, where senders and recipients must use the same service.

However, Green says that at encryption software company Silent Circle, programmers are working to change that. In late Oct., the company announced that, with the help of Lavabit founder Ladar Levison, they would develop a new product called Dark Mail that integrates end-to-end protection with their email service.

Wait on technology. Not on Washington.

In a blizzard of political headway that some are now calling “the Snowden effect,” many lawmakers have announced their efforts to rally behind surveillance reform. One such effort is the USA FREEDOM ACT, a bill that has, since its introduction in late Oct., picked up 102 cosponsors from both parties. The bill calls for heightened regulation on surveillance activities, such as pen/trap procedures like the one that spelled doom for Lavabit’s a few months ago.

But Green says that it’s not enough, “forget about the government. Just imagine that the only people after you are criminals. You’re not going to be able to rely on laws to protect you from that kind of person.”

Furthermore, where the bill now sits in a congressional committee might just be its final resting place.

“I would love to see some kind of legal solution to all of this surveillance but I’m not sure that we [will] get something that we can really rely on. Ways that you can protect yourself and add privacy is to do it yourself and to do it through technology rather than hoping that the laws are going to be changed.”

However, that’s not to say that Green opposes the bill.

“I haven’t really looked at the legislation… but it sounds like a good idea,” he said.

—

Featured image courtesy of [twitter.com/mattwi1s0n via Flickr]

Jimmy Hoover

Jimmy Hoover is a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Jimmy at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Secure Email, a Myth? appeared first on Law Street.

In a highly anticipated statement, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) pilloried claims by secure email provider, Lavabit LLC, that the FBI violated the law when it ordered the surveillance tool known as a pen/trap device to be placed on the latter’s servers.

Lavabit came under pressure in July of this year to hand over the keys to their security system after the FBI began investigating one of their customers; that customer was Edward Snowden.

When Lavabit refused, claiming that to do so would enable government agents to monitor the communication “metadata” of not just Snowden but all of their customers, the presiding District Court of Eastern Virginia served the company with a court order once again requiring the company to furnish the keys.

The company’s Texas-based founder, Ladar Levison, moved to quash the order. The court denied that motion.

From there, Levison only began to lose more footing. On Aug. 2nd, he finally delivered the keys to the FBI– the only problem being that the paper’s 4-point font rendered them illegible.

Levison was charged with civil contempt days later. The sanctions for the charge were $5,000 for each day he failed to deliver them. Then, in a move that garnered much media attention, Levison disobeyed a court gag-order and shut down his business. The message on the homepage url that is still live reads, “I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit.”

On Oct. 10th, he filed an appeal brief with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. The justice department’s latest brief is a reply to that appeal. In the brief,  they state that an electronic business, like other businesses, cannot defy lawful warrants by simply “locking its front gate.” Moreover, “marketing a business as “secure” does not give one license to ignore a district court of the United States.”

But if the Appeals Court should feel otherwise, the DOJ hedged their bets. Because Lavabit did not move to quash the initial grand jury subpoena, but only the court warrant. They argued that Lavabit has forfeited any arguments to contest the contempt charge.

In light of the global surveillance disclosures of 2013, the case mirrors what many today feel is a battle between privacy and the far reaches of the government.

The court has not yet set a date for oral argument.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr]

Jimmy Hoover

Jimmy Hoover is a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Jimmy at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ to Lavabit’s Levison: ‘Too Bad, So Sad’ appeared first on Law Street.

SPECIAL REPORT from The F Word! PEN America liked me so much on Tuesday that they invited me to cover another event last night. So all you Law Street readers get to listen to the melodious sound of my voice an extra time this week. Lucky you.

Anyway! Together with independent researchers at the FDR Group, PEN published a report this week titled Chilling Effects, which found that writers in the U.S. are self-censoring in response to reports of widespread NSA surveillance. Thanks for scaring the crap out of all of us, Edward Snowden!

According to the report, 85% of surveyed writers are actively worrying about government surveillance, and are watching what they say as a result. Twenty-eight percent have reigned in or eliminated their use of social media, 24% have purposely avoided discussing certain topics via phone or email, and 16% have avoided writing or speaking about sensitive subjects. PEN writers report taking surveillance for granted—they simply assume they’re being monitored—and they’re choosing their words wisely so as to avoid harm.

Thanks PEN America!

Folks, this is what censorship looks like.

And it’s real. As a follow-up to Chilling Effects’ publication, PEN hosted a panel discussion last night in conjunction with the ACLU and the Fordham University School of Law. It was, to put it mildly, chilling.

The panel consisted of four men, all of whom had varying levels of expertise on the NSA and government surveillance. They each addressed the audience with separate, 15-minute presentations. If you want to hear them speak for themselves, you can view the live feed here.

Join us live! http://t.co/6fuvleyjLc #WTHarm pic.twitter.com/ATjoqF3uhg

— PENamerican (@PENamerican) November 15, 2013

But really, who needs to watch an hour and a half video when you’ve got me to recap it for you?

