Surveillance

Increasingly, African governments are looking at the internet as a threat and are using a motley of targeted shutdowns, surveillance, and arbitrary legislation to silence digital users. In the world’s least connected continent, dictators—and some democrats—are realizing they not only need the batons or bullets to stave off criticism but could also power off live feeds to undermine the vibrant conversations taking place online.

On July 9, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. This week, we examine some of Judge Kavanaugh’s decisions on key communications policy issues, like net neutrality, the First Amendment, and surveillance. At 53, Kavanaugh is relatively young, consistent with President Trump's desire to appoint judges who can serve on the High Court for decades. Since 2006, Kavanaugh has served on the U.S.

On his first day as a newly minted nominee to the Supreme Court, more than a half-dozen swing senators made clear that Judge Brett Kavanaugh will have to say the right things on their policy priorities if he wants to get confirmed. Judge Kavanaugh will have to work to gain the vote of a skeptical Sen Rand Paul (R-KY) over the government’s surveillance powers. Sen Paul is never one to give up his vote easily. And he has serious concerns with Kavanaugh’s views on government surveillance.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh's past rulings suggest a reliably conservative voice on tech. His addition to the highest court in the country could vastly reshape the digital landscape. 

The National Security Agency has purged hundreds of millions of records logging phone calls and texts that it had gathered from American telecommunications companies since 2015.

In a new letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR) submitted a slew of new questions concerning how the controversial stingray devices interact with the 911 emergency system. His inquiries come on the heels of efforts in May to scrutinize what the Department of Justice knows about the secretive use of these devices. In addition, Sen Wyden got a new amendment into an appropriations bill that was approved by the Senate on June 25.

[Commentary] The Supreme Court decided June 22 that cell-site location information is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. Carpenter v. United States offers a rare bright spot in the uphill battle for digital privacy. Even more significant than the ruling is the reasoning: The Supreme Court has finally rejected the outdated idea that we voluntarily surrender our privacy simply because we own a digital device.

The secrets are hidden behind fortified walls in cities across the United States, inside towering windowless skyscrapers and fortress-like concrete structures that were built to withstand earthquakes and even nuclear attack. Thousands of people pass by the buildings each day and rarely give them a second glance, because their function is not publicly known. They are an integral part of one of the world’s largest telecommunications networks – and they are also linked to a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program.

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling that police must get a warrant to access the vast trove of location information wireless carriers collect on their customers marks a breakthrough for privacy rights. But the majority in Carpenter v. United States sidestepped key issues about whether police can still access location data in real time or for short periods without a warrant. These gaps will likely give rise to a flurry of new legal challenges --- and are already sparking calls for Congress to step in to fix potential loopholes.

In a major win for privacy rights, the Supreme Court put new restraints on law enforcement’s access to the ever-increasing amount of private information about Americans available in the digital age. In the specific case before the court, the justices ruled that authorities generally must obtain a warrant to gain access to cell-tower records that can provide a virtual timeline and map of a person’s whereabouts. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5 to 4 decision, in which he was joined by the court’s liberal members.