Category: Blog Posts Page 65 of 76

 

By Celtia van Niekerk,

When Silk Road was developed, it became a haven for illegal activity. Masked by the cryptic underworld of the dark web, many people thought that their activities online were finally free from the peering eyes of law enforcement.

The Developer of Silk Road, Ross Ulbricht was ones such person.

He created Silk Road, a website where narcotics were freely sold—an Amazon of the underworld. In order to sell narcotics, buyers and sellers turned to bitcoin, a digital currency which enabled them to conduct their activities in secrecy… Or so they thought.

The Bitcoin network relies on a shared public ledger called a block chain. This block chain records all transactions and in that way, the amount in each wallet is calculated.[1] This process is made secure through cryptography. The difficulty for law enforcement is that a user’s true identify is kept secret because instead of using your real name like you would at a bank, a user creates a code which serves as their digital signature in the blockchain.[2] But while Bitcoins itself are anonymous, spending them starts a forensic trail that may lead right back to you.[3]

Graduate students at Penn State were the first to crack the cryptography wall—by isolating some of the Bitcoin addresses, they were able to isolate other address and eventually map the IP addresses of over 1000 Bitcoin addresses.[4] But this easier said than done—once bitcoins mix in with other users, the trace is harder to follow as Bitcoin is designed to blur the lines between the IP address and the transaction.[5] According to Sarah Meiklejohn, a computer scientist, once you catch someone buying an illegal product off a website such as Silk Road, the blockchain serves as a history of all their criminal activity.[6]

Some have contended that the Federal government may issue their own cryptocurrency, like Bitcoin which would require a user to verify their real world identity.[7] But a move like this may have no effect on the popularity of Bitcoin, which offer’s their users more anonymity. One thing is for certain, Bitcoin is not as anonymous as once believed, leading law enforcement to take notice.

 

 

[1] Bitcoin, How does Bitcoin Work? https://bitcoin.org/en/how-it-works (last accessed March 14, 2016).

[2] John Bohannon, Why criminals can’t Hide behind Bitcoin, Science, (March 9,2016).

[3] Elliot Maras, How Bitcoin Technology Helps Law Enforcement Catch Criminals, CCN.LA, (March 10, 2016).

[4] Id.

[5] Supra, note 2.

[6] Supra, note 3.

[7] Supra, note 2 (Statement from Bill Gleim, head of machine learning at Coinalytics).

 

Photo Source: http://media.coindesk.com/2013/08/how-can-i-buy-bitcoins-630×382.jpg

By: Biniam Tesfamariam,

Silicon Valley Company against the Federal Government, who will win? Apple has so far refused to comply with a federal magistrate-judge’s demands of the company assisting the FBI to break the encryption of an iPhone. More specifically, Apple was asked to create new software that would allow law enforcement officials to break into the iPhone. Not just any iPhone, but the one iPhone that belonged to one of the San Bernardino shooters -of last year- responsible for killing 14 people in California.

So what is at issue here? There are multiple, one being centered around the All Writs Act, which in a nutshell, allows courts to make a company turn over a customer’s data to law enforcement.[1] The act reads, “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law; an alternative write or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction”.[2]

The Apple’s main issue with such a request is the apparent risk of all customer data by legal precedent. Never before has a federal court granted the government to force companies like Apple to weaken its security system. This issue could easily be categorize seem to belong to the legislature.

The legal argument Apple is expected to use can be summed up like this: Code is protected speech, so the government can’t compel Apple to write a new version of iOS any more than it can force an author to write a story. There is some precedent that code is protected speech.[3] Proving that code is protected speech isn’t the biggest obstacle Apple faces. Core to Apple’s argument against writing a new version of its operating system is that, by complying, it will make its customers less secure.[4]

Whatever the outcome of this current case, the disagreement will have a significant legal impact for the future of digital privacy in the United States.

 

[1] The All Writ Act, 28 U.S.C § 1651 (1789).

[2] Id.

[3] David Goldman, Apple’s Case Against the FBI won’t be easy, CNN (Feb. 25, 2016 10:39 AM), http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/25/technology/apple-fbi-court-case/index.html?iid=SF_LN.

[4] Id.

 

Photo Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwiEsOmn0OvLAhVE1CYKHSFLA0MQjBwIBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hdwallpapers.in%2Fdownload%2Fthink_different_apple-1680×1050.jpg&psig=AFQjCNEXjBnl83KMr6BETq-O_1FCFAO7Dw&ust=1459537843768178

By: Biniam Tesfamariam,

Microsoft is also in a legal battle with the U.S. government, but this fight deals with consumer privacy information that can only be accessed in another country. In December 2013, the U.S. government obtained a search warrant requesting information about an email user for an investigation apparently involving drugs and money laundering.[1] Microsoft is refusing to cooperate because the data in question is stored in Ireland, and the company argues that the U.S. government cannot force it to hand over data stored outside American soil.[2]

Users of a Microsoft e-mail account can, with a user name and a password, send and receive email messages as well as store messages in personalized folders. E-mail message data include both content information- the message and subject line. Also non-content information such as: the sender address, the recipient address, and the date and time of the transmission.

Microsoft stores e-mail messages sent and received by its users in its datacenters, once of which is of special interest to the U.S. government. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice served Microsoft with a subpoena and a search for emails that live in a data center in Ireland.[3] One of Microsoft’s arguments is that for data held overseas, the U.S. government should abide by its mutual legal assistance treaties, which are agreement between the United States and foreign countries that typically require the requesting government to be in compliance with other government’s laws.[4] Irish law requires authorization from an Irish District Court judge to obtain e-main content from a provider.[5]

The judge in the case, James Francis, agreed with the government, arguing that the search warrant issued in this case applies to data in Ireland because it’s more of a hybrid between a warrant and a subpoena. What this means: the request would be legal since subpoenas have reach outside the U.S.[6]

Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see what occurs when this case goes on appeal, as it has huge implications for the privacy of U.S. citizens who use American internet services.

