We
love our customers, but only as long as we can use their emails for
Behavioral Analysis. Encryption interferes with that. So we will
support the FBI's efforts to ban encryption. (and meanwhile, we will
remove it when possible.)
Jacob
Hoffman-Andrews writes:
Recently, Verizon was caught tampering
with its customer’s web requests to inject a tracking
super-cookie. Another network-tampering threat to user safety
has come to light from other providers: email encryption downgrade
attacks. In recent months, researchers have reported ISPs
in the US and Thailand
intercepting their customers’ data to strip a security flag—called
STARTTLS—from email traffic. The STARTTLS
flag is an essential security and privacy protection used by an
email server to request encryption when talking to another server or
client.1
Read
more on EFF.
I
expect more discussion on this point, but few people will agree with
the judge. Would the judge have ruled differently if access depended
on a retinal scan?
Evan
Schuman comments on a recent court opinion in Virginia
v. Baust that a person can be compelled to open his phone
with his fingerprint but that trying to compel the person to disclose
his password implicates the 5th Amendment [media
coverage of ruling, commentary
by Orin Kerr].
In
his commentary, Evan argues that a fingerprint scan is just a
substitute PIN, which can’t be required by law enforcement. Here’s
a snippet from his commentary:
But consider this scenario. I have a physical key that opens a
physical deadbolt on the front door of my house. Because certain
family members (who I will not name; they know who they are) have a
tendency to forget or lose their house keys, I’ve debated changing
the lock to accommodate a PIN keypad.
Now, according to this weird legal distinction, I could be forced to
give my key to the police, but not my lock’s PIN. But hold on.
Just as the iPhone’s finger scan is simply a digital version of a
password/PIN, that deadbolt’s PIN is simply a digital alternative
to my physical key. On what possible rationale should law
enforcement treat the two differently?
Read
his article on ComputerWorld.
Interesting.
As we become more like a Thing on the Internet of Things, we are
measured and analyzed in every more intrusive ways – including a
few we pay extra to have!
Kirk
Nahra does a terrific job articulating the concerns about
non-HIPAA-covered health data and the debate that has already started
as to whether such data should be regulated, and if so, how. Read
his article on Wiley
Rein.
Divorce?
There's an App for that!
WhatsApp
Blamed For Causing Divorces
WhatsApp
is being cited in 40 percent of divorce cases in Italy, at
least according to a
report from the Italian Association of Matrimonial Lawyers. Gian
Ettore Gassani, president of the association, suggested, “Social
media has boosted betrayal in Italy by making it easier, first
through texting, then Facebook, and now WhatsApp,” before
adding that the messaging app “has encouraged the return of the
Latin lover.”
There
is clearly a debate to be had about whether WhatsApp
and other
messaging apps are actually encouraging people to cheat on their
partners or whether they’re just the latest tools in a serial
cheater’s arsenal. Regardless, the fact WhatsApp is cited in such
a high percentage of divorce cases is rather unsettling.
No comments:
Post a Comment