Emory Law Scholarly Commons
Not a member yet
2100 research outputs found
Sort by
Posted: No Phising
Get PDFAny engineering approach to cybersecurity must recognize that many breaches are the result of human behavior, rather than sophisticated malware. Effective cybersecurity defenses require a systematic engineering approach that recognizes the organizational, cultural and psychological barriers to effectively dealing with this problem. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) defines “phishing” as, “the use of fraudulent emails and copy-cat websites to trick you into revealing valuable personal information—such as account numbers for banking, securities, mortgage, or credit accounts, your social security numbers, and the login IDs and passwords you use when accessing online financial service providers.” Once this information is fraudulently obtained, it may be used to steal your identity, money, or both. A review of the literature reveals an alarming lack of attention to the prevalent threat of low-technology, or low-complexity phishing attacks. Accordingly, here is a primer on the prominent exploit known as phishing, illustration of several cases, and the necessity for organizational and societal education of data users as to appropriate computer hygiene. Much of the literature about cyberattack addresses technical aspects of computer code, encryption, and bad actor attribution. Yet human behavior remains a significant source responsible for successful cyber intrusions. Your authors believe this Article provides a valuable discussion about the human factors that very often comprise a back-door entryway into data systems
With Our Feet to the Fire: Regional Agreements as Mechanisms of Changing International Law to Include Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Get PDFWith sea levels rising and large-scale natural disasters becoming more frequent because of climate change, there is an increasing number of people who have been or will inevitably displaced out of their country of origin. The current international definition of “refugee” and its application in New Zealand with the Teitiota family case prevent people fleeing their home countries due to the effects of climate change from availing themselves of protections given to traditional “refugees,” though there have been regional expansions of the traditional definition. Recently, there has been movement in the global community via the Refugee Compact and the Migrant Compact to broaden those protections, but this Comment postulates that those protections are not sufficient enough to address the issues faced by climate change displaced persons. Instead, this Comment suggests that regional agreements, drawing on precedents set by the Nansen Initiative, are the better method to use in discovering solutions for climate change displaced persons since climate change displaced persons tend to remain in their own regions and key players are more likely to enter into regional agreements
Owning Frida Kahlo
Get PDFMexican painter Frida Kahlo died a feminist, anti-capitalist, queer, disabled, gender fluid, revolutionary. Today, Kahlo continues to captivate the public through her art, her life, and—her Barbie. Released in 2018, Mattel’s Frida Kahlo Barbie faced its harshest criticisms from none other than Kahlo’s family. Turning to social media, the family showered Mattel with questions on its audacity to release a Barbie in Kahlo’s likeness. Enraged over the Barbie’s features, complexation, and design, Kahlo’s family rushed to a court in Mexico where a judge issued a temporary injunction preventing the Barbie’s sale in Mexico. The resulting media coverage pit Kahlo’s family against a Panamanian corporation bearing Frida Kahlo’s name in a public confrontation regarding whether the family or the Frida Kahlo Corporation held the rights to license Kahlo’s trademark. Drawing upon critical race theory insights, this Comment offers the first legal examination of Kahlo’s trademarks. Through comparative law, this Comment argues that neither party should hold rights to Kahlo’s trademark. Rather, in honoring her life and legacy, her politics and beliefs, Kahlo’s name and likeness should enter the public domain
TIME\u27s Real Person of the Year (and Why He was Good for Law Firms Too)
No full textFirst Presentation
TIME\u27s Real Person of the Year (and Why He was Good for Law Firms Too)Richard Grice, Senior Counsel, Alston & Bird, Atlant
The New-Age Streets and Parks: Government-run Social Media Accounts as Traditional Public Forums
Get PDFIn 1939, the Supreme Court held in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization that citizen speech in government-owned properties such as streets and parks is subject to heightened First Amendment protection. These properties, the Court reasoned, are by their very nature reserved for the public to use for assembly and communication. Over time, these properties were labeled “public forums,” and the Supreme Court divided them into a number of categories, each affording varying levels of protection to private speech. The “streets and parks” from Hague were classified as “traditional public forums,” and received the strongest level of constitutional protection. While the public forum doctrine has evolved over time to reflect the new technologies and realities of today’s world, courts have resisted expanding the traditional public forum beyond its origins largely due to language in Hague, which suggested that a traditional public forum must be “immemorially . . . held in trust for the use of the public.” This has led to public venues that are critical for assembly and communication in today’s world, such as government-run social media accounts, being classified as “limited’ or “designated public forums,” which offer fewer protections for citizens’ speech. This is an inconsistent standard that has permitted government officials to restrict and censor their constituents’ speech from their official social media pages, sometimes with impunity. This Comment argues that government-run social media accounts, arguably the most vital government-run venue for assembly and communication today, should be classified as traditional public forums. These accounts encompass nearly all of the historical qualities of the traditional public forum, apart from the “immemorial” standard from Hague. Careful review of public forum jurisprudence throughout the last century, however, shows that the “immemorial” standard should be treated not as a concrete requirement, but as merely one of many factors that weigh in the public forum equation
