Podcasts about all writs act

Francisco last week at the Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) conference.  We summarize what they said and offer our views of why they said it. Bobby Chesney, returning to the podcast after a long absence, helps us assess Russian warnings that the U.S. should expect  a “military clash” if it conducts cyberattacks against Russian critical infrastructure. Bobby, joined by Michael Ellis sees this as a routine Russian PR response to U.S. Cyber Command and Director, Paul M. Nakasone's talk about doing offensive operations in support of Ukraine. Bobby also notes the FBI analysis of the NetWalker ransomware gang, an analysis made possible by seizure of the gang's back office computer system in Bulgaria. The unfortunate headline summary of the FBI's work was a claim that “just one fourth of all NetWalker ransomware victims reported incidents to law enforcement.” Since many of the victims were outside the United States and would have had little reason to report to the Bureau, this statistic undercounts private-public cooperation. But it may, I suggest, reflect the Bureau's increasing sensitivity about its long-term role in cybersecurity.   Michael notes that complaints about a dearth of private sector incident reporting is one of the themes from the government's RSA appearances. A Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) executive also complained about a lack of ransomware incident reporting, a strange complaint considering that CISA can solve much of the problem by publishing the reporting rule that Congress authorized last year.  In a more promising vein, two intelligence officials underlined the need for intel agencies to share security data more effectively with the private sector. Michael sees that as the one positive note in an otherwise downbeat cybersecurity report from Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence. And David Kris points to a similar theme offered by National Security Agency official Rob Joyce who believes that sharing of (lightly laundered) classified data is increasing, made easier by the sophistication and cooperation of the cybersecurity industry.  Michael and I are taking with a grain of salt the New York Times' claim that Russia's use of U.S. technology in its weapons has become a vulnerability due to U.S. export controls.  We think it may take months to know whether those controls are really hurting Russia's weapons production.   Bobby explains why the Department of Justice (DOJ) was much happier to offer a “policy” of not prosecuting good-faith security research under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act instead of trying to draft a statutory exemption. Of course, the DOJ policy doesn't protect researchers from civil lawsuits, so Leonard Bailey of DOJ may yet find himself forced to look for a statutory fix. (If it were me, I'd be tempted to dump the civil remedy altogether.)   Michael, Bobby, and I dig into the ways in which smartphones have transformed both the war and, perhaps, the law of war in Ukraine. I end up with a little more understanding of why Russian troops who've been flagged as artillery targets in a special Ukrainian government phone app might view every bicyclist who rides by as a legitimate target. Finally, David, Bobby and I dig into a Forbes story, clearly meant to be an expose, about the United States government's use of the All Writs Act to monitor years of travel reservations made by an indicted Russian hacker until he finally headed to a country from which he could be extradited.

Francisco last week at the Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) conference.  We summarize what they said and offer our views of why they said it. Bobby Chesney, returning to the podcast after a long absence, helps us assess Russian warnings that the U.S. should expect  a “military clash” if it conducts cyberattacks against Russian critical infrastructure. Bobby, joined by Michael Ellis sees this as a routine Russian PR response to U.S. Cyber Command and Director, Paul M. Nakasone's talk about doing offensive operations in support of Ukraine. Bobby also notes the FBI analysis of the NetWalker ransomware gang, an analysis made possible by seizure of the gang's back office computer system in Bulgaria. The unfortunate headline summary of the FBI's work was a claim that “just one fourth of all NetWalker ransomware victims reported incidents to law enforcement.” Since many of the victims were outside the United States and would have had little reason to report to the Bureau, this statistic undercounts private-public cooperation. But it may, I suggest, reflect the Bureau's increasing sensitivity about its long-term role in cybersecurity.   Michael notes that complaints about a dearth of private sector incident reporting is one of the themes from the government's RSA appearances. A Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) executive also complained about a lack of ransomware incident reporting, a strange complaint considering that CISA can solve much of the problem by publishing the reporting rule that Congress authorized last year.  In a more promising vein, two intelligence officials underlined the need for intel agencies to share security data more effectively with the private sector. Michael sees that as the one positive note in an otherwise downbeat cybersecurity report from Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence. And David Kris points to a similar theme offered by National Security Agency official Rob Joyce who believes that sharing of (lightly laundered) classified data is increasing, made easier by the sophistication and cooperation of the cybersecurity industry.  Michael and I are taking with a grain of salt the New York Times' claim that Russia's use of U.S. technology in its weapons has become a vulnerability due to U.S. export controls.  We think it may take months to know whether those controls are really hurting Russia's weapons production.   Bobby explains why the Department of Justice (DOJ) was much happier to offer a “policy” of not prosecuting good-faith security research under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act instead of trying to draft a statutory exemption. Of course, the DOJ policy doesn't protect researchers from civil lawsuits, so Leonard Bailey of DOJ may yet find himself forced to look for a statutory fix. (If it were me, I'd be tempted to dump the civil remedy altogether.)   Michael, Bobby, and I dig into the ways in which smartphones have transformed both the war and, perhaps, the law of war in Ukraine. I end up with a little more understanding of why Russian troops who've been flagged as artillery targets in a special Ukrainian government phone app might view every bicyclist who rides by as a legitimate target. Finally, David, Bobby and I dig into a Forbes story, clearly meant to be an expose, about the United States government's use of the All Writs Act to monitor years of travel reservations made by an indicted Russian hacker until he finally headed to a country from which he could be extradited.

