Richmond Journal of Law and Technology

By: Trevor Vonu

With election season looming on the horizon, tensions surrounding Facebook’s allowance of un-censored political advertisements continue to grow in Washington.[1] During a speech at Georgetown University earlier this month, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg vocalized his opinion on the matter by claiming to prioritize his commitment to freedom of speech and expression over instituting an aggressive policy to police information advertised on the social media platform.[2] Zuckerberg stated, “Some people believe that giving more people a voice is driving division rather than bringing people together. I am here today because I believe we must continue to stand for free expression.”[3]

Zuckerberg recently traveled to Capitol Hill where he fielded questions from legislators regarding the company’s policy to refrain from fact-checking political advertisements.[4] During a Q & A with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, Zuckerberg recognized this policy creates the potential for political candidates to spread false information, however, Zuckerberg remained steadfast in his position that it would be improper to censor the information presented in these advertisements.[5] That said, many critics believe Zuckerberg’s decision is primary fueled by the goal to maintain advertisement revenue.[6]

Most recently on October 29^th, Senator Mark Warner, D-VA sent a letter to Zuckerberg asking him to reconsider his decision to leave political advertisements unchecked for truthfulness. Warner is one of Congress’ most active legislators working to regulate ‘Big Tech’ companies.[7] In his letter, Warner criticizes Zuckerberg’s position and justifications, stating,

 

In defending its refusal to remove false political advertisements by candidates, Facebook has pointed to provisions of the Communications Act that prohibit broadcast licensees from rejecting or modifying candidate ads, regardless of their accuracy . . . This comparison is inapt. A more appropriate comparison for a platform like Facebook would be cable networks, which (like Facebook) face no such prohibition on rejecting demonstrably false advertisements from political candidates – nor are they bound by related obligations such as rules on advertising rates and reasonable access requirements.

 

Letter from Sen. Mark Warner to Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook Chief Exec. Officer (Oct. 28, 2019).

 

Despite receiving substantial pushback from legislators on Capitol Hill, Zuckerberg recently reinforced his position on the company’s policy regarding political advertisements.[8] During Facebook’s third-quarter earnings call on October 30^th, Zuckerberg responded to those criticizing his decision not to fact check political advertisements, saying, “I believe strongly and I believe that history supports that free expression has been important for driving progress and building more inclusive societies around the world.”[9] During Facebook’s earnings call, Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey released his own announcement, stating the company will “stop all political advertising on Twitter globally.”[10]

This response is uncharacteristic of Zuckerberg and is quite different from his past responses to criticism, most notably the debacle involving Cambridge Analytica.[11] In the past, Zuckerberg apologized and pledged to make the necessary improvements to Facebook.[12] Now, amid widespread criticism, Zuckerberg is sticking to his guns and doubling down on his position on the matter.[13] It will be interesting to see if Zuckerberg retreats on this position in the coming months. The Federal government is pleading with Zuckerberg to reconsider, however, with no enacted law regulating this specific subject matter, the decision is completely up to the company and its position will likely change only under two circumstances.[14] First, the decision may change if Congress, or a regulatory agency, passes a law requiring Facebook to fact check all political advertisements.[15] Alternatively, Facebooks policy on the matter may change if the current policy leads to substantial user dissatisfaction and lower share prices.[16]

 

 

 

 

[1] Therese Poletti, Zuckerberg stands defiant on political ads, swinging ‘free expression’ at critics like a hammer. Market Watch (Oct. 30, 2019, 8:44 PM), https://www.marketwatch.com/story/zuckerberg-stands-defiant-on-political-ads-swinging-free-expression-at-critics-like-a-hammer-2019-10-30.

[2] Ryan Tracy, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg defends free expression, will allow political adds without fact checking. Market Watch (Oct. 17, 2019 2:54 PM), https://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-defends-free-expression-will-allow-political-adds-without-fact-checking-2019-10-17.

[3] Id.

[4] Salvador Rodriguez, Watch video of AOC grilling Zuckerberg on Facebook allowing lies in political ads, CNBC (Oct. 24, 2019, 4:57 PM), https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/23/aoc-grills-zuckerberg-over-facebook-allowing-lies-in-political-ads.html.

[5] See id.

[6] See Poletti, supra note 1.

[7] William Feuer, Sen. Warner asks Mark Zuckerberg to reconsider Facebook’s policy that allows false political ads, CNBC (Oct. 29, 2019, 10:59 AM), https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/29/sen-warner-asks-zuckerberg-to-reconsider-false-political-facebook-ads.html.

[8] See Poletti, supra note 1.

[9] Id.

[10] Kate Conger, Twitter Will Ban All Political Ads, C.E.O. Jack Dorsey Says, New York Times (Oct. 30, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/technology/twitter-political-ads-ban.html.

[11] Ashley Smith-Roberts, Facebook, Fake News, and the First Amendment, 95 Denv. L. Rev. 118, 118-19 (2018).

[12] Therese Poletti, Zuckerberg appears to be done apologizing for Facebook and taking Tim Cooks, Market Watch (Oct 31, 2018, 6:59 AM), https://www.marketwatch.com/story/zuckerberg-appears-to-be-done-apologizing-for-facebook-and-taking-tim-cooks-punches-2018-10-30.

[13] See Poletti, supra note 1.

[14] See Feuer, supra note 6.

[15] See id.

[16] Josh Constine, Zuckerberg defends politician ads that will be 0.5% of 2020 revenue, Tech Crunch (Oct. 30, 2019, 5:32 PM), https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/30/zuckerberg-political-ads/.

image source: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mZaec_mlq9M/maxresdefault.jpg

By: Ryan Leonard

Doorbells with a security camera feature are now a billion-dollar industry in the United States.[1]  Ring, a subsidiary of Amazon, has been marketing its product as a device that can help secure homes against crime.[2]  However, as Ring as partnered with local police departments, civil liberties organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union have become concerned about violations of privacy.[3]

 

Ring’s doorbell works by equipping an inconspicuous camera to a doorbell, installing it, and linking it to the owner’s Wi-Fi.[4]  The owner is then able, at any time, to view who, if anyone, approaches the house via smartphone, tablet, or computer.[5]  Its natural doorbell appearance is no doubt part of the appeal, as well as what makes it effective at catching would-be burglars.

