-
-
Lawfare Legal Fellow Saraphin Dhanani sat down with Soli Özel, Senior Lecturer at Kadir Has University in Istanbul and a columnist at Habertürk daily newspaper, to discuss what was at stake in this recen...
-
ChatGPT is generating misinformation about Herb Lin. I should know—I’m Herb Lin.
-
NFTs are used to spread extremism. While they are not yet a major ground for extremism, more research should be directed toward understanding the societal impact of Web3 on security.
-
Would the revised Justice Department News Media guidelines have stopped past overreach?
-
Most notably, the court warned that, if these violations continue, the number of FBI officials with access to FISA-sourced data could be “substantially limited.”
-
-
Domestic terrorism legislation is still useful—even if Jan. 6 rioters have been prosecuted without a federal law on the books.
-
Thursday was sentencing day for some senior Oath Keepers.
-
The FTC shows again that some companies widely share Americans’ health data—and Congress needs to do more.
-
The post-Title 42 rule aims to reduce asylum-seekers’ reliance on unauthorized entry but faces practical and legal hurdles.
-
After Montana’s governor codified a law banning the social media platform, TikTok is claiming that the bill was unconstitutional.
-
The joint advisory warns of the tactics, techniques, and procedures used by a China state-sponsored cyber actor targeting U.S. critical infrastructure organizations.
-
Jack Goldsmith spoke to Jeffrey Toobin about his new book on the bombing and trial called, “Homegrown: Timothy McVeigh and the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism.”
-
This week, Alan, Quinta, and Scott were reunited to celebrate Alan's gradual physical and mental decline, and to talk over the week in national security news.
-
Policymakers can strengthen both the ASDA and ICADA within a national security context, using the CHIPS Act as a model for the drone sector.
-
The United States needs to create a government-wide process to carefully weigh if and when it would ever use deepfakes.
-
The Supreme Court last week issued the biggest opinion in the history of the internet—except that it didn’t.
-
Twitter v. Taamneh alters the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act’s vague aiding and abetting standard but provides limited clarity.
-
The two cases involve the First Amendment implications of public officials blocking others on social media.
.jpeg?sfvrsn=f6228483_5)
.jpg?sfvrsn=ea7a0c3_5)
.jpg?sfvrsn=24f646ff_5)
