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?
Is the FISC failing its responsibilities with respect to the function it performs in the Section 702 program? Given the role the FISC is intended to play with respect to its oversight of the Section 702 program, the answer is no.
The petitioners argue that the First Amendment gives the public the right to access FISC decisions and that redactions should only serve legitimate national security interests.
In a paper we are making public today, we go beyond private right of action and preemption to consider enforcement frameworks outside the privacy field.
In the U.S. legal framework, there is ample precedent for using an executive order or presidential directive to limit intelligence activities and establish safeguards to protect privacy and civil liberties.
The United States now finds itself forced to consider changes to its foreign surveillance law and practices in order to reestablish a stable basis for transatlantic transfers of personal data.
The Fourth Amendment government agency problem requires platforms to walk a fine—and sometimes untenable—line in searching for private user content that contains child sex abuse material and other illegal material.
A new report shows the widespread use by law enforcement of tools that circumvent encryption barriers.
Subscribe to Privacy Paradox: Rethinking Solitude via RSS.