Podcast appearances and mentions of jamil jaffer

As President Donald Trump embarks on a second term, U.S. policy toward Iran stands at a crossroads. The Islamic Republic appears weaker and more isolated than ever, with its proxies severely damaged and domestic unrest threatening the regime’s stability. Yet, Tehran remains dangerously close to acquiring a nuclear weapon and has deepened its ties with Russia and China. Should Trump revive the “maximum pressure” strategy, pursue a more comprehensive nuclear agreement, or back an Israeli strike to prevent Iran from going nuclear? This webinar will explore the strategic choices ahead and their implications for the future of U.S. policy in the Middle East.Featuring: Elliott Abrams, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign RelationsBrian Katulis, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Middle East InstituteModerator: Prof. Jamil Jaffer, Founder & Director, National Security Institute; Assistant Professor of Law & Director, National Security Law & Policy Program at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

To discuss the confirmation hearings of Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence and Kash Patel to lead the FBI, Amna Nawaz spoke with two leading voices in the intelligence community, Frank Montoya Jr., a national security analyst and retired FBI official, and Jamil Jaffer, executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

To discuss the confirmation hearings of Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence and Kash Patel to lead the FBI, Amna Nawaz spoke with two leading voices in the intelligence community, Frank Montoya Jr., a national security analyst and retired FBI official, and Jamil Jaffer, executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

In the third installment of The Dynamist's series exploring AI and copyright, FAI Senior Fellow Tim Hwang leads a forward-looking discussion about how market dynamics, technological solutions, and geopolitics could reshape today's contentious battles over AI training data. Joined by Jason Zhao, co-founder of Story AI, and Jamil Jaffer, Executive Director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University, the conversation moves beyond current lawsuits to examine practical paths forward.The discussion challenges assumptions about who really stands to gain or lose in the AI copyright debate. Rather than a simple creator-versus-tech narrative, Zhao highlights how some creators and talents have embraced AI while others have shown resistance and skepticism. Through Story's blockchain-based marketplace, he envisions a world where creators can directly monetize their IP for AI training without going through traditional gatekeepers. Jaffer brings a crucial national security perspective, emphasizing how over-regulation of AI training data could threaten American technological leadership - particularly as the EU prepares to implement strict new AI rules that could effectively set global standards.Looking ahead to 2025, both guests express optimism about market-based and technological solutions winning out over heavy-handed regulation. They draw parallels to how innovations like Spotify and YouTube's Content ID ultimately resolved earlier digital disruptions. However, they warn that the US must carefully balance innovation and IP protection to maintain its AI edge, especially as competitors like China take a more permissive approach to training data. The episode frames copyright not just as a domestic policy issue, but as a key factor in national competitiveness and security in the AI era.

Subscribe to The Realignment to access our exclusive Q&A episodes and support the show: https://realignment.supercast.com/REALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail Us: realignmentpod@gmail.comLast week, Marshall moderated multiple panels at the Foundation for American Innovation's Reboot 2024: The New Reality. Today's episode is a conversation between Marshall, National Security Institute Executive Director Jamil Jaffer, Galvanick CEO and Trump National Security Council alum Josh Steinman, and SolidIntel CEO and former National Security Advisor to Senator Mitt Romney Megan Reiss. They discuss how America should adapt to an increasingly multipolar world order, what foreign and defense policy should look like in an era of limits, and the prospective foreign policies of former President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Jamil Jaffer, founder and executive director of the National Security Institute and assistant professor of law at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, knows better than anyone the growing threats to national security during these rapidly changing times. In this fast-paced episode of Access to Excellence, Jaffer and George Mason President Gregory Washington discuss the U.S.'s position on the global stage, the power of the American Dream, and what we as citizens can do to start solving some of the country's stickiest problems. 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a brave whistleblower to his allies and a national security threat to his critics, is on the verge of being a free man. Assange is pleading guilty and will be sentenced to time served, allowing him to return to his native Australia. Nick Schifrin reports and has two views on the plea deal from Jamil Jaffer and Trevor Timm. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a brave whistleblower to his allies and a national security threat to his critics, is on the verge of being a free man. Assange is pleading guilty and will be sentenced to time served, allowing him to return to his native Australia. Nick Schifrin reports and has two views on the plea deal from Jamil Jaffer and Trevor Timm. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

A Hartford pastor, Archbishop Dexter Burke from "Walk in the Light" Church of God, has started an armed citizen patrol to bring safety to Garden Street. We talk to him and callers. Then we're joined by Jamil Jaffer from Scalia Law School at George Mason University who tells us the world, to be safe, needs a strong America.

A two-day hearing in a London court room began Tuesday over the fate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. At stake is whether he'll be extradited to the U.S. on espionage charges. Carrie DeCell, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, and Jamil Jaffer, a former senior counsel for the House Intelligence Committee, join William Brangham to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

A two-day hearing in a London court room began Tuesday over the fate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. At stake is whether he'll be extradited to the U.S. on espionage charges. Carrie DeCell, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, and Jamil Jaffer, a former senior counsel for the House Intelligence Committee, join William Brangham to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Seemingly, the United States has been engaged in some armed conflict somewhere in the world for most of our lives.  However, the United States has not had a formal declaration of war since World War II.  How exactly does that happen?  From what authority does the Congress and President engage in war or armed conflict?  What is a Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force and what are its limitations?  How does all of this relate to the almost 2 year long conflict in Ukraine today?  To help us answer all of these worthwhile questions with our all-star student panel, we are delighted to welcome Jamil Jaffer, Founder and Executive Director of the National Security Institute at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, for this discussion on war powers.

