DOCSLIB.ORG

Aaron Shull, Counsel & Corporate Secretary, the Centre For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aaron Shull, Counsel & Corporate Secretary, the Centre For Aaron Shull, Counsel & Corporate Secretary, The Centre for International Governance Innovation Adam Fisk, President, Lanter Adam Hochschild, Author "King Leopold's Ghost", United States Aditya Vashistha, PhD Student, University of Washington aestetix, NymRights, Co-Founder Alberto Cerda, Founding Member, ONG Derechos Digitales Alejandro Pisanty, National Autonomous University of Mexico and ISOC Mexico Alex Fowler, Global Privacy and Public Policy Leader, Mozilla Alexa Koenig, Executive Director, Human Rights Center, UC Berkeley Alexei Rodriguez, VP Operations, Evernote Ali Akbar Mousavi, Advisor, International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran Ali Kazemi, Associate General Counsel, Tumblr Alix Dunn, Creative Lead, The Engine Room Allen Gunn, Executive Director, Aspiration Allon Bar, Research and Advocacy Coordinator, Ranking Digital Rights Amalia Deloney, Associate Director, Center for Media Justice Amie Stepanovich, Senior Policy Counsel, Access, Amol Mehra, Esq., Director, International Corporate Accountability Roundtable Amr Gharbeia, Researcher, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Egypt Andre Banks, Executive Director, AllOut Andrew Bridges, Fenwick & West LLP Andrew Puddephatt, Director, Global Partners Digital Angela Okune, Research Lead, iHub Research, Anita Ramasastry, Expert, International Corporate Accountability Roundtable Anja Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project Anna Keshelashvili, PhD Student, School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of South Carolina Annie Wilkinson, Human Rights Project Manager, Benetech Antoine Heuty, Founder, Ulula Arthit Suriyawongkul, Researcher, Thai Citizen's Network Arthur Gwagwa, International Liaison Office, Zimbabwe Human Rights NGOs Forum Arzu Geybullayeva, Azerbaijani blogger and journalist Barbra Mack, Technical Project Manager, Benetech Human Rights Program Bart Volkmer, Legal Director, Dropbox Becky Bond, Vice President and Political Director, CREDO Mobile Becky Hurwitz, MIT Center for Civic Media and Research Action Design (RAD) Ben Miller, Georgia State University Ben Wagner, Research Fellow, Annenberg School for Communication at University of Pennsylvania Ben Yen, Former Assistant Legal Attache Bertrand de La Chapelle, Director, Internet and Jurisdiction Project Beth Van Schaack, Visiting Scholar, Center for International Security & Cooperation, Stanford University; Senior Adviser, U.S. Department of State, Office of Global Criminal Justice Bill Marczak, Research Fellow, Citizen Lab Bishakha Datta, Board Member, Point of View India Brad Burnham, Managing Partner, Union Square Ventures Brett Solomon, Executive Director, Access Brian Conley, Co-Founder, Small World News Bryan Nunez, Technology Manager, The Guardian Project Caitlin Stanton, Director, Learning & Partnerships, Urgent Action Fund Camille Francois, Fellow, Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society Carlos Affonso Pereira da Souza, Vice-Coordinator, Center for Technology & Society at the Getulio Vargas Foundation's (FGV) Law School in Rio de Janeiro Carly Jensen Carly Nyst, Head of International Advoacy, Privacy International Carol Waters, LevelUp Project Manager, Internews Carolina Rossini, Project Director, New America Foundation Charles Mok, MP, Legislative Council Charlie Brown, Senior Advisor, Atrocity Prevention and Response, U.S. Department of Defense Chris Albon, "Dr. Data" at Ushahidi Chris Mondini, Vice President, Stakeholder Engagement, ICANN Chris Riley, Senior Policy Engineer, Mozilla Chris Tuckwood, The Sentinel Project Christophe Billen, Founder, People's Intelligence Christopher Wilson, Knowledge Lead and Co-Founder, the engine room Colin Crowell, VP, Twitter Collin Anderson, Independent Researcher Communication, St. John's University Corynne McSherry, Intellectual Property Director, EFF Craig Higson-Smith, Monitoring and Evaluation Adviser, Center for Victims of Torture Craig Vachon, VP Corporate Development, Anchor Free Cristiana Gonzalez, Assessora Técnica, Secretaria Executiva, CGI.br Cynthia Wong, Senior Researcher on the Internet and Human Rights, Human Rights Watch Dalia Haj-Omar, Sudanese Activist Dalia Othman, Research Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet