Critics focus on the privacy cost of contact tracing. But it’s important to examine the disparate privacy implications for the most vulnerable communities.
Susan Landau is Bridge Professor in the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and the School of Engineering, Department of Computer Science, Tufts University. Her new book, "Listening In: Cybersecurity in an Insecure Age," was recently published by Yale University Press. Landau has testified before Congress and briefed U.S. and European policymakers on encryption, surveillance, and cybersecurity issues. Landau has been a Senior Staff Privacy Analyst at Google, a Distinguished Engineer at Sun Microsystems, and a faculty member at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, the University of Massachusetts and Wesleyan University. She is a member of the Cybersecurity Hall of Fame, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the Association for Computing Machinery.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
The novel coronavirus presents unique challenges. "Contact tracing” may not work. But other uses of cellphone data tracking could play some role in mitigating the virus’s spread.
Determining whether surveillance will help combat the virus requires understanding how the coronavirus spreads and how cellphone tracking works.
As the debate over law enforcement access to encrypted communications continues, commentators and policymakers often overlook an instructive historical example.
Rep. Anna Eshoo and Sen. Ron Wyden have written a thoughtful letter calling on law enforcement to employ currently available digital investigative capabilities.
We all remember the conclusions of the January 2017 Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) report:
National Security Agency (NSA) General Counsel Glenn Gerstell presented an interesting and surprising challenge last week, writing in the New York Times that the United States must be ready to face the “profound and enduring implications of the digital revolution.” The essay was interesting in that Gerstell’s writing was almost philosophical, rather than a direct call to action (not exactly a common mode of address for general counsels of intelligence agencies),