Related Papers
What is a Search? Two Conceptual Flaws in Fourth Amendment Doctine and Some Hints of a Remedy
2002 •
Sherry Colb
LLM theses
Technological Advances Leading to the Diminishing of Privacy Rights
2003 •
Maria Dsouza
The American University law review
The Fourth Amendment Future of Public Surveillance: Remote Recording and Other Searches in Public Space
2013 •
Marc Blitz
Public video surveillance is changing the way police fight crime and terrorism. This was especially clear in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing when law enforcement found images of the two suspects by analyzing surveillance images gathered by numerous public and private cameras. Such after-the-fact video surveillance was equally crucial to identifying the culprits behind the 2005 London subway bombing. But the rise of camera surveillance, as well as the emergence of drone-based video monitoring and GPS-tracking methods, not only provides an important boon for law enforcement, but also raises a challenge for constitutional law: As police gain the ability to technologically monitor individuals' public movements and activities, does the Fourth Amendment’s protection against "unreasonable searches" place any hurdles in their way?In the 2012 case, United States v. Jones, five justices, in two separate concurrences, signaled that it does — at least when the monitor...
Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology
2023 •
Patrick K . Lin
For more than two decades, police in the United States have used facial recognition to surveil civilians. Local police departments deploy facial recognition technology to identify protestors’ faces while federal law enforcement agencies quietly amass driver’s license and social media photos to build databases containing billions of faces. Yet, despite the widespread use of facial recognition in law enforcement, there are neither federal laws governing the deployment of this technology nor regulations setting standards with respect to its development. To make matters worse, the Fourth Amendment—intended to limit police power and enacted to protect against unreasonable searches—has struggled to rein in new surveillance technologies since its inception. This Article examines the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence leading up to Carpenter v. United States and suggests that the Court is reinterpreting the amendment for the digital age. Still, the too-slow expansion of privacy protections raises challenging questions about racial bias, the legitimacy of police power, and ethical issues in artificial intelligence design. This Article proposes the development of an algorithmic auditing and accountability market that not only sets standards for AI development and limitations on governmental use of facial recognition but encourages collaboration between public interest technologists and regulators. Beyond the necessary changes to the technological and legal landscape, the current system of policing must also be reevaluated if hard-won civil liberties are to endure.
Maryland Law Review
“Only the Beginning, Only Just the Start . . . Mostly I’m Silent”: New Constitutional Challenges with Data Collection Devices Brought into the Home
2019 •
Carol Nackenoff
UC Davis Law Review
The Wiretapping of Things
2019 •
Eldar Haber
The digital era invoked new challenges to judicial systems. The Internet enabled violation of privacy and intellectual property rights, and enhanced the magnitude of criminal activity. Recognizing the inability of courts to handle a high magnitude of lawsuits, and along with enforcement difficulties, policymakers worldwide chose to delegate quasi-judicial powers to online intermediaries that facilitate or enable such potential violations or infringements of rights. Search engines were first tasked to perform a quasi-judicial role under a notice-and-takedown regime of copyright infringement around the world. Recently, the European Union (EU) decided to delegate judicial authority to search engines by grating rights of erasure or delisting of personal data about EU individuals under certain circ*mstances. Effectively, the EU placed search engines — and currently mainly Google — as a judiciary, tasked to balance between different fundamental human rights. This judiciary privatization represents a new paradigm in legal systems and possesses vast global ramifications which must be further scrutinized. This Article provides such scrutiny. It begins by briefly exploring the rights to be forgotten and delisted. It then provides an overview of quasi-judicial roles played by search engines online prior to the new EU rights regime, and compares them to their new judiciary role. Following an examination of the pragmatic and normative difficulties in the implementation of the EU rights regime, this Article evaluates and discusses the future of the private judiciary. It examines the drawbacks and benefits of judicial privatization; whether other means of regulation are more appropriate; and proposes modest solutions to properly address the shortcomings of the new privatized judiciary. Essentially, this Article warns against such form of privatization and its current implementation, especially when fundamental rights are at stake. If policymakers insists on adjudicating search engines, they must also restrain their judicial power and provide adequate safeguards for society in the form of transparency and proper oversight on both search engines removal procedure and their decisions.
Prying, Spying, and Lying: Intrusive Newsgathering and What the Law Should Do About It
2000 •
Lyrissa Lidsky
The media's use of intrusive newsgathering techniques poses an increasing threat to individual privacy. Courts currently resolve the overwhelming majority of conflicts in favor of the media. This is not because the First Amendment bars the imposition of tort liability on the media for its newsgathering practices. It does not. Rather, tort law has failed to seize the opportunity to create meaninful privacy protection. After surveying the economic, philosophical, and practical obstacles to reform, this Article proposes to rejuvenate the tort of intrusion to tip the balance between privacy and the press back in privacy's direction. Working within the framework of traditional tort law, this Article advocates reform of intrusion's doctrinal flaws followed by the adoption of a newsgatherer's privilege to protect media intrusions that serve a significant public interest.
Clinical Nutrition
Cut-off values of skeletal muscle index and psoas muscle index at L3 vertebra level by computerized tomography to assess low muscle mass
2021 •
Müge Çatıkkaş
Prying, Spying, and Lying: Media Intrusions and What the Law Should Do About Them
1999 •
Lyrissa Lidsky
Secure the Smartphone, Secure the Future: Biometrics, Boyd, a Warrant Denial and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments
2020 •
Aaron Chase
