The idea of enabling the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to contact at-risk entities is a noble one. But the government has done little to address the business community’s concerns of abuse.
Latest in Privacy Paradox
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released partially redacted documents related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s (FISC) authorization of the 2018 certifications under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The FISC initially approved most parts of the certification, but ruled that other aspects of the FBI protocols concerning information regarding U.S. persons were inadequate.
The California Consumer Privacy Act sparked speculation about whether California could apply for adequacy under the General Data Protection Regulation.
The security community should its time and talents making the digital world safer rather than demolishing what trust and security still remain in our technology, our devices, and our infrastructure.
Even if it could be built, “responsible” law enforcement access technology is not responsible at all.
GCHQ officials outline how to enable the majority of the necessary lawful access without undermining the values we all hold dear.
Over the next few days, a series of essays on Lawfare will capture some of the views presented at the Crypto 2018 Workshop on Encryption and Surveillance.
The inquorate privacy watchdog may be back in action soon. If so, it should review the NSA’s call detail records program, Section 702, and the disparate impact of surveillance on minorities.
GDPR derogations will be applied throughout the EU. A few potential state-to-state variations will have implications for privacy and security.
With the nominations of Edward Felten and Jane Nitze to serve on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the White House has done at least one good deed this week.