 

The concerns over privacy are two-fold.  First, neighbors of Ring customers may become objects of regular surveillance without their knowledge or consent.[6]  Secondly, when a homeowner’s doorbell camera works in conjunction with local police departments, it is no longer just a security-conscious neighbor doing the surveilling.[7]  In other words, if one lives directly across the street from someone who has installed such a doorbell, and the doorbell’s camera is being utilized by police, one is the unknowingly under 24 hour police surveillance.[8]

 

The legal standard to consider when analyzing the privacy interests of third parties is the reasonable expectation of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment, as articulated in Katz v. United States.[9]  In Katz, the United States Supreme Court held that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s unreasonable search clause to wire-tap a public phone booth without a search warrant.[10]  The reasoning of the Court was that, even when no physical intrusion has occurred, an individual may still be protected from information-gathering when she has a reasonable expectation of privacy.[11]

 

The question then becomes whether individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to the things they do daily and weekly, as visible from the outside of their home.  In United States v. Jones the Court stated that a GPS tracker on a car is a search that requires a warrant even though the information collected is publicly available (the location of the car), and could be collected by anyone following said car.[12]  In sum, a person’s public behavior may still be protected by the Fourth Amendment and individuals may maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy, even in regards to things they do and say beyond the walls of their home.[13]

 

The counterargument, however, would be that, as surveillance becomes more easily available, more discreet, and more ubiquitous, the expectations of privacy at an individual as well as societal level will adjust accordingly.  Oddly enough, the Fourth Amendment standard of privacy established in Katz may make non-consensual, warrantless surveillance unconstitutional when done to a small number of people, but may nevertheless be perfectly constitutional when done to nearly everyone; as society’s expectations change so too might constitutional protections.[14]  The growth and popularity of doorbell companies like Ring may make video monitoring sufficiently commonplace so as to alter privacy expectations, and Fourth Amendment protections along with them.

image source: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/blog_main_wide_580x384/public/field_image/web19-ring-doorbell-neighbor-app-ap-blogimage-1160×768.jpg?itok=DpcifaRA

[1] See Brandt Ranj, 5 Smart Home Devices that Prove Why Amazon’s $1 Billion Acquisition of Doorbell Startup Ring, a ‘Shark Tank’ Reject, Makes Total Sense, Business Insider (Jul. 26, 2018, 2:34 PM), https://www.businessinsider.com/ring-video-doorbell-amazon-sale-2018-7.

[2] See Jay Stanley, Should You Buy a Ring Doorbell Camera?, ACLU (Sept. 10, 2019, 11:30 AM),  https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/should-you-buy-ring-doorbell-camera.

[3] See id.

[4] See Ali Montag & Sarah Berger, Amazon Bought ‘Shark Tank’ Reject Last Year – Here’s What the Founder Says About Jeff Bezos, CNBC (Feb. 22, 2019, 10:33 AM), https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/amazon-buys-ring-a-former-shark-tank-reject.html.

[5] See id.

[6] See Drew Harwell, Doorbell-Camera Firm Ring has Partnered with 400 Police Forces, Extending Surveillance Concerns, The Washington Post (Aug. 28, 2019, 6:53 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbell-camera-firm-ring-has-partnered-with-police-forces-extending-surveillance-reach/.

[7] See id.

[8] See id.

[9] See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 505, 516 (1967).

[10] See id. at 515.

[11] See id. at 516.

[12] United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945, 948 (2012).

[13] See Katz, supra note 9, at 516.

[14] See id.

By: Patrick Macher

On Friday, October 4, 2019, Daryl Morey, the General Manager of the Houston Rockets, tweeted his support for the Hong Kong protests with the words “Fight for Freedom, stand with Hong Kong.” Within days, Morey was met with an unexpected backlash including the Consulate-General of the People’s Republic of China in Houston denouncing the comments of Morey, the Chinese Basketball Association suspending all cooperation with the Rockets and the NBA releasing a statement characterizing Morey’s tweet as regrettable.[1]

 

Since Adam Silver became NBA Commissioner in 2014, he has been renowned for his strong support of players and social justice. Silver’s commitment to morality was demonstrated early in his career, when he banned Los Angeles Clipper’s owner Donald Sterling. Sterling was banned from all NBA activities for his racially charged comments in a privately recorded conversation with his mistress.[2]  Silver continued to demonstrate his support for freedom of speech when Fox News Journalist Laura Ingraham advised Lebron James, one of the NBA’s best and most outspoken players, to “shut up and dribble,” in response to his comments regarding politics and President Trump.[3]

 

There are many explanations that could be reasoned as to Adam Silver’s fundamentally opposed handling of Lebron’s freedom of public speech and the harsh punishment of Donald Sterling, compared to his denouncement of Morey’s tweet. However, one reason stands out, conservatively estimated, the NBA generates about $500 million annually from the Chinese market.[4]

 

In July, a popular media outlet, China’s Tencent, signed a five-year, $1.5 billion deal to be the leagues exclusive online digital partner in China. Sports Business Journal valued the NBA’s business arm in China, NBA China, at $5 billion. Beyond that, players and American brands are invested in the large Chinese market such as Stephen Curry with Under Armour and Lebron James with Nike. Both of which have formerly done annual tours on the Chinese markets in the NBA offseason.[5]

 

China has around 1.4 billion people, compared to the nearly 327 million in the United States. The NBA looks to the Chinese market as a major source of growth in the near future. However, the NBA has since felt significant economic effects of Morey’s 33-character tweet.[6]

CCTV, the NBA’s primary broadcasting partner and Tencent, the primary online partner, have suspended all streaming of NBA games. Sponsor Li-Ning suspended its sponsorship of the Houston Rockets. Houston Rocket’s merchandise, a previously popular commodity due to the Hall-of-Fame career of China’s Yao Ming, has since disappeared off of many shelves in Hong Kong sporting goods stores.[7]

 

Daryl Morey did what millions of Americans do every day. Morey voiced his opinion over a social media platform with no expectation of the repercussions to come. Morey was exercising the right to freedom of speech but had failed to exercise caution.  Hours later, Morey faced denouncement of his tweet from an international embassy and a public reprimand from his bosses’ boss.

