By: Manu J. Sebastian Introduction: In a world where technology is ever changing and personal data is being processed and saved at every turn, corporations must be held accountable for the data they collect, store, and use. The consumer truly does not understand the levels of data capture and retention that corporations employ, and the European Unionâ€™s (â€œEUâ€) government is on a mission to ensure that its citizens are protected because it believes personal data protection is a fundamental right that all people should enjoy. The EU created the General Data Protection Regulation (â€œGDPRâ€) in an attempt to protect data without detrimentally inhibiting cross-border data flow. The GDPR is in its final stages of adoption and corporations around the world are working to preemptively establish controls within their internal structures in order to be compliant. These new changes will protect personal data on a level that has never before been seen, but it will come at a great cost to the consumer. The data that is being protected moves far beyond identification numbers and medical data. The GDPR seeks to protect names, phone numbers, addresses, economical data, cultural identity, racial origin, social identity, profiling data, and online identifiers such as IP address and location data, on top of the normal protections of health data and biological samples. The regulation is based on the notion that every single person has the right to have his personal data protected and it protects all people in the EU. These new changes make us ask a very important question: How exactly will Non-EU enterprises be affected?
By: Tyler Hite Introduction: Within the past decade, drone strikes and the concept of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have become not only commonplace among major news headlines, but continue to lead the way for modern warfare tactics and strategy. With precision missile and surveillance capabilities, Predator drones have led to the successful elimination of high-valued targets listed as terrorists by the United States. However such success is not absolute, with several documented mishaps ending with civilian casualties. While the United States Military continues to implement UAVs overseas, American citizens should become cognizant that drone activity above U.S. soil is on the precipice of a market explosion comparable to that of Apple in the 1980â€™s. Yet these drones will not be operated by military personnel under specific military orders, but by fellow citizens, local governmental officials, and even neighbors regulated by yet-to-be developed laws and restrictions. Thus the driving question becomes, what limitations will be developed for individuals who purchase and operate private drones? With some drones currently on sale for as little as $300, potential problems are primed to become actual issues. Additionally, federalism concerns arise regarding whether the regulation of drones will be left to the States to decide how to craft restrictions within their jurisdiction, or whether the Federal government is better suited to enforce private drone regulations. This paper will attempt to shed light not only on the capabilities and functions of privately owned drones, developed for use by private individuals, but will also look to the developing regulations already emanating from both state and federal governments, and how those regulations will shape the expansion of the private drone market. While legislators still have yet to determine the exact guidelines for private drone operation, the logical solution seems to be registration and licensing of unmanned aerial vehicle operation, either with the federal government or the several states.
By: Matthew Knopf Introduction:Â On December 9, 2013, the British Newspaper The Guardian published documents fromÂ the National Security Administration (â€œNSA documentsâ€) provided by the whistleblower EdwardÂ Snowden. These documents revealed that surveillance agencies of the United States and UnitedÂ Kingdom governments were conducting intelligence operations in a search for terrorists inside ofÂ massive multiplayer online (â€œMMOâ€) video games such as World of Warcraft and Second Life.Â The documents contained a memo and a series of essays that detailed the ways in which videoÂ games, even those video games that do not directly connect to the Internet, could be used asÂ recruitment and communication tools for terrorists. However, these operations have broughtÂ about privacy concerns for some who worry that their government could or would listen to theirÂ conversations as they are playing these videos games. It is not clear how the governmentÂ collected or accessed the data or communication from these video games. It is likely thatÂ government agents created their own profiles and avatars in these games to access the virtualÂ worlds. Additionally, privacy concerns have not be assuaged by the fact that there is noÂ indication from the documents that any of the intelligence operations led to the foiling of anyÂ terrorist plots or to the arrest of any criminal. The National Security Administration (â€œNSAâ€)Â and the federal government may have free reign to spy on foreign peoples and foreignÂ governments, but under the U.S. Constitution it does not have the legal authority to spy onÂ American citizens without a warrant. Online video games have players who live across the globe and within the United States.Â Many of the computer servers on which the video games operate and communicate are inside ofÂ the United States. Since the intelligence collecting process has not been revealed, it is unclear ifÂ the NSA or other federal agencies have been accessing the data and the monitoringÂ communications of innocent Americans whose identity and nationality may have been concealedÂ behind their virtual avatar. The debate over the expectation of privacy concerning different types of Internet communication is growing, especially concerning social media. Violations ofÂ privacy could hinder player anonymity, which is a key component of certain types of onlineÂ gaming that encourages escapism. On the other hand, ending anonymity could encourage fairerÂ and more civil discourse in the virtual gaming worlds. The revelations of these documents hasÂ led to the question of whether there are any expectations of privacy for video game players andÂ the communications between players which occur within those video games.
By: Michael L. Smith Introduction: On May 1, 2013, the first firearm that had ever been produced with a 3D printer was successfully fired. Several weeks later, an engineer in Wisconsin used his own (relatively) cheap personal 3D printer to make a firearm that successfully fired nine shots. These two developments generated national media attention and prompted calls for restrictions on 3D printed firearms. But critics responded by arguing that restricting 3D printed firearms would violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The issue of the Second Amendment implications of 3D printed firearms combines an emerging and evolving area of the law with an even more cutting-edge area of technology. The Second Amendment as an individual right is a recent development: before the Supreme Courtâ€™s 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, it was far from clear whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right. In the wake of the Courtâ€™s decision in Heller, and its incorporation of Second Amendment rights to the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago, there has been an explosion in scholarly coverage of the Second Amendment as commentators attempt to draw out the implications and limits of the individual right to bear arms. 3D printing is an even more recent development â€“ and courts and commentators are just beginning to address issues that this technology will raise.
