Here are this week’s links from Twitter (@Cyberlaw):
Supreme Court denies cert in Authors Guild v. Google. https://t.co/zrV7sYy7Lk #fatladysings
— James Grimmelmann (@grimmelm) April 18, 2016
An analysis of the Burr-Feinstein anti-Encryption bill pending in congress by @iainthomson at The Register – https://t.co/D5ktujGKSw
— Kevin Thompson (@cyberlaw) April 14, 2016
Nice article by @gigalaw via @circleid on the importance of proving your case in UDRP proceedings – https://t.co/oLGmNb7i7F
— Kevin Thompson (@cyberlaw) April 13, 2016
I understand the desire for law enforcement to want access to phones, but you just can’t violate citizens privacy rights and the rights of companies to not have their security weakened. Law enforcement wants a back door. When that doesn’t work, they say they want ‘a way to accomodate both sides’. The problem with accomodating both sides is that any attempt to access the data on a customer phone without the customer password involves a back door of some sort (even if you want to call it something else).
The bill in this article didn’t go anywhere (it wasn’t even close to having majority support in either house). There has been a recent attempt to revive it (with FBI support) (they claim half of over 3000 phones in the first half of this year were impenetrable), but this attempt will have the same result as the last one.