On Tuesday, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York unsealed a Dec. 20 indictment charging Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who attended the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, with one count of obstruction of justice in an unrelated civil proceeding connected to a money-laundering case.
Latest in MLAT
“Bad for public safety, bad for companies, and bad for privacy,” declared Paddy McGuinness, the United Kingdom’s deputy national security advisor about the current U.S.-U.K. cross-border data access system at a recent congressional hearing. Joining in his view, in June, Google called for major changes to U.S.
Editor’s note: This post also appears on Just Security.
Last week, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on conflicts of law and mutual legal assistance (MLA)—how to fulfill law enforcement requests for stored data in an era when transnational Internet companies often hold data relevant to citizens of numerous countries.
This is the final post in a series analyzing the Daskal-Woods reform proposal for law enforcement demands for communications content across national borders. Daskal and Woods have proposed that countries whose laws and practices meet certain human rights standards, and whose system for cross-border requests includes certain elements, ought to be able to make content disclosure demands directly to U.S.
The on-going debate on encryption and exceptional access for law enforcement agencies to encrypted communication—which recent attacks in Paris and California have only intensified—is also being closely studied in India. How India regulates encryption will be crucial for two reasons. First, India is among the fastest growing digital economies in the world, and its encryption policy could offer a template for other developing countries. What’s more, technology continues to flow from the West to the East but information is now firmly moving in the other direction.
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.
Reading through the news coverage of the Microsoft Ireland warrant case, one thing stands out: nearly everyone agrees that the existing system for managing cross-border law enforcement requests for data is deeply flawed.
Technology companies are being squeezed between U.S. and foreign laws that simultaneously compel, and prohibit, production of data in response to governmental surveillance directives. Thoughts towards a solution.
This week, the Second Circuit heard arguments in the “Microsoft Ireland” case on whether the U.S. government has authority to compel Microsoft directly to turn over data from a server in Dublin. Microsoft, the Irish government, other companies, and civil society groups contend the U.S.