Latest in cross-border data requests
Following the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling in Dobbs this past June, cross-border data requests between states for abortion-related investigations may start to resemble cross-border requests between countries and trigger new conflicts of law.
The context and possible implications of Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe’s opinion in Data Protection Commissions v. Facebook Ireland.
Being an American is tough these days. One has to explain a lot to foreigners that is inexplicable. Then, along comes Europe to show that congential foolishness is not a uniquely American trait. Consider this bit of privacy imperialism from the European Court of Justice. Apparently the court thinks that Canada's data privacy laws—CANADA!—is inadequate to protect European privacy.
Earlier this month Scarlet Kim and Mailyn Fidler posted an extended critique of the proposed US-UK agreement for cross-border law enforcement data requests. The critique was troubling, especially because I have long thought that some form of bilateral or multilateral agreement on cross-border data exchange is necessary to regularize the process and prevent the balkanization of the network.
The United Kingdom has been a key partner in the United States’ efforts to reform the process that law enforcement officials use to make cross-border requests for data. These efforts address both foreign governments’ requests for data stored in the U.S. and reciprocal requests by the U.S. government for data stored abroad. As part of these efforts, the U.S. and the U.K. have negotiated a draft bilateral agreement (“U.S.-U.K.
Recently I participated in a fascinating conference at Georgia Tech entitled “Surveillance, Privacy, and Data Across Borders: Trans-Atlantic Perspectives.” A range of experts grappled with the international aspects of an increasingly pressing question: how can we ensure that law enforcement is able to obtain enough information to do its job in the twenty-first century, while also ensuring that digital security and human rights are protected?
Editor’s note: This post also appears on Just Security.
The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony today on "International Conflicts of Law Concerning Cross Border Data Flow and Law Enforcement Requests." The two-panel hearing included remarks from Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General David Bitkower, Microsoft President and CLO Brad Smith, Michael Chertoff of the Chertoff Group, former AAG for National Security David Kris, and Jennifer Daskal, professor at American University Washington
This is the second post in a series analyzing the Daskal-Woods reform proposal for law enforcement demands for communications content across national borders. In the first post, I examined how the proposal dealt with communications content. Here, I explain why the proposal should also account for cross-border law enforcement demands for metadata.