 

Lawmakers from both parties criticized the NBA and the Rocket’s lack of support for Daryl Morey’s pro-democracy message.[8] After an outpouring of American support for Morey and a backlash of anger towards the NBA, Commissioner Adam Silver clarified that Morey’s tweet was “regrettable” not because of the content, but because it upset the NBA’s Chinese supporters.[9]

 

Whether or not you agree with Morey’s tweet is a personal and political question. The law protects Morey’s right to express his opinion on the platform of his choosing. However, the economy represents the ultimate equalizer. The NBA, the Houston Rockets and Daryl Morey have suffered significant financial losses from Morey’s 33-character tweet. All three parties will “rebound,” but the fiasco demonstrates the significant impact

[1] See Matthew Yglesias, The Raging Controversy Over the NBA, China, and the Hong Kong protests, explained, Vox (Oct. 7, 2019) https://www.vox.com/2019/10/7/20902700/daryl-morey-tweet-china-nba-hong-kong

 

 

 

 

 

[2] See Mike Wise, Chief of America’s Blackest League Talks About Race and Social Justice, The Undefeated (Dec. 25, 2019) https://theundefeated.com/features/chief-of-americas-blackest-league-talks-about-race-and-social-justice-nba-adam-silver/

 

[3] See Emily Sullivan, Laura Ingraham Told Lebron James to Shut Up and Dribble; He Went to the Hoop, The Two-Way (Feb. 19, 2018) https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/19/587097707/laura-ingraham-told-lebron-james-to-shutup-and-dribble-he-went-to-the-hoop

 

[4] See Jeff Zillgitt & Mark Medina, An Impasse Over Pro-Hong Kong Tweet Simmer, What’s at Stake for the NBA in China?, Usa Today (Oct. 9, 2019) https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2019/10/09/nba-china-hong-kong-whats-at-stake/3912447002/

 

[5] See id.

 

[6] See Michael McCann, Analyzing the Fallout Between the NBA and China After Daryl Morey’s Tweet, Sports Illustrated (Oct. 7, 2019)

 

[7] See Isabel Togoh, The Fallout from Daryl Morey’s Pro-Hong Kong Tweet is Now a Very Expensive Problem for the NBA, Forbes (Oct. 8, 2019) https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabeltogoh/2019/10/08/the-fallout-from-daryl-moreys-pro-hong-kong-tweet-is-now-a-very-expensive-problem-for-the-nba/#1c3a35141c8b

 

[8] See Tyler Olson, Lawmakers Dunk on NBA for ’Shamefully Retreating’ After Rockets GM’s China Criticism, Fox News (Oct. 7, 2019) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lawmakers-dunk-on-nba-china-over-rockets-gm-tweet

 

[9] Chelsea Howard, Adam Silver Clarifies Comments on Daryl Morey’s Controversial Tweet, Sporting News (Oct. 10, 2019) https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/adam-silver-daryl-morey-had-right-to-tweet-china-tv-wont-carry-nba-games/18n3dxjud9ngf1eypvvoe1t0z4

 

image source: https://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2019/10/10/daryl-morey-china-hong-kong-rockets-mit-boston

By: Derek Reigle

The Golden State Killer, also known as the East Area Rapist or the Original Night Stalker infamously murdered over a dozen people and raped more than fifty victims from 1976 to 1986.[1] Despite these horrible crimes, the identity of the Golden State Killer had eluded justice for decades.[2] However, on April 24th, 2018, investigators solved this cold-case and arrested Joseph DeAngelo, a 72-year-old man and former police officer, as the Golden State Killer.[3] The police broke open the case using the tactic controversial of familial DNA Testing.[4]

The actual science of familial DNA testing is complicated, but the concept is simple. Are you familiar with websites such as Ancestry.com or 23andme.com? These websites allow one to submit your DNA through a kit that can be sent to one’s house.[5] These kits only require a saliva sample.[6]After your DNA is collected and analyzed, these websites can reveal a staggering amount of information about oneself.[7] One can learn where your ancestors are from, whether one has certain genetic predispositions that can be passed onto one’s children, or even how one’s genes affect your caffeine consumption.[8] Furthermore, these DNA results can be uploaded to other websites such as GEDmatch.com that can reveal even more comprehensive information about one’s genealogy.[9]

An additional key aspect of these DNA tests is that they allow you to view family members that were known, or previously unknown.[10] This can be done by identifying certain genetic similarities in one’s genealogy.[11] Naturally, this ability to track down long lost family has amazing benefits that can allow one to learn more about their family.[12] However, the ability to track down forgotten relatives has opened the door for law enforcement to identify criminals.[13]

The Golden State Killer was caught because a member of his family had uploaded their genetic DNA results to GEDmatch.com.[14] Police had DNA from the crime scenes from the 1970 and 1980’s but had no way to identify whose it was.[15] Thus, they uploaded this DNA to GEDmatch.com and were able to find out who the great-great-great-grandparents were of the unidentified DNA.[16] After crafting 25 family trees, using incredibly detailed historical research, investigators were able to zero in on Joseph DeAngelo.[17] After identifying DeAngelo as a suspect, police recovered a discarded object by DeAngelo that has his DNA on it.[18] Law enforcement was then able to match the DNA between DeAngelo and the Golden State Killer.[19] DeAngelo now faces thirteen counts of murder.[20] Prosecutors have announced that they will be seeking the death penalty.[21]

This is an amazing story that testifies to the awesome power that familial DNA testing has to find and locate unknown criminals.[22] However, this case raises several additional questions that will have vast legal ramifications as genetic identification techniques only become more advanced because of technology’s unique ability to consistently improve over time.[23]

Across America, civil liberty groups like the ACLU have challenged familial DNA testing as invasive of an individual’s privacy rights.[24]  Should a family member consenting to have their genetics analyzed reveal information of a third party that has not consented? Further questions regarding the values of our criminal justice system such as fairness, equality and deterrence of such a futuristic law enforcement technique are now being raised. GEDmatch.com, Ancestry.com and 23andme.com have all responded to concerns about privacy and the use of genetic material to aid law enforcement by updating their standards of privacy and releasing a variety of statements.[25] Generally, search warrants are required to access this information on these websites.[26]

Familial DNA testing is not going away and will continue to be used by law enforcement.[27] In order to better assess the benefits and consequences of this unique crime-fighting technique, one should know the story of the Golden State Killer.