 

 

[1] Lorenzo Bichhierai, Microsoft Fights U.S. Government Over Rights to Data on Foreign Servers, mashable (Jun. 12, 2014), http://mashable.com/2014/06/12/microsoft-u-s-government-data-foreign-servers/#Hcz6bzoAVmqs.

[2] Id.

[3] In re Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 15 F. Supp.3d 466, 2014 WL 1661004 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2014).

[4] David Goldman, Microsoft is Fighting the DOJ too, CNN (Feb. 23, 2016 6:52 PM), http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/23/technology/microsoft-ireland-case/index.html.

[5] Criminal Justice Mutual Assistance Act, (Northern Ireland) 2008.

[6] In re Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 15 F. Supp.3d 466, 2014 WL 1661004 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2014)

 

Photo Source:  https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/shutterstock_192614108.jpg

By: Sean Livesey

In November of 2014, Josh Lepchitz published a blog post entitled “Step Into Shaolin and See Where the Wu-Tang Clan Could Be Taking Music.”[1] The post includes a brief yet incisive appraisal of the current state of the music industry from the artists’ perspective, given the advent and climbing popularity of services like Spotify, Pandora and Youtube.[2] Given this context, the post goes on to address a novel approach to music sale taken by the Wu-Tang Clan: the group recorded and produced a 31-track album in secret, creating one single copy to be sold directly to the highest bidder, with sole rights to the art transferring to the buyer at the time of sale. The album is entitled “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin.” Lepchitz’s post concludes with thoughts on Wu-Tang’s contribution to the music industry, not only as artists, but as market innovators, as well.[3]

Sure enough, Once Upon a Time in Shaolin was sold directly to a single wealthy buyer by the name of Martin Shkreli in May of 2015.[4] Shkreli, also referred to as “pharma bro” by the media, is the 32-year old CEO of a pharmaceutical company. He first “entered the public consciousness…when he announced a price spike in [October 2015]…for Daraprim, a 62-year-old medication used by AIDS and cancer patients to fight life-threatening parasitic infections, that upped the price from $13.50 USD to $750 a pill.[5] The public reacted very negatively to what was perceived as price gouging by Shkreli. When Shkreli bought the coveted Wu-Tang album he tweeted ostentatiously about it:

Figure 1:[6]

Martin Shkreli’s plans for the album were immediately unclear. Shortly after purchasing the album and attaining sole ownership of its contents, he teased that he might play part of it for the public. He even said that he’d probably never hear it, and that he “just thought it would be funny to keep it from people.”[7] However, while Shkreli obtained title to and possession of the album, his sole ownership is not entirely without limitations. One key provision the under the contract is that the album’s copyright belongs to the album’s creators, Wu-Tang Clan, for the next 88 years.[8] This means Shkreli will not be legally permitted to distribute the music, or make it “commercially available” for 88 years.[9] VICE later caught up with Shkreli at his midtown apartment. When asked if people would ever be able to hear the album, Shkreli replied, “It depends on the world. I could see myself in a place where I break it, and I’ve seriously considered that – just snap it in half and bury the remains of it so no one tries to reconstruct it. I’ve seen a world where I give it away for free. I’ve seen a world where I charge for it or something… If people want to hear it, I’ll put it out. If people don’t want to hear it – they don’t appreciate Wu Tang for what I think it is – that’s fine, too… Who knows…”[10]

Then, in a major turn of events, Martin Shkreli was arrested on December 17, 2015 for securities fraud and the orchestration of what amounts to a complex Ponzi scheme, wherein he used sham consulting operations to make secret payoffs.[11] “’Federal prosecutors accused Shkreli of engaging in a complicated shell game after his defunct hedge fund, MSMB Capital Management, lost millions,’ Bloomberg reports.”[12] Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Robert Capers stated, “His [Shkreli’s] plots were matched only by efforts to conceal the fraud, which led him to operate his companies, which including a publicly traded company, as a Ponzi scheme…”[13]

Shkreli defended his actions after the fact, saying, “In law, you can be prosecuted for not maximizing profits. In fact, I know people who have. And you have to do everything in your power to make as much money as possible in the system we’ve got. That’s business, you can’t hold back.”[14]

Members of the Wu-Tang clan responded to Shkreli’s arrest. “In a statement mailed to Bloomberg Businessweek, RZA [of the Wu-Tang Clan] wrote, ‘The sale of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin was agreed upon in May, well before Martin Shkreli’s [sic] business practices came to light. We decided to give a significant portion of the proceeds to charity.’”[15] Many were quick to speculate as to the fate of the Wu-Tang album, and whether the album would ever reach the public.

Myths began to surround the prospect of the album’s release to public. The most famous of these myths was probably what I’ll call “the Bill Murray caveat.” At least seven major news outlets released headlines referring to a Bill Murray clause in the contract between Shkreli and Wu-Tang.[16] The clause purportedly states that “the seller may legally plan and attempt to execute one (1) heist or caper to steal back Once Upon A Time In Shaolin, which, if successful, would return all ownership rights to the seller. Said heist or caper can only be undertaken by currently active members of the Wu-Tang Clan and/or actor Bill Murray, with no legal repurcussions…”[17] It turns out, however, that the clause was merely a hoax, and this language never actually existed in the written contract.

Figure 2:[18]

Hoaxes aside, there appear to be three legitimate legal possibilities that could release the album from Shkreli’s exclusive ownership. The first possibility is asset forfeiture to the U.S. government.[19] As of now, the feds do not have possession of or access to the Wu-Tank album.[20] The FBI is still investigating Shkreli’s case. If, however, the money that paid for the album can be linked with the money stolen from investors, executive power allows the U.S. government to enact asset forfeiture.[21]

Asset forfeiture would only be a possibility if Shkreli is convicted because this is a criminal case. Civil cases, on the other hand, do not require a civil judgment for asset forfeiture to be enacted by the government. In the event of an FBI discovery of such a link and a subsequent criminal conviction, the government could seize the Wu-Tang album and sell it to the public in order to recover some of the funds Shkreli allegedly stole from his investors. The FBI considers asset forfeiture to be the most effective means of recovering property and funds to compensate innocent victims of white-collar crimes.