Going past what President Biden and President Xi actually said after their meeting in San Francisco, what does it all mean for US-China relations? What happens now? Jamil Jaffer from George Mason University's National Security Institute at the Antonin Scalia Law School explains the major takeaways on military communications, fentanyl, and economic ties.

Facial recognition software. CCTV cameras. License plate readers. Wiretapping. These are all ways that governments employ mass surveillance. Supporters of surveillance technology say these tools are necessary to keep everyone safe. But opponents raise concerns over privacy and human rights abuses. Where do we draw the line? How do we balance individual privacy and collective safety?  Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says our privacy rights are being violated. She cites mass surveillance as yet another example of government overreach and says that it disproportionately targets vulnerable populations, especially people of color. Jamil Jaffer, executive director of the National Security Institute, says that the great majority of people have nothing to worry about, as just a relative few individuals end up on government watch lists. He argues that government surveillance is crucial to our safety and that, at least in the United States, it is much more targeted than people may realize. Listen to the Doha Debates Podcast as these two experts debate liberty, safety, consent and the limits of the law and anonymity in a world with mass surveillance.  Doha Debates Podcast is a production of Doha Debates and FP Studios. This episode is hosted by Joshua Johnson. Thoughts on this conversation? Let us know! Follow us everywhere @DohaDebates and join the post-episode discussion in our YouTube comments.

This week, reports are coming out that the administration actually tried to slow down and delay Israel's ground invasion of Gaza. The Washington Post reports that they wanted Israel to "think this through." Jamil Jaffer from George Mason University's National Security Institute breaks down how this indecision and inaction may have benefited Hamas. 

As the US vows to support Israel... what should we be thinking about when it comes to our foreign policy, our role on the world stage, and leadership? Jamil Jaffer from the National Security Institute at George Mason University explains what happens when the US pulls back from world affairs and why we can and should support both Ukraine and Israel as this conflict is interconnected with Russia and America's other enemies around the world. 

From May 25, 2019: Our friends from the National Security Institute at George Mason University stopped by earlier this week to discuss U.S.-China relations. Lester Munson, Jodi Herman, Jamil Jaffer, and Dana Stroul, former Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffers who collaborated and sometimes competed with one another on the Committee, had a lively discussion about Huawei, cyber and tech security, the South China sea, and Uighur internment.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, join NSI's Jamil Jaffer and the Department of Defense's Jennifer Hay, Director of the Defense Digital Service in the Chief Data and Artificial Intelligence Office of the DOD, and Visiting Fellow at NSI, to discuss how the DOD is grappling with the AI revolution.How have the DOD and NSC's perceptions of AI changed over time? How does the DOD think about trust, safety, and security in regards to big data and AI? Where is the DOD at on AI policy?Thanks for joining Fault Lines and our team of experts for our Summer of AI series, Breaking Barriers: Understanding the AI Revolution!Tune in next Monday, September 18, for the return of our regular Fault Lines programming.Learn more about Ms. Jennifer Hay here:https://www.linkedin.com/in/jkhay/Follow our experts on Twitter:@jamil_n_jafferLike what we're doing here?Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe.And don't forget to follow @masonnatsec on Twitter! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last week, former President Donald Trump was indicted by the U.S. government for allegedly retaining, mishandling, and concealing classified documents after he left office. Charged with 37 criminal counts—including many that stem from the Espionage Act—Trump appeared in a Miami federal court on Tuesday and pled not guilty to the charges brought against him. In this episode, legal experts Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School and Jamil Jaffer of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University join to break down the legal and constitutional significance of the federal indictment. They also discuss potential outcomes of the prosecution, including effects on the upcoming 2024 presidential election; how these charges intersect with other charges being brought against President Trump in other courts including charges brought by the Manhattan district attorney in New York for allegedly falsifying business documents; how other countries around the world deal with heads of state who have been charged with breaking national and international laws; and how the decision to prosecute a president affects rule of law and the future of constitutional democracy.  Resources: United States v. Donald Trump and Waltine Nauta (indictment) Espionage Act: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) The Presidential Records Act (PRA) Oona Hathaway, “What Donald Trump and Reality Winner Have in Common” NY Times, June 11, 2023  Oona Hathaway on Classification of Government Documents, Washington Journal Interview, January 24, 2023 Jamil Jaffer, on “The Lead with Jake Tapper”, June 12th, 2023, Complete Transcript Scott Bomboy, “The question of president immunity back in the spotlight” National Constitution Center, July 24, 2017 Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Last week, we heard rumors that China was in talks with Cuba to establish a base on the island and spy on the US. The White House shut that down. But then, over the weekend, we heard that China had ALREADY established a spy base in Cuba dating back to at least 2019. Jamil Jaffer from George Mason University breaks down the White House's confusing communications and Congress' need to know.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Following the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump, Geoff Bennett discussed the case with two experts in national security and handling classified documents, Oona Hathaway, a former special counsel at the Pentagon, and Jamil Jaffer, who served in the National Security Division at the Justice Department and as associate counsel to President George W. Bush. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Following the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump, Geoff Bennett discussed the case with two experts in national security and handling classified documents, Oona Hathaway, a former special counsel at the Pentagon, and Jamil Jaffer, who served in the National Security Division at the Justice Department and as associate counsel to President George W. Bush. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

