Difference between revisions of "Session:Regulating Law Enforcement uses of Trojans"

From SHA2017 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{Session |Has session tag=transparency, Government |Is for kids=No |Has description=Implementing a Law to juridically, operationally and technically regulate the uses of Troj...")
(No difference)

Revision as of 20:07, 6 June 2017

Description Implementing a Law to juridically, operationally and technically regulate the uses of Trojan in Italy

The complexity of implementing a policy (law) and related operational and technical procedures to regulate the uses of Trojan by Law Enforcement in a way that protect civil rights while not preventing investigations from going on with the right balance of juridical/technical implementation.

Type Talk
Kids session No
Tags transparency, Government
Processing village Village:ItalianEmbassy, Village:ItalianEmbassy-Talks
Person organizing
Language en - English
en - English
Other sessions...


About the talk

This talk will explain which are the juridical and related technical and operation problems in the uses of Trojan by law enforcement (note: only LEA, we are not speaking of intelligence/NSA/GCHQ/etc).

We’ve setup in Italy a team of a technologist MP, a IT-skilled Lawyers and an Hacker/Privacy Activists, to goes trough the difficult trip to achieve the implementation of a Legislation that works either on paper, either technically that can have a shared consensus among usually opposing parties such as civil rights organization and security apparatus (law enforcement & prosecutors).

We’ll explain the bit of history and experience in setting up such a law (how to do it in your own country!), which are the logical framework, the juridical framework, the operational framework and the technical choices to do it.

We hope that this experience represent a milestone in regulating something (the Trojan) that are here to stay, given the increase of default IP encryption with the corresponding decrease in investigative power trough passive IP surveillance system.

All of this in the context of privacy activism where part of the community fully reject any instance of accepting government hacking instances and in turn criticize this effort.