‘Phase IV’ Operations in the War on Terror: Comparing Iraq and Afghanistan

This article identifies the obstacles and prospects of implementing President Obama's surge strategy in Afghanistan by examining four issues: (1) the origins and implementation of the Iraq surge policy; (2) U.S. counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan; (3) a comparative examination of Afghan and Iraqi tribal insurgent structures; and (4) suggestions for a counter insurgency policy more in sync with regional social and tribal structures.     

Learning from Contemporary Conflicts to Prepare for Future War

Recent and ongoing wartime experience has discredited much of the thinking that underpinned the “Defense Transformation” effort in the 1990s. If we are to be prepared for future conflict, it is vital that we learn from experience and adjust our thinking about war. It is time to develop idealized visions of future war that are consistent with what post-9/11 conflicts have revealed as the enduring uncertainty and complexity of war. These concepts should be “fighting-centric” rather than “knowledge-centric.” They should also be based on real and emerging threats, informed by recent combat experience, and connected to scenarios that direct military force toward the achievement of policy goals and objectives. We must then design and build balanced forces that are capable of conducting operations consistent with the concepts we develop.     

Latency – Time for lawyers to get up to speed?

While latency issues have always existed in IT systems, it is only in recent years that latency has become a significant focal point for both IT suppliers and customers. This paper will provide an overview as to how latency arises in IT systems, why latency is becoming important across a variety of business sectors and then explores some of the prominent legal issues inherent in contracting for low-latency solutions.     

Privacy and the regulation of 2012

This paper explores the European Commission’s proposal for a new Regulation to update and reform data protection law in Europe. As regards the Regulation itself, without presenting an exhaustive analysis of all the provisions, this paper aims to highlight some significant changes proposed to the data protection regime by comparison between Directive 95/46 and the proposed Regulation. It takes particularly into account legislative innovation concerning data protection principles, data subjects’ rights, data controllers and data processors obligations, and the regulation of technologies. Before analyzing these innovations, it introduces some considerations about the Commission’s choice to use a Regulation instead of a Directive to harmonize national data protection regime.     

The state of the art in privacy impact assessment

There is growing interest in Europe in privacy impact assessment (PIA). The UK introduced the first PIA methodology in Europe in 2007, and Ireland followed in 2010. PIAs provide a way to detect potential privacy problems, take precautions and build tailored safeguards before, not after, the organisation makes heavy investments in the development of a new technology, service or product. This paper presents some findings from the Privacy Impact Assessment Framework (PIAF) project and, in particular, the project's first deliverable, which analyses the similarities and differences between PIA methodologies in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, with a view to picking out the best elements which could be used in constructing an optimised PIA methodology for Europe. The project, which began in January 2011, is being undertaken for the European Commission's Directorate General Justice. The first deliverable was completed in September. The paper provides some background on privacy impact assessment, identifies some of its benefits and discusses elements that can be used in construction of a state-of-the-art PIA methodology.     

… and still we are left wanting: Malta's White Paper on digital rights

CLSR welcomes occasional comment pieces on issues of current importance in the law and technology field from different jurisdictions. In this instance the Government of Malta published a White Paper in October 2012 for public consultation, proposing the introduction of the following four so-called “digital rights” in the Constitution of Malta: (1) the right to Internet access; (2) the right to informational access; (3) the right to informational freedom and (4) the right to digital informational self-determination. The author believes that the proposal is indeed a step in the right direction but lacks punch where it matters most and does not go far enough.