The announcement that the Taiwan President will visit the United States in early April has brought renewed attention to the potential conflict between the US and China over Taiwan. Additionally, some experts assert that the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has further intensified the need for the US and China to prepare for a possible military confrontation.Despite this perceived urgency, much of the discourse surrounding a Taiwan conflict focuses on the security concerns motivating both powers and the geopolitical fallout that would occur as a result. Our panel of defense and national security law experts will go beyond this analysis to examine the specific scenarios that could trigger conflict and the strategies that the US might deploy to protect its interests. Join us for a comprehensive discussion on one of the most pressing security challenges of our time.Featuring:-- Col. Mark Cancian, (USMCR, ret.) Senior Adviser, International Security Program, CSIS -- Prof. Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University-- Moderator: Prof. Jamil Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Every government on the planet announced last week an ambition to regulate artificial intelligence. Nate Jones and Jamil Jaffer take us through the announcements. What's particularly discouraging is the lack of imagination, as governments dusted off their old prejudices to handle this new problem. Europe is obsessed with data protection, the Biden administration just wants to talk and wait and talk some more, while China must have asked ChatGPT to assemble every regulatory proposal for AI ever made by anyone and translate it into Chinese law.  Meanwhile, companies trying to satisfy everyone are imposing weird limits on their AI, such as Microsoft's rule that asking for an image of Taiwan's flag is a violation of its terms of service. (For the record, so is asking for China's flag but not asking for an American or German flag.) Matthew Heiman and Jamil take us through the strange case of the airman who leaked classified secrets on Discord. Jamil thinks we brought this on ourselves by not taking past leaks sufficiently seriously. Jamil and I cover the imminent Montana statewide ban on TikTok. He thinks it's a harbinger; I think it may be a distraction that, like Trump's ban, produces more hostile judicial rulings. Nate unpacks the California Court of Appeals' unpersuasive opinion on law enforcement use of geofencing warrants. Matthew and I dig into the unanimous Supreme Court decision that should have independent administrative agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission trembling. The court held that litigants don't need to wend their way through years of proceedings in front of the agencies before they can go to court and challenge the agencies' constitutional status. We both think that this is just the first shoe to drop. The next will be a full-bore challenge to the constitutionality of agencies beholden neither to the executive or Congress. If the FTC loses that one, I predict, the old socialist realist statue “Man Controlling Trade” that graces its entry may be replaced by one that PETA and the Chamber of Commerce would like better. Bing's Image Creator allowed me to illustrate that possible outcome. See attached.  In quick hits:  I update listeners on the fight over renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the FBI's search of its 702 database for messages about Congressman Darin LaHood (R-Ill.). It's far from a scandal, and it may show that the whole effort to treat such searches as shocking privacy intrusions is bogus.  Hackers have claimed deep access to Western Digital systems. The good news is that they seem unable to encrypt it all, so they're relying on doxing threats to earn the ransom they want. The Indian government has given itself authority to “fact check and order the deletion of social media posts. Nobody thinks that's a good idea, but when I ask whether it's all that different from the CDC/social media alliance that suppressed true information during COVID times, Jamil disagrees. If you've missed our conservative catfights, this is a taste of things to come. Download 453rd Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Every government on the planet announced last week an ambition to regulate artificial intelligence. Nate Jones and Jamil Jaffer take us through the announcements. What's particularly discouraging is the lack of imagination, as governments dusted off their old prejudices to handle this new problem. Europe is obsessed with data protection, the Biden administration just wants to talk and wait and talk some more, while China must have asked ChatGPT to assemble every regulatory proposal for AI ever made by anyone and translate it into Chinese law.  Meanwhile, companies trying to satisfy everyone are imposing weird limits on their AI, such as Microsoft's rule that asking for an image of Taiwan's flag is a violation of its terms of service. (For the record, so is asking for China's flag but not asking for an American or German flag.) Matthew Heiman and Jamil take us through the strange case of the airman who leaked classified secrets on Discord. Jamil thinks we brought this on ourselves by not taking past leaks sufficiently seriously. Jamil and I cover the imminent Montana statewide ban on TikTok. He thinks it's a harbinger; I think it may be a distraction that, like Trump's ban, produces more hostile judicial rulings. Nate unpacks the California Court of Appeals' unpersuasive opinion on law enforcement use of geofencing warrants. Matthew and I dig into the unanimous Supreme Court decision that should have independent administrative agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission trembling. The court held that litigants don't need to wend their way through years of proceedings in front of the agencies before they can go to court and challenge the agencies' constitutional status. We both think that this is just the first shoe to drop. The next will be a full-bore challenge to the constitutionality of agencies beholden neither to the executive or Congress. If the FTC loses that one, I predict, the old socialist realist statue “Man Controlling Trade” that graces its entry may be replaced by one that PETA and the Chamber of Commerce would like better. Bing's Image Creator allowed me to illustrate that possible outcome. See attached.  In quick hits:  I update listeners on the fight over renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the FBI's search of its 702 database for messages about Congressman Darin LaHood (R-Ill.). It's far from a scandal, and it may show that the whole effort to treat such searches as shocking privacy intrusions is bogus.  Hackers have claimed deep access to Western Digital systems. The good news is that they seem unable to encrypt it all, so they're relying on doxing threats to earn the ransom they want. The Indian government has given itself authority to “fact check and order the deletion of social media posts. Nobody thinks that's a good idea, but when I ask whether it's all that different from the CDC/social media alliance that suppressed true information during COVID times, Jamil disagrees. If you've missed our conservative catfights, this is a taste of things to come. Download 453rd Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

