5450 research outputs found
Sort by
Normative Dimensions of Consensual Application of Black Box Artificial Intelligence in Administrative Adjudication of Benefits Claims
Get PDF
The Means to Ending ENDS: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and America’s Youth
Get PDFElectronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) have risen in prominence amongst smokers and non-smokers as a way to inhale nicotine since their introduction to the United States in 2006. Often sold in a variety of mouth-watering flavors, ENDS are extremely enticing to both adolescents and adults. Though they are marketed as a safer alternative to combustible cigarettes, these devices have created a growing public health epidemic of nicotine addiction among adolescent users. Ultimately acknowledging the issue in 2020, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) released guidelines to the nicotine industry and banned the sale of certain flavored ENDS. However, this flavor ban is not as extensive as other state and local laws, as it leaves open loopholes for the industry. Therefore, this paper proposes that the FDA, in its official rulemaking capacity, creates a regulation that prohibits the sale of all flavored ENDS (including menthol flavors) in all forms (including disposable and tank-systems)
“More than Tangential”: When Does the Public Have a Right to Access Judicial Records?
Get PDFPublic accountability requires open proceedings and access to documents filed with the courts. The strong policy favoring access to judicial records creates a presumption against sealing documents without a compelling reason. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that this presumption of access arises when a proceeding relates “more than tangentially” to the merits. This is a low standard under which many types of motions qualify for the compelling reasons test. With too much litigation occurring in secret, courts can use the “more than tangential” standard proactively to keep electronic case dockets available to citizens
Digital Privacy Rights and CLOUD Act Agreements
Get PDFThe United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) will soon bring into force a new international law enforcement data sharing ‘CLOUD Act agreement’ (US-UK Agreement), the first of its kind under the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act 2018 (CLOUD Act). These agreements enable law enforcement in one state to directly request data from service providers based in the other state. They respond to long-standing concerns with the main mechanism for obtaining overseas data, mutual legal assistance (MLA). The US and UK claim the US-UK Agreement will significantly speed up data access relative to MLA while “respecting privacy and enhancing civil liberties.” This article interrogates that claim, exploring the impact of CLOUD Act agreements on digital privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Emerging literature is deeply divided: US scholars typically view these agreements as neutral or rights-enhancing, while Europeans and others generally fear a reduction in rights compared with MLA. By separately considering the impact of the US-UK Agreement on each of three classes of impacted persons, US persons, UK persons, and third country persons (TCPs)—i.e. everyone else—these diverging views appear to be each partly right and partly wrong. While this agreement will likely be an overall relative improvement for the digital privacy rights of US and UK persons, it will further undermine these rights for TCPs, contrary to the US and UK’s claimed aims. To address this, the US and UK should voluntarily extend Fourth Amendment and Article 8 protections, respectively, to implicated TCPs. This would be readily achievable, largely consistent with judicial trends, and encourage a more robust rights-respecting approach to international data transfers globally
Prosecuting the Phone Scammer When Extradition Fails and Concurrent Jurisdiction Exists
Get PDFAdvancements in technology allow people to place phone calls half a world away via the internet. This technology has made it easier and cheaper for consumers to communicate, but it has also made it easier for scammers to reach more unsuspecting victims. In 2020, TrueCaller, an app designed to block scam phone calls, successfully blocked, and identified 31.3 billion spam calls in 20 countries. In the same year, Americans alone lost a total of USD $ 29.8 billion to scam calls. This Note argues that phone scams continue to be lucrative, in part, because criminal prosecutions of transnational crimes are difficult when concurrent jurisdiction exists. This Note suggests that countries, where phone scammers operate, ought to follow the international law obligation of aut dedere aut judicare (obligation to extradite or prosecute) and prosecute the scammers. The international community should work together to create task forces that support the prosecuting nations by training local law enforcement in investigatory techniques, providing resources—such as computer forensic equipment, and sharing information, such as victim records and intelligence