6163 research outputs found
Sort by
Biometric Data Collection and Big Tech: Imposing Ethical Constraints on Entities that Harvest Biometric Data
Get PDFAmazon can tell when you are sleeping, when you are awake, and when you are stressed, and they can do it before you may recognize it yourself. At least it will be able to if you decide to buy their newest wearable health monitoring technology. In 2020, Amazon joined Google’s Fitbit and Apple’s Apple Watch in the wearable technology market with the Amazon Halo. A wristband outfitted with a variety of sensors designed to help manage and record health identifiers, including body fat percentage, step tracking, sleep tracking, and now emotional responses. Many companies have begun developing and exploring the power that comes from harvesting our biometric data. Companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon have established massive reach through their existing platforms, which millions of people regularly use. These companies have discovered the usefulness of accessing biometric data to complement their already expansive traditional data collection practices and are beginning to expand their capacity to develop technologies that allow them to take advantage of their existing reach. As these corporations invest in wearable biometric reading devices, “wearables,” they can also take advantage of their massive capacity to utilize the information they extract from the biometric readings of users through their wearable technology.
To address these problems, Washington State should take two more steps. To respond to this changing technological environment, Washington State should adopt new definitions for biometric identifiers, to expand legal coverage for potentially abusable data that companies are beginning to harvest. Washington State should also address the risk of in-house abuse by large corporations that use consumer data in various projects by imposing a higher standard of consent to harvest biometric data from consumers. Further, the Federal Government should adopt similar ethical standards to those imposed on biomedical research organizations which gather, store, and use massive quantities of patient data. The Federal Government should also set an informed consent requirement based on dynamic consent and should require corporations to provide notice and obtain affirmative consent every time they want to use consumer biometric data for a new project. Dynamic consent incorporates an initial consent agreement and creates an ongoing dialogue where consumers can choose to allow or choose to bar the use of their data for new projects as the corporate interest arises. Implementing ethical standards will require corporations and consumers engage in ongoing dialogue about creating a system with less potential for abuse and ensure that corporations do not cause harm when people agree to something they may not understand
Cannabis Receiverships: The Alternative for State Legal Cannabis businesses Seeking Financial Rehabilitation Locked Out of Bankruptcy Court by the Controlled Substances Act
Get PDFThis article explores how cannabis businesses suffer by being unable to utilize federal bankruptcy and explore state law receiverships as an alternative remedy to help cannabis businesses weather financial storms.
Part I explores the limitations and differences between a receivership and a bankruptcy. Part II discusses how state legal cannabis companies cannot seek financial rehabilitation in bankruptcy court due to cannabis being listed as a schedule I drug federally. Part III explores how receivership be used to help cannabis companies that cannot seek bankruptcy protection to financially rehabilitate themselves. Part IV details how a receiver can help a cannabis company that cannot access bankruptcy court financially rehabilitate itself and how a receiver is appointed. Lastly, Part V concludes by discussing how cannabis companies often fail unnecessarily due to lack of bankruptcy protection, which harms economies and prevents the collection of tax revenue
Games at 50th Anniversary Picnic
No full textThis photo was taken at Seattle University School of Law\u27s 50th Anniversary Picnic., which launched a year of 50th anniversary celebrations with a family-friendly picnic event in Tacoma at Titlow Park. Tacoma was the birthplace of the law school in 1972, at University of Puget Sound. (Photos by Mel Ponder)https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/archives_photos/1081/thumbnail.jp
Student Life E-Newsletter November 07, 2022
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1110/thumbnail.jp
Student Life E-Newsletter November 21, 2022
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1112/thumbnail.jp
Student Life E-Newsletter November 14, 2022
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1111/thumbnail.jp
Native America: Universities as Quasi-Cities, Sovereignty and The Power to Name
Get PDFUniversities as quasi-cities have an obligation to reflect on their educational mission, and public universities have a responsibility to Native America through the unique federal trust responsibility owed to Native Nations by the federal government. The naming of buildings and transitioning to responsible adulthood requires universities, administrators, and students to reflect on who we were, who we are now, and whom we hope to be. Collaborative efforts to work with Native Nations should be undertaken with regard to naming issues.
Sovereigns possess power to control historical narratives and outcomes through their sovereign power to (1) name geographical places; (2) protect names as intellectual property; (3) use military naming protocols; and (4) name buildings. With this power comes the unique trust responsibility to Native Nations and Native Americans to recognize and acknowledge harms that have negative generational impacts. Universities are urban spaces and environments that are especially important spiritually to Native people who live, work, and attend classes there.
Once universities are on notice that buildings on their campuses may have names that inappropriately glorify those responsible for widespread human rights violations, they are at least ethically obligated to (1) review the alleged harms; (2) remove and replace the name; (3) mitigate the harm by offering a prominently displayed permanent educational explanation or exhibit that is based on facts; or (4) if the committee determines the second and third mitigation steps are not warranted, then the University should seek other means of recognizing harms by alternate programs, museum exhibits or other educational strategies, e.g., establish an American Indian Studies degree program.
Creating an environment of reflection and action to mitigate historical harms that come from failures of the past to recognize these harms is an important role for universities to protect and advance the future of Indigenous people in America
5th Annual Innovation and Technology Law Conference: Deep Innovation Dives
Get PDFSteven W. Bender, Seattle University School of Law Professor and organizer of the SITIE Symposium series, details the history of the SITIE symposiums and the 2022 proceedings. He discusses how this year\u27s symposium builds on themes and issues raised in previous symposiums and looks ahead to the 2023 SITIE symposium
Law Students Help Ukranian Refugees Start Asylum Applications
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/news_center/1126/thumbnail.jp