The world watched as former President Trump was arrested this week. Today, legal expert Jamil Jaffer explains what the charges are about. Then, Republican analyst Scott Jennings shares why he thinks the case is motivated more by politics than criminal justice. Plus, both guests weigh in on what could be coming next for Trump. Sign-up for our weekly email newsletter with extra news stories, random recommendations, listener features and more: www.theNewsWorthy.com/email  Thanks to The NewsWorthy INSIDERS for your support! Get ad-free episodes here: www.theNewsWorthy.com/insider This episode is brought to you by Indeed.com/newsworthy To advertise on our podcast, please reach out to sales@advertisecast.com  

Taiwan's President is transiting the US again... this time in California to meet with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and other US lawmakers. Jamil Jaffer from George Mason University joins Inside Sources to discuss the significance of the meeting, how this impacts our relationship with China, and US policy towards Taiwan. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As Indonesia, Somalia, Niger, and Mauritania may be next to join the Abraham Accords, what interests unify these countries on Accord agreement? What will be the impact of Saudi Arabia’s alignment with Iran? What are the balance of power dynamics for the Iran-concerned Accord countries of Israel, Bahrain, UAE? What binds signatories to the Accords as regional political pressures mount? Discussants will assess the impact of the normalization of relationships they have evolved in the two and a half years since Accords were negotiated. Cultural shifts are already reported after two years of active Accords with Hebrew frequently spoken on the streets of Dubai. Trade has flourished. Flights and overflights are routine. But the United States’ role has shifted for a variety of reasons. Is America’s leadership critical to salutary Accord developments? Featuring: David P. Goldman, President, Macrostrategy LLC Hon. Brian Hook, Founder, Latitude, LLC Prof. Bernard Haykel, Professor of Near Eastern Studies & Director of the Institute for Transregional Study of the Contemporary Middle East, Princeton University Moderator: Prof. Jamil Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University --- To register, please click the link above.

In this weekend episode, three segments from this week's C-SPAN's Washington Journal program. First – a discussion of the legal issues surrounding President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan that was debated before the Supreme Court earlier this week. That discussion with Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center and GianCarlo Canaparo of the Heritage Foundation. Then, Wall Street Journal national security reporter Warren Strobel discusses his reporting on the origins of the Covid-19 virus  Plus, this week was the first hearing of the new Select Committee on China. Jamil Jaffer - founder and executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University – discusses the threats he says is posed by China's communist party. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