The panelists gave us an incredible look into the world of surveillance, from a historical overview of the NSA’s beginnings, right down to their personal experiences with harassment and persecution. According to James Bamford—the only guy who wore a business suit—the NSA got its start in a Manhattan townhouse back in the 1920s. As a top-secret government agency created to assist the World War I effort, this pre-NSA got a copy of every telegram that went in or out of the country.

That’s a lot of paper.

Fast forward to present day and the NSA isn’t just courting the phone or telegram companies—they’ve got software providers in their back pocket. Not to mention, the technological realities of cloud computing and social media mean the NSA doesn’t really have to ask. As fellow panelist and tech-guru Bruce Schneier remarked last night, “We are all leaving digital footprints throughout our lives,” and they’re anyone’s to follow.

Bruce Schneier – aging hippie extraordinaire. Courtesy of Terry Robinson via Flickr.

So what really happens when the NSA follows our tracks? Ariel Dorfman, a Chilean-American playwright and novelist, knows firsthand—he lived in Chile during Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship. Dorfman went into exile abroad shortly after Pinochet took office, but was allowed to return in 1983, before the regime’s fall. His poignant description of the Chile he came back to illustrated the fears he had for the future of the U.S.

“People had learned to suspect everyone and everything,” he said, describing friends who had once been open and outspoken as having transformed into guarded strangers. “Chile had become synonymous with silence.”

Indeed, when Dorfman had to dictate a dissenting op-ed over the phone, he was plagued with fear. He described experiencing a panic attack, worrying that the Chilean secret police would arrest and harm his family after eavesdropping on his conversation.

Ariel Dorfman — total bad ass. Courtesy of Robin Kirk via Flickr.

Thankfully, those fears never came true, but American journalist Glenn Greenwald hasn’t been so lucky.  Greenwald is the (in)famous reporter who broke the Edward Snowden leaks, and he spoke on the panel via Skype—an irony he made note of, as the video-calling software is owned by Microsoft, one of the NSA’s most loyal information suppliers.

But there were no other options. A resident of Rio de Janeiro, Greenwald can’t return to the U.S. for fear of being arrested for his NSA coverage. In fact, he’s not travelling at all—and for good reason. This past August, Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, was detained for nine hours by officials at Heathrow Airport in London. They ultimately let him go, but confiscated his electronics first, claiming to be concerned that he was involved in terrorism and espionage.

Essentially, Greenwald and Dorfman are living proof of the fact that government surveillance is scary as shit. And that’s not just because of dystopian what-if scenarios, where all of us paranoiacs predict a turn towards the terror of Pinochet’s Chile.

It’s because, as Greenwald put it, if you want to challenge the powers that be, “the ability to communicate in private is an absolute prerequisite of that.” Without it, we’re incapable of engaging in dissent.

“The minute you know you’re being watched, the less free you become,” Greenwald said.

He’s right, and the crowd agreed. One audience member, J.L. White, stood up to suggest that we seriously consider impeaching President Obama. And after exacerbating the war in Afghanistan, using drones to kill American citizens, and pumping up the NSA’s surveillance efforts, no one in the room disagreed with her.

“What Bush did, Obama put on steroids,” said Bamford, validating White’s point.

But it’s not a hopeless situation. Dorfman expressed optimism, even as he sees alarming parallels between the Obama administration and Pinochet’s.

“They’re going to screw it up,” he said, reminding us that despite all of the surveillance, the government has still been wrong about important events. No one saw the Arab Spring coming, or the Boston Marathon bombing. At the end of the day, our wardens are laughably incompetent.

And while they blunder about, trying to consolidate all the minutiae of our digital lives into something useful, there are tons of people fighting back.

Ben Doernberg is one of them. Another Brooklyn resident, Ben quit his full-time job to organize for Restore the Fourth, a national coalition of grassroots activists agitating against government surveillance. I approached him after the panel, as he stood near the exit, recruiting people to join him in the good fight.

“I just want people to not fall into the trap of just learning more is all you have to do,” he said of the night’s event. “You have to actually do something.”

Will we? It’s hard to tell. With writers self-censoring, journalists and whistleblowers living in exile, and civilians cowering under the fear of terrorism, it’s easy to see how the surveillance state could continue growing.

But Ariel Dorfman, always looking on the bright side, sees hope.

“Fear is contagious, but so is courage,” he said, urging everyone in the room to take a stand.

So what will you do? Tell us in the comments! (Just remember, the government’s watching.)

—

Featured image courtesy of [Truthout.org via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post YOU’RE BEING WATCHED RIGHT NOW: Here’s What To Do About It appeared first on Law Street.