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether federal courts may use the All Writs Act to order the transportation of state prisoners for reasons not enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c); and  whether, before a court grants an order allowing a habeas petitioner to develop new evidence, it must determine whether the evidence could aid the petitioner in proving his entitlement to habeas relief, and whether the evidence may permissibly be considered by a habeas court. Date Proceedings and OrdersOct 04 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 5, 2021)Oct 27 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 5, 2021 to December 6, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Oct 28 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 6, 2021.Nov 05 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Utah and 14 Other States filed.Dec 06 2021 | Brief of respondent Raymond Twyford in opposition filed.Dec 06 2021 | Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Raymond Twyford.Dec 08 2021 | Reply of petitioner Tim Shoop, Warden filed.Dec 08 2021 | Waiver of the 14-day waiting period under 15.5 filed.Dec 15 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.Jan 10 2022 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022.Jan 14 2022 | Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.Jan 14 2022 | Petition GRANTED.Jan 21 2022 | Joint motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed.Feb 22 2022 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.Feb 25 2022 | Brief of petitioner Tim Shoop filed.Mar 04 2022 | Brief amici curiae of State of Utah and 20 Other States filed.Mar 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of United States in support of neither party filed.Mar 15 2022 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Tuesday, April 26, 2022.Mar 16 2022 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.Mar 16 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Mar 16 2022 | Opposition to motion of the Solicitor General filed by petitioner Tim Shoop.Mar 16 2022 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. Also available are documents that has been electronically filed.Mar 19 2022 | Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent Raymond Twyford.Mar 23 2022 | CIRCULATEDMar 28 2022 | Brief of respondent Raymond Twyford filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of 18 Former Federal Judges filed. (Distributed)Apr 04 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. (Distributed)Apr 04 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed. (Distributed)Apr 04 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain & Behavior filed. (Distributed)Apr 05 2022 | Reply of petitioner Tim Shoop filed. (Distributed)Apr 06 2022 | Motion to appoint counsel DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/22/2022.Apr 14 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument is GRANTED IN PART, and the time is allotted as follows: 30 minutes for petitioner, 15 minutes for the Solicitor General, and 25 minutes for respondent.Apr 25 2022 | Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent GRANTED, and Michael J. Benza, Esq., of Chagrin Falls, Ohio, is appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.Apr 26 2022 | Argued. For petitioner: Benjamin M. Flowers, Solicitor General, Columbus, Ohio. For United States, as amicus curiae: Nicole F. Reaves, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: David A. O'Neil, Washington, D. C.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases that will be covered are included below. United States v. Washington (April 18) – workers' compensation; state and federal lawSiegel v. Fitzgerald (April 18) – Bankruptcy Judgeship Act; Bankruptcy Clause of the U.S. Constitution George v. McDonough (April 19) – veterans' claims and Department of Veterans Affairs agency interpretationKemp v. United States (April 19) – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)Vega v. Tekoh (April 20) – Habeas motions under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and relief for Miranda violationsKennedy v. Bremerton (April 25) – the Speech and Establishment Clauses of the First AmendmentNance v. Ward (April 25) – method of execution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 habeas motionsBiden v. Texas (April 26) – remain in Mexico immigration policyShoop v. Twyford (April 26) – the All Writs Act and habeas petitionsOklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (April 27) – Indian Law Featuring:-- Noel J. Francisco, Partner-in-Charge Washington, Jones Day-- Allyson Newton Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP-- Aaron M. Streett, Chairman, Supreme Court and Constitutional Law Practice, Baker Botts LLP -- Misha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP-- Moderator: Elbert Lin, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

