On March 6, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a long-term road map to turn Facebook into a “privacy-focused communications platform.” His “principles” for this transformation include auto-deleting old user content and choosing “not to build data centers in countries that have a track record of violating human rights like privacy or freedom of expression,” even if that gets Facebook blocked from lucrative markets such as China or Russia.
Alan Z. Rozenshtein is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, where he will begin as an Associate Professor of Law in the summer of 2019. Previously, he taught law at the Georgetown University Law Center and served as an Attorney Advisor with the Office of Law and Policy in the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment applies when the government acquires large amounts of cell-phone location data.
A review of Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die (Crown, 2018).
There’s been a flurry of encryption news over the past few months. In February, the National Academies released a report that discussed early-stage research into the design of secure cryptographic systems that would nevertheless allow the government access under certain circumstances (what we’ll call third-party-access systems).
When the government argues that it’s “going dark” because of ubiquitous end-to-end encryption, it often stresses how encryption thwarts counterterrorism investigations. When FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before Congress late last year, the first encryption-related example he gave was of FBI “agents and analysts … increasingly finding that communications and contacts between groups like ISIS and potential recruits occur in encrypted private messaging platforms.”
Last month, the National Academies released their report on potential solutions to the problem of law enforcement access to encrypted data. The reaction was polite but unenthusiastic.
Not so long ago, it was hard to find anyone who thought regulating Silicon Valley was even possible, let alone a good idea. Deference to the technology industry was such that companies were sometimes even applauded for baldly violating existing regulations. Think of the early days of Uber, whose “innovative” business model relied on running over transportation regulations and dealing with fines and lawsuits later.