If the first round of debates over internet governance focused on whether the internet can be governed, today’s debates are about which states will regulate the internet, how and where. China famously manages a walled garden; Europe has built an extremely robust privacy regime (read: mandated data localization) and seeks to apply its laws extraterritorially; the U.S. has a self-professed “open internet” policy but a series of outdated rules encumber different aspects of U.S. internet firm operations.
Andrew Keane Woods is an Associate Professor at the University of Arizona College of Law. Before that, he was a postdoctoral cybersecurity fellow at Stanford University. He holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a Ph.D. in Politics from the University of Cambridge, where he was a Gates Scholar.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Technology firms are extraordinarily powerful. They control vast sums of money. They serve unprecedentedly large customer bases—in some instances, larger customer bases than any nation on earth (Facebook now has over 2 billion users).
At this particular moment, it is more than reasonable to wonder whether constitutional rights and human rights matter. Fortunately, a large number of legal scholars and political scientists have attempted to answer this question. Unfortunately, they have been using the wrong tools.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Microsoft’s ongoing dispute with the U.S. government over Irish-held data. The lead-up to the case is summarized here and my recap of oral argument is here.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument Tuesday morning in United States v. Microsoft Corp.—a case that readers will by now be familiar with. (See a fantastic summary of Lawfare coverage here).
Robert Mueller’s indictment of Russians suspected of interfering in the 2016 presidential elections is remarkable for a number of reasons. It is remarkable because it suggests that Mueller’s team was able to identify the organizational structure of a group of Russians who were acting in a manner deliberately designed to appear organic and not coordinated.