The charges in the affidavit state, “The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants that, upon their conviction of any of the offenses charged in Counts One through Seven,[22] the government will seek forfeiture, in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), of any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to any such offenses.”[23]

The second possibility is related to the first in that it, too, would result in a likely sale of the album to the public. However, it could be done in the absence of an FBI seizure of the album.[24] Mounting financial pressure on Shkreli (due to the pending lawsuit and virtually inevitable fines and penalties) could result in such a “forced sale.”[25] One interesting aspect of this scenario is the speculable market price of the album, now that it has received so much extra media exposure because of its link to the notorious high-profile CEO.[26] Shkreli could theoretically sell the album as an investment with a sizeable return.

The third possibility that could release the album from Shkreli’s exclusive ownership is an internet liberation through a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act.[27] While a somewhat unlikely possibility, a popular enough petition to release the album could carry weight in Washington. In the past, such requests have forced revelation of a great deal of information, including things like the White House beer recipe and the FBI’s Twitter slang dictionary.[28]

Will the public ever hear Once Upon a Time in Shaolin any time soon? That will likely be up to Shkreli. In spite of his accusations, he currently retains the right to sell the album, distribute it for free, or destroy it, without legal repercussions. The possibility of a seizure by the FBI seizure of the album, which is dependent on a criminal conviction, could be years away, and the chances of a revelation under the Freedom of Information Act is probably slim. Perhaps Shkreli will even have a change of heart and return the album to its creators, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

 

 

 

[1] http://jolt.richmond.edu/index.php/blog-step-into-shaolin-and-see-where-the-wu-tang-clan-could-be-taking-music/

[2] http://jolt.richmond.edu/index.php/blog-step-into-shaolin-and-see-where-the-wu-tang-clan-could-be-taking-music/

[3] Id.

[4] http://pitchfork.com/news/62465-wu-tang-clans-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin-bought-by-pharmaceuticals-ceo-martin-shkreli/

[5] http://www.highsnobiety.com/2015/12/18/possible-outcomes-wu-tang-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin/

[6] https://twitter.com/MartinShkreli?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[7] http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/12/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-wu-tang-asset-forfeiture/421011/

[8] http://www.highsnobiety.com/2015/12/18/possible-outcomes-wu-tang-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin/

[9] http://www.highsnobiety.com/2015/12/18/possible-outcomes-wu-tang-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin/

[10] http://www.vice.com/video/drinking-wine-and-playing-chess-at-martin-shkrelis-midtown-apartment

[11] http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/12/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-wu-tang-asset-forfeiture/421011/

[12] http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/12/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-wu-tang-asset-forfeiture/421011/

[13] http://www.highsnobiety.com/2015/12/18/martin-shkreli-arrested/

[14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTNOWSKMS10

[15] http://pitchfork.com/news/62465-wu-tang-clans-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin-bought-by-pharmaceuticals-ceo-martin-shkreli/

[16] http://www.newsweek.com/media-was-tricked-thinking-bill-murray-can-steal-2-million-wu-tang-album-403746

[17] http://www.newsweek.com/media-was-tricked-thinking-bill-murray-can-steal-2-million-wu-tang-album-403746

[18] http://www.newsweek.com/media-was-tricked-thinking-bill-murray-can-steal-2-million-wu-tang-album-403746

[19] http://www.highsnobiety.com/2015/12/18/possible-outcomes-wu-tang-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin/

[20] http://www.highsnobiety.com/2015/12/18/possible-outcomes-wu-tang-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin/

[21] http://www.highsnobiety.com/2015/12/18/possible-outcomes-wu-tang-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin/.

Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Robert Capers stated, “We’re not aware of where he got the funds for the Wu-Tang album.” (http://www.highsnobiety.com/2015/12/18/martin-shkreli-arrested/)

[22] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2648482/Shkreli-Complaint.pdf

[23] http://www.highsnobiety.com/2015/12/18/possible-outcomes-wu-tang-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin/

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.

 

Photo Source:  http://blogs-images.forbes.com/zackomalleygreenburg/files/2014/05/Wu-Tang-Box.jpg

By: Meghan Murphy,

Shattered your iPhone 6 screen? Before having it fixed—beware third-party repairs. iPhone users around the world are outraged at the “Error 53” message appearing on their screens after updating to the newest iOS software.[1] As The Guardian reported recently, iPhone 6, 6S and 6+ users are relating countless stories of needing their shattered screens fixed, and going to a local merchant to have the work done.[2] Sometimes in the course of these repairs, the original home button was damaged and replaced.[3] Repaired well, these phones worked for months—until they attempted to update the iOS software as Apple recommends, and received the “Error 53” message before their phones became unusable.[4]

The problem appears to be in the hardware—often within the course of screen repair, the hardware connecting the fingerprint sensor on the home button could be damaged.[5] When the software attempts to update, it runs a diagnostic to make sure that all of the hardware is intact and working—and if the diagnostic finds a non-original home button, it shuts the entire phone down.[6] Apple claims this is a security measure, to make sure that no one can tamper with the home button or install another fingerprint sensor to gain access to someone else’s phone.[7] Even if this is the case, such an all-encompassing security measure seems extreme, especially considering customers had no notice that it would occur.[8]

Seattle firm PCVA agreed—and filed a class action lawsuit against Apple on February 5^th, 2016.[9] As a firm press release stated, “We believe that Apple may be intentionally forcing    users to use their repair services, which cost much more than most third party repair shops. Where you could get your screen replaced by a neighborhood repair facility for $50-80, Apple charges $129 or more. There is incentive for Apple to keep end users from finding alternative methods to fix their products.”[10] However, in the interim, business savvy Apple took a U-turn and now claims now that “[diagnostic] test was designed to check whether Touch ID works properly before the device leaves the factory, and wasn’t intended to affect customers.”[11] As of February 18^th, Apple is now providing new software available in iOS update 9.2.1, which they say will restore previously “bricked” devices, and offering reimbursements to those who paid for out-of-warranty device replacements.[12]

The future of the lawsuit is unclear at this juncture. While Apply has clearly attempted to mitigate the damage by restoring old devices and offering reimbursements, surely many loyal Apple customers are still angry at Apple’s actions. It is possible that even with the software fix, miffed customers will still want to proceed with the lawsuit—although perhaps with a different spin. Only time will tell.

