Internet Law Commons^™

The Department Of Justice Versus Apple Inc. -- The Great Encryption Debate Between Privacy And National Security, Julia P. Eckart

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

This article is an attempt to objectively examine and assess legal arguments made by Apple Inc. (Apple) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning the DOJ’s use of the All Writs Act[1] (AWA) to require Apple to provide technical assistance to the DOJ so that it could access the encrypted data from the locked iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, commonly referred to as the San Bernardino shooter. The DOJ’s initial ex parte application focused on meeting the requirements of United States v. New York Telephone Co.[2] concluding the court order was authorized and appropriate. Apple not only argued …

Electronic Privacy Information Center V. National Security Agency: How Glomar Responses Benefit Businesses And Provide An Epic Blow To Individuals, Joshua R. Chazen

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Wikileaks And The First Amendment, Geoffrey R. Stone

Federal Communications Law Journal

FCBA Distinguished Speaker Series

In November 2010, Julian Assange's WikiLeaks collaborated with major media organizations to release thousands of classified U.S. State Department documents. American soldier Bradley Manning stands accused of leaking those documents to the website. In response, Congress introduced the SHIELD Act to amend the Espionage Act of 1917, making it a crime for any person to disseminate any classified information concerning American intelligence or the identity of a classified informant. Such sweeping language, while possibly constitutional as applied to government employees like Manning, is plainly unconstitutional as applied to those like Assange and WikiLeaks who subsequently publish …

A Soldier's Blog: Balancing Service Members' Personal Rights Vs. National Security Interests, Tatum H. Lytle

Federal Communications Law Journal

This Note examines the competing interests between ensuring military personnel's freedom of speech while protecting national security interests. The Author recognizes the necessity of protecting national security interests but emphasizes that military personnel's rights to free speech must be protected as long as such speech poses no threat to military security. In conclusion, clearer protections must be implemented to protect military personnel's right to free speech.