Law really hasnt kept pace with technology and the way people are using it. If youre a large Multinational Corporation today, and youre providing your own email service. And you have an onpremise email or Cloud Storage service, the government goes to you to get the information. And they serve an order, a subpoena or sometime, a search warrant, on the company itself. It goes to their general counsels office, and they figure out how to respond to it. And theres certain information that they possess that is afforded protections under the law. There is a great fear out there, not just about government obtaining their information, but doing it without their knowledge. And i think, you know, when youre talking about a company considering moving to the cloud, there are a lot of them that are concerned that theyre going to serve Legal Process on microsoft or google or somebody else and get that information without them knowing because of a nondisclosure order. Our position is basically, you we
Email issue with epka. I think for passage we ought to deal specifically with emails so we can get something and amend it as we progress through technology, keeping its mind, the spirit of the Fourth Amendment as well. Thank you very much for your attention. I appreciate it. Thank you. Ill invite our Panel Members to join me here on stage, as formidable panel as one could ask for an event like this. Joining me, we have if youre here, greg new james from i know quite well. A Senior Council of the senate for democracy and technology and the hed of the project on freedom, security and technology and cochair of the american Bar Committee on American Civil Liberties. And an attorney in private practice and director of Legal Services for the American Discrimination Committee as well as Legislative Council at the American Civil Liberties union. A veteran of the fight for judicial privacy and is also a driving force behind the digital due process coalition. We have several members represented
Warrant for content in all cases, it tends to be things that you have to be able to get a search warrant to investigate. So that sort of drives a lot of it. But, you know, the data types and the data fields that are provided are sort of incumbent on what data there is in existence and how long its stored and what specifically they ask for. You know, we typically require them to be very specific in saying what types of data theyre seeking under a request. They cant just issue a search warrant and say give us soandsos data. They have to specify what fields and things they want. Both of you or both Companies Get quite a lot of requests for information for transactional data or activity logs or other kinds of subscriber information, so that takes up the bulk of the requests. Im wondering what those tend to look like and whether thats something that usually is fairly focused, or whether the number of accounts, obviously, are going to be larger than the number of requests to both companies,
Announced that 33 people tested positive for the virus and 8,400 californians are now being monitored. So far there have been 59 confirmed cases in the u. S. , according to the world health organization. Worldwide over 83,000 cases and over 2,800 deaths of the coronavirus have been confirmed. The impact on wall street continues as the dow and s p are on pace for their worst Weekly Performance since 2008. Down more than 10. 5 on the week. Yesterday the dow experienced its single worst day point drop in history plunging nearly 1,200 points while both the zps p 500 closed. And in strong contrast to success earlier this month. The dow closed on a record high february 12th and it only took the s p 500 six days to fall from an alltime high to correction levels marking the fastest drop of that magnitude. This morning the dow futures eae pointing to an opening loss of more than 600 points while the s p and nasdaq also point to lower openings. The effects of coronavirus is already wideranging a
Changes that i asked senator gillibrand to make, and i think it would be worthwhile to outline all the changes that have been made to the bill since they were first introduced. I think they demonstrate good faith of the chairman and senator gillibrand. For instance, senator gillibrands bill originally would have made it a federal crime to transfer two or more guns if that person knew that the result would be a violation of state or local law. That would have given states and localities a oneway incentive to address new gun control measures and force the cost of prosecution and incarceration on the federal government. It also would have created for the first time a situation in which violation of state criminal law was an element of federal offense. She took that provision out at my request. I raised similar concerns about the language in the chairmans bill and you also removed that language. Senator gillibrand also accepted major and minor drafting suggestions, including clarifying wha