In this episode, Mark joins us to discuss how technological advancements have changed the legal sphere. Mark is the Co-Director at Legal Innovation Centre and Fellow at ForHumanity. You can follow him on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3l4WNih or LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/3hcsG7d This episode is bought to you by ForHumanity. ForHumanity's mission is to examine and analyse the downside risks associated with the ubiquitous advance of AI & Automation, to engage in risk mitigation and ensure the optimal outcome. You can find out more information here: https://forhumanity.center/ You can also follow ForHumanity on LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/3y3FVg8and Facebook: https://bit.ly/3zaM6AI Resources: Join our Slack channel for more conversation about the big ethics issues that rise from AI: https://bit.ly/3jVdNov Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute: https://bit.ly/3l7Ug6X United States v Miller: https://bit.ly/3hgs40J Third-party doctrine: https://bit.ly/3yQTWhK Turner Entertainment Co. v. Huston, CA Versailles: https://bit.ly/3nfI7zv Wikard v Filburn: https://bit.ly/3BY9Icq Gonzales v Raich: https://bit.ly/3lb63Bg “We know what you did during lockdown” - https://on.ft.com/3z7m94d All Writs Act: https://bit.ly/2X0uBok FBI–Apple encryption dispute: https://bit.ly/3jV0dVq

While the battle between the FBI and Apple over unlocking the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters has largely subsided, the dispute is only the opening act of a larger discussion of government needs versus consumer privacy. In this podcast Steve Augustino will explain the importance of the FBI’s reliance on the All Writs Act of 1789, the potential fallout of this case, and where technology is outpacing existing privacy law.

Instagram joins Twitter in embracing algorithmic timelines, Steve Wozniak admits the fabled garage of Apple's origins is a myth, and Napter's Sean Parker is back with an idea to bring theatrical release movies to home on release day, with support from Steven Spielberg, JJ Abrams and Peter Jackson. NOTE: We recorded this episode before the breaking news of the FBI's near total withdrawal from their All Writs Act order against Apple.

Instagram joins Twitter in embracing algorithmic timelines, Steve Wozniak admits the fabled garage of Apple's origins is a myth, and Napter's Sean Parker is back with an idea to bring theatrical release movies to home on release day, with support from Steven Spielberg, JJ Abrams and Peter Jackson. NOTE: We recorded this episode before the breaking news of the FBI's near total withdrawal from their All Writs Act order against Apple.

During the investigation of the San Bernardino shooting the FBI obtained a company iPhone that was used by Syed Farook, one of the assailants. The investigators obtained a warrant to search the phone, but it’s currently locked and the FBI hasn’t been able to access the encrypted data. This prompted the agency to request assistance from Apple to bypass the phone’s security features, but Apple has refused. Does the FBI have the authority to compel a company to re-engineer its own product in order to undermine the security of its own customers? In this episode of Digital Detectives, Sharon Nelson and John Simek interview the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech Privacy and Technology Project Director and principal legal advisor to Edward Snowden Ben Wizner about the legal battle between Apple and the FBI. Wizner begins by explaining The All Writs Act and how it’s being used to coerce Apple, the FBI’s potential objectives in making this request, and what dangers might be present if the FBI prevails. The conversation then shifts to the global implications for all tech companies if the the precedent is set that Apple must aid in helping the FBI get the contents of this phone and what that might mean for the national security of the United States of America – and the privacy of its citizens. Wizner then gives some insights into what it has been like to be the principal advisor for Edward Snowden and what the case has been like for him as a lawyer.

