Category: Blog Posts Page 43 of 75

By: Will Garnett

Image source: https://medium.com/themap/how-to-work-with-government-open-data-77a8bee35ea1

Is your private information safe in the hands of the government? Only 12% of adult tech users polled in 2016 said that they were very confident in the ability of the federal government to protect their data, while 28% said they were not at all confident in that ability.[1] With recent news stories of data breaches, it is no surprise that people fear that their private information is unsafe.[2]

 

This month, Vice reported on state DMVs selling the private information of drivers to third parties.[3] This practice is permitted by law under the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, which allows personal information collected by the DMV to be disclosed for certain permissible uses.[4] These permissible uses range from employer verification of personal information to prevent fraud, to use by private investigative agencies.[5] The former is benign, and likely very useful to those seeking employment, eliminating tedious paperwork in the hiring process.[6] The latter could be a cause for concern, as private investigative agencies can be manipulated into aiding criminals, as was the case in Rebecca Scheffer’s murder.[7] A stalker may contact a private investigator to obtain DMV records containing the home address of his victim. While the benefits and dangers are known to state DMVs, they continue to sell DMV data to businesses and private investigators; Virginia DMV records show that it sold driver’s personal information to 109 investigative firms.[8]

 

Some state DMVs are collecting a significant amount of revenue from the sale of drivers’ data; Wisconsin made $17 million from the sale of drivers’ data in 2018 alone.[9] Access to a single record from the DMV has been sold for as little as $0.01.[10] Citizens of states that continue this practice have a choice to make. Will they allow the sale of their information to continue, even when it means depriving their agencies of significant revenue? Will it take another tragedy to cause new legislation to be written for this digital age? It remains to be seen whether there will be legal challenges to this newly uncovered practice on privacy grounds, but the truth is out.

 

[1] See Pew Research Center, Share of adults tech users in the United States who are confident in the ability of selected institutions to protect their data as of May 2016, Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/270062/legal-protection-of-us-internet-users-online-privacy (last visited September 08, 2019).

[2] See Chris Grundy, All Data Breaches in 2019 – An Alarming Timeline, Self Key (June 12, 2019), https://selfkey.org/data-breaches-in-2019.

[3] See Joseph Cox, DMVs Are Selling Your Data to Private Investigators, VICE (Sep. 6, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/y5ce5sx5.

[4] See 18 U.S.C. §2721 (2018).

[5] See 18 U.S.C §2721(b)(3-8) (2018).

[6] See Andrea Collatz, Using MVR Reports to Screen Potential Employees, TransUnion For Hires (Sep. 5, 2019) (explaining how employers can use DMV records to vet applicants), https://hires.shareable.com/blog/mvr-reports-screen-employees.

[7] See Natalie Flynn, The Still Terrifying Details of the Murder of Rebecca Schaeffer: A Star on the Rise and an Obsession Turned Deadly, E News (July 18, 2019) (detailing how a stalker found and killed a young actress by hiring a private investigator to obtain DMV records and the actress’ home address), https://tinyurl.com/y42wasoy.

[8] See Stephanie Pagones, Some state DMVs made millions selling drivers’ personal data for next to nothing, Fox Business (Sep. 9, 2019), https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/state-dmvs-drivers-personal-info.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

By: Eric Richard

Image source: https://roselawgroupreporter.com/2019/09/ninth-circuit-strikes-down-montana-ban-on-political-robocalls/

We’ve all been the victim of robocalls. Everybody knows what it’s like to see an unknown number appear on their device, answer it for fear of missing an important message, only to be met with a voice on the other side that sounds like it was cobbled together from a bad sci-fi movie. Just this week, the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Court”) leveled a decision to ensure these calls will keep coming.[1]

This past Tuesday, September 10, 2019, the Court reversed a district court decision condoning Montana’s Robocall Statute, thereby invalidating the law.[2] Montana passed this robocall law in 1991, the same year the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act became effective.[3] The federal law bars political robocalls to mobile devices without prior consent, but it does allow robocalls to contact individuals via landlines.[4] By contrast, Montana’s law comes with a $2,500 fine for robocalls to any landline or cellular device that are related to a political campaign, as well as robocalls that aim to sell a good or service, solicit information or gather data.[5]