and Society Dalia Topelson, Clinical Instructor, Cyberlaw Clinic, Berkman Center for Internet and Society Dan Bross, Senior Director of Corporate Citizenship, Microsoft Dan Meredith, Director, Open Technology Fund, Radio Free Asia Dan O'Clunaigh, Tactical Technology Collective Daniel Meredith, Director, Radio Free Asia, Open Tech Fund Daniel Ó Clunaigh, Privacy and Expression Programme Coordinator, Tactical Technology Collective Danielle Kehl, New America Foundation Danny O'Brien, International Director, EFF Dave Engberg, CTO, Evernote David Robinson, Principal, Robinson + Yu LLC David Sullivan, Policy and Communications Director, GNI Deborah Brown, Senior Policy Analyst, Access Declan McCullagh, Chief Political Correspondant, CNET Deepak Gupta, Partner, Farella Braun + Martel, LLP Deji Bryce Olukotun, Ford Foundation Freedom to Write Fellow, PEN American Center Del Harvey, Senior Director of Trust and Safety, Twitter Derek Ruths, Director, Networks Dynamics Lab at McGill University Derek Slater, Policy Analyst, Google Diana Olmo, Researcher, The Guardian Project Dlshad Othman, Kurdish Syrian Activist Dmitri Vitliev, Director, eQualit.ie Dorothy Chou, Policy Communications Manager, Google Douglas Arellanes, Co-Founder, Sourcefabric Dr. Feng Congde, Co-Founder, Tiananmen Academy Dr. George Ren, Former Technical Director & Principle Architect Huawei-Symantec Corp Drew Hintz, Security Engineer, Google Ebele Okobi, Global Head & Senior Legal Director, Human Rights, Yahoo Eileen Donahoe, Director of Global Affairs, Human Rights Watch Eleanor Saitta, Principal Security Engineer, OpenITP, New America Foundation Elisabetta Ferrari, Researcher, Center for Media and Communication Studies, CEU Ellery Biddle, Editor, Global Voices Advocacy Elsa D'Silva, Co-founder, Safecity Emi Kane, Program Director, Abundance Foundation Enrique Piracés, Vice President, Human Rights Program, Benetech Erika Smith, Project Coordinator Seguridad Digital para Mujeres, Association for Progressive Communications Esra'a Al Shafei, Director, MidEastYouth.com Eva Galperin, Global Policy Analyst, EFF Ezra'a Al Shafei, Director, MidEastYouth.com Felicity Ruby, Director of Global Internet Policy, Thoughtworks Fieke Jansen, Programme Manager, Digital Defenders Partnership, Hivos Francisco Vera Hott, Derechos Digitales Friedhelm Weinberg, Communications Specialist, Huridocs Fukami, Chaos Computer Club Gabrielle Guillemin, Legal Officer Article 19 Gail Kent, International Cybercrime Strategy, UK National Crime Agency Geoff King, CPJ Internet Advocacy Coordinator, Committee to Protect Journalists Geoffrey King, Internet Advocacy Coordinator, Committee to Protect Journalists Gillian "Gus" Andrews, Senior Program Associate, Open Internet Tools Project Grady Johnson, Associate Technologist, Open Technology Institute Griffin Boyce, Technologist, Open Technology Institute Gustaf Björksten, Technology Director, Access Hae-in Lim, Johns Hopkins University Hanni Fakhcouy, Staff Attorney, Eff Harvey Anderson, Chief Legal Officer, AVG Technologies Helen Brunner, Executive Director, Media Democracy Fund Hu Yong, Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Peking University Ihab Osman, former CEO of Sudatel Irina Raicu, Director, Internet Ethics Program, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics Jacqueline Geis, Head of External Relations, Videre Jake Saperstein, Director of Public Affairs, AT&T James Logan, Program Officer, International Human Rights Programme, Oak Foundation James Vasile, Director, OpenITP, New America Foundation Jamie Tomasello, Policy and Investigation, CloudFlare Inc Jane Shih, Assistant General Counsel, Endurance International Group Janne Teller, Author "Nothing", Denmark Jennifer Lynch, Senior Staff Attorney, EFF Jensine Larsen, Founder & CEO, WorldPulse Jillian York, Director for International Freedom of Expression, Electronic Frontier Foundation Jim Cowie, CTO and Co-Founder, Renesys Jim Finkel, The Leonard and Sophie Davis Genocide Prevention Fellow, United States Holocaust Memorial and Museum, Center for the Prevention of Genocide Jim Fruchterman, Founder/CEO, Benetech (Moderator) Jimmy Schulz , former Member of the German Parliament and Chairman of the German Liberal party for upper Bavaria Jing Zhao, Senior Fellow, US-Japan-China Comparative Policy Research Institute Joana Varon, Internet Governance and Human Rights Researcher, Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV) Jochai