Cross-Border Data Forum Bannner
An increasing number of regulations in different countries and regions require data to be processed locally for privacy and national security reasons. But these regulations have potential negative impacts on cybersecurity, such as limiting the sharing of information useful for threat hunting and penetration testing.
In a new publication for Stanford University's DigiChina Project, authors Samm Sacks, Krystal Chen Zeng and Graham Webster break down the regulatory framework and potential impacts of China’s 2024 overhaul of its cross-border data transfer regime. 
, ,
This article discusses a July decision of the Regional Court of Traunstein (Germany) that shows a more flexible approach to data transfers from the EU to the U.S. than has been taken by European Data Protection Agencies (DPAs).
,
CLOUD Act agreements have tremendous potential, alongside other diplomatic mechanisms, to facilitate legitimate investigations that require cross-border electronic evidence collection without sacrificing human rights and liberties. To get closer to that potential, a series of knobs and levers should help guide future negotiations, since a one-size-fits-all approach would unnecessarily constrain the CLOUD Act’s reach.
In a major policy shift, the U.S. government is imposing restrictions on certain transfers of personal data to specified authoritarian countries, including Russia and China.
This paper examines the text of the “Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024.” PADFAA contains a number of novel definitions for terms such as “data broker” and “controlled by a foreign adversary” (“CBFA”).