Content Types

Coalition Letter to DHS Opposing Surveillance of Activists, Journalists, and Lawyers

A coalition of 103 organizations, legal service providers, and trade associations wrote to DHS to express our deep concern with reports of surveillance and targeting of activists, journalists, and lawyers by the Department of Homeland Security. CBP and ICE-HSI’s actions may violate the Privacy Act of 1974 and threaten the exercise of First Amendment-protected activities, including freedom of speech and association and freedom of the press, as well as the delivery of legal services.

Read More Read More

CDT Brief in Big Brother Watch and Others v. The United Kingdom

CDT filed a brief in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the joined petitions of Big Brother Watch and Others v. United Kingdom, Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Alice Ross v. the United Kingdom, and 10 Human Rights Organisations v. the United Kingdom (collectively called “Big Brother Watch”). Big Brother Watch challenges the United Kingdom’s bulk interception regime by which intelligence agencies tap the fiber cables carrying internet traffic to analyze all electronic data that goes in or out of the U.K. The parties also challenge the intelligence sharing program between the U.K. and U.S., by which the National Security Agency (NSA) shares intelligence with the U.K.

Read More Read More

CDT’s 2018 Annual Report

In CDT’s 2018 Annual Report, President & CEO Nuala O’Connor highlights what an astounding year 2018 was for advancing the privacy rights of all. It’s clear that we must rethink the old paradigms governing our data-driven world and return power to the individual. CDT is leading the way forward.

Read More Read More

Joint Letter to LIBE Committee on Amendments to Terrorist Content Proposal

CDT signed on to this letter to the European Parliament Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee with concerns about the proposal on Preventing the Dissemination of Terrorist Content Online. The letter argues that the content removal time limits set out by Compromise Amendment 4 would entail over-removal of lawful content. The letter also advocates for a more pragmatic approach that would require hosting service providers to execute removal orders “as soon as possible”.

Read More Read More