 

 

[1] Miles Brignall, “‘Error 53’ fury mounts as Apple software update threatens to kill your iPhone,” Guardian (Feb. 5, 2016, 1:59 PM), http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/05/error-53-apple-iphone-software-update-handset-worthless-third-party-repair.

[2] Id.

[3] Jack Nicas, “‘Error 53′: Your Repaired iPhone Is Dead,” Wall Street J. Blog (Feb. 5, 2016, 4:07 PM), http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/02/05/apple-error-message-killing-iphones/?mod=trending_now_4.

[4] Id.

[5] Brignall, supra note 1.

[6] Id.

[7] Chris Johnston, “Apple says iPhone ‘Error 53′ is to protect customers’ security,” guardian (Feb. 6, 2016, 8:57 PM), http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/06/apple-says-iphone-error-53-is-to-protect-customers-security.

[8] Nicas, supra note 3.

[9] Miles Brignall, “Apple under pressure as lawyers pledge action over ‘Error 53’ codes,” Guardian (Feb. 8, 2016, 11:56 AM), http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/08/apple-under-pressure-lawyers-error-53-codes.

[10] “Class Action Lawsuit: Apple IPhone ‘Error 53,’” PCVA Law Firm (Feb. 5, 2016), http://www.pcvalaw.com/apple-iphone-error-53-lawsuit/ (last visited Feb. 23, 2016).

[11] “If you see error 53 and your iPhone or iPad gets stuck on the ‘Connect to iTunes‘ screen,” Apple https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205628 (last modified Feb. 19, 2016).

[12] Id.

 

Photo Source:  http://rack.2.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE2LzAyLzA2LzI5L2FwdG91Y2hpZC44ZDU3Mi5qcGcKcAl0aHVtYgk5NTB4NTM0IwplCWpwZw/18551a5a/ba8/ap-touch-id.jpg

By: Ryan Suit,

The United States is approaching a crossroads when it comes to electricity: should we continue with our old grid system that is functional but far from ideal, or reinvest in a new means of generating and transmitting electricity? If we choose the latter, one promising solution is to invest in the construction of microgrids. Microgrids are essentially much smaller versions of the national power grid, but instead of supplying energy to the whole country, microgrids serve towns, neighborhoods, city blocks, or other localized areas.[1]

The Grid

In order to understand the potential benefits of microgrids, one must first know about how the grid in the Unites States currently works. The grid is divided into three parts: the East, the West, and Texas. These sections are connected, but mainly run independent of each other. The power grid consists of three segments of producing and delivering electricity: generation, transmission, and distribution. Electricity is generated at power plants. It is then transmitted across miles, or hundreds-of-miles, of electric transmission lines before reaching a distribution point so that it can be delivered to consumers. Essentially, the grid is a massive web of interconnected transmission lines that get energy pumped into them before the electricity eventually makes its way to homes and into electronics.

The grid must always balance the amount of electricity being supplied with the amount being demanded.[2] If the amount of electricity being supplied does not match the amount being demanded, the grid will crash.[3] This means that there is a constant need for electricity to be generated. The minimum amount of electricity that is always generated is known as the “base load”. As demand for electricity increases, due to higher or lower use during different times of the day or of the year, then more electricity is generated as needed.[4]

The grid was never planned, but rather grew to meet demand as demand increased. There are numerous issues facing the grid today. For one, the grid is relatively inefficient. Power plants from all over the country are generating electricity that, because of the web of transmission lines, may be used by a consumer several states away.[5] On average, there is a 6% loss of the electricity generated simply because it has to be transmitted so far to consumers.[6] Another problem facing the grid is its vulnerability to cyber and terror attacks because of how extended and sprawling it is. Further, the grid is not always reliable because of severe weather and global warming.[7] “Weather events are the number one cause of power outages. Increasing temperatures, decreasing water availability, increasing storms, flooding, rising sea level…and increasing intensity of storm events increases risks to electric transmission and distribution lines.”[8] One of the largest issues the grid must deal with is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by power plants that use coal and natural gas.[9] Already, 87% of the electricity consumed in the United States comes from fossil fuels.[10] Carbon dioxide emissions will only get worse with our current grid because electricity demand is expected to increase substantially by 2050.[11] Clearly, the national power grid is not an ideal way to generate electricity.

Microgrids

A microgrid is a miniature power grid that produces electricity for a localized area.[12] Microgrids can work on or off of the main power grid.[13] There are numerous benefits to building and using microgrids: they are more efficient, they improve reliability of electricity, they can save money, they are less vulnerable to cyber and terror attacks, and they can incorporate more renewable energy.

Microgrids are more efficient because the power used by the consumers on the microgrid is generated locally.[14] Rather than using electricity from several states away, the electricity can be generated across town, or even next door.[15] Microgrids enable the use of “distributed generation”, which is when neighbors rely on each other for electricity.[16] When neighbor A is generating a surplus of power from the solar panels on her house, she can only sell it back to the utility company in our current grid scheme. On a microgrid, however, that extra energy could be sold to neighbor B or neighbor C, depending on which neighbor needed more electricity at the time.[17] There is technology that acts as the central control over a microgrid, and can automatically divert electricity on a microgrid to where it is needed.[18]

Because microgrids generate electricity locally, they also can improve the reliability of electricity.[19] Local power does not need to travel across states, so there would be less loss of electricity due to less transmission. Additionally, severe weather would cause less problems.[20] In 2008 and 2009, a small town in New York suffered multiple power outages due to ice storms knocking down power lines and disconnecting the 5,000 residents from the grid.[21] Without the transmission lines, the town was isolated from the grid, and thus cut off from any electricity.[22] The town has since invested in a microgrid with renewable energy so that they can generate their own power and not be reliant upon the national grid.[23]

Another added benefit to microgrids is that they are less susceptible to cyberattacks.[24] The national power grid is so large and expansive that cyberattacks are a legitimate threat.[25] Microgrids, on the other hand, are localized and can be more easily protected. Plus, if an attack were to happen in a different state, energy customers far away would be safe. That is not necessarily the case with the national grid.