2023 is turning out to be a very important year for US-China relations. From the spy balloon to Taiwan to intellectual property theft, the US has to address the China challenge. Jamil Jaffer from George Mason University joins Boyd to discuss why this is a wakeup call for Congress.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Guest host Lee Elci is joined by Founder and Executive Director of the National Security Institute at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, Jamil Jaffer. Jamil breaks down all the issues that are arising due to our open border policies. Also, President of Nichols College in Massachusetts Glenn Sulmasy joins guest host Lee Elci to discuss America's issues with higher education regarding intellectual diversity. Is there freedom of thought or ideas on college campuses? Are college students being taught what to think or how to think? Plus, Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation Charles "Cully" Stimson joins guest host Lee Elci to discuss our military preparedness, the border crisis, & our crime crisis.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What are the next steps for the Jan. 6 committee's criminal referrals against former President Donald Trump and his allies to the Department of Justice? Mary McCord of Georgetown University's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and Jamil Jaffer of George Mason University joined Judy Woodruff to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Tune in for Fault Lines' special annual holiday episode, where some of our favorite panelists return to reflect on the most pressing national security issues of 2022, and what they expected will unfold in 2023. Join Jessica Jones, Jamil Jaffer, Morgan Viña, Martha Miller, Matthew Ferraro, Andy Keiser, and Matthew Heiman as they highlight their Hits and Misses of 2022, as well as take their Fault Lines Final Exam!What do our panelists think will happen to the Iranian regime? What do they think will be the outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war? How do they think the Biden Administration is performing so far, and what do they expect of the Administration in 2023? Find out if our experts passed their final exam, and hear our experts debate and reflect on 2022 and 2023 national security issues! Be sure to join Fault Lines again after the New Year as we resume our regular three-times-a-week schedule on Monday, January 2.Like what we're doing here? Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast delves into the use of location technology in two big events—the surprisingly outspoken lockdown protests in China and the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Both were seen as big threats to the government, and both produced aggressive police responses that relied heavily on government access to phone location data. Jamil Jaffer and Mark MacCarthy walk us through both stories and respond to the provocative question, what's the difference? Jamil's answer (and mine, for what it's worth) is that the U.S. government gained access to location information from Google only after a multi-stage process meant to protect innocent users' information, and that there is now a court case that will determine whether the government actually did protect users whose privacy should not have been invaded.  Whether we should be relying on Google's made-up and self-protective rules for access to location data is a separate question. It becomes more pointed as Silicon Valley has started making up a set of self-protective penalties on companies that assist law enforcement in gaining access to phones that Silicon Valley has made inaccessible. The movement to punish law enforcement access providers has moved from trashing companies like NSO, whose technology has been widely misused, to punishing companies on a lot less evidence. This week, TrustCor lost its certificate authority status mostly for looking suspiciously close to the National Security Agency and Google outed Variston of Spain for ties to a vulnerability exploitation system. Nick Weaver is there to hose me down. The U.K. is working on an online safety bill, likely to be finalized in January, Mark reports, but this week the government agreed to drop its direct regulation of “lawful but awful” speech on social media. The step was a symbolic victory for free speech advocates, but the details of the bill before and after the change suggest it was more modest than the brouhaha suggests. The Department of Homeland Security's Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has finished taking comments on its proposed cyber incident reporting regulation. Jamil summarizes industry's complaints, which focus on the risk of having to file multiple reports with multiple agencies. Industry has a point, I suggest, and CISA should take the other agencies in hand to agree on a report format that doesn't resemble the State of the Union address. It turns out that the collapse of FTX is going to curtail a lot of artificial intelligence (AI) safety research. Nick explains why, and offers reasons to be skeptical of the “effective altruism” movement that has made AI safety one of its priorities. Today, Jamil notes, the U.S. and EU are getting together for a divisive discussion of the U.S. subsidies for electric vehicles (EV) made in North America but not Germany. That's very likely a World Trade Organziation (WTO) violation, I offer, but one that pales in comparison to thirty years of WTO-violating threats to constrain European data exports to the U.S. When you think of it as retaliation for the use of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to attack U.S. intelligence programs, the EV subsidy is easy to defend. I ask Nick what we learned this week from Twitter coverage. His answer—that Elon Musk doesn't understand how hard content moderation is—doesn't exactly come as news. Nor, really, does most of what we learned from Matt Taibbi's review of Twitter's internal discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop story and whether to suppress it. Twitter doesn't come out of that review looking better. It just looks bad in ways we already suspected were true. One person who does come out of the mess looking good is Rep. Ro Khanna (D.-Calif.), who vigorously advocated that Twitter reverse its ban, on both prudential and principled grounds. Good for him. Speaking of San Francisco Dems who surprised us this week, Nick notes that the city council in San Francisco approved the use of remote-controlled bomb “robots” to kill suspects. He does not think the robots are fit for that purpose.   Finally, in quick hits: Meta was fined $275 million for allowing data scraping for personal data. Nick and Jamil tell us that Snowden has at last shown his true colors. Jamil has unwonted praise for Apple, which persuaded TSMC to make more advanced chips in Arizona than it originally planned. And I try to explain why the decision of the DHS cyber safety board to look into the Lapsus$ hacks seems to drawing fire.

This episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast delves into the use of location technology in two big events—the surprisingly outspoken lockdown protests in China and the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Both were seen as big threats to the government, and both produced aggressive police responses that relied heavily on government access to phone location data. Jamil Jaffer and Mark MacCarthy walk us through both stories and respond to the provocative question, what's the difference? Jamil's answer (and mine, for what it's worth) is that the U.S. government gained access to location information from Google only after a multi-stage process meant to protect innocent users' information, and that there is now a court case that will determine whether the government actually did protect users whose privacy should not have been invaded.  Whether we should be relying on Google's made-up and self-protective rules for access to location data is a separate question. It becomes more pointed as Silicon Valley has started making up a set of self-protective penalties on companies that assist law enforcement in gaining access to phones that Silicon Valley has made inaccessible. The movement to punish law enforcement access providers has moved from trashing companies like NSO, whose technology has been widely misused, to punishing companies on a lot less evidence. This week, TrustCor lost its certificate authority status mostly for looking suspiciously close to the National Security Agency and Google outed Variston of Spain for ties to a vulnerability exploitation system. Nick Weaver is there to hose me down. The U.K. is working on an online safety bill, likely to be finalized in January, Mark reports, but this week the government agreed to drop its direct regulation of “lawful but awful” speech on social media. The step was a symbolic victory for free speech advocates, but the details of the bill before and after the change suggest it was more modest than the brouhaha suggests. The Department of Homeland Security's Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has finished taking comments on its proposed cyber incident reporting regulation. Jamil summarizes industry's complaints, which focus on the risk of having to file multiple reports with multiple agencies. Industry has a point, I suggest, and CISA should take the other agencies in hand to agree on a report format that doesn't resemble the State of the Union address. It turns out that the collapse of FTX is going to curtail a lot of artificial intelligence (AI) safety research. Nick explains why, and offers reasons to be skeptical of the “effective altruism” movement that has made AI safety one of its priorities. Today, Jamil notes, the U.S. and EU are getting together for a divisive discussion of the U.S. subsidies for electric vehicles (EV) made in North America but not Germany. That's very likely a World Trade Organziation (WTO) violation, I offer, but one that pales in comparison to thirty years of WTO-violating threats to constrain European data exports to the U.S. When you think of it as retaliation for the use of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to attack U.S. intelligence programs, the EV subsidy is easy to defend. I ask Nick what we learned this week from Twitter coverage. His answer—that Elon Musk doesn't understand how hard content moderation is—doesn't exactly come as news. Nor, really, does most of what we learned from Matt Taibbi's review of Twitter's internal discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop story and whether to suppress it. Twitter doesn't come out of that review looking better. It just looks bad in ways we already suspected were true. One person who does come out of the mess looking good is Rep. Ro Khanna (D.-Calif.), who vigorously advocated that Twitter reverse its ban, on both prudential and principled grounds. Good for him. Speaking of San Francisco Dems who surprised us this week, Nick notes that the city council in San Francisco approved the use of remote-controlled bomb “robots” to kill suspects. He does not think the robots are fit for that purpose.   Finally, in quick hits: Meta was fined $275 million for allowing data scraping for personal data. Nick and Jamil tell us that Snowden has at last shown his true colors. Jamil has unwonted praise for Apple, which persuaded TSMC to make more advanced chips in Arizona than it originally planned. And I try to explain why the decision of the DHS cyber safety board to look into the Lapsus$ hacks seems to drawing fire.

