Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
Internet Search Engines’ Privacy Violations and the Lack of Federal Regulation to Protect Consumers Rights
No full textThe United States’ current legal framework regarding internet search engines is disadvantageous to consumers. Federal privacy laws (although not encompassing search engines) grant businesses a strong legal basis in privacy claims and alibies for arbitrary behavior; these laws favor businesses over consumers. Moreover, state privacy laws empower nonspecific agencies to oversee privacy matters and enforce consumers’ rights. Thus, the U.S. privacy legal framework is in need of a new federal law that establishes consumers’ rights, as well as a federal agency dedicated solely to privacy matters. This Article proposes a federal law recommendation based on the standards of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. This Article advocates for a federal law to solve all the issues that exist in this field, such as the lack of federal regulation contemplating consumers’ privacy rights and establishing boundaries for businesses’ behavior towards consumers. It also argues that the possible limitations of this federal law—such as government surveillance or influence and First Amendment limitations—demonstrate the need for federal regulation
Familial Fairness: Guaranteeing the Right to Counsel for Indigent Parents in Juvenile Dependency Proceedings
No full textFairness principles enumerated in the seminal case Gideon v. Wainwright stand for the proposition that fundamental fairness and due process require appointment of counsel for indigent litigants. However, this principle has been constrained to criminal contexts. Many other types of litigation are just as impactful as a criminal proceeding, including juvenile dependency proceedings. Nevertheless, indigent parents do not enjoy an unqualified representation right.
This Comment traces the history of the representation right and how it has been treated in a juvenile dependency context, beginning with Gideon itself and examining other cases such as Eldridge and Lassiter. It then examines how state judiciaries and legislatures have handled the representation right in the wake of Lassiter and the quality of representation in a select few jurisdictions.
Lastly, this Comment argues that the status quo is untenable as both a practical matter and a matter of principle. Practically, access to adequate representation is geographically disparate, with many indigent parents suffering the legal consequences as a result. Principally, Gideon’s fairness and due process values are diminished by controlling caselaw denying indigent parents an unqualified representation right.
Instead, federal law can be used to both guarantee the representation right and secure federal funding for state initiatives. States can and should create centralized systems of representation to better serve indigent parents and improve outcomes