Ben-Avie, Policy Director, Access Joe McNamee, Executive Director, EDRi Joe Sullivan, Chief Security Officer, Facebook Johan Hallenborg, Deputy Director Human Rights Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sweden John Fox, Deputy Head, Human Rights & Democracy Department John Tye, US Department of State Jon Camfield, Technologist, Internet Initiatives, Internews Josh Haynes, International Development Specialist, USAID Josh Levy, Internet Campaign Director, Free Press Josh Mendelsohn, Managing Director, Hattery Julie Samuels, Senior Staff Attorney, EFF Karen Naimer, Director of Program on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Physicians for Human Rights Karen Reilly, Public Policy Director, Tor Project Kate Coyer, Executive Director, Center for Media and Communication Studies, CEU Kate Westmoreland, Policy Fellow, from Access Katherin Machalek, Institutional Development Officer, HURIDOCS Katherine Maher, Advocacy Director, Access Katie Shay, Esq., Legal and Policy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Schuchardt V. Obama
    Case 2:14-cv-00705-CB Document 19 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ELLIOTT J. SCHUCHARDT, CIVIL DIVISION individually and doing business as the Schuchardt Law Firm, on behalf Case No. 2:14-cv-00705-CB of himself and all others similarly situated, COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION Plaintiffs, v. CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY BARACK H. OBAMA, in his capacity as President of the United States; JAMES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED R. CLAPPER, in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence; ADM. MICHAEL S. ROGERS, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service; and JAMES B. COMEY, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT The Plaintiff, Elliott J. Schuchardt, individually and doing business as the Schuchardt Law Firm, files this Amended Complaint against the above-captioned Defendants, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated. Parties 1. The Plaintiff, Elliott J. Schuchardt, is an attorney having an office located at United States Steel Building, Suite 660, 600 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. 2. Defendant Barack H. Obama is President of the United States. As such, he has ultimate authority over the actions of the United States federal government. President Obama maintains an address at The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20500. Case 2:14-cv-00705-CB Document 19 Filed 11/24/14 Page 2 of 30 3. Defendant James R. Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence (“DNI”).
    [Show full text]
  • The Whistleno. 101, January 2020
    “All that is needed for evil to prosper is for people of good will to do nothing”—Edmund Burke The Whistle No. 101, January 2020 Newsletter of Whistleblowers Australia ( ISSN 2205-0299) Reviews and articles BOOK REVIEW $9 more than the standard charges of were hell bent on protecting the Catho- surrounding state schools, like Eliza- lic Church’s good name at the expense Walking towards thunder beth Grove Primary and Elizabeth of the “little ones,” the innocent chil- A review of Peter Fox’s book South Primary which charge $241 a dren, who were sexually abused by year. paedophile priests. The safety and well- Reviewed by Maggie Dawkins The Catholic Church continues to being of children in schools and in find other reasons to justify why parents churches were of little consequence for are keeping away from choosing a decades, until good people like Peter POLICE OFFICER PETER FOX worked in the Hunter region of NSW for 36 years, Catholic Education for their kids. The refused to be silenced. rising to Detective Chief Inspector. latest reason, according to the media Walking Towards Thunder docu- Frustrated with decades of cover-ups by report, is to give families access to ments the cover-ups of the behaviour of the Catholic Church of the sexual abuse affordable Catholic education, as the multiple priests by Church luminaries of children by paedophile priests, Peter driving factor for this initiative. There such as Phillip Wilson and George Pell. took the unusual step of publicly is no mention of the devastating impact It shows how the tentacles of each speaking out in support of victims and the revelations from the Royal Com- branch of our civil society failed our their families.