You heard it on the Cyberlaw Podcast first, as we mash up the week's top stories: Nate Jones commenting on Elon Musk's expected troubles running Twitter at a profit and Jordan Schneider noting the U.S. government's creeping, halting moves to constrain TikTok's sway in the U.S. market. Since Twitter has never made a lot of money, even before it was carrying loads of new debt, and since pushing TikTok out of the U.S. market is going to be an option on the table for years, why doesn't Elon Musk position Twitter to take its place?  It's another big week for China news, as Nate and Jordan cover the administration's difficulties in finding a way to thwart China's rise in quantum computing and artificial intelligence (AI). Jordan has a good post about the tech decoupling bombshell. But the most intriguing discussion concerns China's remarkably limited options for striking back at the Biden administration for its harsh sanctions. Meanwhile, under the heading, When It Rains, It Pours, Elon Musk's Tesla faces a criminal investigation over its self-driving claims. Nate and I are skeptical that the probe will lead to charges, as Tesla's message about Full Self-Driving has been a mix of manic hype and lawyerly caution.  Jamil Jaffer introduces us to the Guacamaya “hacktivist” group whose data dumps have embarrassed governments all over Latin America—most recently with reports of Mexican arms sales to narco-terrorists. On the hard question—hacktivists or government agents?—Jamil and I lean ever so slightly toward hacktivists.  Nate covers the remarkable indictment of two Chinese spies for recruiting a U.S. law enforcement officer in an effort to get inside information about the prosecution of a Chinese company believed to be Huawei. Plenty of great color from the indictment, and Nate notes the awkward spot that the defense team now finds itself in, since the point of the operation seems to have been, er, trial preparation.  To balance the scales a bit, Nate also covers suggestions that Google's former CEO Eric Schmidt, who headed an AI advisory committee, had a conflict of interest because he also invested in AI startups. There's no suggestion of illegality, though, and it is not clear how the government will get cutting edge advice on AI if it does not get it from investors like Schmidt. Jamil and I have mildly divergent takes on the Transportation Security Administration's new railroad cybersecurity directive. He worries that it will produce more box-checking than security. I have a similar concern that it mostly reinforces current practice rather than raising the bar.  And in quick updates: The Federal Trade Commission has made good on its promise to impose consent decree obligations on CEOs as well as companies. The first victim is the CEO of Drizly. France has fined Clearview AI the maximum possible fine for not defending a General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) case – unsurprisingly, because Clearview AI does no business in France. I offer this public service announcement: Given the risk that your Prime Minister's phone could be compromised, it's important to change them every 45 days.

You heard it on the Cyberlaw Podcast first, as we mash up the week's top stories: Nate Jones commenting on Elon Musk's expected troubles running Twitter at a profit and Jordan Schneider noting the U.S. government's creeping, halting moves to constrain TikTok's sway in the U.S. market. Since Twitter has never made a lot of money, even before it was carrying loads of new debt, and since pushing TikTok out of the U.S. market is going to be an option on the table for years, why doesn't Elon Musk position Twitter to take its place?  It's another big week for China news, as Nate and Jordan cover the administration's difficulties in finding a way to thwart China's rise in quantum computing and artificial intelligence (AI). Jordan has a good post about the tech decoupling bombshell. But the most intriguing discussion concerns China's remarkably limited options for striking back at the Biden administration for its harsh sanctions. Meanwhile, under the heading, When It Rains, It Pours, Elon Musk's Tesla faces a criminal investigation over its self-driving claims. Nate and I are skeptical that the probe will lead to charges, as Tesla's message about Full Self-Driving has been a mix of manic hype and lawyerly caution.  Jamil Jaffer introduces us to the Guacamaya “hacktivist” group whose data dumps have embarrassed governments all over Latin America—most recently with reports of Mexican arms sales to narco-terrorists. On the hard question—hacktivists or government agents?—Jamil and I lean ever so slightly toward hacktivists.  Nate covers the remarkable indictment of two Chinese spies for recruiting a U.S. law enforcement officer in an effort to get inside information about the prosecution of a Chinese company believed to be Huawei. Plenty of great color from the indictment, and Nate notes the awkward spot that the defense team now finds itself in, since the point of the operation seems to have been, er, trial preparation.  To balance the scales a bit, Nate also covers suggestions that Google's former CEO Eric Schmidt, who headed an AI advisory committee, had a conflict of interest because he also invested in AI startups. There's no suggestion of illegality, though, and it is not clear how the government will get cutting edge advice on AI if it does not get it from investors like Schmidt. Jamil and I have mildly divergent takes on the Transportation Security Administration's new railroad cybersecurity directive. He worries that it will produce more box-checking than security. I have a similar concern that it mostly reinforces current practice rather than raising the bar.  And in quick updates: The Federal Trade Commission has made good on its promise to impose consent decree obligations on CEOs as well as companies. The first victim is the CEO of Drizly. France has fined Clearview AI the maximum possible fine for not defending a General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) case – unsurprisingly, because Clearview AI does no business in France. I offer this public service announcement: Given the risk that your Prime Minister's phone could be compromised, it's important to change them every 45 days.