In past decisions, the Court has actually upheld laws that restrict robocalls based on consumer protection regulations and for those that restricted the time, place, and manner of the robocalls.[6] However, this most recent decision marks the limit as to how far the Court will go to regulate these types of calls.[7] In striking down the statute, the Court explained that regulating robocalls based on their content presented a more severe threat to First Amendment freedoms than regulating their time, place, and manner.[8] The Court also went on to say that prohibiting political robocalls strikes at the heart of the First Amendment…as well as disproportionately disadvantages political candidates with fewer resources.”[9]

Despite the past decisions advocating for regulating robocalls in accordance with specific parameters, the Court’s decision this month is actually in line with other recent trends across jurisdictions.[10] Specifically, the Court noted a 2015 decision by the 4^th Circuit.[11] There, a ban on all consumer and political robocalls was struck down in South Carolina because it was not narrowly tailored enough to protect the state’s interest in protecting privacy.[12] District courts in Wyoming and Arkansas have also held bans on political robocalls unconstitutional.[13] The 7^th Circuit did uphold an Indiana law regulating robocalls, but only because the statute did not discriminate by content and merely regulated who may be called.[14]

For those of us wanting increased protection from the incessant phone calls we receive almost daily, the Court’s decision this month, along with the trend it represents, isn’t encouraging. Some believe that the issue is primed for a Supreme Court decision, but the highest court in the land hasn’t taken it up yet.[15] Until then, we’ll have to look jurisdiction by jurisdiction to see which states do and don’t offer protection from robocalls, political or otherwise.

 

 

 

[1] See Debra Weiss, Ban on political robocalls violates First Amendment, 9^th Circuit rule, A.B.A. J. (Sept. 11, 2019, 12:51 AM), http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ban-on-political-robocalls-violates-first-amendment-9th-circuit-rules.

[2] See Victory Processing, LLC v. Fox, No. 18-35163, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27230 (9th Cir. Sep. 10, 2019)

[3] See Matt Volz, Court strikes down Montana law barring political robocall, AP News (Sept. 10, 2019), https://www.apnews.com/0cb788df7fe149f2847ab79ec7e3130b

[4] See id.

[5] See id.

[6] See Karina Brown, Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Montana Ban on Political Robocalls, Courthouse New Service (Sept. 10, 2019), https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-strikes-down-montana-ban-on-political-robocalls/

[7] See id.

[8] See Victory Processing, LLC v. Fox, No. 18-35163 at *4.

[9] See id at *5.

[10] See Weiss, supra note 1.

[11] See id.

[12] See id.

[13] See Volz, supra note 3.

[14] See id.

[15] See id.

By: Monica Molouf

Image source: https://junkee.com/pokemon-go-still-thriving/196317

Pokémon Go experienced a recent financial setback[1] due to a class action settlement in California federal court.  In settling trespass and nuisance charges, the court ordered the company behind Pokémon Go to pay four million dollars in attorney’s fees and one thousand dollars to each individual plaintiff. [2]  Additionally, the court ordered the company to urge individuals to refrain from acts of trespass while using the app.[3]

This comes after numerous complaints that the app encourages trespass on private property.[4]  In their complaint for In re Pokémon Go, plaintiffs claimed Pokémon Go should be held responsible for “profiting from a game that encourages users to illegally wander onto private property.”[5]  Defendants argued that they were not responsible for individual user’s actions, but the federal court disagreed.

The sell for downloading the smartphone app is that “the world of Pokémon is all around you.”[6]  Meaning if you look through the proper lens—say, an app on my smartphone—you, too, could be Ash[7] and capture Pokémon as a trainer.

There’s something exciting about integrating a fantasy world into everyday life via virtual reality.  As the world’s “leading augmented reality” software company,[8] Niantic Inc. has capitalized on this excitement through Pokémon Go.  The app combines the fictional world originally experienced through trading cards and television shows with the real world, creating a quasi-virtual reality where Pokémon wander the earth.[9]  As pointed out in a response filed by plaintiffs, “[t]his innovative blending of physical and virtual worlds is the defining feature of Pokémon Go and the key to its popularity. Niantic emphasizes this heavily in its advertising, encouraging players to search far and wide to capture Pokémon and advance in the game.”[10]

The promotional video for Pokémon Go depicts 3D cartoons of the famous creatures roaming real cities, forests, and other exciting terrains.[11]  These are ambiguous spaces—never a distinct place in a familiar city, a backyard, or even a local park.  The video portrays beautiful scenery to match the fantastical virtual reality.  While moving through these frames, a disclaimer subtly flashes across the screen,[12]  urging users to be careful and remain aware of their surroundings.[13]  And while it promotes players to see Pokémon wherever they go, the app fails to show the full scope of where these creatures roam, and where users should not.  This is particularly interesting after the aforementioned settlement reached in August of this year.

