This paper explains the capabilities and limitations of tools for analyzing the text of social media posts and other online content. It is intended to help policymakers understand and evaluate available tools and the potential consequences of using them, and focuses specifically on the use of natural language processing (NLP) tools for analyzing the text of social media posts.
Terms like Bitcoin, blockchain, and mining are entering the mainstream — but to the unacquainted, it can be hard to know where to start. How does it all work? On October 18, 2017, CDT fellow and political economist Benjamin Dean discussed the basics of crypto-ledgers, cryptocurrencies, and the associated policy issues. His presentation is available here.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Carpenter v. United States on November 29th. Carpenter centers on whether law enforcement needs a warrant to access 127 days of historic cell-site location information (CSLI). The case is important because of the great quantity of demands for location information now being made by law enforcement, because the location information that is sought is very revealing, and because law enforcement often obtains such data without obtaining a warrant, which increases the likelihood that sensitive location information about innocent people is collected. CDT argued strenuously that the Supreme Court should require law enforcement to get a warrant before accessing CSLI in its amicus brief in Carpenter v. United States. We hope the Supreme Court will agree.
Today, Chairman Ajit Pai released the final order to repeal the net neutrality protections of the 2015 Open Internet Order. The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) remains committed to preserving a strong open internet and strongly opposes the Chairman’s proposal.
Last week, a bipartisan group of House Judiciary Committee members introduced the first bill to reform Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 3989, also known as the USA Liberty Act. It contains many important provisions, including an end to the collection of communications to which the surveillance target is not even party. However, it fails to limit the scope of 702 surveillance and therefore permits the surveillance of people far removed from anti-terrorism goals its proponents cite. In fact, it authorizes surveillance of people engaged in harmless activity.