Yes, I know this IoT Device Might Invade my Privacy, but I Love it Anyway! A Study of Saudi Arabian Perceptions

The Internet of Things (IoT) ability to monitor our every move raises many privacy concerns. This paper reports on a study to assess current awareness of privacy implications of IoT devices amongst Saudi Arabians. We found that even when users are aware of the potential for privacy invasion, their need for the convenience these devices afford leads them to discount this potential and to ignore any concerns they might initially have had. We then conclude by making some predictions about the direction the IoT field will take in the next 5-7 years, in terms of privacy invasion, protection and awareness

The Seventh Circuit Got It Wrong: Supervisors Should Not Face Individual Liability Under Section 1981

In Smith v. Bray, the Seventh Circuit, on a case of first impression, determined that supervisors with retaliatory motives can and should be individually liable under section 1981 when they cause the employer to retaliate against an employee. This article argues against the Seventh Circuit’s holding for four reasons. First, courts are required to analyze section 1981 the same way they analyze Title VII, and Title VII does not allow for individual supervisor liability. Second, the Seventh Circuit justified its decision based on a flawed comparison between section 1981 and section 1983, a similar but distinct civil rights statute. Third, individual supervisor liability for discrimination and retaliation conflicts with tort, agency, and contract law, all of which create the framework for analyzing section 1981 specifically and employment discrimination generally. Finally, holding individual supervisors liable under §1981 will chill efficient and effective service to their employers

The Seventh Circuit Got It Wrong: Supervisors Should Not Face Individual Liability Under Section 1981

In Smith v. Bray, the Seventh Circuit, on a case of first impression, determined that supervisors with retaliatory motives can and should be individually liable under section 1981 when they cause the employer to retaliate against an employee. This article argues against the Seventh Circuit’s holding for four reasons. First, courts are required to analyze section 1981 the same way they analyze Title VII, and Title VII does not allow for individual supervisor liability. Second, the Seventh Circuit justified its decision based on a flawed comparison between section 1981 and section 1983, a similar but distinct civil rights statute. Third, individual supervisor liability for discrimination and retaliation conflicts with tort, agency, and contract law, all of which create the framework for analyzing section 1981 specifically and employment discrimination generally. Finally, holding individual supervisors liable under §1981 will chill efficient and effective service to their employers