Neither the video nor the Apple App Store description of includes any disclaimer or clause to encourage users against trespassing private property.  While the settlement is still fresh, it would behoove Pokémon Go to include such a disclaimer. And fast.  Clearly, Niantic, Inc. is not forcing users to enter onto personal property.  Those who download the app seem to use at their own initiative…and their own risk.  But there is something to be said about creating an app that entices strangers to trespass on private property in pursuit of a virtual creature.

As a child of the 90s, I understand the temptation to open an app on my smartphone and tramps around my neighborhood in search of Pikachu.  The temptation to become a Pokémon trainer for a short while.  However, inspiring individuals to intrude on private property brings up real public policy concerns.

Despite the settlement litigation, Pokémon Go seems to be increasing in popularity.  Just this month I’ve seen packs of individuals zig-zagging the streets in my neighborhood, trying to catch them all.  And while the settlement struck the company financially, it seems Niantic, Inc. will continue to push the seal as an augmented reality pioneer and millennials will continue to revel in nostalgia.  Public policy and privacy rights may be of substantial  social interest, but so it seems is reliving one’s childhood.

[1] See generally, Paul Tassi, ‘Pokémon GO’ Has Made $1.8 Billion As It Turns Two Years Old, Forbes (Jul. 9, 2018, 9:38 AM) https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2018/07/09/pokemon-go-has-made-1-8-billion-as-it-turns-two-years-old/#283e74094655 (illustrating that the company racked in almost two billion dollars in revenue in its first two years).

[2] Hannah Albarazi, Pokémon Go Nuisance Deal Netz Pomerantz $4M In Atty Fees, Law360 (Aug. 22, 2019, 5:51 PM) https://www.law360.com/articles/1191631.

[3] See id.

[4] See Allison Grande, Pokémon Go Responsible for Individual Players’ Actions and Had Done Nothing Wrong, Law360 (Jan. 30, 2017, 7:57 PM) https://www.law360.com/articles/886257?copied=1.

[5] See id.; see also Allison Grande, ‘Pokémon Go’ Maker Encouraged Trespassing, Court Told, Law360 (Mar. 3, 2017, 8:06 PM) https://www.law360.com/articles/898098 (referencing the previous article and summarizing the case).

[6] Amazing Creatures Have Been Discovered Across the Planet!, YouTube (Feb. 1, 2018) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMobkagZu64.

[7] Ash is the main character and trainer in the anime television series, Pokémon.  Ash Ketchum, Bulbapedia (last visited Sept. 12, 2019) https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Ash_Ketchum.

[8] About: A History of Viewing the World Differently, Niantic (last visited Sept. 12, 2019) https://nianticlabs.com/about/.

[9] Explained: What is Pokémon Go?, WebWise (last visited Sept. 12, 2019) https://www.webwise.ie/parents/pokemon-go/.

[10] Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, at 21–23, In Re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2017) (No. 3:16-cv-04300-JD).

[11] Supra, note 5.

[12] Id.

[13] Pokémon Go Safety Tips, PokémonGo (last visited Sept. 12, 2019) https://www.pokemongo.com/en-us/.  The website itself provides a list of safety tips discussing the use of care while using the app.  While it mentions inaccessible places, it uses construction cites rather than private property as an example.  And nowhere does the term “trespass” appear.

By: Stephanie Seibert

Image source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49670849

 

On September 11, 2019 California lawmakers passed employment legislation that would change “gig- companies” business models[1]. “Gig- companies” are businesses that offer a subset of jobs where entrepreneurs get work through an internet – based platform which matches them to customers seeking their service[2]. “Gig companies” include platforms such as Uber and Lyft[3].

