DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing Continuous Evaluation Approaches for Insider Threats How Can the Security Posture of the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing Continuous Evaluation Approaches for Insider Threats How Can the Security Posture of the U.S Assessing Continuous Evaluation Approaches for Insider Threats How Can the Security Posture of the U.S. Departments and Agencies Be Improved? David Luckey, David Stebbins, Rebeca Orrie, Erin Rebhan, Sunny D. Bhatt, Sina Beaghley C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2684 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0194-6 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2019 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: Photo by Andrea Danti / stock.adobe.com. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This exploratory project examines various continuous evaluation (CE) approaches to detecting insider threats that are available to the U.S. government and assesses the rel- evance of these approaches to the challenges posed by such insider threats. Our report defines CE as a vetting and adjudication process to review on an ongoing basis the background of an individual who has been determined eligible for access to classified information or to hold a sensitive position at any time during the period of eligibility. There are potential benefits from CE in effectiveness and cost over the current method of granting security clearances to personnel based on periodic reinvestigation and read- judication. CE, however, has yet to be widely adopted. Over the previous decade, trusted insiders have caused extreme harm to the United States and its citizens. The scope of threats of future attacks by those who have been deemed trustworthy could range from modest to catastrophic. What capabilities exist to combat insider threats? What aspects of CE are being implemented to address insider threats? What are some costs and benefits of CE? What could be considered in the future? In this report, we will explore these and other questions. This report should be of interest to the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Intelligence Community, and all other public and private organizations with cleared populations or that face a higher risk of threat from insiders. This research was spon- sored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and conducted within the Cyber and Intelligence Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute (NDRI), a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the Intelligence Community. For more information on the Cyber and Intelligence Policy Center, see www.rand.org/ nsrd/ndri/centers/intel or contact the director (contact information is provided on the webpage). iii Contents Preface ................................................................................................. iii Figures and Tables ...................................................................................vii Summary .............................................................................................. ix Acknowledgments ................................................................................. xvii Abbreviations ........................................................................................ xix CHAPTER ONE Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 The Traditional Security Clearance Process ........................................................ 1 Methodology ........................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER TWO Insider Threat and Continuous Evaluation Defined ........................................... 7 Insider Threat .......................................................................................... 7 Continuous Evaluation ...............................................................................11 Findings and Recommendations ....................................................................14 CHAPTER THREE Background: Addressing Insider Threats .......................................................17 When Did the United States First Consider Insider Threats and Continuous Evaluation? ........................................................................................17 Are Insider Threats Uniform Across Industry? ....................................................19 Does the U.S. Government Consider Security Negligence a Form of Insider Threat? ...... 20 Findings and Recommendations ................................................................... 22 CHAPTER FOUR What Capabilities Exist to Combat Insider Threats? ........................................ 23 What Are Some Best Practices to Combat Insider Threats? .................................... 23 Could Behavioral Measures Be Used to Combat Insider Threats? ............................. 28 How Are Technical Measures Used to Combat Insider Threats? ...............................31 Findings and Recommendations ....................................................................33 v vi Assessing Continuous Evaluation Approaches for Insider Threats CHAPTER FIVE How Is Continuous Evaluation Implemented Today? ........................................37 How Do Different Sectors Address Insider Threats and Continuous Evaluation Issues? ....37 How Successful Has Continuous Evaluation Been So Far? ..................................... 40 What Are Some Costs and Benefits of Continuous Evaluation? ................................47 What Is Not Continuous Evaluation? ..............................................................49 What Are Some Challenges to Implementing Continuous Evaluation? ....................... 50 Findings and Recommendations ....................................................................51 CHAPTER SIX Conclusion ............................................................................................55 References .............................................................................................57 Figures and Tables Figures 3.1. Five Types of Insiders ....................................................................21 5.1. Estimated Costs of Continuous Evaluation Versus the Current Review System over Time for One Employee................................................. 