    [Show full text]
  • 10/3/14 Robert II V CIA and DOJ White Paper 1 of 2
    Charles Robert 441 B. West Broadway Long Beach, New York 11561 516-889-2251 10-3-14- White Paper (WP) of the Robert II v CIA and DOJ, cv 02-6788 (Seybert, J) plaintiff reporting his last failed quiet settlement offer, facts that occurred after he filed his August 12, 2014 status letter, and his intent to file his Individual Motion Practice Rule F (2) letter request on October 7, 2014 for a Summary Judgment Motion conference This is the Robert I v CIA, cv 00-4325 (Seybert, J), and Robert II v CIA and DOJ, cv 02-6788 (Seybert, J), plaintiff’s final monthly status report that informs the Court of his last failed attempt for a quiet settlement. The plaintiff reports facts that he learned occurred after he had filed his last August 12, 2014 status letter to the Court re his quiet settlement attempts. See the plaintiff’s monthly status letters that were filed after the plaintiff had filed his Court ordered 12-14-11 Robert II v CIA and DOJ Status Affidavit, http://snowflake5391.net/12-14- 11_RIIvCIAandDOJStatusAffidavit%20.pdf, and his 8-15-12 Robert II v CIA and DOJ Status Affidavit, http://snowflake5391.net/8-15-12_RobertIIvCIA_Status_Affidavit.pdf. On October 3, 2014, the plaintiff informed Judge Seybert of his last failed attempt to secure a quiet settlement. He also informed the Court that the co-defendants’ attorneys CIA General Counsel Caroline Krass and EDNY U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch had not served the plaintiff with co-defendants’ Counter Statement to the plaintiff’s July 28, 2014 “Plaintiff’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts of Motion For Summary Judgment.” Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, the co-defendants had 14 days to serve the co-defendants’ Counter Statement.
    [Show full text]
  • Different Motivators for Whistleblowers and Leakers
    ! DIFFERENT MOTIVATORS FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS AND LEAKERS by Andrew Ghalili A research study submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Global Security Studies Baltimore, Maryland August 2020 "!2020 Andrew Ghalili All Rights Reserved ! ! ABSTRACT What are the motivating factors for U.S. Intelligence Community whistleblowers, and how do they compare to those of leakers? This study seeks to determine the motivators for an individual within U.S. national security, and more specifically within the IC, to whistleblow. Interviews with 12 whistleblowers or leakers were analyzed to determine the factors that motivate whistleblowers and whether they differ from those that motivate leakers. The factors that were coded for include Intention, Education on Whistleblowing, Perceived Personal Cost (PPC), Public Service Motivation (PSM), and Loyalty. The current study adds to the field of whistleblowing research by filling a gap in the existing research, especially as related specifically to U.S. national security. The study finds that whistleblowers express higher levels of PPC, loyalty to institution, and loyalty to law than leakers, while leakers express higher levels of PSM, loyalty to public, and loyalty to self. The implications of these findings on policy within U.S. national security and Intelligence Community organizations are discussed and analyzed, resulting in multiple policy recommendations. This study was read and reviewed by Michael Warner and Anthony Lang. ##! ! ! TABLE OF
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Freedom and Political Space / Olesya Tkacheva, Lowell H
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Support RAND Purchase this document TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND National Defense Research Institute View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This report is part of the RAND Corporation research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for re- search quality and objectivity. Internet &Freedom Political Space Olesya Tkacheva, Lowell H. Schwartz, Martin C. Libicki, Julie E.