The House Jan. 6 committee held its latest hearing on Thursday. Mary McCord, director of Georgetown University's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, and Jamil Jaffer, a law professor at George Mason University, joined Amna Nawaz to discuss what was revealed. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Jamil Jaffer, founder and executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, talks to host Rich Goldberg about Tornado Cash, regulating cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, the possible weaponization of crypto by U.S. adversaries, privacy concerns, human rights and more.

For a preview on the Jan. 6 hearings Thursday, we turn to two individuals who have been following the proceedings closely. Carol Leonnig, an investigative reporter at The Washington Post, and Jamil Jaffer, a law professor at George Mason University and former associate counsel to President George W. Bush, join Judy Woodruff to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Kicking off a packed episode, the Cyberlaw Podcast calls on Megan Stifel to cover the first Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB) Report. The CSRB does exactly what those of us who supported the idea hoped it would do—provide an authoritative view of how the Log4J incident unfolded along with some practical advice for cybersecurity executives and government officials. Jamil Jaffer tees up the second blockbuster report of the week, a Council on Foreign Relations study called “Confronting Reality in Cyberspace Foreign Policy for a Fragmented Internet.” I think the study's best contribution is its demolition of the industry-led claim that we must have a single global internet. That has not been true for a decade, and pursuing that vision means that the U.S. is not defending its own interests in cyberspace. I call out the report for the utterly wrong claim that the United States can resolve its transatlantic dispute with Europe by adopting a European-style privacy law. Europe's beef with us on privacy reregulation of private industry is over (we surrendered); now the fight is over Europe's demand that we rewrite our intelligence and counterterrorism laws. Jamil Jaffer and I debate both propositions. Megan discloses the top cybersecurity provisions added to the House defense authorization bill—notably the five year term for the head of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and a cybersecurity regulatory regime for systemically critical industry. The Senate hasn't weighed in yet, but both provisions now look more likely than not to become law. Regulatory cybersecurity measures look like the flavor of the month. The Biden White House is developing a cybersecurity strategy that is expected to encourage more regulation. Jamil reports on the development but is clearly hoping that the prediction of more regulation does not come true. Speaking of cybersecurity regulation, Megan kicks off a discussion of Department of Homeland Security's CISA weighing in to encourage new regulation from the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to incentivize a shoring up of the Border Gateway Protocol's security. Jamil thinks the FCC will do better looking for incentives than punishments.  Tatyana Bolton and I try to unpack a recent smart contract hack and the confused debate about whether “Code is Law” in web3. Answer: it is not, and never was, but that does not turn the hacking of a smart contract into a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Megan covers North Korea's tactic for earning dollars while trying to infiltrate U.S. crypto firms—getting remote work employment at the firms as coders. I wonder why LinkedIn is not doing more to stop scammers like this, given the company's much richer trove of data about job applicants using the site. Not to be outdone, other ransomware gangs are now adding to the threat of doxing their victims by making it easier to search their stolen data. Jamil and I debate the best way to counter the tactic. Tatyana reports on Sen. Mark Warner's, effort to strongarm the intelligence community into supporting Sen. Amy Klobuchar's antitrust law aimed at the biggest tech platforms— despite its inadequate protections for national security. Jamil discounts as old news the Uber leak. We didn't learn much from the coverage that we didn't already know about Uber's highhanded approach in the teens to taxi monopolies and government.   Jamil and I endorse the efforts of a Utah startup devoted to following China's IP theft using China's surprisingly open information. Why Utah, you ask? We've got the answer. In quick hits and updates:  Josh Schulte has finally been convicted for one of the most damaging intelligence leaks in history.  Google gets grudging respect from me for its political jiu-jitsu. Faced with a smoking gun of political bias after spam-blocking GOP but not Dem fundraising messages, Google managed to kick off outrage by saying it wanted to fix the problem by forcing political spam on all its users. Now the GOP will have to explain that it's not trying to send us more spam; it just wants Gmail to stop favoring lefty spam.  And, finally, we all get to enjoy the story of the bored Chinese housewife who created a complete universe of fake Russian history on China's Wikipedia. She's promised to stop, but I suspect she's just been hired to work for the world's most active producer of fake history—China's Ministry of State Security.