48 Tables 1.1. Primary Documents for Insider Threat and Continuous Evaluation Standards .................................................................................. 4 2.1. Examples of Different Definitions of Insider Threat by Sector ....................10 2.2. National Insider Threat Task Force Categories of Continuous Evaluation .......13 2.3. GAO Report Findings by Government Entity .......................................14 4.1. Summary of Key Behavioral Models Adapted to Combat Insider Threats .......29 5.1. Descriptions and Results of ACES Pilot Projects ................................... 42 vii Summary The threat from insiders is not new; the fact that there are costs due to national secu- rity and intelligence leaks have been known since the founding of the United States, and the tragedy of physical violence that has been conducted by coworkers is nearly incomprehensible. Over the past decade in particular, trusted U.S. government insiders have murdered fellow workers and physically and psychologically injured others. Insid- ers have also caused what some government experts have estimated as billions of dollars and irreparable damage to the United States through the unauthorized disclosure of national security information.1 U.S. alliances have been negatively affected, domestic and international trust in U.S. institutions has been reduced, and some current and potential federal employees have lost confidence in the ability of the very government they serve to provide for their security.2 The trustworthiness of those who guard the secrets of the United States should be beyond reproach. The United States needs a process and systems that can assess trustworthiness as required. The current security clearance process is based on periodic and aperiodic investigations and adjudication, and this process and the systems that support it are decades old. Technology has advanced significantly since this system was put in place; an updated, improved system and process could capitalize on these tech- nological advancements. The threat from insiders is very real, and this insider threat puts the United States and U.S. government employees at risk. U.S. department and agency data and the physical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Whistleno. 96, October 2018
    “All that is needed for evil to prosper is for people of good will to do nothing”—Edmund Burke The Whistle No. 96, October 2018 Newsletter of Whistleblowers Australia (ISSN 2205-0299) Reality Winner, imprisoned whistleblower Articles National Appreciation Day. The Senate resolu- tion encourages US federal agencies to Whistleblower Day inform IN 1777, ten sailors and marines from employees, contractors working on the ship Warren petitioned the US behalf of United States taxpayers, Continental Congress — the precursor and members of the public about the of the US Congress — to take action legal rights of citizens of the United against their commander, the first States to “blow the whistle” by commodore of the US Navy, who they honest and good faith reporting of alleged was war profiteering and misconduct, fraud, misdemeanors, mistreating prisoners of war. Congress or other crimes to the appropriate supported them, including when the authorities. commander took them to court. On July 30 the following year, the The resolution also acknowledges the US Continental Congress unani- After Whistleblowers Australia formed contributions whistleblowers have mously: in 1991, we were in contact with the made, at their own personal risk, NWC to support Australian whistle- “combating waste, fraud, abuse.” Resolved, That it is the duty of all blowers from the late 1980s, those who The US Congress has not yet desig- persons in the service of the United had forced the 1989 Queensland nated July 30 as National Whistle- States, as well as all other the in- Fitzgerald Inquiry and ones who later blower Day on a permanent basis.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Court of Appeals for The
    Case: 17-15458 Date Filed: 01/31/2018 Page: 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _______________________ No. 17-15458 _______________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. REALITY LEIGH WINNER, Defendant-Appellant _______________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia _______________________ BEFORE: MARTIN, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Reality Winner, who is charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) by allegedly providing a classified top-secret government document to a news organization without authorization, appeals from the district court’s pretrial detention order. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition, or combination of conditions, would reasonably assure Ms. Winner’s presence at trial, which is currently scheduled for March of 2018. See 18 U.S.C. § Case: 17-15458 Date Filed: 01/31/2018 Page: 2 of 5 3142(e)(1). See also United States v. Medina, 775 F.3d 1398, 1402 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that risk of flight under the Bail Reform Act is determined under a preponderance of the evidence standard). Generally speaking, cases arising under the Bail Reform Act present mixed questions of law and fact which receive plenary review on appeal, but purely factual findings are reviewed only for clear error. See United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 487 (11th Cir. 1988); United States v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1465, 1471-72 (11th Cir. 1985). As explained in Hurtado, conclusions concerning the nature and circumstances of the offense and the weight of the evidence under § 3142(g)(1)- (2), as well as the factors set forth in § 3142(c)(1)(B), require the exercise of judgment and are reviewed de novo.
