We propose a solution to fix the perceived defects in U.S. surveillance law identified recently by the EU’s judicial branch.
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.
The CJEU invalidated one principal legal method for the transfer of personal data from EU territory to the United States and cast substantial doubt on the validity of the other. What are the consequences of the ruling?
In this moment of true national emergency, how does the public know whether new surveillance programs are necessary?
The advocate general’s opinion details some important new jurisprudence about how the EU may look at foreign intelligence surveillance in the future.
Editor's note: This piece is cross-posted at Just Security.
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.