8227 research outputs found
Sort by
Putting Police Body-Worn Camera Footage to Work: A Civil Liberties Evaluation of Truleo\u27s AI Analytics Platform
No full textThis Article summarizes findings from a civilliberties evaluation of Truleo, an Al-powered analytics platform designed to automate thereviewofpolice body-worn camera (BWC) footage. It includes a summary of how Truleo\u27s platform works, policy choices made by the company, and our assessment ofsafeguards and risks of the platform from a civil liberties perspective. This Article also offers a series of recommendations for policymakers considering the adoption of Truleo or similar technologies. These indude the necessity for independent testing of claimed benefits, democratic authorization for deployment, and ongoing transparency and public input around the platform\u27s design and operation. Importantly, this Article argues that BWC footage should be treated as civic data owned by the public, not the police, to enable wider access and use for purposes such as research, oversight, and the exploration ofalternative public safety approaches. Generalizing beyond Truleo, we note that despite their cost, explosive growth, and the incredible amount of personal data they capture, BWCs are significantly underregulated by law, with many critical policychoices left to the law enforcement agencies that use the technology: As a result, the use of the technology has shifted away from its original impetus-to improve outcomes for members of the public interacting with the police and to provide transparency and accountability when things go wrong-and increasingly toward an investigative tool. But we view BWC as the largest collection of data on policing in existence, and one that has been woefully underutilized as a tool for evaluating and improving policing, thus leaving much of the value of our nation\u27s investment in BWCs untapped. AI technologies like Truleo can rebalance the scales by automating the review of this BWC footage, but we worry that Truleo\u27s full potential will never be achieved so long as police retain sole control of the data. Accordingly, we emphasize the need for proactive policymaking by legislators to ensure that emerging AI analytics technologies serve the public interest and help realize the benefits of the significant public investment in BWCs
Student-Athletes, Universities, and Society: Balancing the Symbiosis
No full textElite student-athletes at prominent sports schools are locked in a symbiotic relationship with their universities and with society’s consumers of college sports. For most student-athletes, receiving the benefits of a college education and professional development in exchange for providing their skills and services through athletic participation is mutually beneficial. For these student-athletes, their relationship to the university is still, at its core, educational and professional development based. For the rarefied student-athletes in popular sports, more akin to professional athletes, the nature of their relationship to the university is not always educational. For some of these student-athletes, they attend college and play at the collegiate level because that is the route they must take to pursue professional careers. These student-athletes still benefit from educational instruction, but the value of the services that they provide to their institutions and to society is far greater than what they receive. As consumers of college sports, we contribute to this imbalanced symbiosis: college athletics would be much less exciting and competitive if the professional caliber athletes bypassed college sports. Although the mission of a university is to educate students, the significance of the university on society and culture is often tied to its athletic prowess and prestige. For elite student-athletes who contribute to our larger, societal need for competitive college sports and who are in a position, both athletically and developmentally, to play at the professional level, these new bargaining chips created a power shift in this symbiotic relationship. This Article argues that student-athlete, NIL leveraged business ownership and creation is a means to balance the long-term goals and needs of the student-athletes, the universities, and consumers of college sports. First, the promotion of student-athlete business ownership and creation embraces the rights restorative framework benefitting student-athletes. Second, universities can fulfill their educational and development missions and remain financially and athletically competitive. Third, promoting student-athlete business ownership and creation embraces the role of consumers in this symbiotic relationship and can have the larger, spillover effect of contributing to regional economic development in America’s unique college towns
Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies Standard of Review for Advance Notice Bylaw
No full textOf the myriad corporate defenses erected during the hostile takeover boom of the mid-to-late 1980s, the one that has received the least scrutiny by the Delaware judiciary-at least until recently-is the so-called advance notice bylaw. Advance notice bylaws adopted by corporate boards of directors are designed and function to permit orderly meetings and election contests and to provide fair warning to the corporation so that it may have sufficient time to respond to shareholder nominations. Kellner v. AIM ImmunoTech Inc., 320 A.3d 229 (Del. July 11, 2024) ( Kellner ) (quoting Openwave Sys. Inc. v. Harbinger Cap. Partners Master Fund I, Ltd., 924 A.2d 228, 239 (Del. Ch. 2007)). Traditionally, advance notice bylaws require[d] stockholders to provide the board with prior notice of, and information about, their director nominations. They have been modified over time to meet changing market conditions and to adjust to evolving securities regulations. As the technology has changed and advanced notice bylaws have become more complicated, the Delaware Court of Chancery ( Chancery Court ) has been asked in recent years to address several challenges to both the substance and application of these bylaws. Confronted by overlapping-and potentially conflicting-legal standards of review employed by the Chancery Court in addressing these challenges, the Delaware Supreme Court (the Court ) in Kellner clarified the appropriate standard for assessing these challenges
