Search

Filters Applied

1

“Hacking Back” a Recipe for Digital Arms Race

“Malicious hacking”—using technological means to penetrate or manipulate the networks, data, or devices of others without permission is a threat to the Internet and to the health of the Internet infrastructure companies that serve as its backbone. “Hacking back” would make us all more vulnerable to more sophisticated and frequent attacks. Our focus should be on protecting networks from intrusion, rather than making them more vulnerable by turning the Internet ecosystem into a digital war zone.

Read More Read More
2

Cross Border Data and Human Rights – Lawfare Blog with Privacy International

CDT’s Greg Nojeim and Privacy International’s Scarlet Kim have authored a blog post about the UK-US cross border law enforcement demands agreement and the legislation the U.S. Department of Justice proposed to clear the way for the agreement. Nojeim and Kim argue that changes are needed to the proposed legislation in order to protect human rights.

Read More Read More
3

European Commission Strategy on Criminal Justice in Cyberspace Can Move the Debate Forward

As part of the European Agenda on Security, the European Commission committed to addressing, among many other things, the challenges law enforcement authorities face when obtaining digital evidence for cross-border criminal investigations. The Council of Europe’s Cybercrime Convention Committee’s progress report provides new and very relevant data that can help inform the efforts towards workable solutions

Read More Read More
5

CDT Challenges Overly Broad Surveillance Demand On Facebook

Today, we joined the ACLU, the NYCLU, and the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in defense of the rights of 381 Facebook users whose records were sought en masse by the Manhattan District Attorney. We filed a brief arguing that Facebook has the right to challenge the warrants on behalf of its users, and to notify its users that the government was seeking the contents of their accounts.

Read More Read More
7

UK Investigatory Powers Bill Imperils Public Safety by Undermining Data Sharing with the US

The British House of Lords reconvenes on September 5, when it will resume consideration of the Investigatory Powers Bill. So far, the British government has failed to adequately address the many troubling aspects of this legislation. If this trend continues, the legislation will pass and confer vast surveillance authorities on British intelligence and law enforcement entities. While this might appear to be a boon to intelligence and law enforcement surveillance, it may turn out to be a bust because it would undermine the United Kingdom’s efforts to strike a data sharing agreement with the United States.

Read More Read More
8

GNI Finds Member Companies In Compliance with Obligations

The Global Network Initiative released a report on the independent assessments of its member companies, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft and Yahoo!, finding each company in compliance with the GNI Principles and Implementation Guidelines. The assessments amount to a demanding inquiry into company practices and processes as they relate to decision making about free expression and privacy.

Read More Read More
9

Congress Begins to Consider Solutions on Cross-Border Law Enforcement Demands

The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on International Conflicts of Law Concerning Cross Border Data Flows and Law Enforcement Requests. CDT believes this is an important, complex issue and we compliment the Committee for taking it up. We ask that Congress ensure that any reforms adopted in this arena do not diminish the privacy and free speech rights of Internet users, and, indeed, encourage stronger protections for these rights.

Read More Read More
10

MLAT Reform: Who Decides?

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. communications service providers rather than having to make the demand through mutual legal assistance processes. In the first post, I examined how the proposal dealt with communications content and in the second, how the proposal should be adjusted to account for cross-border demands for communications metadata.

Read More Read More