Microgrids can also save money.[26] Because there are fewer customers on a microgrid, there is less electricity demand. Additionally, it is easier to track the energy use of fewer customers. Combining those two, microgrids are able to know how much electricity generate to match demand, rather than generating a constant amount that may not all be used. As such, there is less electricity generated, meaning there is also less electricity wasted. Both of those decrease generation costs and save money for everyone on the microgrid.[27]

The most environmentally-friendly perk of microgrids is that they are more able to incorporate renewable energies.[28] Since there are less customers, the variable electricity provided by wind or solar power causes less problems for a microgrid.[29] For one, less demand for electricity means that renewables may be able to produce enough to provide enough power for all consumers on a microgrid.[30] Second, less demand on a microgrid makes batteries and fuel cells more viable.[31] Currently, renewable energy sources like wind and solar are not easily incorporated into the grid because they do not constantly generate power, meaning that they are not the best sources of energy to balance the supply and demand of electricity. In addition, even the largest batteries are too small to store electricity from renewables on a national scale. Microgrids do not have to deal with this problem. Microgrids are small enough that batteries and fuel cells can store energy for when solar or wind power is not available, which makes microgrids and alternative energy projects much more feasible.

The Law Surrounding Microgrids

Though the benefits of microgrids are numerous and apparent, current energy laws make it difficult for microgrids to be built. Currently, there are few laws that directly regulate microgrids.[32] However, the current legal scheme makes it difficult, if not impossible, for microgrids to be built with any kind of economic viability.[33]

Federal support for microgrids has been growing. Following the destruction and massive power outages caused by Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the Federal government began looking more into microgrids.[34] The “Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force (Task Force) proposals, which were federally supported proposals to encourage microgrids in New York, are perhaps the most direct source of microgrid support at the federal level.”[35]  The majority of state laws do not speak directly to microgrids, either, and actually serve as a barrier to their development.[36] According to Sara Bronin,

 

“By far the biggest barrier to the creation of microgrids is contradictory, unclear, or hostile law. State legislatures and state public utility commissions have made it difficult to determine whether a microgrid project can be built. One critical question is whether a microgrid should be considered a public utility. State laws often define “public utility” to include any person or entity furnishing power to another, without regard to the number of recipients of such power and without exceptions for alternative energy or microgrids. Such broad definitions would subject even a microgrid with two users to burdensome regulation, because public utilities must abide by very strict rules that determine allowable technologies, tariffs, technical requirements, and other parameters. No state laws squarely address microgrids, and no comprehensive, publicly-available analysis of possible means to allow microgrids within current state law appears to exist.”[37]

Similar to state laws, local laws do not readily facilitate microgrid development, specifically with renewable energies.[38] Zoning ordinances, aesthetic controls, and historic preservation rules often stand in the way of alternative energy projects that could be used to supply power to microgrids.[39] Overall, the entire legal regime that regulates or would effect microgrids prohibits their development.

Conclusion

Microgrids hold an enormous amount of potential for the future of the electric power grid in the United States. Though the technology to develop an efficient, reliable, more-environmentally-friendly system of microgrids is at our fingertips, the laws are simply not where they need to be for this to happen. Momentum is growing for microgrids, but only time will tell how much is actually invested into solving the United States’ grid issues.

 

 

           

[1] Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Your own energy ‘island’? Microgrid could tandardize small, self-sustaining electric grids, ScienceDaily, (Nov. 5, 2014), http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141105101100.htm.

[2] Federal Energy regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association et al., 577 U.S. ___ (2016).

[3] Federal Energy regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association et al., 577 U.S. ___ (2016).

[4] Federal Energy regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association et al., 577 U.S. ___ (2016).

[5] Andrew Landrum, El Nino and the Case for Microgrids, American Security Project, (Oct. 8, 2015), http://www.americansecurityproject.org/el-nino-and-the-case-for-microgrids/.

[6] Andrew Landrum, El Nino and the Case for Microgrids, American Security Project, (Oct. 8, 2015), http://www.americansecurityproject.org/el-nino-and-the-case-for-microgrids/.

[7] Kevin Jones, et al.,The Urban Microgrid: Smart Legal and Regulatory Policies to Support Electric Grid Resiliency and Climate Mitigation, Fordham Urban L.J. (2014 – available on Lexis/Westlaw).

[8] Kevin Jones, et al.,The Urban Microgrid: Smart Legal and Regulatory Policies to Support Electric Grid Resiliency and Climate Mitigation, Fordham Urban L.J. (2014 – available on Lexis/Westlaw).

[9] Kevin Jones, et al.,The Urban Microgrid: Smart Legal and Regulatory Policies to Support Electric Grid Resiliency and Climate Mitigation, Fordham Urban L.J. (2014 – available on Lexis/Westlaw).

[10] Kevin Jones, et al.,The Urban Microgrid: Smart Legal and Regulatory Policies to Support Electric Grid Resiliency and Climate Mitigation, Fordham Urban L.J. (2014 – available on Lexis/Westlaw).

[11] Historic and projected U.S. electricity demand, 1950-2050, http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-US_electricity_demand (last visited Feb. 22, 2016).

[12] Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Your own energy ‘island’? Microgrid could tandardize small, self-sustaining electric grids, ScienceDaily, (Nov. 5, 2014), http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141105101100.htm.

[13] Andrew Landrum, El Nino and the Case for Microgrids, American Security Project, (Oct. 8, 2015), http://www.americansecurityproject.org/el-nino-and-the-case-for-microgrids/.

[14] Alison Lantero, How Microgrids Work, Energy.gov, (June 17, 2014, 10:27 AM), http://energy.gov/articles/how-microgrids-work.

[15] Sara Bronin, Curbing Energy Sprawl with Microgrids, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 547, (2010).

[16] Sara Bronin, Curbing Energy Sprawl with Microgrids, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 547, (2010).

