Elon University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series最新文献

{"title":"The Digital Architectures of 'Smart' Cities and the Fourth Amendment: In Response to Andrew Ferguson","authors":"S. Friedland","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3923002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3923002","url":null,"abstract":"In Structural Sensor Surveillance, Professor Andrew Ferguson provides an astute – some might say smart -- lens for viewing urban planning from a Fourth Amendment digital perspective. This reply to Professor Ferguson’s article does three things. First, it amplifies some of his observations and conclusions. Second, the reply fills in some gaps and critiques some of the article’s assumptions. Third, it offers a few suggestions of its own. ‘Smart’ means many things in the current lexicon. Within the realm of the Fourth Amendment it means something that is part of a digital network producing a stream of data. The common use of the word “smart” in this context indicates that there will be valuable – perhaps even monetized -- information produced by the networks that multiple entities might want to or in fact access. These networks have sensors linked to each other to effectively create massive surveillance systems. Unlike physical surveillance, transaction costs are low. While these surveillance systems often are initiated by consumers who enjoy the conveniences of the Internet of Things (IoT) or businesses that utilize the information highway for profit or efficiency, it also involves systems deployed or accessed by government entities. While governmental use of smart sensor structural design in cities can greatly assist cities, it also poses a threat through the mass surveillance systems it creates. Professor Ferguson has termed this byproduct of smart sensors “sensorveillance,” showing that the surveilling sensors have a potential windfall of information for crime investigators and a diminishment of privacy. He notes: Using data, police can monitor individuals thought to be involved in criminal activities, associated groups involved in networks of crime, and places of criminal risk. They can seek to understand points of environmental vulnerability, victims most at risk, and patterns of crime. They can seek to understand crime data in terms of geography, time, people, and patterns, and visualize it across the days, weeks, or years. Using smart sensor technologies, police will possess a powerful investigative “time machine.” Professor Ferguson’s article explains how the structural design of “smart” cities embedded with tens of thousands of sensors on communications networks could minimize violations of the Fourth Amendment: Because the digital architecture must be built from scratch, digital property rights and social expectations of privacy can be written into code—both legal code and computer code. This moment of physical and digital construction opens the possibility for a legal reconstruction of privacy, potentially offering more protections, more transparency, and more democratic engagement about the balance.... While the crux of Professor Ferguson’s inquiry lies in the government use of sensor-derived information, sensorveillance is not simply a product of intentional malevolent snooping by the government. As one commentator observed: “Though th","PeriodicalId":203020,"journal":{"name":"Elon University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122328666","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":"Making Sense of the Original Writings Rule in the Digital Age","authors":"S. Friedland","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3923010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3923010","url":null,"abstract":"Few provisions contained within the Rules of Evidence have generated as much confusion among judges and practitioners as the original writings rule (Rule), miscast as the “best evidence rule.” The Rule is often misunderstood both as to its purpose and its proper application. Further, obfuscation caused by the Rule seems to quadruple when layering in problems created by advances in technology and the digital age. This commentary briefly reviews the origin and scope of the Rule and provides a general framework for approaching issues arising from it. The piece then addresses how the Rule might apply to technological advances in the digital age. For example, how does the Rule apply to computer-generated databases? More specifically, what limits a prosecutor’s use of information contained in a computer database to prove a defendant’s prior convictions? This very question arose in a recent case before the North Carolina Supreme Court. In that case, a fractured court employed differing – and, indeed, contradictory - analyses in seeking to resolve the issue. While the court did not put to rest tensions underlying the Rule, it did indicate that an old proposition continues to apply within this domain: “perfect is the enemy of the good,” as in, expect ambiguity when advancing technology is at the core of a problem.","PeriodicalId":203020,"journal":{"name":"Elon University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129138922","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":"Beyond the 'Socratic' Dialogue: Enhancing Communication Methodologies in the 21st Century American Law School Classroom","authors":"S. Friedland, B. McAlister","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1368744","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1368744","url":null,"abstract":"This essay posits that questioning and communication skills have become increasingly important in the legal education classroom. New methodologies are available and can be used to create stronger protocols for communication, with the consequence of improved learning in the classroom and better lawyering overall.","PeriodicalId":203020,"journal":{"name":"Elon University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133249562","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}