If Congress is serious about bending the curve, it shouldn’t allow people to opt out of effective disease-surveillance programs.
Alan Z. Rozenshtein is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School. Previously, he taught law at the Georgetown University Law Center and served as an Attorney Advisor with the Office of Law and Policy in the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
With the right safeguards, aggressive disease surveillance is likely permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
How will the coronavirus outbreak affect government surveillance law? While even the precise short-term effects are hazy, we can already see signs of a permanent and far-reaching expansion of the surveillance state.
Lawmakers have made significant and welcome revisions to the draft bill limiting Section 230 immunity in cases of child-exploitation material.
Judge Reggie Walton’s ruling demanding in camera review of the unredacted Mueller report underscores how much the Trump administration has squandered the executive branch’s goodwill with the judiciary.
If Congress wants to restrict end-to-end encryption, it should do so directly and not, as in the EARN IT Act, pass the buck to someone else.
Alan Dershowitz argues that “[i]f a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”