Search for: "Matter of Snowden v Snowden"
Results 81 - 100
of 207
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Oct 2015, 11:38 am
The Chinese foreign ministry, which had aimed for the court to reject jurisdiction over the case, issued a standard statement declaring that it would not accept the court’s ruling in the matter and condemning the Philippines for “political provocation under the cloak of law. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 1:52 pm
But amidst the intense focus on Reno v. [read post]
24 Aug 2016, 4:21 pm
This copying, even if the messages are only retained briefly, matters under the law. [read post]
26 May 2016, 1:07 am
The Snowden disclosures suggest that GCHQ has bulk intercepted and stored metadata by the tens of billions of records. [read post]
26 May 2016, 1:07 am
The Snowden disclosures suggest that GCHQ has bulk intercepted and stored metadata by the tens of billions of records. [read post]
26 May 2016, 1:07 am
The Snowden disclosures suggest that GCHQ has bulk intercepted and stored metadata by the tens of billions of records. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 7:56 am
The plaintiff in that case has argued that, given the NSA/Snowden revelations, the Safe Harbor (upon which Facebook—like many other US-based companies—relies to transfer and hold users’ personal data in the US) could not provide adequate protection as a matter of EU law. [read post]
5 Apr 2014, 9:00 am
Smith v. [read post]
3 Oct 2015, 5:34 am
Michael Knapp provided a primer on United States v. [read post]
12 Jul 2018, 5:31 pm
These were of course the facts tried in Ashby v Gaulme, Kenzo et Lacroix (2008), better known for its application to the European Court of Human Rights (Ashby Donald and Others v France [2013] ECHR 28; see herefor a previous post on the decision). [read post]
9 Sep 2017, 4:35 am
Russell Spivak summarized the Second Circuit’s opinion in Doe v. [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 12:37 pm
See, Knight First Amendment Institute v. [read post]
17 Aug 2022, 4:37 pm
In Abrams v. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 5:08 am
The Snowden disclosures sowed great distrust among the public toward the NSA. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 12:32 pm
Fifty years ago, in New York Times v. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 8:28 am
These ATTM allies argue that it does not matter what the evidence in a case would show, that it does not matter what the state law at issue says, and that there is simply a federal right for any corporation to put in any contract a term that bans class actions (so long as the contract includes an arbitration clause). [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 3:15 am
In New York Times v. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 4:08 pm
Feeney J’s conclusions are also mistaken as a matter of EU law. [read post]
25 Jun 2020, 12:13 pm
The Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 9:48 am
See, for example, R v. [read post]
