UC Hastings Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series最新文献

{"title":"The Time Politics of Home-Based Digital Piecework","authors":"Veena Dubal","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3649270","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3649270","url":null,"abstract":"Changes in digital technology have radically transformed labor processes of the past century through the re-ordering of physical and cognitive spaces. But central aspects of technocapital’s organization in the 21st century borrow from and intensify previously abolished 20th century production practices. Automation industrialists, for example, have rediscovered production flexibility, speed, and surplus value in a vestige of garment manufacturing: piecework. Like early 20th century U.S. manufacturers who paid women working from home by the piece (Boris 1994), technology industrialists pay dispersed humans along the data supply chain by completion of a task rather than by the hour (Irani 2015). This under-regulated work, which machines cannot perform, forms the building blocks of changes in automation and artificial intelligence. How do today’s digital homeworkers conceive of and experience time in the context of this piecework? Examining narratives of U.S.-based Amazon Mechanical Turk data processors through a historical frame, I argue that although contemporary digital pieceworkers are ostensibly working “on their ‘own’ time,” a politics emerges in which time, visible and accounted for in wage work, becomes an invisible node of power (Sharma 2014). This disciplinary power both mediates the anxious lives of precarious digital pieceworkers and fuels the frenetic pace of technology capitalism. I consider the implications of potential regulatory interventions in this time politics.","PeriodicalId":126321,"journal":{"name":"UC Hastings Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115924538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Retheorizing Progressive Taxation","authors":"M. Viswanathan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3465029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3465029","url":null,"abstract":"Tax progressivity is undeniably central to both the detailed analytics of tax policy and the rhetorical arguments commonly used in public discourse. Yet there are surprisingly inconsistent and inaccurate uses of this seemingly objective term. By theorizing progressivity’s constitutive elements and identifying its shortcomings, this Article offers a novel taxonomy of how progressivity is assessed and why contradictory assessments are common. \u0000 \u0000This Article argues that, as a theoretical matter, accurately characterizing tax provisions as progressive (or regressive) requires assessing their burdens beyond simply the tax payments remitted. By failing to account for effects such as economic incidence and inefficiency costs, traditional progressivity analyses are incomplete. Relatedly, since the spending side of the budget process is functionally indistinguishable from taxation, accurate progressivity analyses must also consider where tax revenues are spent. \u0000 \u0000This Article concludes that inquiring about a tax provision’s progressivity is often to ask the wrong question. Instead, the focus should be on whether the tax provision in question advances whatever normative goals are desired. If progressivity assessments must be used, this Article suggests that earmarked tax assessments—taxes allocated to specific purposes—could improve their accuracy.","PeriodicalId":126321,"journal":{"name":"UC Hastings Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121078047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Electronic Form Over Substance - eSignature Laws Need Upgrades","authors":"L. Determann","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3436327","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3436327","url":null,"abstract":"Most professionals and others generally favor substance over form. Yet, with respect to form itself, more and more favor electronic form over substantive media and signatures: Companies, consumers and governments increasingly use electronic communications, documents and signatures instead of ink and paper. At the same time, many remain unsure about the legality or effectiveness of different forms of electronic signatures and find laws on the subject confusing. \u0000 \u0000Part of the confusion stems from the fact that lawmakers have not differentiated clearly enough between transactions, documents and signatures in current legislation. These are separate concepts. Only documents and signatures, not transactions, can be in electronic form. Transactions and other legally relevant actions, decisions and declarations can be recorded in documents and effectuated with signatures. Documents and signatures can be created or copied electronically or in other formats. Transactions on the other hand exist in the abstract and independent of the electronic or other form in which they may be documented or signed. \u0000 \u0000In practice, people commonly ask whether electronic signatures are legal. But, the more relevant questions to ask are whether electronic signatures are effective and binding, whether they meet statutory form requirements, whether they protect interests as well as handwritten signatures on paper documents, and whether one is required to create, obtain or retain paper documents with handwritten signatures in addition to electronic records and signatures. To better answer these and other questions, one has to consult not only newer laws specifically regulating electronic signatures and documents, but also older laws prescribing form requirements. Many older laws do not contemplate modern technologies and therefore do not give clear answers as to whether one can satisfy form requirements electronically. \u0000 \u0000Numerous different form requirements apply in myriad use cases and jurisdictions with respect to particular transactions, documents and signatures. Legal and political uncertainties hinder adoption of electronic signatures and global harmonization of applicable laws. Existing laws are complex, confusing and diverse due to historic factors: When electronic signatures and documents were first adopted more widely, lawmakers were uncertain regarding the purposes of existing form requirements, how well electronic signatures can address purposes of form requirements, which technologies will be adopted by businesses and consumers, and what legal problems could arise from forgeries. Additionally, lawmakers had reason to be concerned that businesses and consumers would need some time to adapt to new technologies and realize and handle the binding effect of electronically issued declarations. These considerations may have provided a valid excuse in the mid-1990s for somewhat timid, complex and consciously incomplete and experimental legislation, but twenty years later,","PeriodicalId":126321,"journal":{"name":"UC Hastings Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126954854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"All-Payer Claims Databases: The Balance between Big Healthcare Data Utility and Individual Health Privacy","authors":"Jaime S. King, Andrew S. Kelly","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3054240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3054240","url":null,"abstract":"As policymakers pursue the Triple Aim of reducing costs, improving quality, and expanding access, the development of an All-Payer Claims Database (APCD) can provide invaluable information about the drivers of cost, the value of health care interventions, and the efficacy of policy initiatives. All-Payer Claims Databases form the foundation for the development of price and quality transparency tools, and offer a means of providing critical information in a timely manner for patients, policymakers, and health services researchers. The data collected by APCDs, however, also contains information that individuals, providers, and insurers would like to remain confidential. Given the sensitivity of individual health information contained