The Lawfare Podcast: Patreon Edition

The term “spyware” refers to software that's designed to infiltrate, monitor, and extract sensitive information from a user's device without their knowledge or consent. Perhaps the most infamous example of the harm that spyware can do is the 2018 killing of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi government operatives, who used spyware to track Khashoggi before luring him to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, where he was murdered. But spyware use is not just limited to repressive autocracies. It's frequently both developed and used by liberal democracies, a practice that has generated increasing concern over the past few years.

To talk about spyware and its potential regulation under international law, Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, spoke with Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, a Regents Professor and the Robina Chair in Law, Public Policy, and Society at the University of Minnesota Law School, where she also directs the Human Rights Center. Most importantly for this conversation, she's also the United Nation's Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, a position she's held since 2017. As part of that role, she recently published a report on the Global Regulation of the Counter-Terrorism Spyware Technology Trade. Alan spoke with Fionnuala about her findings and what, if anything, can be done to make spyware compliant with human rights.

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

Since 2012, Germany has accepted more refugees than any other country in Europe aside from Turkey. The German government has dispersed these asylum seekers and other immigrants throughout the country, a policy roundly celebrated by refugee activists and governments alike. But as reporter Ali Breland recently wrote in the New Republic, “[T]hese seemingly well-intentioned policies have created dangerous situations where people of color are forced to reside in regions that may be hostile to their presence, and where they face greater threats from neo-Nazis and fascists.”

Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Ali, a reporter at Mother Jones covering internet disinformation, technology, race, and politics, to discuss his article and reporting trip to Germany. They discussed the roots of the current neo-Nazi resurgence there, the dark side of Germany’s lauded refugee resettlement program, and why the country might be a warning sign for the rest of Europe. They also discussed parallels between the far right movements in Germany and the United States. 

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

Since March 2022, El Salvador has been under a state of exception as its President Nayib Bukele seeks to crack down on the country’s powerful gangs. Bukele, who once described himself on Twitter as the “world’s coolest dictator,” has engaged in a prolonged attack on El Salvador’s democratic institutions. And the crackdown has resulted in a range of human rights abuses. At the same time, Bukele really does seem to have been successful in curbing gang violence, and his popularity is sky high. 

To understand the situation in El Salvador, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic spoke with Manuel Meléndez-Sánchez, a PhD candidate in Political Science at Harvard University who has written about Bukele on Lawfare. They discussed why Bukele’s crackdown on the gangs seems to be working, why it might fall apart in the long term, and what Bukele’s rise means for democracy in El Salvador and around the world.

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

The Constitution specifies only one process for making international agreements—Article II gives the president the power to make treaties provided that two-thirds of the senators present concur. The treaty process has been on a long, slow path to obsolescence, having been replaced by various forms of binding and non-binding executive agreements. 

To assess the causes and impact of the United States’ declining use of treaties, Jack Goldsmith sat down with Jeffrey Peake, a political scientist at Clemson University, who is the author of the book, “Dysfunctional Diplomacy: The Politics of International Agreements in an Era of Partisan Polarization.” They discussed how domestic politics explains the decline of the treaty power, the adverse impact this decline has on U.S. foreign relations, and why executive agreements of various sorts are not full substitutes for treaties on the international stage. 

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

This week on Rational Security, a Quinta-less Alan and Scott were joined by Lawfare legal fellow Saraphin Dhanani to talk through the week's big national security news, including:

• “Seoul Authority.” South Korea and the United States recommitted themselves to their close security relationship this past week, including through a state dinner and a new Washington Declaration that confirms that the United States will respond to any nuclear attack on South Korea with overwhelming force. What drove this public showing? And what impact will it have on the nuclear threat posed by North Korea?
• “The Uncanny X-Date.” The debate over raising the debt ceiling took on new urgency this week, when Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced that the United States might meet the ‘X-Date’ at which it defaults on its obligations as soon as June 1. Yet there are few signs of a compromise, as House Republicans have dug in on a proposal that demands deep spending cuts while the Biden administration continues to push for a clean raise. Where will this debate lead?
• “Washington Contentious.” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan gave remarks at our own Brookings Institution this past week, laying out a new approach to international economic policy. What should we make of this new ‘Washington Consensus’?

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

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

Yesterday was verdict day for the Proud Boys. Mid-morning, the jury notified Judge Tim Kelly that it had reached a partial verdict, and that partial verdict was “guilty of seditious conspiracy” for four of the five defendants. 

It was a big day for the Justice Department. To go over everything that happened, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down for a live recording of the podcast with Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff, who live-tweeted 61 days of the Proud Boys trial.

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

At the core of the regulatory state is the notice and comment process. Agencies propose what they're going to do, the public gets to comment, and agencies have to respond to those comments. It's an imperfect system, to be sure, but it's fundamental to making sure that agencies act with good information and with democratic legitimacy.

So what happens when those comments start being made not by people, but by ChatGPT or other large language models? Or how about when agencies themselves use these AI tools to analyze the comments they receive, or even perhaps to write the regulations themselves?

To talk through these issues, Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, spoke with Bridget Dooling and Mark Febrizio, both of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. They spoke about their recent Brooking Institution report on the issue and how they think the regulatory state should deal with generative AI.

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

Risks associated with the rapid development and deployment of artificial intelligence are getting the attention of lawmakers. But one issue that may not be getting adequate attention by policymakers or by the AI research and cybersecurity communities is the vulnerability of many AI-based systems to adversarial attack. A new Stanford and Georgetown report, “Adversarial Machine Learning and Cybersecurity: Risks, Challenges, and Legal Implications,” offers a stark a reminder that security risks for AI-based systems are real and recommends actions that developers and policymakers can take to address the issues. 

Lawfare Senior Editor Stephanie Pell sat down with two of the report’s authors, Jim Dempsey, Senior Policy Advisor for the Program on Geopolitics, Technology, and Governance at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, and Jonathan Spring, Cybersecurity Specialist at the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). They talked about how AI-based systems are vulnerable to attack, the similarities and differences between vulnerabilities in AI-based systems and traditional software vulnerabilities, and how some of the challenges and problems with AI security may be social as much as they are technological.

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

Generative AI products have been tearing up the headlines recently. Among the many issues these products raise is whether or not their outputs are protected by Section 230, the foundational statute that shields websites from liability for third-party content.

On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, Lawfare’s occasional series on the information ecosystem, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic and Matt Perault, Director of the Center on Technology and Policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, talked through this question with Senator Ron Wyden and Chris Cox, formerly a U.S. congressman and SEC chairman. Cox and Wyden drafted Section 230 together in 1996—and they’re skeptical that its protections apply to generative AI. 

Disclosure: Matt consults on tech policy issues, including with platforms that work on generative artificial intelligence products and have interests in the issues discussed.

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