    [Show full text]
  • It's Official—NSA Did Keep Its E-Mail Metadata
    It’s official—NSA did keep its e-mail metadata program after it “ended” in 2011 ArsTechnica Related article: Farivar, C. (Aug. 27, 2014). The executive order that led to mass spying as told by NSA alumni. ArsTechnica. LAW & DISORDER / CIVILIZATION & DISCONTENTS It’s official—NSA did keep its e-mail metadata program after it “ended” in 2011 The New York Times gets a new NSA doc confirming what some had long suspected. by Cyrus Farivar - Nov 20, 2015 6:30pm EST Trevor Pagjen Though it was revealed by Edward Snowden in June 2013, the National Security Agency's (NSA) infamous secret program to domestically collect Americans’ e-mail metadata in bulk technically ended in December 2011. Or so we thought. A new document obtained through a lawsuit filed by The New York Times confirms http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/nsa-replaced-secret-e-mail-metadata-program-with-more- expansive-tools/ Page 1 It’s official—NSA did keep its e-mail metadata program after it “ended” in 2011 ArsTechnica that this program effectively continued under the authority of different government programs with less scrutiny from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The bulk electronic communications metadata program was initially authorized by the government under the Pen Register and Trap and Trace (PRTT) provision, also known as Section 402 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Times’ document, a previously-top secret National Security Agency Inspector General (NSA IG) report from January 2007, contains a lot of intelligence jargon but crucially notes: "Other authorities can satisfy certain foreign intelligence requirements that the PRTT program was designed to meet." The bulk electronic communications metadata program was initially authorized by the government under the Pen Register and Trap and Trace (PRTT) provision, also known as Section 402 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Confrontation Or Collaboration? | Congress and the Intelligence Community Intelligence Basics
    Confrontation or Collaboration? Congress and the Intelligence Community Eric Rosenbach and Aki J. Peritz Confrontation or Collaboration? Congress and the Intelligence Community Eric Rosenbach and Aki J. Peritz With contributions from Hope LeBeau, Cynthia Lobosky, Ya’ara Barnoon, Susan Sypko, David Tohn, Jessica Reitz, Tamara Klajn, Sarah Miller and JP Schnapper-Casteras. The Intelligence and Policy Project Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Fax: (617)495-8963 Email: [email protected] Website: http://belfercenter.org Copyright 2009 President and Fellows of Harvard College Printed in the United States of America Design: Tim Duffy The co-sponsors of this report invite liberal use of the information provided in it for educational purposes, requiring only that the reproduced material clearly state: Reproduced from Eric Rosenbach and Aki J. Peritz, Confrontation or Collaboration? Congress and the Intelligence Community (Cambridge, Mass: The Belfer Center, Harvard University, June 2009). With contributions from Hope LeBeau, Cynthia Lobosky, Ya’ara Barnoon, Susan Sypko, David Tohn, Jessica Reitz, Tamara Klajn, Sarah Miller and JP Schnapper-Casteras. Satellite image by GeoEye. Dear Friend, Your work as a lawmaker is one of the toughest and most rewarding jobs in the country. During the course of your service on Capitol Hill, you will undoubtedly need to consider legislation and issues relevant to national security and the Intelligence Community. Your responsibility to oversee the Intelligence Community will not be easy, but I am confident that you will find extraordinary opportunities to protect and pursue America’s interests around the globe.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Essays on Culture and Whistleblowing: a Multimethod Comparative Study of the United States and Japan
    THREE ESSAYS ON CULTURE AND WHISTLEBLOWING: A MULTIMETHOD COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‗I AT MᾹNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT APRIL 2015 By Masahisa K. Yamaguchi Dissertation Committee: Dharm P.S. Bhawuk, Chairperson H. David Bess Kiyohiko Ito O. Nicholas Ordway Kentaro Hayashi, Outside Member i Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ v ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ vii GENERAL INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 Essay 1: Whistleblowing in the Lifeworld I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5 II. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 5 III. Historical Development of Whistleblowing in the United States ......................................................... 7 IV. Historical Development of Whistleblowing in Japan ......................................................................... 24 V. Discussion ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Synergy of Privacy and Speech
