The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Not a member yet
5983 research outputs found
Sort by
Protecting the Innocent: How to Prevent the Consequences of Misidentification and Doxing by Volunteers Helping with Open Source Investigations
Full text linkIndividuals performing open source investigations can misidentify alleged perpetrators and dox innocent parties online, which can subsequently lead to threats and harassment against innocent parties and their loved ones. For example, threats were made against Sunil Tripathi’s family after he was wrongly identified as one of the Boston Marathon bombers and doxed on Reddit and Twitter. In 2020, the Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations was published as a guide, and it includes a set of principles to govern open source investigations. However, the Berkeley Protocol is limited to open source investigations performed by those working for organizations. It does not include situations in which organizations invite volunteers to help, also known as crowdsourcing investigations, or when individuals are performing their own investigations without any organizational support, such as when individuals Tweet people’s pictures and accuse them of crimes while asking others to help with identifying these alleged perpetrators. This gap leaves innocent parties at risk of the consequences of misidentification and doxing committed on the internet.
This article examines some of the best practices of three different organizations (Europol, Bellingcat, and Trace Labs) in their use of crowdsourcing in open source investigations and then considers how to adapt those best practices to better respect the Berkeley Protocol principles of accountability, competency, and accuracy. This article also looks at whether it is possible to adapt the Berkeley Protocol to better protect innocent parties from individuals performing investigations outside the scope of an organization. It finds that the Berkeley Protocol can and should be expanded to better guide organizations that instigate crowdsourcing, but that eliminating the risks of misidentification and doxing committed by individuals working outside the scope of an organization would be nearly impossible
Judge Amul R. Thapar Discusses His Book, The People’s Justice
No full textThe Center for Religious Liberty at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law (Catholic Law) hosted Judge Amul R. Thapar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Tuesday, March 5, to discuss his 2023 biography of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, The People’s Justice. Hosted in the William J. Byron, S.J. Auditorium, the discussion was introduced by Center co-director William L. Saunders, Jr., and led by Catholic Law professor and Center co-director Mark Rienzi, who asked the judge questions regarding the book’s development, choice of included court cases, and gaining the biography greater publicity. Judge Thapar engaged in a lively back-and-forth with audience members, answering questions and recounting stories of his interviews with Thomas and plaintiffs in whose favor the justice had often written opinions
Personal Data and Vaccination Hesitancy: COVID-19’s Lessons for Public Health Federalism
Full text linkDuring the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, the federal government adopted a more centralized approach to the collection of public health data. Although the states previously had controlled the storage of vaccination information, the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed plan required the reporting of recipients’ personal information on the grounds that it was needed to monitor the safety of novel vaccines and ensure correct administration of their multi-dose regimens.
Over the course of the pandemic response, this more centralized federal approach to data collection added a new dimension to pre-existing vaccination hesitancy. Requirements that recipients furnish individual information deterred vaccination among undocumented immigrants already fearful about the Trump Administration’s data-driven immigration enforcement policies—even as undocumented essential workers faced enhanced risks of COVID-19 exposure. Disputes with some states over the federal government’s proposed terms of governance for individual vaccination information compounded delays in the reporting of necessary public health information. Moreover, as the pandemic response evolved, the Biden Administration was obliged to counter apprehension among the broader public that federally-stored information might be used to enforce vaccination mandates or adoption of digital “vaccination passports.”
Notwithstanding calls for greater federal authority to directly gather data in future epidemics, I argue that the goal of achieving broad public vaccination uptake will be better served by preserving and improving a federalist approach that generally leaves the states to control the collection and storage of individually identifiable vaccination information. I contend that the lessons of COVID-19 suggest that more robust governance and technological controls for federal access to state public health data—coupled with improved transparency about the limits of federal data use—can both ameliorate public hesitancy and improve inter-governmental exchange
Understanding the Line Between Art and Abuse: How Generative AI Changes the Landscape of Child Sexual Abuse Materials
Full text linkA Look Back in Time: Analyzing the Success and Value of the 2014 Amendments to Rule 2a-7 and Reporting on Form N-CR in Light of the March 2020 Market Events
Full text linkMoney market funds have frequently been a target of regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Perhaps the most expansive regulation came as a response to the 2008 financial crisis, in which the Reserve Primary Fund “broke the buck.” The SEC’s misguided 2014 reforms exacerbated the inherent risks of money market funds, including the risk of runs and first mover advantage, particularly with the implementation of Form N-CR. Form N-CR requires a money market fund to publicly report when various events occur, including when a retail or government money market fund’s current net asset value per share deviates downward from its intended stable price per share by more than ¼ of 1 percent. This comment focuses on the success of reporting requirements on Form N-CR by examining the effect of the March 2020 market events on money market funds. Ultimately, this comment concludes that the reporting requirements on Form N-CR for downward deviations in net asset value did not successfully aid government and retail money market funds in handling the March 2020 market events and added little value to investors. This comment then suggests changes to Form N-CR that would make the public reporting more valuable to investors while continuing to mitigate risks of money market funds
\u3ci\u3eCoin Center v. Yellen\u3c/i\u3e Prompts Reconsideration of the Vast Deference Afforded to the Department of the Treasury
Full text linkThis Comment examines the legal implications of the sanctions issued by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control against Tornado Cash, an application that enables user privacy protection in transactions on the Ethereum blockchain. With the rapid expansion of the digital asset revolution, policymakers remained puzzled as to how to best establish a regulatory scheme that protects consumers without chilling innovation and investment in the digital asset market. The Office of Foreign Assets Control’s issuance of sanctions against Tornado Cash was an attempt to regulate an extremely volatile and unpredictable market. These sanctions prohibited all licit activity on the application, and as a result, developers and digital asset advocates filed suit against the Treasury Department. This Comment analyzes the claims raised in Van Loon v. Dep’t of Treasury and Coin Center v. Dep’t of Treasury, and it considers flaws in their respective district court decisions