    [Show full text]
  • Informational Materials
    Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 06/15/2021 8:00:44 AM 06/14/21 Monday This material is distributed by Ghebi LLC on behalf of Federal State Unitary Enterprise Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, and additional information is on file with the Department of Justice, Washington, District of Columbia. ‘Summer of Winston Smith’: Car Attack Kills One, Wounds Three at Minneapolis Police Killing Vigil by Morgan Artvukhina At a Sunday protest on behalf of a black man killed by federal police in Minneapolis earlier this month, a car plowed into the crowd, killing one woman and wounding two others. The incident comes more than a year after George Floyd’s murder in the same city and just days after the city tried to dismantle a monument to his memory. Protesters had blocked off an intersection in Minneapolis, Minnesota’s Uptown district on Sunday to draw attention to the police killing of 32-year-old Winston Smith when a speeding SUV slammed into a parked car, sending it flying into a group of demonstrators. One woman, 31-year-old Deona Erickson, died at the hospital after being slammed into a light post by the impact; three others were also hospitalized with less serious injuries, according to local media. The driver of the car was taken to the hospital as well, having reportedly attempted to flee the scene, but was held until police arrived by other protesters, who detained him. Deona Marie. She positioned her vehicle in a way that would protect other protestors in case anyone would attempt to ram into them.
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
    PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT BOARD Semi-Annual Report February 2020 1 2 The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney Report Distribution Chairwoman U.S. House of Representatives Committee In accordance with Section 801 of the on Oversight and Reform Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, the Privacy and Civil The Honorable Jim Jordan Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB or the Ranking Member Board) is providing this Semi-Annual Report, U.S. House of Representatives Committee which covers the period from August 2019 - on Oversight and Reform January 2020, to the President and the Members of Congress listed below. The Honorable Jerrold Nadler Chairman The Honorable Richard Shelby U.S. House of Representatives Chairman Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations The Honorable Doug Collins The Honorable Patrick Leahy Ranking Member Vice Chairman U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations Committee on the Judiciary The Honorable Ron Johnson The Honorable Nita M. Lowey Chairman Chairwoman U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and U.S. House of Representatives Committee Governmental Affairs on Appropriations The Honorable Gary C. Peters The Honorable Kay Granger Ranking Member Ranking Member U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and U.S. House of Representatives Committee Governmental Affairs on Appropriations The Honorable Richard Burr The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson Chairman Chairman U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security The Honorable Mark Warner Vice Chairman The Honorable Mike Rogers U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Julian Assange Judgment
    JUDICIARY OF ENGLAND AND WALES District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Vanessa Baraitser In the Westminster Magistrates’ Court Between: THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Requesting State -v- JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE Requested Person INDEX Page A. Introduction 2 a. The Request 2 b. Procedural History (US) 3 c. Procedural History (UK) 4 B. The Conduct 5 a. Second Superseding Indictment 5 b. Alleged Conduct 9 c. The Evidence 15 C. Issues Raised 15 D. The US-UK Treaty 16 E. Initial Stages of the Extradition Hearing 25 a. Section 78(2) 25 b. Section 78(4) 26 I. Section 78(4)(a) 26 II. Section 78(4)(b) 26 i. Section 137(3)(a): The Conduct 27 ii. Section 137(3)(b): Dual Criminality 27 1 The first strand (count 2) 33 The second strand (counts 3-14,1,18) and Article 10 34 The third strand (counts 15-17, 1) and Article 10 43 The right to truth/ Necessity 50 iii. Section 137(3)(c): maximum sentence requirement 53 F. Bars to Extradition 53 a. Section 81 (Extraneous Considerations) 53 I. Section 81(a) 55 II. Section 81(b) 69 b. Section 82 (Passage of Time) 71 G. Human Rights 76 a. Article 6 84 b. Article 7 82 c. Article 10 88 H. Health – Section 91 92 a. Prison Conditions 93 I. Pre-Trial 93 II. Post-Trial 98 b. Psychiatric Evidence 101 I. The defence medical evidence 101 II. The US medical evidence 105 III. Findings on the medical evidence 108 c. The Turner Criteria 111 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Reality Gets a Harsh Sentence