Israel and the Territorial Integrity of States
Get PDFThe territorial integrity of States has come to be accepted as a fundamental principle of international law. The secession of a region from an existing State will be accepted in very special circumstances, but the acquisition of a territory that is included within the national borders of a State is strictly prohibited. The territorial integrity of Palestine is the central theme of this Article. The establishment of Israeli settlements in Palestine and the construction of a wall/fence by Israel within Palestinian territories has been condemned in terms of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and by an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, respectively. In January 2020, former President of the United States, Donald Trump, with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu by his side, announced a “peace plan” in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute that will constitute a “win-win opportunity for both sides.” The “peace plan” included Israeli control of a unified Jerusalem as its capital, the annexation of Palestinian land with the Jordan River as its Eastern border, and sovereignty of Israel over Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. It is argued that the Trump/Netanyahu proposal is not a “peace plan” since Palestinian authorities were not included in its design and that the taking of Palestinian land by Israel clearly constitutes a blatant violation of the territorial integrity of Palestine. Palestine has been recognized as a State by 138 Member States of the United Nations, has been admitted as a Member State of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and although the Prosecutor of the ICC has raised certain concerns about the territorial confines of Palestine, a Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC recently decided that its territorial jurisdiction extends over the entire Palestinian territory occupied by Israel, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem
A Path Forward for the Postal Service
Get PDFWhat is the United States Postal Service (USPS)? The entity’s future, financial and otherwise, is wrapped up in the answer to this fundamental, yet surprisingly complicated, question. The postal service in the United States began as a part of the federal government, but over the years, Congress has altered its structure. Today’s USPS is an entity situated somewhere between a public, governmental agency and a private business. It has attributes resembling both, and while most observers agree that it is becoming more “privatized,” it is still subject to a significant number of laws and regulations that do not apply to private businesses. In addition, the USPS has a federally imposed “universal service obligation”—a requirement to deliver mail to every corner of the country—and a public-oriented mission that predates the birth of America itself. This Essay argues that the USPS’s structural identity—or lack thereof—poses innumerable problems, including and especially the lack of a readily available safety net, such as bankruptcy, in the event of the entity’s financial crisis. The need for more clarity on exactly what the USPS is—public agency or private business—is increasingly important as the USPS plunges deeper into a financial crisis that is decades in the making. Thus, this Essay contends that the way forward for the USPS is another restructuring, this time in the form of a commitment to transform the USPS into either a fully public agency or a fully private business. The status quo, in which it is unclear whether the USPS is one or the other, is simply untenable. The Essay proceeds as follows. Part II provides a history of the USPS, while Part III describes its current financial predicament. Part IV discusses why bankruptcy is not an appropriate or workable option for the USPS to resolve its financial difficulties, while Part V sets forth this Essay’s recommendations for the future structure of the USPS. Part VI briefly concludes by emphasizing the uniqueness of the USPS’s situation and status
Rucho v. Common Cause—A Critique
Get PDFOnce upon a time, the right to vote was held by the Supreme Court to be among the most precious of the rights protected by the Constitution, on which all other rights were dependent for their existence. Protection of the right to vote was not a partisan issue. Some of the leading defenders of the right to vote—including Justices Brennan, Powell, Stevens, and Kennedy—had all been appointed by Republican Presidents. As the confirmation process of federal judges by the Senate has become increasingly partisan, so have the decisions of the Supreme Court. The partisan divide has been particularly evident in the Court’s campaign finance and election law cases, which have, to an increasing degree, been decided along partisan lines of the Supreme Court. These cases illustrate that the United States is very much a government of men (and women) and not of laws, and that Chief Justice Roberts’ claims that the Justices of the Court are impartial umpires and that there are no Republican Justices or Democratic Justices are myths. No case is a better illustration of the partisan trend in the Supreme Court’s election law decisions than Rucho v. Common Cause. In a 5-4 party-line vote, the Court disregarded thirty years of Supreme Court precedent and held for the first time that partisan gerrymandering is a political question beyond both the competence and the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Roberts, whose entire opinion was based on a misrepresentation of the constitutional basis of the plaintiffs’ claims. The Chief Justice also misrepresented the Court’s prior precedents and disregarded the factual findings and undisputed evidence of the effectiveness of partisan gerrymandering in favoring candidates and dictating electoral outcomes. The majority opinion is both contradictory and hypocritical. While the Chief Justice self-righteously insisted that the Court was not condoning partisan gerrymandering and conceded that partisan gerrymandering is “incompatible with democratic institutions” and “leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,” the Chief Justice, nevertheless, endorsed the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering—the very issue that the Court had just held it had no jurisdiction to decide
