Date & Time:
Tuesday, June 29th, 2021
10:30 AM PT | 1:30 PM ET
Explained: A Legal Perspective on the Future of Cybersecurity Research
The Supreme Court’s Van Buren decision earlier this month aimed to clarify the ambiguous meaning of “exceeding authorized access” in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the federal computer crime law.
In the context of protecting critical infrastructure from hackers, this particular ruling will define how we manage, report, and handle unauthorized access.
It also raises some foundational questions that, if weighed carefully, have the potential to foster a collaborative relationship between researchers and companies. How should good-faith researchers conduct themselves? Does this redefine the relationship between companies and hackers? Is every researcher considered to be in violation of CFAA if they’ve not sought permission to access a system?
Jared L. Hubbard and Christopher Hart have followed this ruling closely and worked on amicus briefs to aid the Court in this matter. They will discuss the case and answer questions.
Jared L. Hubbard, Partner, Fitch LP
Christopher Escobedo Hart, Partner, Co-Chair, Privacy & Data Security Practice – Boston, FoleyHoag LLP
Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn to stay in the loop with updates!
Copyright © 2021 Voatz. All rights reserved.
I am confused. I thought the goal of a democratic society was to ensure each citizen of age had the ability and the right to vote. In 2020 there was and still is a pandemic often in history there have been natural disasters these challenges create issues voters have to consider when attempting to voice their intent on who shall represent them at a city, municipal, county, state, or federal level.
Many legislatures, Secretaries of State, or Lieut. Governors decided to expand the ability for voters to vote by mail. Our previous president argued mail-in voting was subject to fraud and built a case or better-said conspiracy theory that would allow him to contest the election of Joe Biden as the 46th president of the United States. Now the GOP is busy attempting to rewrite the law that will remove the ability of those unable to attend the voting place to use mail-in ballots. Why one should ask! To restrict the number and class of people who can vote in a democracy is unacceptable. Our political class should wish and work and make sure our democratic process of voting enables each of us the ability and the right to vote. Any attempt to limit someone’s ability to vote should be classed as a criminal act. By making this statement one could easily argue the GOP are criminals.
Often in history, those who seek power seek to suppress those who wish to also participate. We can only hope the good people of this country will decide that we are a free nation built upon laws that engender respect and seek to include everyone.
In March 2020, I moved from the payments industry into the election industry. This movement caused me to wonder about democracy, politics, academia, and the world of technology. What amazed me is how computer science academics could rail at the idea, technology could be used to innovate on the election process. Years ago I imagined participating in a national referendum simply by opening a browser searching for the government website and voting on the measures and contests currently under consideration.
Unfortunately what I’ve learned troubles me. Certain clusters of intelligent individuals believe that they know best. They stigmatize technology and argue that a human being, who writes software, could leave unintended bugs which might lead to unintended consequences. They forget software is an evolutionary science. Through piloting, continuous improvement, testing, and rigorous testing we can eliminate bugs and create stable and secure critically important applications serving our financial, health, national security, and public interests.
Recently in a letter written by verified voting, a nonprofit organization, the word settled science appeared. An intriguing word, an intriguing phrase. I was driven to wonder what did it mean. From my high school years, science was an evolutionary process. A hypothesis was put forward. it was tested. If it was found to be false a new hypothesis was offered, it was tested and on the scientific community went. In one article when googling “Settled Science” I was intrigued to read the word oxymoron followed by an explanation of how if Sir Isaac Newton’s beliefs had been settled science Albert Einstein would never have been able to put forward the concepts of general relativity.
This whole conversation feels very much like a religion, a church, who has a dogmatic belief in the written word of the Bible being the written and only word of God. We forget how man inserts himself into every dialogue. Too often we insert our beliefs on others. Maybe “Settled Science” is the dogmatic belief that we are right and everyone else is wrong.
If this is the case then how do we move forward? If scientists – academics force there will on society than society has lost its objectivity.