Privacy Paradox takes an unorthodox look at the law and policy of contemporary privacy: intelligence reform, the transatlantic divide over data protection and government data collection, and the incipient international law of privacy. What does the "right to be let alone" mean in a world in which we leave digital dust wherever we go and entrust our lives to companies we know to be exploiting our data for commercial gain? Do we want those companies to stand up to government or work with it—or both?
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, in conjunction with the Justice Department, released a March 5 opinion from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The opinion pertains to a proposed novel electronic surveillance technique and its compliance with Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The opinion can be found here and below.
An overlooked part of United States v. Moalin could have a major impact on surveillance law.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has released
The Ninth Circuit declined to rehear en banc a case concerning the application of the state secrets privilege. What were the various claims made in the case?
The Justice Department reported that most of the errors identified by the Office of the Inspector General were minor and none invalidated surveillance authorizations.
The Justice Department's National Security Division released a review of 29 applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants. The 29 applications had been previously examined by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG), which shared its findings in a March report.
Schrems II will certainly affect the U.K.’s future data protection landscape. But the decision’s effects on Britain are not as catastrophic as some observers may have feared.
Subscribe to Privacy Paradox: Rethinking Solitude via RSS.