[1]  See Hilary Brueck, The Suspected Golden State Killer was Finally Caught Because his Relative’s DNA was Available on a Genealogy Website, Business Insider (Apr. 27, 2018), https://www.businessinsider.com/golden-state-killer-caught-because-relatives-dna-online-2018-4.

[2] See Id.

[3]See Id.

[4] See Associated Press, The Latest: Investigator: Free DNA Website Helped Crack Case, Business Insider (Apr. 27, 2018), https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-the-latest-investigator-free-dna-website-helped-crack-case-2018-4.

[5] See How does AncestryDNA Work? An Inside Look at The Process, Ancestry (last visited Oct. 20, 2019), https://www.ancestry.com/dna/lp/how-does-ancestrydna-work; 23andMe, 23andMe, How It Works!, Youtube (July 2, 2018), https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=C6O9xKdCl9U.

[6] See Id.

[7] See Id.

[8] See Id.

[9] See GEDmatch.,Your DNA Guide, (last visited Oct. 20, 2019), https://www.yourdnaguide.com/upload-to-gedmatch.

[10] See Brueck, supra note 1.

[11] See Id.

[12] See Id.

[13] See James Rainey, Familial DNA puts Elusive Killers Behind Bars. But Only 12 states Use It., NBC News (Apr. 28th, 2018), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/familial-dna-puts-elusive-killers-behind-bars-only-12-states-n869711.

[14] See Brueck, supra note 1.

[15] See Justin Jouvenal, To Find Alleged Golden State Killer, Investigators First Found his Great-Great-Great-Grandparents, The Washington Post (Apr. 30, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/to-find-alleged-golden-state-killer-investigators-first-found-his-great-great-great-grandparents/2018/04/30/3c865fe7-dfcc-4a0e-b6b2-0bec548d501f_story.html.

[16] See Id.

[17] See Id.

[18] See Id.

[19] Breeanna Hare and Christo Taoushiani, What We Know About The Golden State Killer Case, One Year After A Suspect Was Arrested, CNN (Apr. 24, 2019), https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/us/golden-state-killer-one-year-later/index.html

[20] See DA Will Seek Death Penalty Against Golden State Killer Suspect Joseph DeAngelo, CBS Sacramento (Apr 10, 2019), https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/04/10/joseph-deangelo-da-seeking-death-penalty/.

[21] See Rainey, supra note 13.

[22] See Id.

[23]See Alison E. Berman and Jason Dorrier, Technology Feels Like It’s Accelerating — Because It Actually Is, Singularity Hub (Mar. 22, 2016), https://singularityhub.com/2016/03/22/technology-feels-like-its-accelerating-because-it-actually-is/.

[24] See Shankar Narayan, Familial DNA Searching: Troubling Civil Liberties Challenges, NWSidebar (June 20, 2018), https://nwsidebar.wsba.org/2018/06/20/familial-dna-searching-troubling-civil-liberties-challenges/.

[25]See Eric Rosenbaum, 5 Biggest Risks of Sharing Your DNA with Consumer Genetic-Testing Companies, CNBC (June 16, 2018), https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/16/5-biggest-risks-of-sharing-dna-with-consumer-genetic-testing-companies.html.

[26] See Colin McFerrin, DNA, Genetic Material, and A Look at Property Rights: Why You May Be Your Brother’s Keeper, 19 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 967, 998 (2013).

[27] See Justin Poulsen, Your Relative’s DNA Could Turn You Into a Suspect, Wired (Oct. 13, 2015), https://www.wired.com/2015/10/familial-dna-evidence-turns-innocent-people-into-crime-suspects/.

image source: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/dna-biology-medicine-gene-163466/

By: Tabetha Soberdash

The technology of 3D printing is bringing to reality things that once were only viewed as possible in science fiction movies.[1] Simply put, 3D printing is “a manufacturing process for the rapid production of three-dimensional parts directly from computer models.”[2] It works by depositing layer upon layer of materials until the desirable three-dimensional object is created.[3] As such, by a simple input of a design and materials, the technology can print customizable, three-dimensional products at the push of a button.[4] The technology has shown to be beneficial in many aspects, from allowing for rapid prototyping to reducing transport costs.[5] Therefore, many industries have began to utilize the technology, such as aerospace, medicine, and education.[6] As the technology provides the convenience of creating fully customizable products in the privacy of one’s own homes, many private individuals have also started utilizing the technology as well. [7]

With all of the benefits and advantages that come with the simple purchase of a 3D printer, one type of creatable product has found its way to becoming a high source of controversy and debate: firearms.[8] With a 3D printer, a design, and a filament, an individual can create a fully operational weapon without the need to pass a background check.[9] In addition, these firearms can be made out of plastic materials, making it harder to detect them.[10] Further, as they are home-made firearms, they do not contain genuine serial numbers, allowing for a cumulation of untraceable firearms in the country.[11] Many fear that criminals could take advantage of this to commit or attempt to commit additional crimes, and time is showing that fear to be more than just a mere possibility.[12] For example, a man was arrested in 2017 after officers heard three shots in woods in Texas.[13] Upon arrest, it was found that the man had 3D printed his firearm after he had failed the background check necessary to purchase one.[14] After making the firearm, he proceeded into the woods with “what federal attorneys called a ‘hit list’ of Democratic and Republican lawmakers, including their office and home addresses.”[15]

In response to this public safety risk, many legislative actions, both federal and state, have been presented in attempt to provide for more regulation to support gun safety.[16] One such action occurred on June 13, 2019 when the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2019 was introduced in Congress.[17] If passed, the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2019 would prohibit the distribution of 3D printer plans for the printing of firearms.[18] However, it is facing opposition by those who are concerned with how limiting distribution of 3D printer plans would affect individual liberties, particularly those given by the First Amendment.[19] Opponents against the bill argue that code and 3D planner blueprints should be a protected form of free speech under the First Amendment, as such limiting their distribution infringes upon the freedom of speech.[20] Stuck between upholding individual liberties and pursuing public safety, it has yet to be seen whether the substantial risk of crimes occurring with 3D printed firearms will be enough to promote Congressional votes in favor of the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act of

image source: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/14/694641578/texas-man-with-3d-printed-gun-and-hit-list-of-lawmakers-sentenced-to-8-years

[1]See Jeffrey T. Leslie, COMMENT: The Internet and Its Discontents: 3-D Printing, The Commerce Clause, And A Possible Solution to an Inevitable Problem, 17 S.M.U. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 195, 195 (2014).

