6163 research outputs found
Sort by
The Immutable Blockchain Confronts the Unstoppable GDPR
Get PDFThe notion that privacy is dispensable and should be sacrificed in exchange for internet access is misguided. In fact, privacy laws are flourishing, highlighting the significance of safeguarding personal information in the digital age. It is crucial to recognize that privacy is not merely a luxury, but a fundamental right that should be upheld, even in the context of online activities. In the ever-evolving landscape of technology, the collision between privacy and innovation becomes increasingly apparent. This paper delves into the intriguing convergence of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and blockchain technology, unraveling pivotal issues that arise from this intersection. Firstly, this article explores the compatibility of encryption and hashing mechanisms on the blockchain with GDPR\u27s stringent criteria for anonymous data is analyzed, illuminating the ongoing debates in this area. Secondly, this article considers the challenges to conventional notions of centralized control caused by the intricate task of identifying data controllers within decentralized blockchains, particularly in the dynamic realm of public blockchains. Lastly, this article addresses the perplexing question of exercising data subject rights in decentralized environments, where the immutability of data poses significant hurdles to the practical implementation of rights such as erasure and rectification. Through a comprehensive analysis of these issues, this article emphasizes the crucial need for the harmonious coexistence of privacy principles and technological advancements
Social Care for Caregivers: How Washington Can Guarantee Unemployment Insurance for Working Caregivers
Get PDF
Student Life E-Newsletter February 21, 2023
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1121/thumbnail.jp
Amended Brief of Amici Curiae Freedom Project, Civil Survival, Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equity, King County Department of Public Defense, and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner
Get PDFEnhancing Reproductive Justice Transnationally: An Equality-Based Approach to Sex-Selective Abortion Laws in India
No full text“Buy Now, Pay Later: No Fees. No Credit Check.”
Get PDFAfterpay and Affirm, are financial technology (“fintech”) platforms that allow consumers to split their low-cost purchases into four installment payments–with seemingly no interest, fees, or hard credit inquiries. Similar to retailer fees on credit card transactions, these companies generate most of their profits as the intermediary between consumers and merchants. By flaunting celebrities like A$AP Rocky and Keke Palmer, the loan products are heavily advertised as the “cool” alternative to traditional credit cards and are particularly well-received among Millennials and Generation Z (“Gen Z”) consumers. Consequently, consumer advocates are duly concerned that lenders irresponsibly extend credit to a young generation, who remain particularly vulnerable to the “present bias,” which undervalues future losses and overvalues present satisfaction. Currently, U.S. regulators have not confined lenders to proper regulatory parameters and remain silent on the regulatory gaps caused by the third-party lenders’ intentional “skirt[ing] of the definition of a [covered] loan under some U.S. laws.
Fee Retrenchment in Immigration Habeas
No full textFor noncitizens facing removal, habeas corpus provides one of a very few avenues for Article III review. And, for decades, habeas proceedings have been interpreted as falling under the ambit of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which provides for the award of attorneys’ fees to prevailing parties in suits against the federal government. But this understanding is being challenged, threatening the judicial backstop to executive and legislative overreach in immigration. Reducing the ability of lawyers to recover their fees in these circumstances will reduce the number and quality of habeas challenges by individuals being detained while they await removal—a particularly salient worry given the recent history of aggressive enforcement and misconduct by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Article demonstrates that reading out habeas proceedings from the EAJA is best understood as an example of the federal courts’ jurisprudential shift against the private enforcement of civil rights—that is, the rights retrenchment movement. This case study also shows how non-acquiescence permits agencies to selectively tee up issues for retrenchment and magnify the structural power differences between them and the individuals they face in litigation. The Article then applies a procedural justice lens to normatively assess whether the EAJA should cover immigration habeas. Using the Mathews v. Eldridge framework for this inquiry, the Article identifies the strong private interests at stake, the value of the process, and the government’s interest, mapping these factors to the accuracy, efficiency, and participation norms
