Information warfare is the use of information to delegitimize rivals and adversaries and/or to push a state’s agenda. The” Weaponizing Information” conference, co-hosted by the Center for Global Legal Challenges and the Information Society Project, will bring together legal, policy, political science, and military experts to discuss the history and future trajectory of information warfare in the internet age.
The Tallinn Manual Journey: Identifying the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations with Michael Schmitt
Michael Schmitt is Chairman & Charles H. Stockton Professor at the US Naval War College’s Stockton center for the Study of International Law and Professor of Public International Law at Exeter Law School in the United Kingdom.
The Center for Global Legal Challenges and the Information Society Project will welcome to campus on Nov. 8, Richard Salgado, Google’s Director for Information Security and Law Enforcement Matters. Salgado is a YLS grad and spent his career lecturing and working in the field of cyber-security.
Dr. Michael Sulmeyer is the Belfer Center's Cyber Security Project director at the Harvard Kennedy School. He recently concluded several years in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, serving most recently as the Director for Plans and Operations for Cyber Policy.
The idea that the US and EU have different perceptions about privacy values is widespread. When describing the U.S. view, much scholarship starts from Warren and Brandeis’ Article “The Right to Privacy” which presents a general and undefined "right to be let alone" connected to a principle of excluding private spheres from public view. This view is very different from common European perceptions of privacy, which are based on concepts of generally applicable fundamental rights.
Cyberwar, mass surveillance, election-related hacks -- technology is reshaping the national security landscape. Join us on October 17 for a conversation with The New York Times' David Sanger, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist who first revealed the Stuxnet worm and whose reporting tracks the foreign policy deliberations of the most senior U.S. officials. Sanger will speak about the latest trends in U.S.
Vivek is Privacy Counsel at Apple Inc., where he is responsible for privacy and security issues associated with Apple's products, services, and corporate infrastructure. Vivek joined Apple from the Privacy, Data Security, and Information Law group at Sidley Austin LLP, where he counseled clients in the technology, telecommunications, healthcare, and financial services sectors.
In the wake of the DNC hack, there has been a flurry of discussion of how both foreign and domestic actors may use new technologies in the attempt to influence the election, ranging from releasing private information to actively hacking voting machines.
This raises a host of legal and political questions regarding the relationship between advanced technologies and the integrity of political processes.
The Fourth Amendment in a Digital World
Fourth Amendment doctrines created in the 1970s and 1980s no longer reflect how the world works. The formal legal distinctions on which they rely—(a) private versus public space, (b) personal information versus third party data, (c) content versus non-content, and (d) domestic versus international—are failing to protect the privacy interests at stake. Simultaneously, reduced resource constraints are accelerating the loss of rights. The doctrine has yet to catch up with the world in which we live. One potential solution to adapting the Fourth Amendment to the digital age lies in acknowledging the acquisition of uniquely identifiable information as per se a search, and thus presumptively unreasonable absent a warrant. This approach is rooted in the right of the people to be secure in their “persons” as well as “papers” and “effects” against unreasonable search and seizure. The Court’s logic inRiley v. California and interests articulated by the shadow majority in United States v. Jones offer promising ways to evaluate reasonableness by focusing on the type and extent of information being collected, the length of the collection, the combination of the data with other information, and the number of individuals whose privacy is thereby compromised, as weighed against the governmental interests at stake.