Podcast appearances and mentions of nora ni loideain

Panel Three: State Power Discussants: Ross Anderson (Cambridge), Lawrence Quill (San Jose) & Ron Deibert (Toronto) Ross Anderson is Professor of Security Engineering at the University of Cambridge and a leading expert on the technology, economics and psychology of computer security. He was awarded the 2016 Lovelace Medal—given to “individuals who have made an outstanding contribution to the understanding or advancement of computer science”. Lawrence Quill is Professor of Political Science at San Jose State University. His books include Secrets and Democracy: From Arcana Imperii to WikiLeaks and he is a Visiting Fellow on Technology and Democracy project. Ronald Deibert is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. He is the author of Black Code and a leading scholar on the intersection of digital technologies, global security and human rights. Chair: Nora Ni Loideain (Cambridge)

Discussants: John Naughton, David Vincent, Julian Huppert, Nora Ni Loideain Chair: Daniel Wilson On 16 November 2016, both Houses of Parliament completed their examination and review of the Investigatory Powers Bill and it will become law before the end of 2016. When it was first published in draft form a year ago, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, promised that the Bill would establish a “world-leading oversight regime” with “powers fit for the digital age” that would be “clear and understandable”. Nevertheless, the Bill has since been the subject of considerable controversy. Advocates, including, Professor Sir David Omand (a former Director of GCHQ ), stress that the importance of the new statute cannot be overestimated as it puts the secret surveillance activities of the State “under the rule of law” for the first time in 500 years and makes such powers “comprehensible to the citizen”. Critics, however, argue that the new law provides the State with unprecedented powers that are “more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy” (Jim Killock, Executive Director, Open Rights Group). Civil society organisations have described the law as a “Snooper’s Charter”. Of particular concern is the scope of powers provided under the law which will enable public authorities “to indiscriminately hack, intercept, record, and monitor the communications and internet use of the entire population” (Bella Sankey, Policy Director, Liberty). In its final event of the Technology and Democracy Project’s 2016 seminar series, an interdisciplinary panel of speakers will address the political, historical, technological and human rights implications posed by this divisive new legislative framework. Please join us for a discussion of what kind of precedent this significant new law represents for technology and democracy both within and beyond the UK.

Chair: Nora Ni Loideain Speakers: Ross Anderson and Ian Walden

Chair: David Erdos Speakers: David Vincent, Nora Ni Loideain and Andrew Murray

A lunchtime workshop of the ‘Technology and Democracy’ project In a landmark judgment on October 7 the European Court of Justice has ruled that the Safe Harbour framework governing the transfer of EU citizens’ personal data to the US does not comply with the requirements of EU Data Protection law in light of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and is therefore invalid under EU law. The Safe Harbour framework stemmed from a decision of the European Commission in 2000 (2000/520/EC) that the US afforded an adequate level of protection of personal data transferred to the US from the EU. This decision was made long before the EU Charter became part of EU law and more than a decade prior to the Edward Snowden revelations. The ECJ’s judgment thus invalidates arrangements that for 15 years have allowed Internet companies to transfer the personal data of European users to server farms in the US and elsewhere. It has very wide-ranging implications — not just for data-protection law, but also for the economics of Internet companies and for international relations. This workshop will discuss some of those implications. Panel: David Runciman (chair), John Naughton, Ross Anderson, Nora Ni Loideain

A lunchtime workshop of the ‘Technology and Democracy’ project In a landmark judgment on October 7 the European Court of Justice has ruled that the Safe Harbour framework governing the transfer of EU citizens’ personal data to the US does not comply with the requirements of EU Data Protection law in light of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and is therefore invalid under EU law. The Safe Harbour framework stemmed from a decision of the European Commission in 2000 (2000/520/EC) that the US afforded an adequate level of protection of personal data transferred to the US from the EU. This decision was made long before the EU Charter became part of EU law and more than a decade prior to the Edward Snowden revelations. The ECJ’s judgment thus invalidates arrangements that for 15 years have allowed Internet companies to transfer the personal data of European users to server farms in the US and elsewhere. It has very wide-ranging implications — not just for data-protection law, but also for the economics of Internet companies and for international relations. This workshop will discuss some of those implications. Panel: David Runciman (chair), John Naughton, Ross Anderson, Nora Ni Loideain

A lunchtime workshop of the ‘Technology and Democracy’ project In a landmark judgment on October 7 the European Court of Justice has ruled that the Safe Harbour framework governing the transfer of EU citizens’ personal data to the US does not comply with the requirements of EU Data Protection law in light of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and is therefore invalid under EU law. The Safe Harbour framework stemmed from a decision of the European Commission in 2000 (2000/520/EC) that the US afforded an adequate level of protection of personal data transferred to the US from the EU. This decision was made long before the EU Charter became part of EU law and more than a decade prior to the Edward Snowden revelations. The ECJ’s judgment thus invalidates arrangements that for 15 years have allowed Internet companies to transfer the personal data of European users to server farms in the US and elsewhere. It has very wide-ranging implications — not just for data-protection law, but also for the economics of Internet companies and for international relations. This workshop will discuss some of those implications. Panel: David Runciman (chair), John Naughton, Ross Anderson, Nora Ni Loideain