Gig workers are not necessarily considered employees under federal and state employment law[4]. Since they are not classified as employees, they are classified as independent contractors[5]. Under the current labor standards, independent contractors do not qualify for protections such as The Fair Labor Standards Act or Americans with Disabilities Act[6]. Independent contractors also are not guaranteed other rights offered to employees, such as minimum wage, overtime pay, disability insurance, medical insurance, among much more[7].

The legislation passed in the California State Assembly intends to force gig-companies to reclassify independent contractors as employees. This legislation will require companies such as Uber and Lyft to completely restructure their business model[8].

The new legislation applies a strict “ABC test” to determine workers’ employment status:

(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work

(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business

(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity[9]

In order for a worker to be considered an independent contractor, rather than an employee, the employer must prove that each element of the “ABC test” is satisfied[10].

Uber and Lyft are working together to try to exempt themselves from the bill, recognizing that this legislation could subdue their businesses[11]. Lyft said that if this legislation were to pass, drivers “may soon be required to drive specific shifts, stick to specific areas, and drive for only a single platform[12].” Uber is taking a more optimistic approach, arguing that the new legislation does not automatically reclassify drivers as employees[13]. Uber’s Chief Legal Officer stated, “[The legislation] does not provide drivers with benefits, nor does it give drivers the right to organize. In fact, the bill currently says nothing about ride-share drivers[14].” The ride-sharing platforms will argue that because workers can determine when they work, where they work and for how long, they are not under control or direction of their employers[15].

The ride-sharing companies are trying to propose alternative legislation in an effort to compromise. The proposed legislation would guarantee a minimum wage of $21/hr and allow for sectoral bargaining[16]. Sectoral collective bargaining allows workers in rideshare industry to band together in negotiations[17].  This is unlikely to persuade California legislation to change the already introduced legislation[18].

A large consequence of this legislation is that the riders that use the ride-sharing platforms are going to be the ones who bear most of the expenses[19]. Analysts predict that ride-sharing platforms will increase their rates in an effort to offset the costs associated with making their drivers employees[20]. The raise in price could increases as much as 30% per ride[21].  The legislation is still in its early stages and will take a while to be enacted. Consumers and workers should not expect to see enactment of the legislation until sometime next year[22]. However, California Gov. Newsom made it clear that he is expecting to sign legislation if it makes it to his desk[23].

[1] Gabrielle Canon, California’s controversial labor bill has passed the Senate. Experts forecast more worker rights, higher prices for services, USA Today (Sept. 11, 2019, 12:37 AM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/10/what-californias-ab-5-means-apps-like-uber-lyft/2278936001/.

[2] Jaclyn Kurin, A Third Way for Applying U.S. Labor Laws to the Online Gig Economy: Using the Franchise Business Model to Regulate Gig Workers, 12 J. Bus. & Tech. L. 193 (2017).

[3] Id.

[4] Emily C. Atmore, Killing the Goose That Laid the Golden Egg: Outdated Employment Laws Are Destroying the Gig Economy, 102 Minn. L. Rev. 887 (2017)

[5] Id.

[6] See Canon, supra note 1.

[7] See Id; Canon, supra 2 at 888

[8] Canon, supra note 1.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Alejandro Lazo & Sebastian Herrera, Uber Vows to Fight California Legislation on Gig Economy, Wall Street Journal (Sept. 11, 2019, 7:36 PM), https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-governor-still-in-talks-with-uber-lyft-over-gig-workers-law-11568212014.

[12] Id.

[13] See Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Dave Lee, Uber says ‘gig economy’ law will not hurt business, BBC (Sept. 11, 2019), https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49670849.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] See Lazo, supra note 11.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Cannon, supra note 1.

[23] Lazo, supra note 11.

By: Jonathan H. Walter

https://thisweekinstartups.com/thisweekin-startups/ziprecruiter-logo/

Employment is a priority for the class of 2020 right now, and today more applicants than ever are look for jobs online. In 2015, the Pew Research Center found 79 percent of applicants used online resources in their most recent job search, and over one third said those online resources were the most important tool available to them.[1] This same report found more than half of U.S. adults looked for job information online and 45 percent applied online.[2] However, when segmenting for Americans under the age of 49, 75 percent of applicants looked for jobs online and 68 percent applied online.[3] This shows that the trend for younger Americans, and as such the future of job applications will be in the digital space.