    REALITY GETS A HARSH SENTENCE With Update Below! As many of you may already know, this morning was the sentencing for Reality Winner. She was sentenced to 63 months of incarcerati on and three years of supervised release upon completion of her term. The supervised release term is rather standard. She will be housed at the Federal Medical Center, Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas. The stated reason was because she is bulimic, but it seems more like a nod to her, and her family, who requested a Texas posting so they would be near. There is no pecuniary fine. I have not seen the official sentencing order yet, but have little to no doubt she will be credited with the time served in pre-trial detention since her arrest on June 3, 2017; i.e. nearly 15 months. So, assuming that, she should be released in about 4 years. Okay, that is the hard nuts and bolts of Ms. Winner’s sentencing. If you want some more background, please see our old friend Kevin Gosztola at Shadowproof, who has been covering all the Reality Winner court appearances. All that said, let me address a couple of things. First, the sentence was not unexpected, indeed it was stipulated to in the plea agreement Ms. Winner both signed and allocuted to in open court. While the court technically “could” have deviated downward, there was little to no chance it would given the plea language. Anybody shocked by today’s sentencing has not been paying attention. Secondly, the government did not “block” Winner’s defenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Against Authority
    AGAINST AUTHORITY Freedom and The Rise of the Surveillance States by John Twelve Hawks for Thomas Pynchon ©2014 by John Twelve Hawks. All Rights Reserved. A LITTLE BOY IN A ROOM OF MIRRORS Both dogs and humans know when we’ve been caged. We sense instinctually when some other person—or an institution—has the power to direct or control our lives. And our first awareness of this reality occurs at an early age. The older kids on the schoolyard are bigger and stronger. They have the power to knock us down and tell us what to do. When I was growing up in the 1950s, I was quite aware of my own powerlessness. I couldn’t tell anyone what to do—not even a first grader. Although my brain was crammed with a great many words, I had a terrible stutter and couldn’t get the words out. Everyone in my elementary school class laughed when I struggled to speak, and sometimes even my teacher had to conceal her smile. By the time I was eight years old, I started to believe that a demon with a perverse sense of humor was in charge of my lips and tongue. On some days, he was a lazy demon, and I could talk on the phone or answer questions in class. Then the demon would get annoyed with me and I would spit and sputter over every word. On Sundays my family attended a Scotch Presbyterian church headed by a conservative pastor who preached about infant damnation. I was confused about the power of baptism, but I definitely understood the concept of hell.
    [Show full text]
  • Replanting Paradise on Page 2
    $4 at Newsstands and Bookstores SocialistViewpoint H The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it. —Karl Marx H JULY/AUGUST 2016 VOL. 16 NO. 4 When Janis Joplin sang, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose,” she spoke perhaps unconsciously for millions of America’s victims in faraway places. Read Get Ready for Another World War on page 17. On the Front Cover: s Capitalism is destroying the planet. Read Replanting Paradise on page 2. French citizens take to the streets to stand up against the One Percent’s relentless attacks on living standards. Read French Stand Up on page 51. Replanting Paradise - Page 2 Let Them Drown, The Violence of Othering in a Warming World - Page 4 Once More on the European Union - Page 32 Supporting the “lesser evil,” because we can’t live with a Trump victory, is a tacit admission that the status quo is tolerable. Read Leap Manifesto - Page 49 Trumpophobia on page 19. Vol. 16, No. 4 SOCIALIST VIEWPOINT BC Muhammad Ali Fighter for Palestine By Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network On the occasion of the passing of leg- United States, and as a force against “U.S. my people is here. I will not disgrace endary athlete and struggler for justice, imperialism worldwide. He wrote poetry my religion, my people or myself by Muhammad Ali, Samidoun Palestinian in tribute to the Black leaders of the Attica becoming a tool to enslave those Prisoner Solidarity Network joins mil- prison uprising. At the height of his who are fighting for their own jus- lions around the world in remembering career, Muhammad Ali refused to fight in tice, freedom and equality.
    [Show full text]
  • United States
    JANUARY 2018 COUNTRY SUMMARY United States The strong civil society and democratic institutions of the United States were tested in the first year of the administration of President Donald Trump. Across a range of issues in 2017, the US moved backward on human rights at home and abroad. Trump has targeted refugees and immigrants, calling them criminals and security threats; emboldened racist politics by equivocating on white nationalism; and consistently championed anti-Muslim ideas and policies. His administration has embraced policies that will roll back access to reproductive health care for women; championed health insurance changes that would leave many more Americans without access to affordable health care; and undermined police accountability for abuse. Trump has also expressed disdain for independent media and for federal courts that have blocked some of his actions. And he has repeatedly coddled autocratic leaders and showed little interest or leadership in pressing for the respect of human rights abroad. The individuals most likely to suffer abuse in the United States—including members of racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, children, the poor, and prisoners—are often least able to defend their rights in court or via the political process. Many vulnerable groups endured renewed attacks on their rights during the year. Other longstanding US laws and practices—particularly related to criminal and juvenile justice, immigration, and national security—continued to violate internationally recognized human rights. Harsh Criminal Sentencing On any given day in the US, there are 2.3 million people in state and federal prisons and jails, the world’s largest reported incarcerated population.
