German Lawyers Call For Their Profession's Bug-Ridden, Soon-To-Be Mandatory, Email System To Be Open Sourced
Furnished content.
Given the sensitive nature of their work, lawyers need to take particular care when communicating online. One way to address this -- quite reasonable, in theory -- is to create a dedicated system with strong security built in. That's the route being taken by Germany's Federal Bar Association (Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer -- BRAK) with its "besondere elektronisches Anwaltspostfach" (special electronic mailbox for lawyers, or beA). However, the reality has not matched the theory, and beA has been plagued with serious security problems. As a post on the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) site explains (original in German)Numerous scandals and a questionable understanding of security characterize the project, which has been in development for several years. Lawyers should have been reachable through this software since January 1, 2018, but numerous known vulnerabilities have prevented the planned start of the service....Although a security audit was commissioned and carried out in 2015, its scope and results have not been published to date; the full extent of the faulty programming became known only at the end of 2017. Thus the project, which has cost lawyers so far about 38 million euros, has already lost people's trust. In view of the numerous errors, the confidentiality of the sent messages can no longer be guaranteed -- and this is for software whose use from 2022 onwards becomes mandatory for all court documentation traffic. Because of the continuing lack of transparency about the evident problems with the project, a number of German lawyers are supporting a petition that asks for an alternative approach, reported here by the Open Source Observatory:The petition calls on Germany's Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer (Federal Bar Association, or BRAK) to publish the beA software under a free and open source software licence and open the software development process. "Only in this way can it slowly restore the trust of the users -- all lawyers, authorities and courts," the petition says. As the petition notes (original in German):Disclosure of the program code allows independent IT professionals to report potential security vulnerabilities early on so that they can be fixed; it has been shown once more that keeping the source code secret, and carrying out the audits as agreed in the contract [for creating the beA system] does not lead to the desired result. Free software also guarantees much-needed manufacturer independence. Over and above the increased transparency that open-sourcing the beA code would bring, and the hope that this would allow security issues to be caught earlier, there is another good reason why the German system for lawyers should be released as free software. Since it will perform a key service for the public, it is only right for representatives of the German public to be able to confirm its trustworthiness. This is part of a larger campaign by the FSFE called "Public Money, Public Code", which Techdirt wrote about last year. Unfortunately, what ought to be a pretty uncontroversial idea still has a long way to go, as the painful beA saga demonstrates.Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 16-Mar-2018
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Maryland Court System Arbitrarily Decides Public Should No Longer Have Access To Police Officers' Names
Furnished content.
Supposedly completely of its own volition, Maryland's court system has decided to extend extra rights to law enforcement officers. Going to bat for opacity, the Maryland Judiciary has made it harder for the public to find out what officers are doing (or how often they're being sued). This comes against a backdrop where more sunlight would seem essential, what with several Baltimore police officers facing corruption charges in a wide-ranging investigation that has already netted a handful of convictions and guilty pleas.Citing a favorite cop excuse, the state's courts have decided the public should be less informed.Maryland’s Judiciary on Friday defended a decision to remove the names of police officers and other law enforcement authorities from the state’s searchable public online court database, saying the change was made in response to “safety concerns raised by law enforcement.”The change took effect Thursday, following a decision by a judicial rules committee last June. Officers’ names no longer appear on cases they were involved with, and searches using an officer’s name cannot be performed. The Judiciary claims this "balances" public access to court information with its "obligation" to protect officers from "potential misuse." It did not cite any actual misuse in defense of its position. Nor did it cite any support from law enforcement agencies or "safety concerns" raised by them. While the Anne Arundel County police admitted to lobbying for a change, all the department had asked for was the removal of first names, not removal of officers' names entirely.Multiple law enforcement agencies contacted by The Baltimore Sun expressed their concern with the Judiciary's decision.[T]he Maryland State Police said they had not lobbied for such a change, and the [Baltimore] Police Department said they did not agree with it.A spokesman for Gov. Larry Hogan said: “Public information should be public. End of story.”[...]Baltimore police said they didn’t lobby for a change and “really don’t see why they got rid of what was already publicly available.”“We use it too,” chief spokesman T.J. Smith said of the data. Even more bizarrely, the Judiciary claims this removal only affects "remote access." Supposedly the names of officers can still be accessed by using local court kiosks. This makes no sense. Why would cops be "safer" if their names can only be accessed inside a local court? Wouldn't that make these (apparently imaginary) threats to officer safety much more proximate to the officers affected?Beyond that, there's the fact that kiosk access is limited. Or, in the case of the Baltimore Circuit Court, kiosks are nonexistent. According to the Sun, the Baltimore court runs searches through an "archaic" computer system (not a kiosk) that does not provide the same search options as its online counterpart.Local public defenders were unaware officer information was being removed, which seems to be a key oversight in the process. Public defenders are very much a part of the judicial process, yet they were never informed information they need on a daily basis would no longer be available. Already overworked, public defenders will now be forced to visit courts to access officer information and hope that court has kiosks that actually provide the search functions they need.The Judiciary claims all of this was done in the open and with the consultation of stakeholders. This can't possibly be true since both law enforcement agencies and defense lawyers were apparently unaware of the change until The Baltimore Sun contacted them. The Judiciary's own paper trail suggests this was done under the radar with zero public debate about the rules change.The committee’s annual report from last year shows that the change was made by eliminating a clause in the section “Access to Judicial Records,” which said, “Unless shielded by a protective order, the name, office address, office telephone number and office e-mail address, if any, relating to law enforcement officers, other public officials or employees acting in their official capacity, and expert witnesses, may be remotely accessible.”It was unclear whether the change was debated — the rules committee has not posted minutes of its meetings since April 2016. No one agrees with the Judiciary's change, which is probably why no one was consulted before the change was made. Everyone from city council members to state's attorney candidates to journalists find the change unwarranted, unhelpful, and a serious blow to trust-building efforts between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.This unpopular move from the state judiciary suggests its members will show plenty of deference to law enforcement agencies and officers in the future. And it will continue to do so even when there's plenty of evidence out there showing officers are often untrustworthy, when not completely corrupt. It has a single reason for making this move -- officer safety -- but there's nothing in the judiciary's past that even suggests court records are being used to target police officers. Even local police departments release the names of officers involved in shootings and cases involving apparent excessive force. The Judiciary has decided to roll back transparency at the worst possible time, giving cops extra privileges they weren't even asking for and further damaging the public's trust in their public servants.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 16-Mar-2018
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|