[2]Emanuel Sachs et al., Three Dimensional Printing: Rapid Tooling and Prototypes Directly from CAD Representation, 39 CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Tech. 27, 28 (1990).

[3]See Jessica Berkowitz, ARTICLE: Computer-Aided Destruction: Regulating 3D-Printed Firearms Without Infringing on Individual Liberties, 33 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 53, 56 (2018).

[4]See id. at 58.

[5]See Emanuel Sachs et al., Three Dimensional Printing: Rapid Tooling and Prototypes Directly from CAD Representation, 39 CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Tech. 27, 28 (1990).

[6]See John F. Sargent, Jr., & R.X. Schwartz, Cong. Research Serv., R45852, 3D Printing: Overview, Impacts, and the

Federal Role 1 (2019).

[7] See Berkowitz, supra note 3 at 66.

[8]See Berkowitz, supra note 3 at 53–54.

[9]See id. at 56–57.

[10]See 3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2019, S. 1831, 116th Cong. § 2 (as introduced in Senate, June 13, 2019); 3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2019, H.R. 3265, 116th Cong. § 2 (as introduced in the House, June 13, 2019).

[11]See id.

[12]See id.

[13]See Matthew S. Schwartz, Texas Man With 3D-Printed Gun And ‘Hit List’ Of Lawmakers Sentenced To 8 Years, NPR (Feb. 14, 2019), https://www.npr.org/2019/02/14/694641578/texas-man-with-3d-printed-gun-and-hit-list-of-lawmakers-sentenced-to-8-years.

[14]See id.

[15]Id.

[16]See Matthew S. Schwartz, Texas Man With 3D-Printed Gun And ‘Hit List’ Of Lawmakers Sentenced To 8 Years, NPR (Feb. 14, 2019), https://www.npr.org/2019/02/14/694641578/texas-man-with-3d-printed-gun-and-hit-list-of-lawmakers-sentenced-to-8-years; 3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2019, S. 1831, 116th Cong. § 2 (as introduced in Senate, June 13, 2019); 3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2019, H.R. 3265, 116th Cong. § 2 (as introduced in the House, June 13, 2019).

[17]See 3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2019, S. 1831, 116th Cong. § 2 (as introduced in Senate, June 13, 2019); 3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2019, H.R. 3265, 116th Cong. § 2 (as introduced in the House, June 13, 2019).

[18]See id.

[19]See id.

[20]See Berkowitz, supra note 3 at 72–75.

By: Brandon Baker

People have been enjoying the outdoors since the beginning of time. Throughout history, people have interacted with nature through hunting, fishing, hiking, among other ways. Relatively recently though, many individuals in the United States have lost their connection to the outdoors.[1] The increase of technology in our everyday lives and our dependence on it has been a major factor in this disconnect.[2] This is a cause for alarm as being outside is not just a great way to spend your free time, but has major health benefits too. [3]  Being outside has been linked to improving mental, as well as, physical health. [4]In an ever-changing society, nature is more important than ever as it allows people to reconnect with the natural world and feel refreshed.[5]

A major factor that is playing a role in society’s disconnect with nature is access. [6] Even if someone does desire to get outside and explore nature, they may not have anywhere to go. [7] In addition, someone may have an idea of where to go, but is unsure of whether the land is public or private. Instead of trespassing on someone’s land, for many it would be easier to just never go out. Lack of access has a major impact on one’s ability to experience nature, whether it be through hunting or hiking. [8] Though, the problems associated with lack of access go further than just someone deciding to stay inside. Many states use funds from hunting and fishing licenses to help conserve precious habitat for wildlife. [9] Additionally, federal legislation places a tax on the sale of firearms and other hunting related goods in which the money is distributed to states for wildlife conservation. [10]  If hunters cannot hunt due to lack of access, then the federal government has less money to distribute to the states to aide in conservation projects. [11] This would be a major blow to conservation efforts across the United States as around 59% percent of funding to State wildlife agencies comes from hunting and fishing related activities. [12]

To summarize, as a society, we are more disconnected with the outdoors than ever before and are failing to reap the mental and physical health benefits that nature gives us. [13] In addition, even if someone wanted to get outside, lack of access could be a roadblock that leads them to stay inside. [14] So how do we, as a society, fix this?

A handful of companies have attempted to tackle the access issue, and thus, play a role in getting more people outside. One such company is Montana-based onX, which provides outdoorsmen with access to hundreds of maps showing what land is public and what land is private. [15] While this may seem like a minor breakthrough, it is not. These maps can be accessed on your smartphone and not only tell the user what land is public or private, but also includes private landowner names. [16] These maps help users by showing them where they can legally go and as a result, can play a role in not only getting people outside, but also by lowering the chances that they are trespassing on someone’s land. If someone is able to see where they can and cannot go, then the chances of them heading outside are increased.

The effects of these maps are that people are aware of what land they are able to access. By having people know what land they can legally be on, they will be more likely to head outside and experience nature.  If more people are outside and experiencing nature, they can reconnect with the outdoors and reap the endless benefits that our natural environment provides.

[1] See U.S. study shows widening disconnect with nature, and potential solution, Yale Env’t 360 (Apr. 27, 2017), https://e360.yale.edu/digest/u-s-study-shows-widening-disconnect-with-nature-and-potential-solutions.

[2] Id.

[3]See Kevin Loria, Being outside can improve memory, fight depression, and lower blood pressure—

here are 12 science-backed reasons to spend more time outdoors, Bus. Insider (Apr. 22, 2018), https://www.businessinsider.com/why-spending-more-time-outside-is-healthy-2017-7.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] See Public access to private lands, Cong. Sportsmen’s Found. http://congressionalsportsmen.org/policies/state/public-access-to-private-lands.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] See Nathan Rott, Decline in hunters threatens how U.S. pays for conservation, NPR (Mar. 20, 2018), https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-threatens-how-u-s-pays-for-conservation.

[10] See Sam Schipani, Did you know that gun sales fund state wildlife programs?, Sierra Club (Apr. 12, 2018), https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/pittman-robertson-wildlife-conservation-fund.

[11] Id.

[12] Rott, supra note 9.

[13]Loria, supra note 3.

[14] Supra note 6.

