Yesterday, the EU’s highest court issued a major judgment that effectively invalidates a significant portion of the UK’s recently-passed Investigatory Powers Act (aka the “Snooper’s Charter”). The European Court of Justice (CJEU) judgment holds that “general and indiscriminate” data retention laws are inconsistent with the EU’s privacy directives.
Latest in data
Editor's Note: Data should drive decision-making – the real question is how much should it do so? As big data and data analytics expand, it is tempting to assume they can solve many of the problems foreign policy decision-making has long faced. Chris Meserole, a pre-doctoral fellow here at Brookings unpacks some of the issues involved with big data when it comes to foreign policy and argues that it can inform our strategic reasoning but can’t supplant it.
As the FBI diligently set about following every lead in the San Bernardino shooting case, did it ever stop and take a look at what marketing companies collect? I’m currently participating in a research group examining the implications of the data these companies hold and aggregate, and the potential value to law enforcement investigations immediately came to mind. Private data marketing companies would make even the Stasi blush at the detailed dossiers they now attempt to collect on every American.
Jennifer C. Daskal (Washington College of Law, American University) has a forthcoming paper in Yale Law Journal on the vexing question of territoriality and data (current draft is available on SSRN.com), "The Un-Territoriality of Data." This paper focuses on one important aspect of the "where" of electronic data given the nature of today's Internet technologies - the US Constitutional Fourth Amendment territoriality issues of search and seizure. Here is the SSRN abstract: