Privacy Law Commons^™

The Machinery Of Democracy: Voting Technology In November 2004, 23 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 553 (2005), Doug Chapin

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

In general Election Day of 2004 proceeded surprisingly smoothly and although some problems were reported, by and large they were best characterized as “no big and lots of littles.” In the end, the margins of victory in most races during the 2004 election exceeded the margin of litigation, meaning the trouble that arose in many states would most likely not have changed the outcome. In the immediate aftermath of Election Day, however, a closer look at experiences around the country revealed widespread problems that, while immaterial to the outcome of the election, nonetheless indicate that much remains to be done …

E-Voting: A Tale Of Lost Votes, 23 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 509 (2005), Lillie Coney

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

In order for the United States to avoid another Constitutional crisis due to the failure of voting technology it must address the weaknesses of paperless direct recording electronic (“DRE”) voting machines. Many policymakers hold the belief that the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”) would save the nation from the threat of another election-sponsored Constitutional crisis because it would, among other objectives, replace outdated voting machines with new electronic voting technology. This belief was disproved a number of times during the 2002 and 2004 primary and general election seasons. As it was revealed by the Carteret County, North Carolina November 2, …

Software Patents On Both Sides Of The Atlantic, 23 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 815 (2005), Jack George Abid

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

This comment addresses and analyzes the state of software patentability in the United States (“U.S.”) and European Union (“E.U.”). This comment discusses policies that drive changes and developments in patent law, the technical background of software, and the non-patent intellectual property protection for software. The comment further addresses the judicial precedent and the situation surrounding software patents in the U.S. and the legal situation in the E.U., including proposed changes in the Software Patent Directive. Finally, the article discusses common criticisms of current U.S. policies on software patentability by exposing the problems created by these policies and suggests corrective policies …

Distributed Security: Preventing Cybercrime, 23 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 659 (2005), Susan W. Brenner, Leo L. Clarke

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

This article focuses on the modern development of cybercrime and how the current law enforcement model is inadequate to prevent and enforce computer-mediated crime. Specifically the article argues that the nation-states can better control the problem of cybercrime by replacing the current law enforcement model with that of a system of “distributed” security that uses criminal sanctions to employ reasonable measures to prevent and the perpetration of cybercrime. The article begins by defining the terms “law enforcement”, “crime”, and “cybercrime” and then moves on to discuss how the current model of law enforcement, as it stands today, is inept to …

First Amendment Implications For E-Mail Threats: Are There Any Free Speech Protections?, 23 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 845 (2005), Joshua Azriel

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

In this article, Azriel explores how the First Amendment protects or does not provide protections to threatening e-mail communications. The article begins by examining seminal U.S. Supreme Court cases that dealt with threatening speech. The factors that provide the First Amendment protections are described, as well as the particular facts of each case and the Court’s findings. Azriel then looks at the Federal Threat Law and the factors that are enunciated in that legislation with regard to the protections afforded threatening communications, in addition to federal court cases that have interpreted the statute. The article then looks at several cases …

Lights, Camera, Action: Video Cameras As Tools Of Justice, 23 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 771 (2005), Matthew D. Thurlow

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

In the continuing effort to convict only the guilty and free only the innocent increasing attention has focused on criminal confessions. Long a source of controversy, confessions are imperfect instruments with which to determine guilt or innocence. Police coerce confessions, and suspects under disabilities and without legal representation confess to crimes they did not commit. However, videotaping confessions and interrogations may be one way to improve the accuracy of this powerful piece of evidence. Whether used in interrogation rooms, during traffic stops, or as hand-held devices, video cameras have the potential to reduce the risks of wrongful convictions and, by …

2004 John Marshall International Moot Court Competition In Information Technology And Privacy Law: Brief For The Respondent, 23 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 633 (2005), Ashley S. Kamphaus, Michelle M. Prince, Jon Paul Carroll

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

No abstract provided.

2004 John Marshall International Moot Court Competition In Information Technology And Privacy Law: Bench Memorandum, 23 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 563 (2005), Patricia Gerdes, Tim Scahill, Otto Shragal, Richard C. Balough, Leslie Ann Reis

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

No abstract provided.

The Legal Status Of Software, 23 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 711 (2005), Daniel B. Garrie

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

This article by cyberlaw specialist Daniel B. Garrie is intended to serve as a guide for judges to ensure that judicial decisions reflect an understanding of software’s multiple facets and its relation to the boundaries of the law. The article is designed to provide a high-level overview of software and then examine software in greater depth for specific legal areas likely to spawn legal disputes directly involving software. Included within the article are a brief overview of the current legal framework evolving with respect to software development (including an examination of the 2005 Supreme Court case Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. …

2004 John Marshall International Moot Court Competition In Information Technology And Privacy Law: Brief For The Petitioner, 23 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 587 (2005), Ryan Dry, Angela Hamilton, Jason Newman

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

No abstract provided.

Leveraging Knowledge Assets: Can Law Reform Help?, Margaret Ann Wilkinson, Mark Perry

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

This paper asks whether there is a need for law-makers to aid in the efficient transition to a new knowledge-based economic and social environment through the use of intellectual property devices. The use of such devices was effective in assisting with the transition to an industrial society that, combined with developments in commercial law and secured transactions, further fuelled economic growth in Canada. Can these disparate areas of law be brought together to provide opportunities for the growth of knowledge-based business? The Law Commission of Canada instigated a two-part investigation into these questions. The investigation culminated in the Commission's report …

"Tpms": A Perfect Storm For Consumers: Replies To Professor Geist, Barry Sookman

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

This article has its origins in an article written by Professor Michael Geist and published in the Toronto Star entitled ‘‘‘TPMs’: A perfect storm for consumers’’. Following the publication of the article, John Gregory made a posting to the e-commerce listserv he moderates asking if anyone had any comments to the article. I responded on February 13, 2005 with a reply to John’s request. Professor Geist replied to my comments on February 17, 2005. On March 9, 2005 I posted a further reply to Professor Geist. The article set out below is based substantially on my two postings to John …

New Federal And Provincial Personal Information Protection Legislation And Its Impact On Physicians And Public Hospitals, Evguania Prokopieva

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

The focus of this article is to examine the implications of the new federal and Ontario personal data protection legislation for physicians and public hospitals. This article also inquires into whether the new legislation will contribute to the protection of patient privacy. By ‘‘physician’’ I mean a doctor in a broad sense – i.e., ‘‘a person who has been educated, trained, and licensed to practice the art and science of medicine’’. This will include family doctors, paediatricians, psychiatrists, surgeons, and other medical doctors covered by the Regulated Health Professions Act. By the term ‘‘public hospitals’’ I will refer to not-for-profit …

Genetic Use Restriction (Or Terminator) Technologies (Gurts) In Agricultural Biotechnology: The Limits Of Technological Alternatives To Intellectual Property, Chidi Oguamanam

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

This article examines the adequacy of terminator technology as a potential substitute for traditional intellectual property. It acknowledges that the technology provides a stronger protection and reward mechanism than that offered by the traditional intellectual property rights regime. However, terminator technology or any other technology for that matter, is outside the pantheon of intellectual property regimes. Fundamentally, terminator is a technological answer to the quest by private sector interests to improve appropriability of returns on investments in agrobiotech. It potentially represents a panacea to the long standing industry struggle over the profitability of private research in agrobiotech and the need …

Whazup With The Whois?, Sheldon Burshtein

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

The WHOIS is a database directory of domain names and relevant contact information maintained by each top-level domain (TLD) registry, which lists all relevant registrant contact information for each domain name registration. Through its contracts, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) requires registries and registrars to collect and display technical information and contact details for all registrants. The WHOIS is an important component of the domain name system (DNS). The WHOIS is used for a wide variety of purposes by registries, registrars, registrants, law enforcement authorities, consumers, and the general public. The WHOIS may enable identification of …

Preventing "You've Got Mail"™ From Meaning "You've Been Served": How Service Of Process By E-Mail Does Not Meet Constitutional Procedure Due Process Requirements, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1121 (2005), Matthew R. Schreck

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Review Of Canadian Radiocommunications Law Around "Jammers", Tyson Macauley

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

This comment argues that the Radiocommunications Act should be amended to relax the prohibition on specific types of ‘‘smart’’ jamming in the Industry Science Medicine (ISM) bands. Specifically, the legislation requires increased flexibility and granularity to accom- modate new wireless technologies in the ISM bands — particularly wireless LAN (WLAN) technologies like IEEEE 802.11b/IEEE 802.11g (WiFi), and IEEE 802.11a (henceforth collectively know as ‘‘ISM radios’’).

The availability of cheap, mass-produced ISM radios hardware and the proliferation of applications using the ISM spectrum bands of 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz present a variety of security and privacy concerns that cannot be effectively addressed …

Nothing New Under The Sun? A Technologically Rational Doctrine Of Fourth Amendment Search, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Yet as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, the Amendment places no restriction on police combing through financial records; telephone, e-mail and website transactional records; or garbage left for collection. Indeed there is no protection for any information knowingly provided to a third party, because the provider is said to retain no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. As technology dictates that more and more of our personal lives are available to anyone equipped to receive them, and as social norms dictate that more and …