in claims data, any database collecting, storing, and disseminating such information must ensure adequate privacy and security for all patient information. Furthermore, a web of federal and state privacy laws that govern the use, storage, and disclosure of information from an APCD must be untangled to determine the privacy requirements that each APCD must attain.This report examines the balance policymakers in California must strike between providing the necessary access to healthcare price and utilization data to improve healthcare decision-making and protecting confidential health information. We recommend that California establish an All Payer Claims Database designed to collect all health care claims data within the state to promote transparency, informed decision making, and improve health and healthcare for all Californians. We recommend that the legislature do so in a manner that provides robust protection for personal health information while enabling policymaker, researchers, and public health authorities reasonable access to the data collected by the APCD to promote improvements in health and health care throughout the state. We recommend an independent oversight body with a broad membership appointed by a range of individuals and organizations to ensure diversity and expertise within its membership. At a minimum, the legislature should subject the APCD to the requirements of HIPAA and CMIA, as though it were a covered entity. These requirements provide a solid baseline for privacy protections, while granting the oversight body or the Department of Health and Human Services the option to increase the stringency of the requirements as needed.","PeriodicalId":126321,"journal":{"name":"UC Hastings Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129934114","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Searching Places Unknown: Law Enforcement Jurisdiction on the Dark Web","authors":"Ahmed Ghappour","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2742706","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2742706","url":null,"abstract":"The use of hacking tools by law enforcement to pursue criminal suspects who have anonymized their communications on the dark web presents a looming flashpoint between criminal procedure and international law. Criminal actors who use the dark web (e.g. in the commission of a crime or in order to evade authorities) obscure digital footprints left behind with third parties, rendering existing surveillance methods obsolete. In response, law enforcement has implemented hacking techniques that deploy surveillance software over the Internet in order to directly access and control criminals’ devices. The practical reality of the underlying technologies makes it inevitable that foreign-located computers are subject to the remote “searches” and “seizures” that take place. The result may well be the greatest extraterritorial expansion of enforcement jurisdiction in U.S. law enforcement history. This article examines how the use of hacking tools on the dark web profoundly disrupts the legal architecture upon which cross-border criminal investigations rest. The overseas cyber operations that result raise increasingly difficult questions regarding just whom may authorize these activities, where they may be deployed, and whom they may lawfully be executed against. The rules of criminal procedure fail to regulate law enforcement hacking because they allow these critical decisions to be made by rank-and-file investigators, despite potentially disruptive foreign relations implications. This article outlines a regulatory framework that reallocates decision-making to institutional actors best suited to determine U.S. foreign policy, without sacrificing law enforcement’s ability to identify and locate criminal suspects that have taken cover on the dark web.","PeriodicalId":126321,"journal":{"name":"UC Hastings Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"114 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121282547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Capital Accounts: Bank Capital, Crises, and the Determinants of an Optimal Regulatory Approach","authors":"J. Crawford","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2404994","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2404994","url":null,"abstract":"As the financial crisis of 2007-2008 recedes in our rear view mirror, how worried should we be about what lies beyond the bend? According to two highly influential but conflicting accounts of the crisis, we should be very worried. This review essay critiques these accounts, with special focus on the compelling but contradictory narratives they provide of the importance of bank “capital” – the portion of a bank’s activities funded by “unborrowed” money (or equity) – to financial stability. In The Bankers’ New Clothes, Anat Admati and Martin Hellwig launch a withering attack on persistently high levels of bank debt and on the arguments used to defend these debt levels. Misunderstanding Financial Crises, by Gary Gorton, argues that capital levels are unimportant to crisis prevention, focusing instead on financial institutions’ lingering vulnerability to the modern-day equivalent of Depression-era bank runs. Gorton does not, in the end, provide a reason to think capital levels should be required to rise far above zero, while Admati and Hellwig fail to explain why we should not simply prohibit lending institutions from borrowing at all.The essay evaluates the books’ accounts and argues that while it is vitally important to require banks to maintain a (sufficient) capital buffer, there are also good reasons to limit the size of the required buffer. I identify the factors that should inform the required level of capital, and argue that an optimal regulatory approach would incorporate the best elements of both books’ analyses – weighing the importance of capital against countervailing economic objectives and possible alternative approaches to systemic stability.","PeriodicalId":126321,"journal":{"name":"UC Hastings Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126383102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patent Demands & Startup Companies: The View from the Venture Capital Community","authors":"Robin C. Feldman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2346338","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2346338","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents a study of patent demands against venture-backed startups, conducted through members of the National Venture Capital Association and their portfolio companies. The results of surveying 200 venture capitalists and their portfolio companies provide strong indications of the impact that patent demands are having on the venture-backed community. Both the companies and the venture capitalists overwhelming believe that patent demands have a negative impact on the venture-backed community, with all or most of those assertions coming from entities whose core activity involves licensing or litigating patents. These impacts are described in terms of the specific costs expended by the companies and by the distraction to management, engineers, and other employees. Most important, participants described the human toll that patent demands have had on entrepreneurs. In addition, when making funding decisions, the vast majority of venture capitalists do not consider the potential for selling to assertion entities if the company fails. On the flip side, 100% of venture capitalists indicated that if a company had an existing patent demand against it, it could potentially be a major deterrent in deciding whether to invest.Finally, one venture capitalist provided an excellent summary of the impact of patent demands on venture-backed companies. When companies spend money trying to protect their intellectual property position, they are not expanding; and when companies spend time thinking about patent demands, they are not inventing.","PeriodicalId":126321,"journal":{"name":"UC Hastings Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132163581","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}