    [Show full text]
  • Calendars of the United States House of Representatives and History of Legislation
    1 ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS CONVENED JANUARY 3, 2017 FIRST SESSION ! ADJOURNED JANUARY 3, 2018 SECOND SESSION ! CALENDARS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND HISTORY OF LEGISLATION FINAL EDITION E PL UR UM IB N U U S FIRST SESSION www.HouseCalendar.gov PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF KAREN L. HAAS, CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: By the Office of Legislative Operations The Clerk shall cause the calendars of the House to be Index to the Calendars will be included on the first legislative day of distributed each legislative day. Rule II, clause 2(e) each week the House is in session U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE : 2018 28–916 2 SPECIAL ORDERS SPECIAL ORDER The Speaker’s policy with regard to special-order speeches announced on February 11, SPEECHES 1994, as clarified and reiterated by subsequent Speakers, will continue to apply in the 115th Congress, with the following modifications. The Chair may recognize Members for special-order speeches for up to 4 hours. Such speeches may not extend beyond the 4-hour limit without the permission of the Chair, which may be granted only with advance consultation between the leader- ships and notification to the House. However, the Chair will not recognize for any special-order speeches beyond 10 o’clock in the evening. The 4-hour limitation will be divided between the majority and minority parties. Each party is entitled to reserve its first hour for respective leaderships or their designees. The second hour reserved to each party will be divided into two 30- minute periods.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trump Administration and the Media: Attacks on Press Credibility Endanger US Democracy and Global Press Freedom
    The Trump Administration and the Media: Attacks on press credibility endanger US democracy and global press freedom By Leonard Downie Jr. with research by Stephanie Sugars A special report of the Committee to Protect Journalists The Trump Administration and the Media: Attacks on press credibility endanger US democracy and global press freedom By Leonard Downie Jr. with research by Stephanie Sugars A special report of the Committee to Protect Journalists The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. We defend the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal. In order to preserve our independence, CPJ does not accept any government grants or support of any kind; our work is funded entirely by contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations. CHAIR VICE CHAIR HONORARY CHAIRMAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Kathleen Carroll Jacob Weisberg Terry Anderson Joel Simon DIRECTORS Jonathan Klein Norman Pearlstine getty images los angeles times Stephen J. Adler reuters Jane Kramer Lydia Polgreen the new yorker gimlet media Andrew Alexander Mhamed Krichen Ahmed Rashid al-jazeera Amanda Bennett David Remnick Isaac Lee Krishna Bharat the new yorker google Rebecca MacKinnon Maria Teresa Ronderos Diane Brayton Kati Marton Alan Rusbridger new york times company lady margaret hall, oxford Michael Massing Susan Chira Karen Amanda Toulon Geraldine Fabrikant Metz the marshall project bloomberg news the new york times Sheila Coronel Darren Walker columbia university Matt Murray ford foundation school of journalism the wall street journal and dow jones newswires Roger Widmann Anne Garrels Victor Navasky Jon Williams Cheryl Gould the nation rté Lester Holt Clarence Page Matthew Winkler nbc chicago tribune bloomberg news SENIOR ADVISERS David Marash Sandra Mims Rowe Christiane Amanpour Charles L.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Observations on the First Amendment and the War on Terror*
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 53 | Issue 2 Article 6 Winter 2018 Observations on the First Amendment and the War on Terror Ofer Raban [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ofer Raban, Observations on the First Amendment and the War on Terror, 53 Tulsa L. Rev. 141 (2017). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol53/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Raban: Observations on the First Amendment and the War on Terror ARTICLE - RABAN, SOME OBSERVATIONS_FINAL (141) (CORRECTED) (DO NOT DELETE) 3/5/2018 8:29 AM SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE WAR ON TERROR* Ofer Raban† Freedom of speech has traditionally suffered at times of war, and the War on Terror—with its related wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—is no exception: since 9/11, formidable pressures have come to bear on the constitutional freedoms of speech and press. As this paper discusses, these pressures have come from all three branches of the federal government. They include increased executive enforcement of existing laws, new legislation targeting terrorism-related speech, and apparent judicial reluctance to vigorously enforce existing constitutional protections. Notably, these allegedly significant impingements on the freedom of speech were achieved without any apparent change in constitutional doctrine. With the War on Terror showing no signs of abating, and with Donald Trump in the White House, this is an opportune time to take stock of these recent impingements on the important freedoms of speech and press, and what we can learn from them.
    [Show full text]