A little over a month ago, President Biden issued a sweeping executive order on artificial intelligence (AI) covering a broad set of AI issues, such as privacy, transparency, the development of biological weapons, and many more. The order hands out expansive directives to several U.S. government agencies and private industry, which the Biden administration hopes will help the U.S. lead the globe in AI development in a safe and sustainable manner. 

Lawfare Research Fellow Matt Gluck sat down with Bill Wright, Global Head of Government Affairs at Elastic—a leading search company—to discuss, from the perspective of an industry insider, what the executive order means for tech companies that rely on AI and the relationship between tech companies and the U.S. government. Is collaboration among companies in the competitive AI space possible? Which aspects of the order could help smaller companies keep up? Will the order let companies dictate their processes for complying with the order’s broad objectives?

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Friday, two courts weighed in on the question of presidential immunity. First, Judge Chutkan of the DC District Court ruled that Trump is not immune from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s criminal prosecution for his conduct on Jan. 6. In the second, the DC Circuit Court ruled that Trump is not immune from a civil suit brought by members of Congress and Capitol Police officers, also relating to his conduct on Jan. 6.

To talk through the decisions, Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Quinta Jurecic and Roger Parloff along with Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes. They discussed the nuances of both opinions, how the analysis is consistent and how it is different, and what each case implies about the other—and what comes next.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Is the Fourth Amendment doing any work anymore? In a forthcoming article entitled “Government Purchases of Private Data,” Matthew Tokson, a professor at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, details how, in recent years, federal and state agencies have begun to purchase location information and other consumer data, as government attorneys have mostly concluded that purchasing data is a valid way to bypass Fourth Amendment restrictions. 

Lawfare Senior Editor Stephanie Pell sat down with Matthew to discuss this article, where he attempts to bring this constitutional evasion to light. They talked about the two main arguments offered for why the purchase of private data does not violate the Fourth Amendment, his responses to these arguments, and the recommendations he makes to courts, legislators, and government agencies to address the Fourth Amendment and privacy concerns surrounding government purchases of private data.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, a contentedly full post-Thanksgiving Scott and Quinta sat down with two Lawfare colleagues—Senior Editor and Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Molly Reynolds and Cyber Fellow Eugenia Lostri—to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:

• “Showdown with an Only O.K. Rationale.” The House and Senate are preparing for a showdown over national security priorities, with assistance for Ukraine (and Israel and border security) hanging in the balance. Where does the debate seem likely to go from here—and what will the global ramifications be?
• “Bringing Down the @SamA.” OpenAI, the non-profit(?) behind ChatGPT, has had a chaotic few weeks, with its board ousting CEO Sam Altman on the apparent grounds that he was not taking AI safety concerns seriously enough, only for the vast majority of organization’s employees to threaten to resign unless he was brought back—a step the board took, just before most of its members resigned. What do these events tell us about the state of the AI industry?
• “Carpe Ceasefire.” A fragile pause in hostilities has emerged centered on the exchange of Israeli hostages held by Hamas for imprisoned Palestinians—momentum the Biden administration is reportedly hoping to build on. Yet calls for a permanent ceasefire continue amidst mounting civilian casualties and humanitarian needs, and there remains no clear plan for a post-war Gaza. How long will the pause last? What happens when hostilities resume?

For object lessons, Quinta recommended the 1990s classic “Distant Star” by Robert Bolaño. Scott gave his Thanksgiving gold star to Eric Kim’s creamy mac and cheese recipe. Molly leaned into her love for local NPR affiliates and recommended WGBH’s podcast “The Big Dig,” focusing on Boston’s legendary highway project. And secret gamer nerd Eugenia recommended a compelling video game that even parents of toddlers have time to tackle, What Remains of Edith Finch.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's another edition of “Trump’s Trials and Tribulations,” recorded on Thursday before a live audience of Lawfare Material Supporters. Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff, Lawfare Legal Fellow Anna Bower, and special guest Kyle Cheney of Politico, to talk about Scott Perry's text messages that were newly revealed in a filing in D.C. District Court, about happenings with New York gag orders and D.C. gag orders, about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment cases, and about Anna's story about the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s report in Coffee County and how much it sucked. 

This is a live conversation that happens online every Thursday at 4:00pm Eastern Time. If you would like to come join and ask a question, be sure to visit Lawfare’s Patreon account and become a Material Supporter.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From September 25, 2018: The United States has become the global leader in both defense and private-sector AI. Inevitably, this has led to an environment in which adversary and ally governments alike may seek to identify and steal AI information—in other words, AI has become intelligence, and those who work in AI have become potential sources and assets. And with intelligence, comes counterintelligence.

Jim Baker, a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution and former FBI General Counsel, is part-way through a series of essays for Lawfare on the links between counterintelligence and AI, two parts of which have already been published (Part I and Part II). On Monday, Jim sat down with Benjamin Wittes to discuss his work on the subject. They talked about how to understand AI as an intelligence asset, how we might protect this valuable asset against a range of threats from hostile foreign actors, and how we can protect ourselves against the threat from AI in the hands of adversaries.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Anna Bower is a Legal Fellow at Lawfare and our Fulton County Correspondent, and has been digging into the weird events in Coffee County in the aftermath of the 2020 election. Her latest tome on the subject is entitled “What the GBI Missed in Coffee County,” and is about the Georgia state investigation, the report on which clocks in at almost 400 pages but is a great deal less impressive than it may seem at first glance.

Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Anna to talk about the GBI's investigation of the Coffee County caper. What did the GBI do? What didn't they do? Did they add any new information? They actually did—but they also left out a whole lot that any reasonable investigator would want to look at.

A video version of this conversation is available on Lawfare's YouTube channel here.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Peter Strzok is a former United States Federal Bureau of Investigation agent. He was the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division and led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. He speaks with Ben Wittes about the numerous places he has called home and a career spent in counterintelligence.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Israel’s military response to Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre has raised deep concern from international legal observers and the general public. The IDF’s tactics have been described as “disproportionate,” and not taking sufficient care to avoid killing civilians or damaging civilian infrastructure, as the law of armed conflict requires.

When it comes to incidental casualties in particular, Mark Lattimer, Executive Director of Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, recently argued on Lawfare’s pages that Israel’s tolerance for civilian deaths seems to surpass even that of the U.S. and U.K.’s in the war against ISIS. Lawfare Associate Editor Hyemin Han talked to him about the case study he used to make this point—an analysis of Israel’s decision to carry out airstrikes in the Jabalia Refugee Camp in October. They compared that to what happened in the Battle of Mosul in 2014, and then got into the bigger differences between Israel’s war against Hamas and the war against ISIS. 

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve probably heard a great deal over the last year about generative AI and how it’s going to reshape various aspects of our society. That includes elections. With one year until the 2024 U.S. presidential election, we thought it would be a good time to step back and take a look at how generative AI might and might not make a difference when it comes to the political landscape. Luckily, Matt Perault and Scott Babwah Brennen of the UNC Center on Technology Policy have a new report out on just that subject, examining generative AI and political ads.

On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic and Lawfare’s Fellow in Technology Policy and Law Eugenia Lostri sat down with Matt and Scott to talk through the potential risks and benefits of generative AI when it comes to political advertising. Which concerns are overstated, and which are worth closer attention as we move toward 2024? How should policymakers respond to new uses of this technology in the context of elections?

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.