Hello,

We noticed you're browsing in private or incognito mode.

To continue reading this article, please exit incognito mode or log in.

Not an Insider? Subscribe now for unlimited access to online articles.

A View from Erica Naone

Black Hat: Legal Pitfalls of Investigating Mobile

Researchers studying mobile devices often find themselves on shaky ground.

  • August 5, 2011

Hackers today are testing mobile devices ever more strenuously, but the work often stands on shaky legal ground, according to Jennifer Granick, an attorney for ZwillGen, a law firm that specializes in legal issues related to the Internet. Granick was formerly civil liberties director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Presenting at Black Hat, a computer security conference in Las Vegas, Granick outlined the tricky legal landscape that faces researchers trying to work in mobile. While historically, companies have often been reluctant to open their arms to hackers, mobile devices introduce new challenges, such as having to deal with tangled FCC regulations, and laws that aren’t designed for modern devices.

For example, Granick explained, techniques such as jailbreaking iPhones to run non-Apple approved software are governed under U.S. copyright law. The U.S. Copyright Office reviews its rules every three years, and did add exemptions to allow jailbreaking. However, since the iPad didn’t exist the last time this review happened, jailbreaking these devices exists in a legal limbo.

Just to work on devices often requires taking some legal risk. Companies such as Apple lock down mobile devices and software through restrictive developers’ agreements and end-user license agreements, as well as with technical protections that are backed by law.

One particularly tricky area is location-based services. In many cases, Granick said, how communications are classified can determine how severe the legal risk connected with hacking them becomes. Accessing communications in a way that could be considered wiretapping comes with strict legal penalties, but accessing stored communications is sometimes treated differently. Under some interpretations, Granick said, there might be reason to classify communications between users and companies such as Foursquare so that intercepting them would be considered wiretapping.

Considering the fierce debates already going on around the info that passes through mobile devices, Granick’s talk illustrated the legal difficulties of pinning down exactly what goes on.

Want more award-winning journalism? Subscribe to Insider Plus.
  • Insider Plus {! insider.prices.plus !}*

    {! insider.display.menuOptionsLabel !}

    Everything included in Insider Basic, plus the digital magazine, extensive archive, ad-free web experience, and discounts to partner offerings and MIT Technology Review events.

    See details+

    Print + Digital Magazine (6 bi-monthly issues)

    Unlimited online access including all articles, multimedia, and more

    The Download newsletter with top tech stories delivered daily to your inbox

    Technology Review PDF magazine archive, including articles, images, and covers dating back to 1899

    10% Discount to MIT Technology Review events and MIT Press

    Ad-free website experience

/3
You've read of three free articles this month. for unlimited online access. You've read of three free articles this month. for unlimited online access. This is your last free article this month. for unlimited online access. You've read all your free articles this month. for unlimited online access. You've read of three free articles this month. for more, or for unlimited online access. for two more free articles, or for unlimited online access.