By: Matthew Funk Introduction:Â In 1517, Martin Luther put into motion events that would uproot the hegemony of the Catholic Church in Western religion. His Ninety-Five Theses would be the basis for an enormous upheaval of the sacred status quo, and challenge centuries of religious ordering. His â€œprotestâ€ of the practices of the Catholic Church would be disseminated with the power of the printing press, the pinnacle of information technology at the time, and lead to a great fork in the history of Christianity. Protestantism, with unique movements springing up throughout Europe, would ultimately separate from the oversight of the Catholic Church and create a new religious paradigm. No different in principle, but perhaps in scale, has been the upheaval caused by the confessions of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. His â€œleak of [National Security] [A]gency documents has set off a . . . debate over the proper limits of government surveillance.â€ These leaks have â€œopened an unprecedented window on the details of surveillance by the NSA, including its compilation of logs of virtually all telephone companies in the United States and its collection of e-mails of foreigners from the major American Internet companies.â€ This, in turn, has rippled into raucous calls for a new Reformationâ€”one of Internet, not religious, sovereignty and sensibilities. Such calls implicate the principles undergirding the purposes, governance, and even geography of the Internet. And while the calls may not lead to a catastrophic schism on the scale of Christianityâ€™s division in the 16th century, they are certainly loud enough not only to question policy choices regarding the defining information technology of the new millennium thus far, but also to challenge the traditional dynamics of sovereignty-retention in the face of a global online commons.
By: James Zino The way in which Americans communicate has changed rapidly over the past decade, and the cellular phone has been at the forefront of this revolution, reaching levels of market maturation faster than any mainstream technology since the television. What started as a tool to place calls while on the go has evolved into a device with the processing power of a small computer, where millions of people call, text, tweet, video chat, and stream hours of content every day right from the palm of their hands. While there is no doubt that consumer technology has made incredible strides since the first iPhone ushered in a new product market in 2007 with estimated opening day sales of up to 1 million units, what has changed even more is the invisible infrastructure that allows consumers to be wirelessly connected from even the most remote parts of the country. Although most Americans are familiar with the countryâ€™s â€œBig Fourâ€ national cellular providers, (Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile), what actually enables these companies to provide wireless internet and cellular service is less well-known. This capability comes from certain bands of the electromagnetic spectrum, which have become an increasingly indispensable commodity for network providers as demand for cellular service surges. Control and licensing of radio spectrum is controlled by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). While the NTIA handles the use of spectrum for federal government purposes, the FCC administersÂ spectrum regulation and licensing for all other uses, including state, local, and commercial functions.
By:Â YooNa Lim Discrimination by lawyers against individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing is not a rare occurrence. Many lawyers decline to represent deaf and hard of hearing individuals as clients, despite the protection of federal and state laws to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. Hearing impairments cover a significant range â€“ from those who may not even be aware they have difficulty hearing to those who are deaf and use sign language. Statistics suggest that approximately more than 37 million people, or 16 percent of the population of age above 18, of the United States, report having some degree of difficulty hearing. Despite the large population of the deaf and hard of hearing community, many attorneys fail to recognize their legal obligation to accommodate individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. Many private attorneys are unfamiliar with their obligations under the ADA or others are unwilling to incur the costs to provide the necessary communication access services. Consequently, it has become difficult for many deaf and hard of hearing individuals to retain attorneys for common legal counseling that are widely provided, such as criminal law proceedings, family law issues, probate, and employment law matters. Even when a deaf or hard of hearing individual successfully meets an attorney, without effective communication, the attorney cannot provide proper representation, unfulfilling their professional responsibilities.Â Because of the communication barrier, the client may not understand the nature of their legal issue.
By: Sachpreet Bains Introduction: Letâ€™s start with a simple question. How much are you willing to spend on a pair of shoes? Write three zeros on a piece of paper. Now, place a five in front of the three zeros. Next, place a comma after the five. Lastly, place a dollar sign at the very beginning. You have now written down the â€œsmallâ€ amount of â€œ$5,000.â€ It is very hard to justify spending $5,000 on a pair of stylish shoes. In my twenty-six years, the most I have ever spent on a pair of shoes is about $200.00. The French luxury brand, Christian Louboutin, is most renowned and notorious for the high-end shoes it produces for both genders. The brand caters to the wealthy population throughout the world, as its luxury line of shoes can be sold in retail stores for up to $6,000 a pair.1 Known for its red lacquered sole, Louboutin successfully applied for a trademark in 2008. This trademark dealt strictly with how red paint was used on the sole of the shoe. When Yves St. Laurent (which has now changed its name to Saint Laurent Paris) made high-heeled shoes incorporating red soles in its 2009 collection, Louboutin sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act.2 This note focuses primarily on the District Court and Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision and the difficulties of trademarking a single color in todayâ€™s legal world, along with the road to Louboutin successfully being able to retain his trademark for the red lacquered soles of his shoes.