[15] See The #1 GPS Hunting App, onX, https://www.onxmaps.com/.

[16] Id.

image source: http://montanawildlife.org/public-land-debate/

By: Cassidy Crockett-Verba

If you allow a person to record a concert, and trade that recording with others, it is less likely that those who obtained the music for free will buy your band’s music. So how would a transaction that you do not make money on ultimately increase your profits? Two bands have figured out how to do just that and build a cult following along the way.

The  Grateful Dead, (also known as “the Dead”) began in the 1960s, and by the 1980s they were one of the highest grossing concert acts.[1] A large part of their draw was their improvisation or “jams” during concerts that made each show inherently unique.[2] This improvisation led groups of fans, known as “deadheads” to follow the Dead across the country on tours, creating their own community.[3] However, a hallmark of Grateful Dead concerts was the ability to tape them to listen later or trade with friends who had attended different performances.[4] This tape trading allowed fans to appreciate the improvisation in each show long past the night it was recorded. However, it is a long-standing rule that recording concerts is a form of copyright infringement.[5] It is therefore hard to imagine why the band members would actively allow taping, going so far as to sell “tapers tickets” for the section of seats behind the soundboard.[6] The Grateful Dead’s motto of sorts was “When we’re finished with it, they can have it,” in response to allowing tapers the opportunity to share the unique-ness of the shows with others.[7] Lyricist Perry Barlow directly attributes their success to tape trading as it created a culture around the band and provided a way for their music to spread.[8] Their music was spreading to a wider audience with little cost to them which in turn led to a wider audience to purchase tickets to concerts.

As the Grateful Dead gained popularity, groups of fans began congregating in parking lots before the show, possibly hoping to find a spare ticket. The parking lot scene, called “Shakedown Street” was a place to buy anything from clothing to stickers and even food such as grilled cheese sandwiches.[9] Often found here was unauthorized merchandise as well.[10] This merchandise, typically t-shirts, usually parodied popular culture icons (such as Nike) with lyrics or imagery.[11] While a shirt with a Nike swoosh with the words “Just Dew It” (a reference to the song “Morning Dew”) would be considered a parody, the lyrics and name of the song are protected by copyright.[12]  For a long time, the band ignored the unlicensed merchandise, but eventually decided that they would begin enforcing their rights.[13] They exercised their trademark rights over the iconic “Steal Your Face” design as well as the “Dancing Bears”, and “Skull and Roses” designs.[14]  Rather than suing their own fans, the Dead decided to license their copyrights to select fans in order to obtain royalties but still allow this lot culture to thrive.[15] However, their relaxed approach to enforcing their copyright not only created a subculture in itself but allowed the Grateful Dead to skyrocket in both popularity and wealth.

The Grateful Dead was not the only band to embrace tapers and a parking lot scene. Phish is another notable band that took a slightly different approach. Phish does not tacitly allow taping, but rather they post their taping policy online and make the rules and regulations clear to anyone who cares to look.[16] Their clear and concise taping policy being open and available on the internet is likely a product of its time as the internet was not available to the Grateful Dead. However, also due in part to the boom of technology, Phish does explicitly prohibit live-streaming of any kind (visual or audio) as well as soundboard patches.[17]  They release live-streamed video and audio as well as live recordings themselves and this allows for a controlled level of reciprocity with fans (or phans as they call themselves).[18] It can be said that while the Grateful Dead laid the framework for taping, Phish innovated and perfected it.[19]

As for “Shakedown Street” at Phish concerts, they have the same general concept as at Grateful Dead concerts. One can buy almost anything they would want, including shirts with lyrics or song titles creatively placed or parodying famous logos.[20] This “scene” has become its own culture and is considered symbiotic with the band.[21] Like the Dead, Phish mostly allows the scene to police themselves, aside from a few exceptions.[22] Provided that sellers do not use the band’s name or likeness, the word “Gamehendge” (a fictional world in which several songs take place), or videos and recordings of the show, the band allows sellers to create unlicensed merchandise.[23] These “lot designs” as they are known in the community often inspire official merchandise or other creations and improvisations from the band.[24]

This reciprocal relationship is a large part of the success enjoyed by Phish and other jam bands. Without the Grateful Dead allowing taping of their shows, it is unlikely that they would have seen such widespread success and recognition. It is also less likely that Phish would have set the stage for modern jam bands as they began after the members obtained traded Grateful Dead tapes. Had the bands to cracked down on creation of unlicensed works with their copyrighted lyrics, it is unlikely that the culture seen in the parking lots surrounding shows would have existed. The culture outside of the show influences the bands to keep creating and sharing the music which contributes to the band’s ticket sales and widespread recognition. Jam bands have figured out a way to profit off of transactions that do not directly involve them and in doing so, have managed to create their own culture and wealth.

image source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shakedown_St_-_GD50_-_Fare_Thee_Well_-Grateful_Dead_-_Chicago_2015.jpg

[1] See David L. Pelovitz, “No but I’ve Been to Shows”: Accepting the Dead and Rejecting the Deadheads in Perspectives on the Grateful Dead: Critical Writing 55-56 (Robert G. Weiner ed., 1999).

[2] See

[3] See generally, Dennis McNally, Long Strange Trip: The Inside History of the Grateful Dead 385-88 (1st ed. 2003) (describing the dedication of the fans of the Grateful Dead).

[4] See Casey Lowdermilk, Improvisation and Reciprocity: An Analysis of the Jam Band Community and Its Unique Business Model, 7 J. Music & Ent. industry Educators Ass’n 159, 161 (2007).

[5] See Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §1101 (2018).

[6] See, e.g., Mark F. Schultz, Fear and Norms and Rock & Roll: What Jam Bands Can Teach Us About Persuading People to Obey Copyright Law, 21 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 653, 670 (2006).

[7] David Fraser & Vaughan Black, Legally Dead: The Grateful Dead and American Legal Culture in Perspectives on the Grateful Dead: Critical Writing 33 (Robert G. Weiner ed., 1999).

[8] See Id.

[9] See Jacob A. Epstein, Note, Molly and the Crack House Statute: Vulnerabilities of a Recuperating Music Industry, 23 U. Miami Bus. L. Rev. 95, 120 (2014) (noting the popularity of “Shakedown Street”).