 

 

While there is more known about issues of discrimination in employment advertising, little in known about internal recruiting tools or internal promotion tools utilized by companies. These internal recruiting algorithms make it more difficult to enforce current anti-discrimination laws within companies. Recently, Amazon shut down its internal recruitment AI after discovering it was discriminating against women.[11] These algorithmic systems, if not audited or corrected for bias, are susceptible to producing self-perpetuating and arbitrary bias, and, if left unfettered, these algorithms could filter out many qualified individuals belonging to these marginalized groups.[12]

 

Recent studies have found that over half of human resource managers said AI would be a regular part of their work within the next five years.[13] The use of algorithms in the tracking, ranking and matching of candidates to positions will not be going anywhere any time soon. As the hiring process becomes more digitized, a need for oversight of these platforms has become abundantly clear.

*University of Richmond Journal of Law and Technology is not endorsed by, directly affiliated with, maintained, authorized, or sponsored by ZipRecruiter.com. All product and company names are the registered trademarks of their original owners.

[1] Aaron Smith, Searching for Work in the Digital Era, Pew Research Center (2015) http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/11/19/searching-for-work-in-the-digital-era/.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Examples of job websites that use these kinds of tools are ZipRecruiter, LinkedIn, Indeed, and Monster.com.

[5] Figuring out how exactly these algorithms work can be incredibly difficult as algorithms are protected by trade secret. See Taylor Moore, Trade Secrets & Algorithms as Barriers to Social Justice, Center for Democracy and Technology (2017) https://cdt.org/files/2017/08/2017-07-31-Trade-Secret-Algorithms-as-Barriers-to-Social-Justice.pdf.

[6] 23 Surprising Stats on Candidate Expereince – Infographic, Career Arc (2016) http://www.careerarc.com/blog/2016/06/candidate-experience-study-infographic/.

[7] See Department of Justice Statement of Interest, National Fair Housing Alliance et al., v. Facebook, Inc., Case 1:18-cv-02689-JGK (S.D.N.Y. 2018); Department of Justice Statement of Interest, Onuoha, et al., v. Facebook, 5:16-cv-06440 (N.D.C.A. 2018); Bradley et al., v. T-Mobile US, INC. et al., 5:17-cv-07232 (N.D.Cal. 2017); Jeffrey Dastin, Amazon Scraps AI Recruiting Tool That Showed Bias Against Women, Reuters (Oct. 9, 2018) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G/; Julia Angwin and Terry Parris Jr., Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users By Race, ProPublica (Oct. 28, 2016) https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-lets-advertisers-exclude-users-by-race; Julia Angwin et al., Facebook (Still) Letting Housing Advertisers Exclude Users by Race, ProPublica (Nov. 21, 2017) https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-advertising-discrimination-housing-race-sex-national-origin.

[8] See ACLU et al. Charge of Discrimination Against Facebook, https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/facebook_bill.pdf (citation omitted).

[9] AJ Wilcox, LinkedIn’s new Matched Audiences feature just blew Facebook Custom Audiences out of the water for B2B, Marketing Land (Apr. 24, 2017) https://marketingland.com/linkedins-new-matched-audiences-feature-just-blew-facebook-custom-audiences-water-b2b-212213; Matched Audiences, LinkedIn https://business.linkedin.com/marketing-solutions/ad-targeting/matched-audiences; About similar audiences on the Display Network, Google Ads Help https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2676774?hl=en.

[10] Jeff Kauflin, 12 Websites To Jump-Start Your Career In 2018, Forbes (Oct. 19, 2017) https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffkauflin/2017/10/19/12-websites-to-jump-start-your-career-in-2018/#46b95fa919d8.

[11] Jeffrey Dastin, Amazon Scraps AI Recruiting Tool That Showed Bias Against Women, Reuters (Oct. 9, 2018) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G/.

[12] Supra note 29 at 89; see also Solon Barocas and Anderw Selbst, Losing Out on Employment Because of Big Data Mining, New York Times (August 6, 2014) https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/06/is-big-data-spreading-inequality/losing-out-on-employment-because-of-big-data-mining.

[13] Supra note 42.