For most Americans, large chunks of our lives play out online. We have numerous social media sites, we check our bank accounts through “secured” websites, and we use email for almost all we do—work, social plans, and everything in between. It’s sad, but I can say without a doubt that there have been days where I have interacted with people over email more than in person. And every day, we’re reminded that our Internet lives are lulled into a false sense of security. Yet we still make our email password the name of our dog combined with the year we were born, and assume digital theft will never happen to us.

In 2004, Texas-based Ladar Levison created Lavabit, a highly encrypted email host that aimed to fix these Internet security problems for anyone who wanted it. Characterizing Lavabit as highly encrypted is actually a gross understatement—Lavabit encryption was viewed as uncrackable for even government intelligence agencies. There were free and paid versions of Lavabit’s email services. As of August 2013, Lavabit counted about 410,000 users.

One of these users was the now infamous Edward Snowden; his Lavabit email address was discovered this July. The Federal Government almost immediately obtained a search warrant commanding that Lavabit allow the government access to its system.

Because of the way this request was phrased—the government wanted access to the entire Lavabit system, not just Snowden’s account—Levison refused to cooperate. Levison was first instructed to hand over the “SSL” keys to his site (essentially a way to allow the government to view all the information contained in Lavabit accounts). Levison first responded to this order by handing over the SSL keys on paper in tiny font, rendering them almost unusable.  Finally he handed over the SSL keys digitally—he will pay a $10,000 fine for that delay—but shut down the site.

No one is completely sure exactly why Levison suspended the site, given that he is now under gag order. He has said that he is banned from sharing some information even with his lawyer. He has also said that he could be arrested for closing down Lavabit instead of just releasing the SSL keys. He is currently filing an appeal with the United State Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. His appeal is based on the Fourth Amendment, which prevents unreasonable search and seizure. He has also claimed that the government cannot ask a company to do something that will go directly against the purpose of their business. His lawyers likened it to “commanding the City of Richmond to give the police a key to every house within the city limits. To comply with the government’s subpoena would have either required Lavabit to perpetrate a fraud on its customer base or shut it own entirely.”

Lavabit did actually go back online very briefly for 72 hours starting the evening of October 14^th so that users could download any emails they needed that remained on the site. As of yet, there are no plans for Lavabit to reopen.

This shutdown offers ramifications for any other sites that offer completely encrypted email services. Silent Circle, one of Lavabit’s competitors, shut down its silent email software right after Lavabit went dark.

Levison’s appeal will be interesting to watch. In a modern world that is inundated with fast, online, communication, privacy is always at issue. Online identity should be a concern for everyone. Can companies create services that allow us to hide those online communications from Big Brother? The results of Levison’s appeal will answer that question, for better or for worse.

[Forbes]

—

Featured image courtesy of [IGregma via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Frontier of Privacy: Lavabit’s Encrypted Email No More appeared first on Law Street.

When is a line more than just a connection between two points? A line, a border, can limit the encroachment of and define a culture, language, religion, and laws. It can also be blurred, changing constantly, like that of India and Pakistan, or Israel and Palestine. When playing jump-rope with those lines, what laws apply?

Making recent global headlines is the story of the White Widow, Samantha Lewthwaite — the British born and raised converted Muslim woman who’s now-dead husband was involved in London’s 7/7 jihad attacks. Although initially condemning her husband’s actions, she seems to have joined his cause. She forged a Somali passport under the name Natalie Webb, and crossed African borders, seamlessly entering Kenya. Now, she is a major suspect in a Nairobi mall bombing, and has been given a Red Notice by INTERPOL. The Red Notice means that the 190 member countries of INTERPOL, an international police organization, are participating in manhunt for her. For her search, other methods Kenya could have taken would have been to reach out to INTERPOL’s close alliance, the United Nation, work in solitude with Kenya’s own national security, or extend for help to independent Kenyan alliances rather than the large coalition, INTERPOL.

From one conservative extremist Muslim, to one liberal extremist, different people with radically different views, are found in similar situations— they are both being sought by authorities. Acclaimed author Salmaan Rushdie, as a result of his unapproved writings about Islam, had a fatwa placed upon him by the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1989. A fatwa, unlike the a notice by INTERPOL, is less tied with the government and more with the religion. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie is a religious order commanding the Muslim population worldwide to do an action. In the case of Salman Rushdie, the action was to kill the author.

A more domestic situation that deals with this issue is the anecdote of Edward Snowden. After receiving treason charges in America, Snowden was granted limited asylum in Russia, tarnishing the relationship between the two nations. A stemming problem is the extradition of Edward Snowden. By avoiding America, he was able to avoid his prosecution. Like America, Kenya anxiously awaits the return of the potential criminal, using the Red Notice to catalyze the extradition process.

All of these cases echo the same question about borders that was posed by the Dred Scott Case in 1857: Do the laws of a land no longer extend to you once you step over the line? Is it the responsibility of nations to carry out the jurisdiction of the native ruling county?

[cfr.org] [ Interpol.int]

—

Featured image courtesy of [hjl via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post The Thin Line appeared first on Law Street.