“Many other paths to data are available. We are exuding data all over the place,” said Zittrain, a professor at Harvard Law School and the author of The Future of the Internet—And How to Stop It. “The FBI has chosen this case … in large part, I think, because there is so little privacy interest on the other side.”
Berkman in the News
A report published last month by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University called “Don’t Panic: Making Progress on the Going Dark Debate” suggests the FBI is using the wrong metaphor. While it concedes that encryption and “provider-opaque services” make surveillance more difficult in certain cases, the landscape is far more varied. “There are and will always be pockets of dimness and some dark spots — communications channels resistant to surveillance — but this does not mean we are completely ‘going dark’,” the report said.
As a recent report from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University argues, there are now massive amounts of data generated through the Internet of Things (cars, thermostats, surveillance cameras and hundreds of devices other connected devices) and the metadata (time, location, address, but not content) produced by cell phones and Internet communications.
Vivek Krishnamurthy of Harvard’s Cyberlaw Clinic said some forms of expression can be ordered.
The framework of mutual legal assistance treaties by which nations request law enforcement data from each other is unprepared for the cloud computing age and the U.S. ought to lead updating efforts, says Vivek Krishnamurthy, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic, in a paper for the university’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
The complex fragmentation of cloud computing not only makes the use of mutual legal assistance treaties hazy, the technology and the legal structure are “fundamentally irreconcilable,” according to a paper published earlier this month by Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society.