[17] Sara Bronin, Curbing Energy Sprawl with Microgrids, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 547, (2010).

[18] Sara Bronin, Curbing Energy Sprawl with Microgrids, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 547, (2010).

[19] Julia Hesse and Sally Jacquemin, Microgrids in the American power network, Phys.org, (Feb. 8, 2016), http://phys.org/news/2016-02-microgrids-american-power-network.html.

[20] Kevin Jones, et al.,The Urban Microgrid: Smart Legal and Regulatory Policies to Support Electric Grid Resiliency and Climate Mitigation, Fordham Urban L.J. (2014 – available on Lexis/Westlaw).

[21] George Walsh, Power outages lead towns to look at microgrids, Associated Press, (Feb. 8, 2016, 10:00 PM), http://www.postregister.com/articles/featured-business/2016/02/08/power-outages-lead-towns-look-microgrids.

[22] George Walsh, Power outages lead towns to look at microgrids, Associated Press, (Feb. 8, 2016, 10:00 PM), http://www.postregister.com/articles/featured-business/2016/02/08/power-outages-lead-towns-look-microgrids.

[23] George Walsh, Power outages lead towns to look at microgrids, Associated Press, (Feb. 8, 2016, 10:00 PM), http://www.postregister.com/articles/featured-business/2016/02/08/power-outages-lead-towns-look-microgrids.

[24] Andrew Landrum, El Nino and the Case for Microgrids, American Security Project, (Oct. 8, 2015), http://www.americansecurityproject.org/el-nino-and-the-case-for-microgrids/.

[25] Andrew Landrum, El Nino and the Case for Microgrids, American Security Project, (Oct. 8, 2015), http://www.americansecurityproject.org/el-nino-and-the-case-for-microgrids/.

[26] George Walsh, Power outages lead towns to look at microgrids, Associated Press, (Feb. 8, 2016, 10:00 PM), http://www.postregister.com/articles/featured-business/2016/02/08/power-outages-lead-towns-look-microgrids.

[27] Ken Silverstein, With a Focus Increasing Reliability and Decreasing Emissions, Microgrids are Stepping Out, EnvironmentalLeader.com, (Feb. 9, 2016), http://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/02/09/with-a-focus-increasing-reliability-and-decreasing-emissions-microgrids-are-stepping-out/.

[28] Sara Bronin, Curbing Energy Sprawl with Microgrids, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 547, (2010).

[29] Sara Bronin, Curbing Energy Sprawl with Microgrids, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 547, (2010).

[30] Sara Bronin, Curbing Energy Sprawl with Microgrids, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 547, (2010).

[31] Sara Bronin, Curbing Energy Sprawl with Microgrids, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 547, (2010).

[32] Kevin Jones, et al.,The Urban Microgrid: Smart Legal and Regulatory Policies to Support Electric Grid Resiliency and Climate Mitigation, Fordham Urban L.J. (2014 – available on Lexis/Westlaw).

[33] Kevin Jones, et al.,The Urban Microgrid: Smart Legal and Regulatory Policies to Support Electric Grid Resiliency and Climate Mitigation, Fordham Urban L.J. (2014 – available on Lexis/Westlaw).

[34] Kevin Jones, et al.,The Urban Microgrid: Smart Legal and Regulatory Policies to Support Electric Grid Resiliency and Climate Mitigation, Fordham Urban L.J. (2014 – available on Lexis/Westlaw).

[35] Kevin Jones, et al.,The Urban Microgrid: Smart Legal and Regulatory Policies to Support Electric Grid Resiliency and Climate Mitigation, Fordham Urban L.J. (2014 – available on Lexis/Westlaw).

[36] Sara Bronin, Curbing Energy Sprawl with Microgrids, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 547, (2010).

[37] Sara Bronin, Curbing Energy Sprawl with Microgrids, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 547, (2010).

[38] Sara Bronin, Curbing Energy Sprawl with Microgrids, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 547, (2010).

[39] Sara Bronin, Curbing Energy Sprawl with Microgrids, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 547, (2010).

Photo Source:  http://www.microgridinstitute.org/uploads/1/8/9/9/18995065/7040133.png?1427214449

By: Corinne Moini,

“Depending on whom you talk to and what month it is, the United States and the European Union are either on the brink of a digital trade war or reaching a historic e-commerce deal.”[1] The current state of disarray between the two parties is due to a landmark European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) decision. More specifically, on October 16, 2015, the ECJ invalidated the fifteen-year U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, a data-storage agreement between the United States and the European Union.[2] The case in which the ECJ’s groundbreaking decision came from is Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner.[3] Where Schrems, an Austrian law student, filed a complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (“DPC”) about Facebook transferring large amounts of his personal information to the United States.[4] The complaint was filed in a post-Snowden era, expressing concern for how little data protection existed against surveillance by the United States.[5] The DPC rejected his complaint and Schrems appealed his claim to the Irish High Court, which was referred to the ECJ for clarifications.[6]

The ECJ issued a much broader holding, answering the immediate question about DPC authority and invalidating the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Agreement.[7] The ECJ held that the Safe Harbor agreement does not provide adequate protection. This agreement allowed American companies “to self-certify” that they were providing “adequate protection” for the data of European users.[8] The Court suggests that the Safe Harbor agreement “enables interference, by United States public authorities, with the fundamental rights of persons,”[9] and to permit this agreement to continue would be “compromising the essences of the fundamental respect for private life…and of the fundamental right to the rule of law.”[10]

Even more unsettling to the United States, is the looming legal enforcement against American companies, if they do not implement protections that align with European data security laws. The Working Party 29, an association of European Data Protection Commissioners,[11] has threatened to begin legal enforcement after February 1, 2016, if a new agreement between the two parties cannot be made.[12] The end of the safe harbor agreement affects over 4,000 U.S. companies that outsource data from the EU to the United States.[13] As we are entering the third week of February, it is clear that deadline for a new agreement has passed. However, the European national data protection agencies have delayed legal enforcement against American companies because the European Commission announced a tentative agreement called the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.[14] The deal makes several changes to the previous agreement; but most of which are “toothless…including expedited dispute resolution requirements, [and] [additional] layers of annual reviews and expand[ed] privacy bureaucracies at both the Department of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission.”[15] The European data agencies are currently reviewing the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and anticipate a decision regarding the new agreement by the end of March. Until then U.S., privacy lawyers remain wary. Brian Hengesbaugh, a lawyer at Baker & McKenzie, who helped negotiate the original safe harbor deal in 2000, commented, that “the ruling is so sweepingly broad that any mechanism used to transfer data from Europe could be under threat.”[16] For now, American companies that collect data from the EU should implement new data protection laws and tread lightly.

