UC Law SF Scholarship Repository
Not a member yet
18602 research outputs found
Sort by
Towards Responsible Quantum Technology: Safeguarding, Engaging and Advancing Quantum R&D
Get PDFThe expected societal impact of quantum technologies (QT) urges us to proceed and innovate responsibly. This article proposes a conceptual framework for Responsible QT that seeks to integrate considerations about ethical, legal, social, and policy implications (ELSPI) into quantum R&D, while responding to the Responsible Research and Innovation dimensions of anticipation, inclusion, reflection and responsiveness. After examining what makes QT unique, we argue that quantum innovation should be guided by a methodological framework for Responsible QT, aimed at jointly safeguarding against risks by proactively addressing them, engaging stakeholders in the innovation process, and continue advancing QT (‘SEA’). We further suggest operationalizing the SEA-framework by establishing quantum-specific guiding principles. The impact of quantum computing on information security is used as a case study to illustrate (1) the need for a framework that guides Responsible QT, and (2) the usefulness of the SEA-framework for QT generally. Additionally, we examine how our proposed SEA-framework for responsible innovation can inform the emergent regulatory landscape affecting QT, and provide an outlook of how regulatory interventions for QT as base-layer technology could be designed, contextualized, and tailored to their exceptional nature in order to reduce the risk of unintended counterproductive effects of policy interventions.
Laying the groundwork for a responsible quantum ecosystem, the research community and other stakeholders are called upon to further develop the recommended guiding principles, and discuss their operationalization into best practices and real-world applications. Our proposed framework should be considered a starting point for these much needed, highly interdisciplinary efforts
The Cycle of Delegitimization: Lessons From Dred Scott on the Relationship Between the Supreme Court and the Nation
Get PDFThis Article examines how Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford sparked a cycle of delegitimization that parallels contemporary debates about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy crisis. Part I explicates how one family’s fight for freedom in Missouri reached the Supreme Court, the resulting radical decision, and the nation’s reaction to show the initial stages of this cycle. Part II examines the impact of Dred Scott on politics and law during the James Buchanan administration (1857–1861). During this period, the federal government, Southern states, and some Western territories swiftly implemented the decision, for example by expelling free Black residents. The opinion and its implementation horrified Northerners and inspired their efforts to resist Dred Scott, including by passing legislation to expand Black rights and repudiating Dred Scott in judicial opinions such as Lemmon v. People of New York. The widespread Northern belief that Dred Scott was illegitimate propelled Republicans, who promised to defy its holdings, into national power. Part III explores how Republicans during the Lincoln and Andrew Johnson administrations (1861–1868) flouted and systematically dismantled Dred Scott by passing laws and implementing executive policies to contradict its holdings. These efforts culminated in the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, superseding Dred Scott and completing the cycle of delegitimization. Finally, Part IV uses the lessons of this nineteenth century cycle of delegitimization to scrutinize the Supreme Court’s current legitimacy crisis. It argues that recent decisions including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could inspire a similar cycle of delegitimization
After the Demise of Affirmative Action, Ensuring Equitable Access to Educational Opportunities
Get PDFOn June 29, 2023, the United States Supreme Court held in two related cases that race-based affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional, because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. What is next in (higher) education after the Supreme Court’s rulings in two related cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions? The decisions may dramatically transform college admissions and even how universities think about allocating their resources and about their role in a democratic society. Even now, the Court’s holdings are rippling past highly selective college campuses to corporate boardrooms, non-profits, and state legislatures.
Despite the Court banning race-based affirmative action in college admissions, new empirical analysis of a novel big data set demonstrates that Asian American applicants to highly selective colleges are 28% less likely to be admitted than white students with similar standardized test scores, high school GPAs, and extracurricular activities. This Asian American admissions penalty is primarily due to legacy admissions and preferences for geographical balance. This Essay advocates that highly selective colleges end legacy admissions to diversify America’s economic, political, and social leadership. This Essay also advocates ending the recruiting of athletes in such elite sports as fencing, rowing, sailing, and water polo. This Essay suggests ending the practice of early decision. This Essay also endorses effectively cloning highly selective colleges. Finally, this Essay offers practical and pragmatic answers to questions about how to change education for the better
I Spy with My Many Eyes: The Government’s Unbridled Use of Your Surveillance Cameras
Get PDFSurveillance cameras are increasingly used by the public and law enforcement to prevent and prosecute criminal activity. Individuals and companies can grant law enforcement access to private cameras for both live monitoring feeds and recorded footage, thereby creating a quasi- public network of private cameras. According to the third-party doctrine, the government can access all information from these surveillance cameras without a subpoena or warrant and without infringing upon Fourth Amendment privacy protections. However, as technology advances and the prevalence of surveillance cameras rises, this per se rule fails to account for one’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the public and private spheres.
This Note examines the 2022 San Francisco ordinance, which authorizes the government to use private cameras in a wide variety of circumstances. Specifically, it reviews the ordinance through the mosaic theory, whose proponents champion as a necessary correction to the erosion of Fourth Amendment rights and whose opponents condemn as doctrinally flawed and impractical to administer. To address the theory’s doctrinal shortcomings, this Note reviews the historical development of privacy protections with each new technology considered by the Supreme Court. To demonstrate how the theory may be applied to other technologies, this Note analyzes the circuit court split on whether the warrantless use of pole cameras constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Pole cameras serve as a useful proxy for private cameras under the ordinance.
Ultimately, this Note recommends that the San Francisco ordinance be modified to safeguard an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy by adding a notice requirement with camera stickers and adjacent signs, requiring police officers to provide camera owners with a brief descriptive justification for each requested video, and limiting the duration of access to live and historical feeds for each event
