8353 research outputs found
Sort by
The DNA Default and Its Discontents: Establishing Modern Parenthood
No full textMost contemporary family law scholarship assumes that propriety of a DNA default for establishing parenthood - a presumption that, in the absence of marriage, whoever had the sex with the mother that resulted in the child should be the father of the child. This article problematizes that DNA default. It demonstrates how the DNA default necessarily magnifies the legal and social importance of sex, discounts the legal significance of women\u27s reproductive labor, and marginalizes all children living outside the binary, heteronormative norm that a genetic regime necessarily edifies. When scrutinized, the DNA default looks just as moralistic and exclusionary as a parentage regime rooted in marriage. Very few people in contemporary family law scholarship acknowledge this problem, even as they fault the law for not being attentive to the struggles of non-marital parents. Attending to the needs of non-marital parents requires asking the preliminary question of who should be considered a parent, especially because in the low income communities in which the DNA default has the most salience - because marriage is rare - the DNA default echoes the call for the law to support non-marital parenting, but it challenges scholars and the law to be much more careful when deciding how to fill the gap left by rejecting marriage as the root of parentage. It suggests that the law should expand the paradigms used in adoption and reproductive technology contracts, and try to replicate the cooperative norms engendered by marriage, to replace the void left by non-marriage with a parental registration regime capacious enough to include pluralistic family forms and sensible enough to demythologize sex
Making Civilian Drones Safe: Performance Standards, Self-Certification, and Post-Sale Data Collection
No full textWith millions of small drones in private hands, the FAA continues its struggle to develop an effective regulatory regime to comply with Congress’s mandate to integrate them into the national airspace system. Thousands of individuals and small businesses have obtained authorization from the FAA— section 333 exemptions —allowing them to fly their drones commercially. Farmers, TV stations, surveyors, construction-site supervisors, real estate agents, people selling their properties, and managers seeking cheaper and safer ways to inspect their facilities, want to hire the exemption holders, but many are holding back until the FAA clarifies the groundrules.The FAA understands that its traditional approach for testing and licensing pilots, scrutinizing every detail of a new aircraft before it can be flown, and controlling flight operations of helicopters and airplanes have little relevance to the risks presented by small drones. In any event, traditional aviation regulations are unenforceable against tens or hundreds of thousands of drone owners who know nothing about the FAA or the FARs, are not part of the aviation culture, and who fly mainly in their backyards or customers’ parking lots.Ultimately, the agency will be drawn to regulate drones at the point of sale—to say to Amazon: you can\u27t sell one of these unless it has certain built-in safety capabilities—unless it is law-abiding out of the box.” The FAA acknowledges that the traditional approach to airworthiness certification,” which costs tens of millions of dollars and takes years is not the answer for a $1,000 DJI Phantom 3.Law-abiding drone performance standards must define performance capabilities rather than engineering details; they must allow manufacturers to self-certify compliance—just as they do with computers, Wi-Fi equipment, automobiles, and trucks. Automatic post-sale data transmission by the drones will permit manufacturers and the FAA to analyze actual behavior, thereby refining their understanding of actual, rather than theoretical, risks, and to determine the reliability of automated safety systems. Lawless drones will be subject to recalls in extreme cases, and designers and manufacturers will pay the price in tort liability for reckless decisionmaking
Uber Television: Internet-Only Television Stations
No full textBroadcast television in the United States is under siege. Viewers are jumping ship, finding their news and entertainment on the Internet. A thicket of intellectual property license restrictions makes it difficult for broadcasters to follow them. Some content producers limit distribution for the acknowledged purpose of slowing the migration to new technologies. The FCC’s Broadcast Incentive Auction provides an opportunity for TV stations to get a fresh start. By abandoning expensive transmitters and antennas, by embracing the Uber ride-sharing model of contingent work, by taking advantage of the creativity of indie video producers, by utilizing the full potential of targeted advertising, and by adopting best practices for Internet dissemination of news and entertainment, the FCC Incentive Auction can preserve what is best about television: on-the-spot journalism, careful analysis of public affairs, and compelling drama and comedy that make people think
Is the Injury Real?: The Seventh Circuit Extends Article III Standing to Data Breach Victims
Get PDFData breaches are becoming a more frequent and more troubling part of modern life. When customer or employee information is stolen en masse, lawsuits often follow. Courts have frequently dismissed such cases very early for want of Article III standing. For purposes of standing, courts are faced with the question of whether or not the fact of a breach is sufficient for plaintiffs to bring lawsuits against the credit card companies, employers, or stores that, as victims of a cyberattack, have compromised the information of hundreds or thousands. But the real victims are those whose personal information has been stolen. Therefore, the essential question is whether or not their harm is sufficient to allege the injury element of Article III standing.
The Seventh Circuit addressed this matter in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus, LLC, in which Neiman Marcus shoppers brought suit against the luxury store following a data breach that compromised the information of 350,000 shoppers, 9,200 of whom suffered fraudulent charges on their credit cards. At the trial level, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held, inter alia, that the fraudulent charges were not enough to prove injury sufficient to confer standing because the charges were reimbursed, rendering the alleged injury insufficiently “concrete.” The district court also found that the remaining shoppers who did not suffer fraudulent charges also suffered no injury-in-fact. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the District Court had improperly applied the Supreme Court’s holding in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA. The Seventh Circuit held that Clapper did not foreclose the use of future injuries. On the contrary, standing was held to be appropriate where there was a substantial risk of future harm to all plaintiffs whose information was stolen. This Comment first discusses the history of Article III standing, with a focus on data breaches, followed by a discussion of the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Remijas. Finally, this Comment argues that Remijas was correctly decided and was properly distinguished from Clapper
The Rabbi\u27s Daughter and the Jewish Jane Addams : Jewish Women, Legal Aid, and the Fluidity of Identity, 1890-1930
Get PDFRevolution at the Supreme Court
No full textLawyer, author, pundit and former Chicago-Kent professor Linda Hirshman discussed her new book, Sisters in Law: How Sandra Day O\u27Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World, and the future of the Supreme Court at Chicago-Kent College of Law on April 12, 2016.
This event was sponsored by the Chicago-Kent Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Runtime: 01:04:5
Annual Report - 2016
Get PDFAnnual report of the activity of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law for April 2015 - April 2016