 

[1] Abraham Newman, After Safe Harbor: Bridging the EU-U.S. Data-Privacy Divide, World Politics Review (Feb. 9, 2016), http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/17898/after-safe-harbor-bridging-the-eu-u-s-data-privacy-divide.

[2] See U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, Federal Trade Comm’n, https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/privacy-and-security/u.s.-eu-safe-harbor-framework (last updated Nov. 6, 2015).

[3] See Case C-362/14, Maximillian Schrems v. Irish Data Protection Commissioner, InfoCuria, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=en&nat=or&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-362%252F14&td=%3BALL&pcs=Oor&avg=&page=1&mat=or&jge=&for=&cid=284436 (last visited Feb. 15, 2016).

[4] See id.

[5] See Max Schrems v Irish Data Protection Commissioner (Safe Harbor), Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr., https://epic.org/privacy/intl/schrems/ (last visited Feb 15, 2016).

[6] See id.

[7] See Donald G. Aplin, Views on the Invalidation of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor From James H. Koenig, Of Counsel, Paul Hastings, Bloomberg BNA (Nov. 23, 2015) http://www.bna.com/views-invalidation-useu-n57982063840/.

[8] BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34442618.

[9] Press Release, Court of Justice of the European Union, The Court of Justice declares that the Commission’s US Safe Harbour Decision is Invalid (Oct. 6, 2015)
(available at http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-10/cp150117en.pdf).

[10] Id.

[11] See EU Data Protection Directive, Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr., https://epic.org/privacy/intl/eu_data_protection_directive.html (last visited Feb 15, 2016).

[12] See Kelli Clark, The EU Safe Harbor Agreement Is Dead, Here’s What To Do About It, Forbes (Oct. 27, 2015) http://www.forbes.com/sites/riskmap/2015/10/27/the-eu-safe-harbor-agreement-is-dead-heres-what-to-do-about-it/#ba5b29971719.

[13] See Mark Scott, Data Transfer Pact Between U.S. and Europe Is Ruled Invalid, NY Times (Oct. 6, 2015) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/technology/european-union-us-data-collection.html.

[14] Press Release, European Commission, EU Commission and United States agree on new framework for transatlantic data flows: EU-US Privacy Shield (Feb. 2, 2016) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-216_en.htm.

[15] Larry Downes, The Business Implications of the EU-U.S. “Privacy Shield,” Harvard Business Review (Feb. 10, 2016) https://hbr.org/2016/02/the-business-implications-of-the-eu-u-s-privacy-shield.

[16] Mark Scott, supra note 12.

 

Photo Source:  http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/20151010_IRD001.jpg

 

By: Jenni Lyman

The Netflix series, Making a Murderer, influenced 275,000 viewers to demand President Obama to overturn Steven Avery’s conviction.[1] Avery’s supporters believe he was framed by law enforcement and is innocent in the murder of Teresa Halbach.[2]

Avery’s blood was found on the inside of Halbach’s Toyota.[3] The defense’s theory is that police gathered the sample from a vial in Avery’s criminal file and subsequently planted the blood.[4] Armchair detectives cringed imagining the slimy detectives poking the vial to extract Avery’s blood.[5]

Avery’s defense team is comprised of two attorneys, Dean Strang and Jerry Buting.[6] Strang believes the critical point in Avery’s trial was the FBI test that discredited the linchpin of their argument–Avery was framed.[7] In Strang’s opinion, this fateful test was the turning point that shifted the proceedings in favor of the prosecution.[8]

What is this test and has the technology improved since Avery’s trial?[9] In sum, EDTA is the preservative the FBI tests for to see if the anticoagulant used for storing blood in vials is detected in the blood sample.[10] Unfortunately for Avery, the test came back negative for any trace of EDTA.[11] If the test came back positive it would prove the defense’s theory that the blood was planted in Halbach’s Toyota from the unassuming vial that sat dormant in Avery’s criminal file.[12]

Speculation proposes the chemical was too diluted to be detected.[13] As for improved technology, more experiments need to be conducted that replicate crime scene conditions to put the test to the test.[14]

In the meantime, the defense could appeal on the [somewhat shocking] fact that at the time of Avery’s trial, Wisconsin state law did not require a Daubert test to admit expert testimony.[15] The Daubert test holds expert testimony to a higher level of scrutiny.[16] Here, the EDTA test had not been done since the O.J. Simpson trial.[17] The arcane test’s bleak track record suggests it would not be admissible under a strict scrutiny test.[18]

In addition to the lack of the Daubert test and equally abhorrent is the fact there was no pre-trial Daubert hearing.[19] The bonus of a Daubert hearing is that it is conducted outside of the jury’s presence.[20] Here, the jury heard the damning evidence surrounding the test. So, the fetching defense was forced to scramble and convince the jury that the FBI’s sloppy work was not reliable.[21] Moreover, it would be difficult to find an apt limiting instruction to cure such a jury.[22]

For now, Avery remains behind bars while viewers await an EDTA test fit to render justice.

 

 

[1] See Edward Helmore, Making a Murderer Spurs 275,000 Viewers to Demand Pardon for Central Character, Guardian (Jan. 9, 11:48 AM), http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/09/netxflix-murder-whoddunit-petition (noting the White House later released a letter stating action must be done at state-level).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Making a Murderer (Netflix television series Dec. 2015).

[6] See Jethro Nededog, The Moment When Everything Turned Against Steven Avery in the ‘Making a Murderer’ Trial, Bus. Insider (Jan. 7, 2016, 3:11 PM), http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-edta-test-blood-test-2016-1.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Helmore, supra note 4.