This week, Apple/FBI rages on, Google car drives into a bus, the IRS was hacked worse than we thought, 3D printing has your back, a new Phantom follows you around ...All this and more on The Drill Down. What We're Playing With Andy: Securifi Almond router Dwayne: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny (Netflix) Tosin: Blackbox, Firewatch Headlines Hack Brief: Last Year's IRS Hack Was Way Worse Than We Realized Raspberry Pi 3 with 64-bit quad-core SoC, built-in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth announced for $35 Sony's next big PS4 update brings Remote Play to PC and Mac Google self-driving car crashes into a bus (update: statement) Violence in the West Bank after Waze led Israeli soldiers into Palestinian danger zone Samsung wins appeal in patent dispute with Apple Audible Book of the Week Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War by Fred Kaplan Sign up at AudibleTrial.com/TheDrillDown Music Break: Airbag by Radiohead Hot Topic: Apple/FBI Apple Is Said to Be Trying to Make It Harder to Hack iPhones FBI Director Comey Admits ‘Mistake Made' in Changing Apple Password Apple Files Motion To Dismiss The Court Order To Force It To Unlock iPhone, Citing Free Speech Rights Alphabet, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter in Support of Apple Brooklyn federal judge rules in drug case that government can't use All Writs Act to force Apple to unlock iPhones FBI Director Comey Admits ‘Mistake Made' in Changing Apple Password Here Are the Most Interesting Things Apple and the FBI Said About Encryption Music Break: Get Back by The Beatles Final Word Man has 3D-printed vertebrae implanted in world-first surgery The Drill Down Video of the Week DJI's revolutionary Phantom 4 drone can dodge obstacles and track humans The hardwired Internet:Visualized Subscribe! The Drill Down on iTunes (Subscribe now!) Add us on Stitcher! The Drill Down on Facebook The Drill Down on Twitter Geeks Of Doom's The Drill Down is a roundtable-style audio podcast where we discuss the most important issues of the week, in tech and on the web and how they affect us all. Hosts are Geeks of Doom contributor Andrew Sorcini (Mr. BabyMan), marketing research analyst Dwayne De Freitas, and Box product manager Tosin Onafowokan.

Glenn and Susie are back on the FBI's case, discussing the All Writs Act, whether software is speech, and more. Plus, we have big hopes for the smaller iPhone SE.

Tax software (Turbo Tax vs HR Block), managed IT service standards (check out MSP Alliance), Windows 10 advice (upgrade before free offer expires, backup data first), foistware revealed (don't take unrequested software installs, beware of Express Installations), Profiles in IT (Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google), Apple vs FBI case revealed (All Writs Act of 1989, Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, New York Telephone Supreme Court case, First and Fifth Amendments), and beware of cheap cables (might fry your equipment, use Benson Leung test results for off-brands). This show originally aired on Saturday, February 27, 2016, at 9:00 AM EST on WFED (1500 AM).

Tax software (Turbo Tax vs HR Block), managed IT service standards (check out MSP Alliance), Windows 10 advice (upgrade before free offer expires, backup data first), foistware revealed (don't take unrequested software installs, beware of Express Installations), Profiles in IT (Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google), Apple vs FBI case revealed (All Writs Act of 1989, Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, New York Telephone Supreme Court case, First and Fifth Amendments), and beware of cheap cables (might fry your equipment, use Benson Leung test results for off-brands). This show originally aired on Saturday, February 27, 2016, at 9:00 AM EST on WFED (1500 AM).

Apple made headlines today by refusing to comply with a federal judge's order to unlock the iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the San Bernardino attackers. In an open letter to customers, Apple CEO Tim Cook explained the importance of strong data security and the dangerous precedent that would set by forcing the company to unlock the phone. Evan and Berin discuss the 1789 All Writs Act, which the FBI claims requires Apple to provide “reasonable technical assistance.” Should that include compromising the security of devices? Are we heading down a slippery slope? And how will the court fight play out?