Search for: "State v. Revelle"
Results 601 - 620
of 1,284
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Oct 2015, 3:25 pm
In Schrems v. [read post]
10 Oct 2015, 2:20 pm
In this post, I will begin to explore whether there is a practical way to amend US surveillance law that might satisfy the concerns expressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Schrems v. [read post]
10 Oct 2015, 3:48 am
The European Court of Justice ruled against the Safe Harbor framework in Schrems v. [read post]
8 Oct 2015, 11:10 pm
Schrems’ concerns originated from revelations that came to public light as part of the Snowden affair in 2013, when EU citizens became aware that US intelligence services, in particular the National Security Agency (‘NSA’) could gain access to the data transferred from the EU to the US without US law and practice limiting such surveillance activity. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 4:46 pm
United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 11:49 am
The case, entitled Maximillian Schrems v. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 1:33 am
The Court of Justice of the European Union has produced a landmark decision in Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner (C‑362/14). [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 8:32 pm
The US lost billions of dollars in business following the Snowden revelations about PRISM and other US surveillance operations. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 4:06 pm
Different Member States may well take different views. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 9:42 am
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated the Safe Harbor Framework today in Schrems v. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 6:12 am
The decision is here: Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 10:12 pm
Apropos of nothing: Katz v. [read post]
4 Oct 2015, 4:54 pm
Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 11:51 am
But it might nevertheless have a great impact: Should the Court of Justice eventually adopt his opinion, in the closely watched case of Schrems v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 6:00 am
Wiretap Act (also known as Title III) prohibits the interception of a live communication (e.g., a telephone call) only if the interception occurs in the United States; it does not prohibit or regulate wiretaps (interception) conducted abroad.[8] Similarly, the U.S. [read post]
25 Sep 2015, 4:23 pm
Following the Snowden revelations, Schrems challenged the level of protection in the USA against state surveillance with reference in particular to the PRISM programme under which the NSA under which it obtained unrestricted access to mass data stored on servers in the United States. [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 4:28 pm
(Schrems v the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (Case C-362/14). [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 7:30 am
Cases from your El-Masri v. [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 9:01 pm
Hogan (invalidating same-sex admissions policy), considered her vote in United States v. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 3:37 am
”… Shareholder Proposals: Trinity v. [read post]
