Next month will mark the five-year anniversary of the CLOUD Act, a foundational piece of legislation on cross-border data transfers and criminal investigations. Before he was a University of Minnesota law professor and senior editor at Lawfare, Alan Rozenshtein worked in the Department of Justice where he was a member of the team that developed the CLOUD Act. In that capacity, he interacted with representatives from the large tech companies that would be most directly affected by the law. One of these people was Matt Perault, then the head of Global Policy Development at Facebook, and now the director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Matt joined Alan to discuss the CLOUD Act with two more people who were present at its creation: Greg Nojeim, senior counsel and director of the Security and Surveillance Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and Aaron Cooper, a partner at the law firm of Jenner & Block, who was at the time a colleague of Alan’s at the Department of Justice. They talked about the reasons for the CLOUD Act’s development, whether it has succeeded in its goals, and what we should expect to see in the next five years.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

During recent oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of liability protections for internet platforms, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked a thought-provoking question. Does Section 230, the statute that shields websites from liability for third-party content, apply to a generative AI model like ChatGPT?  Luckily, Matt Perault of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill had already been thinking about this question and published a Lawfare article arguing that 230’s protections wouldn’t extend to content generated by AI. Lawfare Senior Editors Quinta Jurecic and Alan Rozenshtein sat down with Matt and Jess Miers, legal advocacy counsel at the Chamber of Progress, to debate whether ChatGPT’s output constitutes third-party content, whether companies like OpenAI should be immune for the output of their products, and why you might want to sue a chatbot in the first place.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tech policy reform occupies a strange place in Washington, D.C. Everyone seems to agree that the government should change how it regulates the technology industry, on issues from content moderation to privacy—and yet, reform never actually seems to happen. But while the federal government continues to stall, state governments are taking action. More and more, state-level officials are proposing and implementing changes in technology policy. Most prominently, Texas and Florida recently passed laws restricting how platforms can moderate content, which will likely be considered by the Supreme Court later this year.On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our occasional series on the information ecosystem, Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic spoke with J. Scott Babwah Brennen and Matt Perault of the Center on Technology Policy at UNC-Chapel Hill. In recent months, they’ve put together two reports on state-level tech regulation. They talked about what’s driving this trend, why and how state-level policymaking differs—and doesn’t—from policymaking at the federal level, and what opportunities and complications this could create.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lawfare Daily discusses the Supreme Court's decision in Murthy v. Missouri with Kate Klonick and Matt Perault. They explore government influence on tech companies' speech decisions, threats from public officials, challenges of COVID disinformation, and the role of executive orders in regulating online speech.

Experts discuss the TikTok divestment and ban bill, exploring First Amendment concerns, national security risks, and foreign platform ownership. They debate the implications of Chinese control, data privacy issues, and potential remedies. The podcast also touches on speculative risk, quality sleep, money-saving apps, and the uncertain future of the bill in the Senate.