From April 9, 2019: On this episode of the Lawfare Podcast, our friends at the National Security Institute at George Mason University came over to have a discussion in our podcast studio about Yemen and the U.S.-Saudi alliance. Four former Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffers who worked with and sometimes at odds with each other participated. The conversation was moderated by Lester Munson, former Staff Director of the Committee under Chairman Bob Corker, and it included Jodi Herman, former Staff Director of the Committee under Ranking Member Ben Cardin; Jamil Jaffer, Founder and Executive Director of the National Security Institute and former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor with the Committee under Chairman Bob Corker; and Dana Stroul, former Democratic senior staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the Middle East.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Much of the evidence presented Tuesday during the Jan. 6 hearing was about what former President Trump did and didn't do surrounding the violent Capitol insurrection. Mary McCord, director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, and Jamil Jaffer, a law professor at George Mason University and former associate counsel to President George W. Bush, join Judy Woodruff to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

During the Jan. 6 committee hearing Tuesday, Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows presented the most compelling and detailed account yet of the actions of the former President Trump's inner circle. Andrea Bernstein, co-host of the "Will Be Wild" podcast, and Jamil Jaffer, a law professor at George Mason University, join Judy Woodruff to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

It's that time again on the Congressional calendar. All the big, bipartisan tech initiatives that looked so good a few months ago are beginning to compete for time on the floor like fat men desperate to get through a small door. And tech lobbyists are doing their best to hinder the bills they hate while advancing those they like. We open the Cyberlaw Podcast by reviewing a few of the top contenders. Justin (Gus) Hurwitz tells us that the big bipartisan compromise on privacy is probably dead for this Congress, killed by Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and the new politics of abortion. The big subsidy for domestic chip fabs is still alive, Jamil Jaffer but beset by House and Senate differences, plus a proposal to regulate outward investment by U.S. firms that would benefit China and Russia. And Senator Amy Klobuchar's (D-MIN) platform anti-self-preferencing bill is being picked to pieces by lobbyists trying to cleave away Republican votes over content moderation and national security.   David Kris unpacks the First Circuit decision on telephone pole cameras and the fourth amendment. Technology and Fourth Amendment law is increasingly agoraphobic, I argue, as aging boomers find themselves on a vast featureless constitutional plain, with no precedents to guide them and forced to fall back on their sense of what was creepy in their day. Speaking of creepy, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has a detailed report on just how creepy content moderation and privacy protections are at TikTok and WeChat. Jamil gives the highlights.    Not that Silicon Valley has anything to brag about. I sum up This Week in Big Tech Censorship with two newly emerging rules for conservatives on line: First, obeying Big Tech's rules is no defense; it just takes a little longer before your business revenue is cut off. Second, having science on your side is no defense. As a Brown University doctor discovered, citing a study that undermines Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) orthodoxy will get you suspended. Who knew we were supposed to follow the science with enough needle and thread to sew its mouth shut? If Sen. Klobuchar fails, all eyes will turn to Lina Khan's Federal Trade Commission, Gus tells us, and its defense of the “right to repair” may give a clue to how it will regulate.  David flags a Google study of zero-days sold to governments in 2021. He finds it a little depressing, but I note that at least some of the zero-days probably require court orders to implement. Jamil also reviews a corporate report on security, Microsoft's analysis of how Microsoft saved the world from Russian cyber espionage—or would have if you ignoramuses would just buy more cloud services. OK, it's not quite that bad, but the marketing motivations behind the report show a little too often in what is otherwise a useful review of Russian tactics.  In quick hits: Gus tells us about a billboard that can pick your pocket: In NYC, naturally.  Jamil thinks we may have finally found Putin's billions, through the magic of shared email addresses.  I offer a preview of the next U.S.-E.U. privacy spat, over sharing biometrics at the border.  And David and I talk marijuana and security clearances. If you listen to the podcast for career advice, it's a long wait, but David delivers Security Agency Counsel after a long series of acting General Counsels.

In this episode of Intelligence Matters, host Michael Morell speaks with Klon Kitchen, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Jamil Jaffer, founder and Executive Director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University, about a range of current national security topics, including Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities, and the national security implications of regulating Big Tech companies. Kitchen and Jaffer offer their views on why politically-driven legislation could negatively affect innovation that they say is crucial to U.S. national security and to maintaining the country's competitive edge. They also share thoughts on why European and Chinese approaches are ill-suited for American markets. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jamil Jaffer, the founder and executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University, joined “Plugged In” host Neil Chatterjee and reporter Breanne Deppisch, warning that the United States needs the energy and defense sectors, as well as industry and government, to come together in order to protect critical infrastructure that is “always” […]

Jamil Jaffer, the founder and executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University, joined “Plugged In” host Neil Chatterjee and reporter Breanne Deppisch, warning that the United States needs the energy and defense sectors, as well as industry and government, to come together in order to protect critical infrastructure that is “always” […]

Guests: Cal Perry, Sen. Tim Kaine, Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, Jamil Jaffer, Vladimir Kara-Murza, Brian KlaasA direct appeal from the President of Ukraine—and a promise of more military aid from the President of the United States. Tonight: As Russia continues to bombard Ukraine, is there finally some movement on peace talks? Plus: the sanctions taking effect as Putin says Russia is getting cancelled by the West.