Cornell Law Review最新文献

{"title":"The 'Smart' Fourth Amendment","authors":"A. Ferguson","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/cq8fk","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/cq8fk","url":null,"abstract":"“Smart” devices radiate data, detailing a continuous, intimate, and revealing pattern of daily life. Billions of sensors will soon collect data from smartphones, smart homes, smart cars, medical devices and an evolving assortment of consumer and commercial products. But, what are these data trails to the Fourth Amendment? Does data emanating from devices on or about our bodies, houses, things, and digital effects fall within the Fourth Amendment’s protection of “persons, homes, papers, or effects”? Does interception of this information violate a “reasonable expectation of privacy?” The “Internet of Things” and the growing proliferation of smart devices create new opportunities for police investigation. If this web of sensor surveillance falls outside of the Fourth Amendment, then warrantless collection and tracking of this smart data presents no constitutional concern. If these data trails deserve constitutional protection, a new theory of the Fourth Amendment must be developed. This article addresses the question of how the Fourth Amendment should protect “smart data.” It exposes the growing danger of sensor surveillance and the weakness of current Fourth Amendment doctrine. The article then suggests a new theory of “informational curtilage” to protect the data trails emerging from smart devices and reclaims the principle of “informational security” as the organizing framework for a digital Fourth Amendment.","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"102 1","pages":"547"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42983675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Columbia University and Incarcerated Worker Labor Unions Under the National Labor Relations Act","authors":"Kara Goad","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/4qxph","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/4qxph","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"177-204"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69639271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What Would Grandma Say? How to Respond When Cyber Hackers Reveal Private Information to the Public","authors":"Jason P. Ottomano","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/z94gk","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/z94gk","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"102 1","pages":"1743-1765"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69641136","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Sharing, samples, and generics: an antitrust framework.","authors":"Michael A Carrier","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rising drug prices are in the news. By increasing price, drug companies have placed vital, even life-saving, medicines out of the reach of consumers. In a recent development, brand firms have prevented generics even from entering the market. The ruse for this strategy involves risk-management programs known as Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (\"REMS\"). Pursuant to legislation enacted in 2007, the FDA requires REMS when a drug's risks (such as death or injury) outweigh its rewards. Brands have used this regime, intended to bring drugs to the market, to block generic competition. Regulations such as the federal Hatch-Waxman Act and state substitution laws foster widespread generic competition. But these regimes can only be effectuated through generic entry. And that entry can take place only if a generic can use a brand's sample to show that its product is equivalent. More than 100 generic firms have complained that they have not been able to access needed samples. One study of 40 drugs subject to restricted access programs found that generics' inability to enter cost more than $5 billion a year. Brand firms have contended that antitrust law does not compel them to deal with their competitors and have highlighted concerns related to safety and product liability in justifying their refusals. This Article rebuts these claims. It highlights the importance of samples in the regulatory regime and the FDA's inability to address the issue. It shows how a sharing requirement in this setting is consistent with Supreme Court caselaw. And it demonstrates that the brands' behavior fails the defendant-friendly \"no economic sense\" test because the conduct literally makes no sense other than by harming generics. Brands' denial of samples offers a textbook case of monopolization. In the universe of pharmaceutical antitrust behavior, other conduct--such as \"pay for delay\" settlements between brands and generics and \"product hopping\" from one drug to a slightly modified version--has received the lion's share of attention. But sample denials are overdue for antitrust scrutiny. This Article fills this gap. Given the failure of Congress and the FDA to remedy the issue, antitrust can play a crucial role in ensuring generic access to samples, affirming a linchpin of the pharmaceutical regime.</p>","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"1-64"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35652426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Maternal Dilemma.","authors":"Noya Rimalt","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) aims to protect the right to be free from gender-based discrimination in the workplace . . . . By creating an across-the-board, routine employment benefit for all eligible employees, Congress sought to ensure that family-care leave would no longer be stigmatized as an inordinate drain on the workplace caused by female employees, and that employers could not evade leave obligations simply by hiring men. \"By setting a minimum standard of family leave for all eligible employees, irrespective of gender, the FMLA attacks the formerly state-sanctioned stereotype that all women are responsible for family caregiving, thereby reducing employers’ incentives to engage in discrimination by basing hiring and promotion decisions on stereotypes.