[10] See Jen Yamato, ‘Making a Murderer’ Defense Attorney Dean Strang: We May Represent Steven Aver Again, Daily Beast (Jan. 7, 2016, 3:14AM), http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/07/making-a-murderer-defense-attorney-dean-strang-we-may-represent-steven-avery-again.html.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Erika Engelhaupt, Are These Crime Drama Clues Fact or Fiction?, Nat’l Geographic, (Jan. 26, 2016), http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/.

[14] Id.

[15] Yamato, supra note 10.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] See also Fed. R. Evid. 702.

[20] See id.

[21] Yamato, supra note 10.

[22] See also Fed. R. Evid. 105.

 

Photo Source:  http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2016/01/01/14/Screen%20Shot%202016-01-01%20at%2014.48.45.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

By: Brandon Bybee

When the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act,[1] (CISA,) was on the floor of the Senate in October of 2015, significant pushback was exhibited by major corporations.[2] Despite those pushbacks the bill passed in the Senate on October the 27th.[3] It was then received in the House on the following day, where it has been held at the desk ever since.[4] If passed in the House and signed into law, the bill would have brought significant privacy concerns to information technology experts who had been following the proposed legislation.[5] Technically, the bill is still being held on the House desk for floor consideration, however it is unlikely that it ever leaves. This isn’t because the bill won’t pass, it’s because quietly, it already has.

On December 18, 2015, President Obama signed into law a $1.1 trillion funding bill,[6] that included provisions and amendments involving everything from oil exports to abortion policies.[7] These various provisions, or policy instructions, are commonly known on Capitol Hill as “riders.”[8] One of those riders, neatly tied in, among provisions regarding transportation and intelligence authorization, is Division N, The Cybersecurity Act of 2015.[9] The act combines the Senate enacted CISA passed in October with other cybersecurity acts passed in the House, but effectively, the CISA, which caused all the backlash, is now law.

So why are cyber experts up in arms about the act? According to Sam Theilman, “The bill would allow private industry to share user information with the Department of Homeland Security, which would be compelled to share it across “relevant government agencies”, presumably including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA).”[10] Days before the Appropriations Act was to be passed, Congressman Jared Polis addressed the implications of tying the CISA into the Appropriations Act[11], but the bill still slipped past into law. Congressman Polis cited a Press Release by the Open Technology Institute, which highlighted some of the ramifications of the bill.[12]

Some of the most pertinent privacy implications include, “Increas[ing] government access to Americans’ personal data with dangerously weak privacy protections,”[13] effectively allowing government agencies to avoid liability when actions are taken pursuant to the bill,[14] and perhaps most importantly, “Undermin[ing] Americans’ rights to privacy and due process by authorizing law enforcement to use information in investigations unrelated to cybersecurity.”[15] So what does this all mean in layman’s terms? Essentially, a government agency can request personal information of an American citizen, from a private entity (such as Google, or Facebook,) and be granted that information regardless of whether the citizen was involved in an actual cybersecurity threat. This information sharing would allow neither the government, nor the private entity to be held liable.[16]

Congressman Polis addresses the unfortunate impact of including the CISA within the Consolidated Appropriations Act, “by slipping this bill into must-pass legislation, House leaders are giving privacy-minded members of Congress an impossible choice: allow a bill that threatens Americans’ civil liberties to become law or force a government shutdown.”[17] He goes on to assert the daunting implications of the bill’s passage, “companies will be encouraged to disseminate information about our patterns of Internet use and even the content of our online communications to the government in virtually all circumstances.”[18] We live in a generation where the NSA and the Patriot Act have raised national concern on government intervention into private citizens’ privacies to possibly the highest level in history. It’s a scary concept that even today, in that atmosphere, a bill as invasive as CISA can still become law, without most people even knowing.

 

 

 

[1] Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, S. 754, 114th Cong. (2015).

[2] See Sam Theilman, Apple, Google and Twitter among 22 tech companies opposing Cisa bill, the guardian (Oct. 21, 2015), http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/21/apple-google-and-twitter-among-22-tech-companies-opposing-cisa-bill [hereinafter Theilman] (listing the companies that had opposed the legislation according to a internet poll).

[3] Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, S. 754, 114th Cong. (2015) (enacted).

[4] Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, S. 754, 114th Cong. (bill tracking) (2015) (LEXIS).

[5] See, e.g., Robyn Greene, Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 is Cyber-Surveillance, Not Cybersecurity, Open Technology Institute (Apr. 9, 2015), https://www.newamerica.org/oti/cybersecurity-information-sharing-act-of-2015-is-cyber-surveillance-not-cybersecurity/ (asserting that the bill would allow for a significant increase in the level of private Americans’ internet information available to government agencies).

[6] Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2015, H.R. 2029, 114th Cong. (2015).

[7] See Mike DeBonis & Kelsey Snell, Here’s what made it in to Congress’s big spending and tax bills, The Wash. Post (Dec. 16, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/16/heres-what-made-it-into-congresss-big-tax-and-spending-bills/#cyber (listing the various policy instructions that made their way into the bill).

[8] Id.

[9] Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2015, H.R. 2029, § N, 114th Cong. (2015).

[10] Theilman, supra note 2.

[11] See Jared Polis, Congress, don’t be fooled by cybersurveillance bill, CNN Opinion (Dec. 18, 2015), http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/18/opinions/polis-cybersecurity-legislation-congress/index.html [herinafter Polis] (imploring Congress to recognize what the bill entailed).

[12] Press Release, Open Tech. Inst., Omnibus Funding Bill is a Privacy and Cybersecurity Failure (Dec. 16, 2015) https://www.newamerica.org/oti/omnibus-funding-bill-is-a-privacy-and-cybersecurity-failure/ [hereinafter Open Tech.] (summarizing the privacy concerns contained within the Consolidated Appropriations Act).

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Polis, supra note 11 (“The bill would encourage companies to share information about cyberthreats with the federal government by granting them protection from liability.”)

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

 

Photo Source:  http://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/463286157.jpg