Monday, May 02, 2016

For my Computer Security students.  See what you’re up against?
A Scary Look Back at History’s Worst Data Breaches

On one hand, identification.  On the other hand, access to search.  Would this authorize physical force to place a finger in the phone?  What would happen if the fingerprint triggered an erase of the phone? 
For the first time in a federal case, a suspect has been ordered to use her fingerprint to unlock her iPhone using Touch ID.  The LA Times reports that a federal judge signed a warrant allowing the FBI to compel a suspect in an identity theft case to unlock the phone just 45 minutes after her arrest.
Authorities obtained a search warrant compelling the girlfriend of an alleged Armenian gang member to press her finger against an iPhone that had been seized from a Glendale home […]
In the Glendale case, the FBI wanted the fingerprint of Paytsar Bkhchadzhyan, a 29-year-old woman from L.A. with a string of criminal convictions who pleaded no contest to a felony count of identity theft.
The warrant is consistent with a 2014 case where a Virginia District Court ruled that while passcodes are protected by the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, fingerprints are not. Legal experts, however, have differing views …
Fingerprints are currently viewed by the law as ‘real or physical evidence,’ meaning that law enforcement has a right to access to them without a warrant. However, some law professors say that this view is now outdated when a fingerprint can provide access to incriminating data.
“It isn’t about fingerprints and the biometric readers,” said Susan Brenner, a law professor at the University of Dayton who studies the nexus of digital technology and criminal law, but rather, “the contents of that phone, much of which will be about her, and a lot of that could be incriminating.”
Others, however, disagree.
Albert Gidari, the director of privacy at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, said the action might not violate the 5th Amendment prohibition of self-incrimination. “Unlike disclosing passcodes, you are not compelled to speak or say what’s ‘in your mind’ to law enforcement,” Gidari said. “‘Put your finger here’ is not testimonial or self-incriminating.”
In this particular case, the argument will go no further: Bkhchadzhyan pleaded ‘no contest’ to a felony count of identity theft. There seems little doubt, however, that some future case will make it to the Supreme Court.

(Related) DNA is identification only, right?  What happens if we use it to secure our data? 
New on LLRX – Evolutions in DNA Forensics
by Sabrina I. Pacifici on
Via LLRX.comEvolutions in DNA Forensics – Criminal law expert Ken Strutin’s new article is yet another research tour de force – a collection of recent and notable developments concerning DNA as forensic science, metric of guilt, herald of innocence, and its emerging place in the debate over privacy and surveillance.  The increasing use of DNA evidence to support assumptions of an individual’s guilt and less frequently as a tool to prove the innocence of prisoners wrongly convicted, reflects many facets of the changing fabric of the American criminal justice, the role of the Fourth Amendment and the increasing collection of a wide range of biological evidence from crime scenes whose metadata then is searchable within the national DNA database.

In a similar vein. 
FISA Court did not reject any warrant requests in 2015
by Sabrina I. Pacifici on
Via ZDNet: “A secret court that oversees the US government’s surveillance requests accepted every warrant that was submitted last year, according to new figures.  The Washington DC.-based Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court received 1,457 requests from the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to intercept phone calls and emails.  In long-standing fashion, the court did not reject a single warrant, entirely or in part…”

If Google gets to choose, I’d bet on “No!”  God only knows what the politicians might say.
As I suggested to a commenter in another thread, not all requests for removal from search engine results really fall under “Right to Be Forgotten.”  Here’s a case out of New Delhi that is really, at its core, a reputation management issue:
Does right to privacy include right to delink from the Internet the irrelevant information, the Delhi High Court has asked the Centre and Google.
Justice Manmohan sought the responses of the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (MOC & IT), Google Inc., Google India Pvt Ltd and IKanoon Software Development Pvt Ltd on a plea of an NRI [non-resident Indian  Bob] seeking that he be “delinked” from information regarding a criminal case involving his wife in which he was not a party.
The petitioner has sought the relief saying it would affect his employment opportunities as companies often search about prospective employees on the internet and as the criminal case pops up on searching his name, it might give an impression that he was involved in it.
Read more on NDTV.
Is there an actual privacy issue here?

What does it really do for the CIA’s image?  Looks like politics again. 
CIA ‘live tweets’ Osama bin Laden raid and the internet wasn’t happy
To mark the fifth anniversary of the death of Osama bin Laden, the CIA Monday "live tweeted" the special forces raid on the al-Qaeda leader's compound in Pakistan in a move that was slammed on social media as "inappropriate" and "distasteful".
   "Death of Usama Bin Ladin marked significant victory in US-led campaign to disrupt, dismantle, & defeat al-Qa`ida. #UBLRaid," the CIA wrote on Twitter before commencing a to-the-minute live-tweeting session of the mission.
   A CIA spokesperson defended the live-tweeting.
"The takedown of bin Laden stands as one of the great intelligence successes of all time.  History has been a key element of CIA's social media efforts," CIA spokesman Ryan Trapani told ABC News.
"On the fifth anniversary, it is appropriate to remember the day and honor all those who had a hand in this achievement."
He added that the CIA has done a similar exercise to mark other events, including the Glomar operation, Argo, U-2 shootdown, and the evacuation of Saigon.

No comments: