Good to Know — February 18, 2016
What we’re keeping an eye on this week.
How far must tech firms go to help law enforcement? Apple resists judge’s order to unlock an iPhone, setting up high-profile test case.
A federal judge in California on Tuesday ordered Apple to help the Justice Department access data on an iPhone used by one of the attackers in the San Bernardino shooting. Apple will oppose the order, which it says “has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.”
The judge ordered Apple to disable several security features on the attacker’s iPhone. Disabling these features would effectively allow federal authorities unlock the device by guessing its passcode (without triggering erasure of the device’s data after too many failed attempts).
The Justice Department has secured a warrant to search the phone. It argued that the All Writs Act — a centuries old law that says that courts can make people help effectuate their orders — allows the judge to compel Apple’s assistance.
The attacker’s iPhone is an older model, which means that it might be technically possible for Apple to comply with the order. Newer versions of the iPhone, by contrast, are designed with stronger security features that might make such help from Apple infeasible.
Some worry that the order, if approved, would create a troubling precedent. “If the government can compel Apple to provide custom software, why can’t they compel Facebook to customize analytics that predicts the criminality of their user base?” wonders Ahmed Ghappour, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings.
However, the Obama administration and police officers around the country say that tech companies should provide such assistance, reports Matt Apuzzo of the New York Times. “Homes and cars do not have unbreakable locks. You cannot buy an uncrackable safe,” he observes, pointing to precedents of the past.
This order is not the first showdown of its kind. But it involves both Apple and terrorism, and thus might prove to be among the most important.
Novel report exposes disparities in funding for tech startups founded by black women.
A recent report by Digital Undivided’s #ProjectDiane lays bare stark realities for tech startups led by black women. This research evaluated 88 tech companies: of the 88, only 11 raised $1 million or more while the other 77 (almost 88 percent) raised, on average, just $36,000.
The research challenges the “pipeline” argument that’s often made to explain the lack of diversity. As Sherrell Dorsey writes:
lack of education and training … are not the culprits for the lack of talent development and lack of businesses launched by black women in the tech industry. According to the report, 92% of the founders in #ProjectDiane have an undergraduate degree; 60% are alumni of a top-20 ranked school; and 67% of those who raised over $1 million in venture capital are alumnae of Harvard, Columbia, and Northwestern.
Black women founders in this study have similar backgrounds as most startup founders: well-educated and well-equipped as leaders to run high-growth businesses. Most hailed from Ivy League schools, five graduated from top accelerators like 500 Startups and Techstars, and yet, it seems the dilemma of unconscious bias is still a pervasive barrier to receiving adequate funding and the mentorship necessary to get access to funding.
The NYPD has used Stingrays over 1,000 times since 2008, without a written policy governing their use.
The NYPD recently disclosed — thanks to a New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) Freedom of Information Law request — that it has used Stingrays (devices that mimic cellphone towers and can intercept phone signals) nearly 1,016 times between 2008 and May 2015 without a written policy governing their use. Moreover, the NYPD was not required to obtain a search warrant before using the Stingrays — instead electing to obtain lower-level court orders.
The revelations come just a few months after the Justice Department publicly announced new guidelines that govern how federal law enforcement use Stingrays. Under these guidelines, federal agents are required to obtain a warrant from a judge and cannot use the devices to intercept emails or texts. But this guidance does not apply to local law enforcement agencies like the NYPD.
What did the NYPD use the Stingrays for? “They generally involve the most serious offenses: homicide, rape, nonfatal shootings, robberies and other violent crimes. But there are also a few lesser crimes, including identity theft, larceny and money laundering,” writes Joseph Goldstein in the New York Times. “In one 2015 case, the Bronx Homicide Squad appeared to use the device to track down a witness, rather than a suspect. And in a 2011 assault case, it appears that detectives used the device to track a phone, only to realize they were tracking the wrong number.” Read more of our past coverage on Stingrays.
