Editor's note: This piece is cross-posted at Just Security.
Peter Swire is the Elizabeth and Tommy Holder Chair of Law and Ethics at the Georgia Tech Scheller College of Business, a Senior Counsel to Alston & Bird LLP, and Senior Fellow of the Future of Privacy Forum. He served as one of five members of President Obama’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
This Lawfare post summarizes a longer essay we are publishing today with the Hoover Working Group on National Security, Technology and Law. Our essay addresses whether governments ever have a justified basis for treating targets of surveillance differently, in any way, based on nationality. This issue is of general importance and has become particularly important in the current legal debates about whether the U.S.
Congress this fall will likely face the first executive agreement negotiated under the new Cloud Act. The U.S. and United Kingdom have been negotiating such an agreement since at least 2016.
On May 22, Attorney General Jeff Sessions will meet with senior European law enforcement officials. In the wake of the Cloud Act, enacted by Congress at the end of March, the possibility of an EU-U.S. agreement on law enforcement access to digital evidence is almost certain to be on the table.
At the end of March, President Trump signed the omnibus budget bill into law.
In a post last week, Neema Singh Guliani of the ACLU and Naureen Shah of Amnesty International disagreed with our earlier arguments as to why the CLOUD Act is good for privacy and human rights.
A dozen privacy and human rights groups have opposed the bipartisan CLOUD Act regulating cross-border data access, claiming that it will erode basic liberties.