[10] See Brian C. Drobnik, Truckin’ In Style Along the Avenue: How the Grateful Dead Turned Alternative Business and Legal Strategies Into a Great American Success Story, 2 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 242, 255 (2000). See also Fraser & Vaughan supra note 7, at 29-30 (describing the parking lot culture at Grateful Dead concerts).

[11] See, e.g., Fraser & Vaughan, supra note 7, at 30.

[12] See id.

[13] See Drobnik, supra note 10, at 255.

[14] See id.

[15]  See id. at 255-56.

[16] See FAQ: Taping Policy, Phish, https://phish.com/faq/.

[17] See id.

[18]  See Lowdermilk, supra note 4, at 161-62.

[19] See, e.g., id.

[20] See Lowdermilk, supra note 4, at 162. See generally Phunky Threads, https://www.phunkythreads.com/ (providing examples of the kinds of shirts and goods found on “Shakedown Street”).

[21] See id.

[22] See, e.g., Pete Mason, Smart Art in the Phish Community, PhanArt (Jan. 17, 2012) http://www.phanart.net/smart-art-in-the-phish-community/.

[23] See id.

[24] See Lowdermilk, supra note 4, at 161-62.

By: William Nash

With an increasing amount of state’s legislatures legalizing and decriminalizing recreational marijuana usage, there have been a multitude of secondhand legal issues that have arisen from such legislation. One of these secondhand issues is the enforcement and prevention of persons driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. Until recently, the issue of driving under the influence of marijuana, while a concern, wasn’t as much of a critical issue because driving under the influence of marijuana fell under the broader category of possessing or being under the influence of an illicit drug.[1]

The issue of marijuana consumers driving under the influence is particularly concerning because of the popularity of the drug within the younger generation, a generation that accounts for a “disproportion share of traffic accidents” in the United States.[2] Marijuana has adverse effects on concentration as well as motor skills, which poses an obvious threat to one’s ability to drive while under the influence of marijuana.[3] While studies have not arrived at some of the specifics regarding motor vehicles and marijuana, there has been conclusive evidence that being under the influence of marijuana while driving increases your risk of being in an accident, specifically fatal ones.[4]

Studies have been conducted on states that have legalized recreational marijuana usage and its effect on motor vehicle accidents, but the studies have been relatively inconclusive.[5] Regardless of legalization’s effect, the issue poses a new question: detection. The legalization of marijuana has been a heavily debated topic in the state of New Jersey recently, one of the main arguments against being the lack of means for enforcement as well as an upkeep of safety.[6] New Jersey Senator Gerald Cardinale, who opposes legalization, claimed enforcement would be difficult because “there is no Breathalyzer for marijuana.”[7]

What Cardinale is unaware of is that Hound Labs, a breath technology company from Oakland, California, as well as other companies and researchers, have released just that: a marijuana breathalyzer.[8] Hound Lab’s breathalyzer can detect if a person has used marijuana in any form within the past 2 hours, as well as being able to conduct the standard alcohol detection that regular breathalyzers perform.[9] This two hour window the breathalyzer detects is representative of a person’s “peak window of impairment” after using marijuana.[10]

Hound Labs has raised over 30 million dollars dedicated to achieving their goal of creating this breathalyzer.[11] Creating this kind of technology has not been an easy feat for any company. Creating the necessary sensitivity to detect THC, the main compound in marijuana, is far more difficult than detecting alcohol.[12] Putting things in perspective, it takes approximately a billion times the sensitivity needed to detect alcohol to detect THC.[13]

While Hound Labs testifies that their “two hour” approach is beneficial because it detects how recently a patron has used marijuana, this approach also has multiple critiques.[14] The device reacts to a low use the same way it responds to a large amount of use, it only works in detecting if marijuana has been used within 2 hours regardless the quantity.[15] Without a quantitative measurement, there’s an immediate risk of someone receiving a driving while impaired charge for smoking the equivalent of “half a beer.” [16]

This “half a beer” issue is especially concerning regarding the increased amount of patrons who use marijuana for medical reasons.[17] Frequently, people who are prescribed or instructed to use marijuana for medical treatment take very small doses for their medical conditions.[18] Being criminally liable for using a relatively low amount of marijuana, which would have little to no effect on one’s cognitive or physical ability, would pose concerns of justice and public policy in the medical industry.[19]

Hound Labs has released the results of their own relatively limited field tests which have proved in favor of the device, but outside sources are more skeptical.[20] As a whole we are still waiting on more released data and outside tests on Hound Lab’s device, as well as other devices similar to it.[21] Before such devices become a part of law enforcement, Kevin Davis, the assistant chief of the California Highway Patrol Enforcement and Planning Division claims that the device needs to be “more accepted in the scientific community.”[22]

 

 

[1] See Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Article: Medical or Recreational Marijuana and Drugged Driving, 52 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 453, 457 (2015).

[2] Id.

[3] Id. at 474-76.

[4] Id. at 477.

[5] Id. at 471.

[6] See Matthew Nesto, NJ Dems Reach Deal On Pot Bill; Vote May Come In Weeks, law360 (Mar. 12, 2019, 6:00 PM), https://www.law360.com/tax-authority/articles/1137838/nj-dems-reach-deal-on-pot-bill-vote-may-come-in-weeks.

[7] Id.

[8] See Cheryl Miller, Higher Law: Watch This Colorado Patent Case | A Prosecutor’s Salty Take on Marijuana | Plus: New Lobbying, and Who Got the Work, law.com (Aug. 9, 2018, 4:00 PM), https://www.law.com/2018/08/09/higher-law-watch-this-colorado-patent-case-a-prosecutors-salty-take-on-marijuana-plus-new-lobbying-and-who-got-the-work/?slreturn=20190918072006; see also Ashley May, Stanford Engineers Develop Roadside Marijuana Test, USA Today (Sep. 9, 2016, 9:44 AM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/09/stanford-engineers-develop-roadside-marijuana-test/90043312/.

[9] See Lilly Price, Marijuana Breathalyzer Aims to Detect High Drivers ‘Without Unjustly Accusing’, USA Today (Aug. 7, 2019, 8:22 AM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/08/07/pot-breathalyzers-hound-labs-marijuana/912705002/.

[10] Id.

