MICHAEL SUSSMAN author of the cover up, or the fall guy??? Notable Media Mentions Hacks, by Donna Brazile (2017) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann’s work helping the DNC respond to Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election is discussed in book by former DNC chair.  The New York Times, “The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.” (12.13.2016) Michael Sussmann was quoted in The New York Times article “The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.” regarding the Democratic National Committee’s email hack. Washington Post, "Russian Government Hackers Penetrated DNC, Stole Opposition Research on Trump" (06.14.2016) Partner Michael Sussmann was quoted in "Russian Government Hackers Penetrated DNC, Stole Opposition Research on Trump," an article in The Washington Post, regarding the hack of the Democratic National Committee's database and the information that was taken. Washington Post, "Once Again, The Government Finds a Way to Crack an iPhone Without Apple’s Help" (04.23.2016) Michael Sussmann was quoted in The Washington Post article, "Once Again, The Government Finds a Way to Crack an iPhone Without Apple’s Help," regarding potential cases that are going to be brought because of encryption software. The New York Times, "Justice Dept. Appeals Ruling in Apple iPhone Case in Brooklyn" (03.07.2016) Michael Sussmann was quoted in "Justice Dept. Appeals Ruling in Apple iPhone Case in Brooklyn," an article in The New York Times, regarding what the Supreme Court is doing with the cases brought against Apple. The Wall Street Journal, "Why Encryption Fight Divides AT&T and Apple" (02.18.2016) Michael Sussmann was quoted in "Why Encryption Fight Divides AT&T and Apple," an article in The Wall Street Journal, regarding Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. Power Wars, by Charlie Savage (2015) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann discussed in New York Times reporter’s book on national security legal issues during the Obama Administration. Washington Post, "NSA Program on Phone Records is Illegal, Court Rules" (05.07.2015) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann was quoted in The Washington Post article, "NSA Program on Phone Records is Illegal, Court Rules," regarding a ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that the NSA’s bulk telephony metadata program is unlawful. "Thursday’s ruling was 'sweeping and unambiguous,' said Michael Sussmann, a former Justice Department official who is now a partner at Perkins Coie practicing surveillance law. 'As the deadline quickly approaches, this is a bombshell that forces everyone to reconsider the political fault lines.'" Dragnet Nation, by Julia Angwin (2014) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann was quoted in investigative journalist’s book addressing the “quest for privacy, security and freedom in a world of relentless surveillance." Federal News Radio, Federal Drive Show Blog (01.20.14) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann was interviewed on Federal News Radio about President Obama’s speech on surveillance reform and the road ahead. Voice of America, "US Phone Companies Fight Possible Changes In Data Collection” (01.15.2014) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann was interviewed by Voice of America News about "a proposal to have the [NSA] transfer its vast records of phone calls to telecommunications companies.” Commenting on the privacy implications of such a change, he said "So an insurance company could issue a subpoena. There could be a court order in a divorce case. For all the other reasons that people would want phone company records, there are that many more records for them to request." Associated Press, "Phone companies balk at proposed data collection changes” (01.14.2014) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann was quoted in a syndicated story (PBS NewsHour, NY Post) regarding the proposal to shift the storage of phone records from the NSA to phone companies.  “It would be enormously costly and burdensome to set up and implement. However you change the system, they would have to handle a greater set of data than they collected before. And more people—of all sorts—will come looking for it.” Washington Post, “If not the NSA, who should store the phone data?” (12.26.2013) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann was quoted in a front-page Washington Post story, "If not the NSA, who should store the phone data?,” discussing alternatives to the NSA’s current practice of storing bulk telephony metadata, such as requiring phone companies to store the data, for later query by NSA after court approval. But the viability of a particular option can only be evaluated after knowing which approach is chosen by the President. “The question is: Is there going to be [a] mend it, don’t end it solution? Or just an end it?’’ said Michael Sussmann, an industry lawyer. “It’ll come down to what the politics will support.” CNN, Erin Brown Out Front, "The NSA's Secret Court" (07.18.2013) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann was interviewed by CNN correspondent Joe Johns on the inner workings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court. Federal News Radio, Federal Drive Show Blog (05.16.2013) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann was interviewed on Federal News Radio about White House Consideration of Expansion to Federal Wiretap Laws. New York Times, "U.S. Weighs Wider Wiretap Laws to Cover Online Activity" (05.08.2013) In a front-page New York Times story, "U.S. Weighs Wider Wiretap Laws to Cover Online Activity," Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann observed that White House-backed legislation that would make all popular Internet communications wiretap-able "appeared to be modeled on a British law, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000." Washington Post, "As Cyberthreats Mount, Hacker’s Conviction Underscores Criticism of Government Overreach" (04.30.2013) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann was quoted in a front-page Washington Post story, "As cyberthreats mount, hacker’s conviction underscores criticism of government overreach," which discussed overzealous cybercrime prosecutions. Commenting on the prosecution of Andrew Auernheimer for collecting 120,000 email addresses from AT&T's iPad registration Web page, Sussmann considered it "borderline" whether Auernheimer had committed a crime, saying the case was "not endemic of an overreaction to cybercrime or overaggressive prosecutions in general," but "[f]orty one months in prison seems like an awfully long time when nothing bad happened." Washington Post, "Panel Seeks to Fine Tech Companies for Noncompliance With Wiretap Orders" (04.29.2013) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann was quoted in a front-page Washington Post story, "Panel seeks to fine tech companies for noncompliance with wiretap orders," which discussed FBI-led efforts to create legislation requiring all communications services to be able to comply with wiretap orders. "Today, if you’re a tech company that’s created a new and popular way to communicate, it’s only a matter of time before the FBI shows up with a court order to read or hear some conversation." "If the data can help solve crimes, the government will be interested." Wall Street Journal, "Wall Street vs. Its Employees' Privacy" (04.22.2013) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann was quoted in a front-page Wall Street Journal story, "Wall Street vs. Its Employees' Privacy," which discussed state legislative efforts to block companies from monitoring employees' personal Facebook and Twitter accounts. Washington Post, "Heavy Documentation of Boston Marathon is an Asset to Investigation" (04.16.2013) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann was quoted in a Washington Post story, "Heavy Documentation of Boston Marathon is an Asset to Investigation," which discussed the "rich stream of possible evidence" drawn from surveillance cameras, personal photos and video footage, and cellphone records. Washington Post, "FBI Surveillance Tool Is Ruled Unconstitutional" (03.16.2013) Privacy Partner Michael Sussmann was quoted in a Washington Post story, "FBI Surveillance Tool Is Ruled Unconstitutional," which discussed the decision by a California federal court to invalidate the statute authorizing national security letters (section 2709 of the Stored Communications Act) because the section's nondisclosure provision violates the First Amendment.