Having the ability to break into a terrorist’s phone sounds good, but what happens when the FBI’s access to your phone leaves you vulnerable to cyber attacks? In this episode of Digital Detectives, hosts Sharon Nelson and John Simek talk to Nate Cardozo about the FBI’s stance on encryption including their desired ability to access our phones, the First Amendment issues involved, and the implications of the FBI vs Apple San Bernardino confrontation. They also discuss the role of public and policy maker ignorance about technology and encryption in the struggle between the FBI and privacy.
Sensei is excited to be a Bronze sponsor for Lawyerpalooza this year! Lawyerpalooza is a free annual event hosted by the FBA Young Lawyers Section. This year, the event will be at Nottoway Park Hunter House in Vienna, VA on Saturday, June 2 from 12:00 PM – 3:00 PM. All net proceeds will benefit The Honorable David T. Stitt Scholarship Fund for the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.
Collaboration is becoming increasingly important within the legal field especially with emerging technology that makes it easier than ever. In this episode of The Digital Edge, hosts Sharon Nelson and Jim Calloway talk to Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell, authors of The Lawyer’s Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies: Smart Ways to Work Together, about collaboration, why it’s necessary for lawyers, and the tools attorneys need to make their teamwork efficient. They also discuss what has been driving lawyers more and more towards collaboration techniques and how collaboration can assist with case management.
According to Sharon Nelson’s terrific Ride the Lightning blog (4th Circuit Says Border Search of Phones Requires Individualized Suspicion (But Not a Warrant)), on May 9th, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in US v. Kolsuz, ruling that in light of the immense privacy concerns, forensic searches of electronic devices seized at the border must be justified by individualized suspicion, or some reason to believe that a particular traveler had committed a crime. But not a warrant.
The appeals court said border patrol officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a forensic search of Hamza Kolsuz’s cellphone, and they were entitled to rely on that standard based on case law that suggested it was, at most, all that was required. The officers had seized Kolsuz’s phone after they found firearms parts that required an export license in his checked luggage. It was the third time weapons parts were found in his luggage. That certainly seems like reasonable suspicion to me.