An official website of the United States government
You can’t question a secret you haven’t been told. The criminal legal system depends on fair and open proceedings to expose and regulate unlawful and unconstitutional police conduct through the courts. If police can use claims of secrecy to systematically thwart criminal defendants’ access to evidence, judicial review will fail. And yet that is exactly what is happening under a common-law doctrine called the “law enforcement privilege.” The privilege empowers police and prosecutors to rely on the results of secret investigative methods while withholding information from the defense about how those methods work. It risks perpetuating unconstitutional conduct, enabling wrongful convictions, and rendering Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Brady, and statutory discovery laws moot. At the same time, it has a non-frivolous policy rationale. If all police investigative methods were public information, then more people committing crimes could evade detection.How can a better balance be struck? This Article argues that current law enforcement privilege doctrine creates a dangerously boundless police secrecy power because of a subtle conceptual collapse: The policy rationale itself is mistakenly used as the test for assessing claims of privilege. The Article recommends that courts instead evaluate privilege claims by reference to the marginal risk of leaking posed by in-court disclosure. Specifically, judges should demand to know what conditions law enforcement previously imposed on access to the information. The answer to that question can be adjudicated publicly without jeopardizing a legitimate privilege claim and will help judges detect mistaken, exaggerated, pretextual, or fraudulent claims to the privilege. Further, even when law enforcement has taken care with the information, if a court-ordered protective order can match or exceed the safeguards that law enforcement itself previously maintained, then judges should default to ordering disclosure. The Article concludes by suggesting a theory of the role of confidentiality in privilege law.
more »
« less
Elevating Corporate Profits Over Individual Liberty: Comparing AI Trade Secret Privilege in Criminal Proceedings with Patent Litigation.
This essay compares the claims of trade secret privilege in criminal proceedings asserted by the creators of AI systems with the assertions of such privilege in patent infringement discovery. This comparison reveals that, in the case of patent infringement, courts have generally limited such privilege assertions. This essay argues that the case for discovery in the criminal context should be stronger, rather than weaker, in the criminal context.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2131504
- PAR ID:
- 10545299
- Publisher / Repository:
- Joe Christenson, Inc
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Houston law review
- ISSN:
- 0018-6694
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
We analyze the Secure Remote Password (SRP) protocol for structural weaknesses using the Cryptographic Protocol Shapes Analyzer (CPSA) in the first formal analysis of SRP (specifically, Version 3). SRP is a widely deployed Password Authenticated Key Exchange (PAKE) protocol used in 1Password, iCloud Keychain, and other products. As with many PAKE protocols, two participants use knowledge of a preshared password to authenticate each other and establish a session key. SRP aims to resist dictionary attacks, not store plaintext-equivalent passwords on the server, avoid patent infringement, and avoid export controls by not using encryption. Formal analysis of SRP is challenging in part because existing tools provide no simple way to reason about its use of the mathematical expression “v + g b mod q”. Modeling v + g b as encryption, we complete an exhaustive study of all possible execution sequences of SRP. Ignoring possible algebraic attacks, this analysis detects no major structural weakness, and in particular no leakage of any secrets. We do uncover one notable weakness of SRP, which follows from its design constraints. It is possible for a malicious server to fake an authentication session with a client, without the client’s participation. This action might facilitate an escalation of privilege attack, if the client has higher privileges than does the server. We conceived of this attack before we used CPSA and confirmed it by generating corresponding execution shapes using CPSA.more » « less
-
We analyze the Secure Remote Password (SRP) protocol for structural weaknesses using the Cryptographic Protocol Shapes Analyzer (CPSA) in the first formal analysis of SRP (specifically, Version 3). SRP is a widely deployed Password Authenticated Key Exchange (PAKE) protocol used in 1Password, iCloud Keychain, and other products. As with many PAKE protocols, two participants use knowledge of a pre-shared password to authenticate each other and establish a session key. SRP aims to resist dictionary attacks, not store plaintext-equivalent passwords on the server, avoid patent infringement, and avoid export controls by not using encryption. Formal analysis of SRP is challenging in part because existing tools provide no simple way to reason about its use of the mathematical expression “v + g b mod q”. Modeling v + g b as encryption, we complete an exhaustive study of all possible execution sequences of SRP. Ignoring possible algebraic attacks, this analysis detects no major structural weakness, and in particular no leakage of any secrets. We do uncover one notable weakness of SRP, which follows from its design constraints. It is possible for a malicious server to fake an authentication session with a client, without the client’s participation. This action might facilitate an escalation of privilege attack, if the client has higher privileges than does the server. We conceived of this attack before we used CPSA and confirmed it by generating corresponding execution shapes using CPSA.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)This essay takes up the incorporation of geospatial materials into international criminal law and its institutional locations, focusing on the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC). We consider how geospatial materials such as satellite imagery are conscripted as legal materials for international criminal trials, and how these relatively novel forms of evidence require interventions of technical knowledge through expert witness testimony. The assemblage of satellite imagery, expert testimony, and submitted reports are subjected to what we call ‘juridical mediation’ – the vetting of materials through interpretive processes that bring them into a relationship with textual forms, such as statutory principles and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. What appears on the other side of this mediated process is a complex and composite relationship between textual, technological, and hermeneutic forms, troubling the claim that geospatial material ‘speaks for itself’.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)This essay takes up the incorporation of geospatial materials into international criminal law and its institutional locations, focusing on the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC). We consider how geospatial materials such as satellite imagery are conscripted as legal materials for international criminal trials, and how these relatively novel forms of evidence require interventions of technical knowledge through expert witness testimony. The assemblage of satellite imagery, expert testimony, and submitted reports are subjected to what we call ‘juridical mediation’ – the vetting of materials through interpretive processes that bring them into a relationship with textual forms, such as statutory principles and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. What appears on the other side of this mediated process is a complex and composite relationship between textual, technological, and hermeneutic forms, troubling the claim that geospatial material ‘speaks for itself’.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- The DOI is not currently available.