\"</p>","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"103 4","pages":"977-1048"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37029411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beware the \"Terror Gap\": Closing the Loophole between the U.S. Terrorist Watchlist System and the Right to Bear Arms","authors":"Elizabeth M. Sullivan","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/8q4sd","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/8q4sd","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"205-241"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69639987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Order Without Intellectual Property Law: Open Science in Influenza.","authors":"Amy Kapczynski","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Today, intellectual property (IP) scholars accept that IP as an approach to information production has serious limits. But what lies beyond IP? A new literature on \"intellectual production without IP\" (or \"IP without IP\") has emerged to explore this question, but its examples and explanations have yet to convince skeptics. This Article reorients this new literature via a study of a hard case: a global influenza virus-sharing network that has for decades produced critically important information goods, at significant expense, and in a loose-knit group--all without recourse to IP. I analyze the Network as an example of \"open science,\" a mode of information production that differs strikingly from conventional IP, and yet that successfully produces important scientific goods in response to social need. The theory and example developed here refute the most powerful criticisms of the emerging \"IP without IP\" literature, and provide a stronger foundation for this important new field. Even where capital costs are high, creation without IP can be reasonably effective in social terms, if it can link sources of funding to reputational and evaluative feedback loops like those that characterize open science. It can also be sustained over time, even by loose-knit groups and where the stakes are high, because organizations and other forms of law can help to stabilize cooperation. I also show that contract law is well suited to modes of information production that rely upon a \"supply side\" rather than \"demand side\" model. In its most important instances, \"order without IP\" is not order without governance, nor order without law. Recognizing this can help us better ground this new field, and better study and support forms of knowledge production that deserve our attention, and that sometimes sustain our very lives.</p>","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"102 6","pages":"1539-648"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35525628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Why Congress Cannot Unilaterally Repeal Puerto Rico's Constitution","authors":"Adam W. McCall","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/6dhqb","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/6dhqb","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"102 1","pages":"1367"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69639524","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"\"Unique Identities and Vulnerabilities\": the Case for Transgender Identity as a Basis for Asylum.","authors":"Adena L Wayne","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/z8nfd","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/z8nfd","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"102 1 1","pages":"241-70"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69641071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Constitutional Liberty and the Progression of Punishment","authors":"Robert J. Smith, Zoe Robinson","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/w7smr","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/w7smr","url":null,"abstract":"The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment has long been interpreted by scholars and judges to provide very limited protections for criminal defendants. This understanding of the Eighth Amendment claims that the prohibition is operationalized mostly to prevent torturous methods of punishment or halt the isolated use of a punishment practice that has fallen into long-term disuse.This Article challenges these assumptions. It argues that while this limited view of the Eighth Amendment may be accurate as a historical matter, over the past two decades, the Supreme Court has incrementally broadened the scope of the cruel and unusual punishment clause. The Court’s contemporary Eighth Amendment jurisprudence — with its focus on categorical exemptions and increasingly nuanced measures of determining constitutionally excessive punishments — reflects an overt recognition that the fundamental purpose of the Eighth Amendment is to protect vulnerable citizens uniquely subject to majoritarian retributive excess.Animating these developments is a conception of constitutional liberty that transcends the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Indeed, 2015’s same-sex marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, reflects a similar trajectory in the Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence. Taken together, these doctrinal developments illustrate a concerted move to insert the Court as the independent arbiter of legislative excesses that undermine the basic right to human dignity by virtue of unnecessarily impinging upon individual liberty. Ultimately, these liberty-driven developments signal new possibilities for the protection of defendant rights in a variety of contemporary contexts, including juvenile life without parole for homicide offenses, life without parole for non-violent drug offenses, the death penalty, certain mandatory minimum sentences and the prolonged use of solitary confinement.","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"102 1","pages":"413-486"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2016-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69640930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}