[11] See Mike Plaisance, Q&A as California Manufacturer Develops Marijuana Breathalyzer, Masslive (2019), https://www.masslive.com/news/erry-2018/09/51f3811b5f7893/qa-as-california-manufacturer.html.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.; Chris Taylor, Is this Weed Breathalyzer for Real? Don’t Hold Your Breath, Mashable (Feb. 27, 2019), https://mashable.com/article/hound-labs-marijuana-breathalyzer/.

[15] Chris Taylor, Is this Weed Breathalyzer for Real? Don’t Hold Your Breath, Mashable (Feb. 27, 2019), https://mashable.com/article/hound-labs-marijuana-breathalyzer/.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] See Mike Plaisance, Q&A as California Manufacturer Develops Marijuana Breathalyzer, Masslive (2019), https://www.masslive.com/news/erry-2018/09/51f3811b5f7893/qa-as-california-manufacturer.html;

Chris Taylor, Is this Weed Breathalyzer for Real? Don’t Hold Your Breath, Mashable (Feb. 27, 2019), https://mashable.com/article/hound-labs-marijuana-breathalyzer/.

[21] Chris Taylor, Is this Weed Breathalyzer for Real? Don’t Hold Your Breath, Mashable (Feb. 27, 2019), https://mashable.com/article/hound-labs-marijuana-breathalyzer/.

[22] Cheryl Miller, Higher Law: Watch This Colorado Patent Case | A Prosecutor’s Salty Take on Marijuana | Plus: New Lobbying, and Who Got the Work, law.com (Aug. 9, 2018, 4:00 PM), https://www.law.com/2018/08/09/higher-law-watch-this-colorado-patent-case-a-prosecutors-salty-take-on-marijuana-plus-new-lobbying-and-who-got-the-work/?slreturn=20190918072006.

 

image source: https://www.axios.com/marijuana-weed-legalization-new-york-illinois-48f0c827-a734-4c0d-9acd-81bfc51740df.html

By: Katie Snyder

Have you ever feared you might be replaced by a robot? With the evolution of technology, the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace is increasing. Various studies have been conducted to determine the level at which artificial intelligence is infiltrating the workplace. According to a 2018 report made by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “a startling 1.4 million jobs in the U.S. will be gone in just eight years.”[1]

Artificial intelligence is changing the environment of the job market, specifically the process of hiring candidates. The development of artificial intelligence provides companies with the ability to use algorithms to cut costs and improve efficiency.[2] The use of artificial intelligence in hiring removes recruiters.[3] The algorithms are written to highlight specific traits wanted by the employer for the available job.[4] The algorithms then find candidates that share those specific traits as persons currently working in the field.[5]

Companies such as Amazon have created algorithms to recruit and sort potential employees.[6] The algorithm tested by Amazon was designed to rank employees’ applications and then present employers with a limited number of resumes that the algorithm found to be the “best” potential candidates.[7] While algorithms like Amazon’s have reduced the cost and increased the speed at which hiring can be completed, they have presented a new set of problems.[8]

The use of technology in hiring is raising concerns, specifically surrounding the removal of the humanist aspect of hiring and the likelihood of discrimination.[9] These concerns are not unwarranted. In 2018, Amazon was forced to terminate its hiring algorithm when the company  discovered that the algorithm was discriminating against women.[10] Dastin, a tech columnist for Reuters, writes, “[B]y 2015, the company [Amazon] realized its new system was not rating candidates for software developer jobs and other technical posts in a gender-neutral way.”[11] Amazon’s algorithm was written to analyze resume patterns and characteristics of candidates over the previous ten-year period.[12] Since the tech world has been historically dominated by men, the resumes Amazon received over the ten-year period were mostly from men.[13] The male-centered data resulted in an algorithm that was biased towards hiring male candidates.[14] It “penalized resumes that included the word ‘women’s,’ as in ‘women’s chess club captain.’”[15] Although Amazon attempted to correct the algorithm’s biased nature, there continued to be a threat of implicit bias towards women.[16]

Amazon is not the only company transitioning its hiring process to artificial intelligence algorithms. Companies such as Target and Pepsi are also testing algorithms to “improve” their hiring processes.[17] While the shift to artificial intelligence is inevitable with the advancements in technology, lawmakers are attempting to introduce legislation to combat discrimination. In early 2019, the Algorithmic Accountability Act was introduced into Congress by Rep. Yvette Clarke.[18] The intention of this bill is “to require large companies to audit their algorithms for potential bias and discrimination and to submit impact assessments to Federal Trade Commission officials.”[19] The introduction of this bill shows that lawmakers are aware of the potential dangers of artificial intelligence in the hiring process and want to create legislation that regulates this problem.

Artificial intelligence is a fairly new concept, so it is developing and evolving daily. That means that there is a lot of opportunity for legislation regarding the artificial intelligence community to evolve as well. The discussion of hiring algorithms’ potential implicit biases and discrimination will likely continue to be a pressing issue in the coming years. Legislators will have to work to create laws to ensure that all are continued to be protected equally in the hiring and employment process, and lawyers will have to work to ensure that these laws are actually doing just that. While robots might not be replacing you at your job just yet, be wary of the algorithm when applying for your next job!

[1]Robby Berman, Infographics Show Jobs Most Likely to be Lost to Robots,  Big Think (Apr. 6, 2018), https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/infographics-show-jobs-most-likely-to-be-lost-to-robots.

[2]Aaron Holmes, AI could be the key to ending discrimination in hiring, but experts warn it can be just as biased as humans, Business Insider (Oct. 8, 2019), https://www.businessinsider.my/ai-hiring-tools-biased-as-humans-experts-warn-2019-10/.

[3]Id.

[4]Jeffery Dastin, Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women, Reuters (Oct. 9, 2018, 11:12 PM), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G.

[5]Id.

[6]Holmes, supra note 2.

[7]Dastin, supra note 4.

[8]Holmes, supra note 2.

[9]Id.

[10]Dastin, supra note 4.

[11]Id.

[12]Id.

[13]Id.

[14]Id.

[15]Id.

[16]Id.

[17]Holmes, supra note 2.

[18]Jaclyn Diaz, Congress Plays Catch-Up on Artificial Intelligence at Work, Bloomberg Law (Aug. 27, 2019, 6:05 AM),  https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/congress-plays-catch-up-on-artificial-intelligence-at-work.

[19]Id.

image source: https://condenaststore.com/featured/replaced-by-robot-farley-katz.html