A Unicorn No More? The No-Trade Clause and its Potential to Reshape NBA Contractual Negotiations
Full text linkThe no-trade clause, which, in the simplest of terms, allows a player to block his organization from trading him, is somewhat of a unicorn in NBA contractual circles. It has been sparsely used in the National Basketball Association (NBA) history, and there are certainly some good reasons for this. Allowing a player to control his fate without any potential for a trade puts his team in a straitjacket. Thus, teams have long kept their distance from the no-trade clause, with only ten players in NBA history having a no-trade clause in their contract. Most of these players have been legends within their respective organizations: long-tenured players who simply wish to one day retire with the teams on which they have spent the majority of their careers.As the average salary of an NBA player has ballooned over the past few years, teams have been forced to give maximum contracts to retain their best talent, regardless of whether that player is deserving of a maximum contract. This has led to a newfound loyalty problem: with maximum contracts becoming more and more the norm, what can teams offer their franchise player(s) that will incentivize them to stay if they can get a maximum contract anywhere? The answer is the no-trade clause, which gives players a unique contractual provision that they cannot get on other teams. The aforementioned problems that are associated with the no-trade clause remain, but certain teams would be wise to consider exercising this option for young players whom they see as franchise figureheads for years to come. This Note investigates the history of the no-trade clause in the NBA, its use in other sports leagues, and the potential implications of its expanded use moving forward. This Note argues for the no-trade clause to be entrenched as a more common contractual provision, serving as an additional tool for both teams and players alike to consider when at the negotiating table. As a part of this solution, this Note advocates for changes to the NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement that will give teams more flexibility in choosing to whom they wish to give no-trade clauses. Should these changes be made, this Note identifies the player archetype to which teams should consider giving no-trade clauses
Dangerous Digital Standing: Applying Spokeo and TransUnion to Online Privacy Harms
Full text linkIn recent years, the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) has been used to sue website-holding companies for utilizing chat bots that record online conversations. Such claims have already generated high-profile class actions and multidistrict litigations, with many more expected. Because CIPA violations often occur writ large when websites retain data from their chat boxes, and the statute imposes relatively high damages, there exists an incentive for plaintiffs’ attorneys to seek out aggregated claims, generating time-consuming litigation. Meanwhile, the harms suffered by those bringing suit fall under the category of intangible privacy harms. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s case law regarding standing shows a broader allowance for potentially nominal harms. This differs from the US Supreme Court’s norm following TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez’s emphasis on an injury’s concreteness to confer standing. While recent decisions show that the effectiveness of CIPA in chatroom-type class actions is limited, at least one court has found a CIPA plaintiff to have standing absent any seemingly concrete harm.This Note describes the potentially illusory claims giving rise to mass litigation in California federal courts. It then analyzes the common injuries under a proposed reading of TransUnion that denies standing to most intangible harms. It ultimately concludes that appellate review should compel the revival of limited standing applied to intangible, digital harms in the Ninth Circuit. However, the TransUnion decision may rest on shaky Constitutional ground. Justice Thomas has advanced a dissenting view, rooted in history, which emphasizes the nature of the rights at issue. This view might have gained traction with a more originalist judiciary and could eventually prevail. While Justice Thomas’s view would allow seemingly frivolous suits for statutory damages, this Note argues it could also inform legislatures about the best ways to frame causes of action when they aim to protect digital privacy rights
Presidential Regulation
Full text linkThis Article documents and analyzes the rise of a new mode of economic governance: presidential regulation. Today, the President regularly bypasses not only Congress but also the executive branch’s own administrative agencies and directly imposes sweeping new economic regulations. President Biden, for instance, created new regulatory regimes governing producers of artificial-intelligence technologies, companies that trade […
How Different Are the Trump Judges?
Full text linkDonald J. Trump’s first presidency broke the mold in many ways, including how to think about judicial appointments. Unlike other recent presidents, President Trump was open about how “his” judges could be depended on to rule in particular ways on key issues (e.g., guns, religion, and abortion) he was courting voters on. Other factors, such as age and personal loyalty to Trump, seemed important criteria as well. With selection criteria such as these, one might expect that Trump would select from a smaller pool of candidates than other presidents. Given the smaller pool and deviation from traditional norms of picking “good” judges, we were curious about how the Trump judges performed on a basic set of measures of judging. One prediction is that Trumpian constraints on judicial selection produced a different set of judges that underperform compared to judges appointed by other presidents. Using data on active federal appeals court judges from January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2023, we examine data on judges across three different measures: opinion production, influence (measured by citations), and independence or what we refer to as “maverick” behavior. With the caveat that we have less data on judges appointed by President Biden, Trump judges do not underperform. One might even say that they outperform expectations