    THE SYNERGY OF PRIVACY AND SPEECH Nicole B. Cásarez* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 814 I. UNDERSTANDING THE USA FREEDOM ACT AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 12333 ......................................................................... 822 A. The USA Freedom Act ..................................................... 823 B. Executive Order 12333 ................................................... 827 II. COMMUNICATIONS METADATA AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT .......................................................................... 836 A. Mail Privacy and the Fourth Amendment Path ................... 836 B. Electronic Eavesdropping and False Friends ........................ 838 C. Communications Metadata and the Third Party Doctrine ..... 840 D. The Future of the Third Party Doctrine .............................. 844 III. COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT .... 847 A. The Content/Metadata Distinction and the First Amendment ................................................................. 850 B. Is the Chilling Effect Real? ............................................... 853 C. If a Chilling Effect Exists, Is It Legally Cognizable under the First Amendment? ......................................................... 859 D. The Problem of Standing ................................................. 865 IV. AT THE CONVERGENCE OF PRIVACY AND SPEECH ................... 870 A. “Scrupulous Exactitude” ................................................. 872 B. The Keith Case ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Notes Secrecy, Standing, and Executive Order 12,333
    NOTES SECRECY, STANDING, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 12,333 CHARLOTTE J. WEN* If my experience serves any purpose, it is to illustrate what most already know: courts must not be allowed to consider matters of great importance under the shroud of secrecy, lest we find ourselves summarily deprived of meaningful due process. If we allow our government to continue operating in secret, it is only a matter of time before you or a loved one find yourself in a position like I did - standing in a secret courtroom, alone, and without any of the meaningful protections that were always supposed to be the people’s defense against an abuse of the state’s power. 1 —Ladar Levison, founder of Lavabit * J.D. 2016, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law. With thanks to my friends and family for their unwavering support through law school, and to Professor David Cruz for his invaluable advice and guidance. 1. Ladar Levison, Secrets, Lies and Snowden’s Email: Why I Was Forced to Shut Down Lavabit, GUARDIAN (May 20, 2014, 7:30 PM), http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may /20/why-did-lavabit-shut-down-snowden-email. Ladar Levison is the creator of Lavabit, an email service designed to subvert surveillance through the use of public-key encryption. Id. When the FBI became aware that Edward Snowden was using Lavabit to correspond with journalists, the FBI served Levison with a court order demanding that he turn over Lavabit’s private encryption keys. Id. Levison fought the order in a top-secret proceeding and lost.
    [Show full text]
  • Amid the Coronavirus Pandemic, the Trump Administration Targets Government Watchdogs by William Roberts June 1, 2020
    Amid the Coronavirus Pandemic, the Trump Administration Targets Government Watchdogs By William Roberts June 1, 2020 The Trump administration has undermined government oversight bodies since the president’s first days in office, flouting established norms and practices and blatantly violating ethics laws. Now, even in the middle of fighting the “invisible enemy” that is the COVID-19 pandemic1, the Trump administration has launched an unprecedented attack against inspectors general (IGs)—the individuals and institutions designed to hold the executive branch accountable. Despite being the first president in history to have a bipartisan vote for his removal from office, President Donald Trump celebrated his acquittal following the impeach- ment trial in February by delivering a bellicose victory speech2 in the East Room of the White House. In his hourslong remarks, he attacked both congressional Democrats who brought against him articles of impeachment based on the overwhelming evi- dence corroborating a whistleblower complaint in the Ukraine scandal as well as the oversight process and infrastructure that allowed the whistleblower complaint to be raised in the first place. Since his acquittal, the president has engaged in what many ethics experts3 and mem- bers of Congress on both sides of the aisle see as retribution4 against the persons and institutions that he blames for making him only the third president in U.S. history to be impeached. President Trump’s recent decision to fire Michael Atkinson, the IG for the U.S. Intelligence Community, in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic only validates the concern that Trump and his administration have now trained their sights on the government’s independent watchdogs.
    [Show full text]