There are long-overlooked dangers embedded within the adoption of digital technologies—and as society shifts online during the pandemic, consumers and policymakers must figure out how to address those risks.
Latest in Biodefense
Conflicting statements from U.S. leaders are undercutting the credibility of U.S. intelligence on the coronavirus.
While Beijing’s responsibility for violations of international legal obligations seems evident, International Court of Justice precedent on causality and reparations will probably thwart any efforts to make China pay compensation for damages caused by the coronavirus.
In the U.S., efforts to develop digital contact-tracing systems have largely fallen to states and tech companies—though privacy advocates have voiced concerns about the invasiveness of such apps.
Attorney General William Barr’s suggestion that state and local pandemic policies violate the dormant Commerce Clause rings hollow.
The court invoked the nondelegation doctrine to require explicit statutory authorization of electronic surveillance.
With the coronavirus in every state and multiple territories, what emergency authorities do state and territory executives possess to address the public health crisis?
Critics focus on the privacy cost of contact tracing. But it’s important to examine the disparate privacy implications for the most vulnerable communities.
Many legal questions arose after the recent cyber operations against the health sector throughout the world, but there is still little legal conversation at the international level on how to approach these malicious acts that often have dire consequences.
It’s time to start thinking about some broader strategic lessons to draw from the pandemic. For one, our interconnected world is vulnerable to crises.