Carpenter Privacy Case Vexes Justices, While Tech Giant Microsoft Battles Government in Second U.S. Supreme Court Privacy Case with International Implications

Fall 2017 saw a major privacy case with international implications reach the U.S. Supreme Court this term, Carpenter v. United States. Now a second such case pits the Government against Big Tech in United States v. Microsoft. Carpenter is a criminal case involving federal seizure of cell phone location data from service providers. Arising under the “reasonable grounds” provision of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the case accentuates Americans’ lack of constitutional protection for personal data in third-party hands, in contrast with emerging global privacy norms. The second major privacy case headed for Supreme Court decision in 2018 also arises under the SCA, involves criminal investigation and new technology, and implicates collision between the third-party doctrine and European privacy law. In United States v. Microsoft, however, the implications for international law loom larger

On the Wagon Train to Afghanistan: Limitations on Star Trek\u27s Prime Directive

Part II of this article acquaints the reader with the Star Trek universe, both as a mirror of Western cultural development for the last three and a half decades, and conversely as a force that has had a remarkable impact on contemporary Western culture. This acquaintance provides a foundation to understand how and to what extent the Prime Directive, a product of science fiction, can be useful in understanding future intercultural contacts right here on Earth. Part III of this article reviews specifically the appearance of the Prime Directive in Star Trek lore, for the most part with reference to Star Trek\u27s captains Kirk and Picard. This review analyzes the fictional evolution of the Prime Directive from its straightforward origin as political commandment to its fuzzy, modern complexity as an aspirational principle. Part IV.A transports the reader back to the real world to show how the Prime Directive has operated both before and since the advent of Star Trek, chiefly in international relations, but also in areas ranging from the hard science of space exploration to the thoughtful business of eco-tourism. Synthesizing the lessons learned from fictional starship captains with the practical and real world applications of the Prime Directive, Part IV.B recognizes three important and related principles in understanding and employing the Prime Directive: (1) it is not inviolable, rather its violation is inherent in its nature; (2) it is not a rule of law, rather an aspiration; and (3) it is a product of a Utopian fiction, and as such can never be fully realized on the Earth as we know it. Finally, Part IV.C applies the Prime Directive, understanding these limiting principles, in the context of the present conflict between the West and the Islamic world, concluding that the modern Prime Directive should not and cannot flatly prohibit Western involvement there. Part V concludes that the proper and modern understanding of the Prime Directive dictates that the value of cultural autonomy must be balanced with the inevitability of cultural interference and transformation. Ultimately all that the Prime Directive can teach is that when two worlds collide, people must work together to preserve the best of both

Media Law & Ethics Enter the 21st century, Introduction to Symposium

We stand now on the verge of the twenty-first century: an artificial construct yes, but a culturally significant time nonetheless. We are the world the Hutchins Commission foresaw: the world of nations seeking understanding, seeking destiny. We will not predict the future with perfect accuracy, though we will try, because that is out nature. In our effort, we must be mindful that the questions we are asking are not new; they have been asked before and will be asked again. But let us see what we have to say about them today

Time for a Top-Tier Law School in Arkansas

A simple change in state law could improve the quality of legal education in Arkansas and the quality of legal services available to our consumers - and save significant amounts of taxpayers\u27 money. With an Afterword on academic freedom. Also available from Advance Arkansas Institute website

A Form Letter

A humorous letter from Richard J. Peltz, who at the time was an Associate Professor at William H. Bowen Law School, to Professor John M. A. DiPippa, also of Bowen Law School at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock

Cat, Cause, and Kant

These are precarious times in which to launch a new law school and a new law review. Yet here we are. The University of Massachusetts is now in its first year of operation with provisional ABA accreditation. This text is a foreword to the first general-interest issue of the University of Massachusetts Law Review. Now marks an appropriate time to take stock of what these institutions mean to accomplish in our unsettled legal world

A Jurisprudential Divide in U.S. v. Wong & U.S. v. June

In spring 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two consolidated cases construing the Federal Tort Claims Act, U.S. v. Kwai Fun Wong and U.S. v June, Conservator. The Court majority, 5-4, per Justice Kagan, ruled in favor of the claimants and against the Government in both cases. On the face of the majority opinions, Wong and June come off as straightforward matters of statutory construction. But under the surface, the cases gave the Court a chance to wrestle with fundamental questions of statutory interpretation. The divide in Wong and June concerns the role of the courts vis-à-vis Congress — one side on the Court more willing to wield judicial prerogative and challenge Congress to keep pace; the other side on the Court more determined to cast itself as mere umpire, calling balls and strikes

The Pond Betwixt: Differences in the U.S.-EU Data Protection/Safe Harbor Negotiation

This article analyzes the differing perspectives that animate US and EU conceptions of privacy in the context of data protection. It begins by briefly reviewing the two continental approaches to data protection and then explains how the two approaches arise in a context of disparate cultural traditions with respect to the role of law in society. In light of those disparities, Underpinning contemporary data protection regulation is the normative value that both US and EU societies place on personal privacy. Both cultures attribute modern privacy to the famous Warren-Brandeis article in 1890, outlining a right to be let alone. But decades passed before the impact of the article was felt. Both privacy and data protection are today part of the fundamental rights system of Europe, a component of the amalgamated constitution of the European Union. Both are part of the legislative and regulatory state at the national and federal level

On Business Torts and the First Amendment

A gaping question in free speech law surrounds the application of the First Amendment defense in business torts. The pervasiveness of communication technologies, the flourishing of privacy law, and the mere passage of time have precipitated an escalation in tort cases in which communication, and what the defendant may allege is free speech, lies at the heart of the matter