By: Dylan Phillips

Image Source: http://pixelvulture.com/2019/07/stolen-phone/

 

In modern times, cell phones have moved from being mere communication devices to integral parts of our lives.[1] We use them for everything from buying Starbucks to creating memes with pictures we have taken. With each usage of a phone, there is a vast amount of valuable data being stored on the device itself and in the cloud.[2] News stories have recently focused a significant amount of time on the value of this data when it is stolen,[3] but an aspect that has had little, if any prior consideration, is whether an individual retains a property interest or right to the data he or she produces on a device after he or she steals a digital device. Thus, the question presented is whether an individual who steals and adds data to a phone, has the right to avoid the data added to the phone from being searched by law enforcement without a warrant.[4]

 

Generally, a warrantless search of a cell phone is not a permissible act by law enforcement.[5] The United States Supreme Court has held that “Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant.”[6] However, the question may not be so simple in all circumstances.[7] As of now, the Court has not definitively established whether there is an exception to this rule for data added to stolen property. Should a situation, such as a challenge to one’s constitutional right to not have a phone’s data searched without a warrant,[8] come before the Court, it is most likely that the Court will find that one does not have standing to establish prejudice of a search, when the evidence gathered as a consequence of a search and seizure is directed at someone else and he or she cannot prove that the invasion is of his or her own privacy through his or her property.

 

When considering the constitutionality of a search, “reasonableness is always the touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis.”[9] In the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement.[10] The Court has held that the search incident to arrest exception does not apply to cell phones to avoid the warrant requirement.[11] However, the Court has also held that the continued availability of the exigent circumstances exception may give law enforcement a justification for a warrantless search in particular cases.[12] Regardless of whether exigent circumstances apply to this matter, the Court has declined standing to petitioners by holding that “Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights, which, like some other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted.”[13] “A general rule has developed, stating that a person’s interest in his or her possession of stolen property is not a legitimate expectation of privacy society is willing to recognize as reasonable.”[14]

 

For example, the Court found that Petitioners had no legitimate expectation of privacy in areas of a car in which they claimed no property or possessory interest.[15] Moreover, in Hicks v. State, the court found no reasonable expectation of privacy concerns when the police looked at the contents of a stolen laptop in the defendant’s possession.[16] Additionally, a thief may not claim that the property is now abandoned by the actual owner of the phone because of the requirement of voluntary relinquishment; a bad act preceding the relinquishment, like theft or police misconduct, can render the abandonment involuntary.[17]

 

Here, however, the question is not whether there is an exception of privacy regarding the device’s data in general, but rather of the data added to the device after the theft. Should the Court ever directly address the issue of who maintains property rights to the data added by a thief to a stolen phone, the Court would most likely find that the public policy goals of discouraging theft and hacking far outweigh the idea of providing a transgressor a benefit for his or her bad act. However, because the Court has found that these transgressors lack standing to challenge such a search, the Court has yet to rule whether one’s potential property rights have been infringed upon, after a warrantless search when cellular phones are used by a thief. Thus, because no one has yet been ruled to have standing to challenge the warrantless search of stolen property, the question of whether a thief of a phone still has the right to privacy in the data the thief inputted in the phone remains unanswered by the Court.

 

[1] See generally Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 385 (2014) (“[M]odern cell phones . . . are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy”).

[2] See generally Future Mobile Data Usage and Traffic Growth, Ericsson, https://www.ericsson.com/en/mobility-report/future-mobile-data-usage-and-traffic-growth (last visited Sept. 5, 2019) (displaying current and predicted future data usage).

 

[3]See, e.g., Robert McMillan, How the Accused Capital One Hacker Stole Reams of Data From the Cloud, Wall St. J. (Aug. 4, 2019),https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-accused-capital-one-hacker-stole-reams-of-data-from-the-cloud-11564911001; Rachel Siegel, Florida City Will Pay Hackers $600,000 to Get Its Computer Systems Back, Wash. Post (June 20, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/06/20/florida-city-will-pay-hackers-get-its-computer-systems-back/.

 

[4] The right referred to in this post is the right granted by the Fourth Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. IV (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, . . . and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, . . . and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”).

 

[5] See Riley, 573 U.S. at 376 (noting that the danger of destruction of evidence through remote wiping or hurting an officer are not concerns sufficient to surpass the warrantless search rule and so cell phones cannot be constitutionally searched without a warrant); see also id. at 382 (stating “warrantless searches incident to arrest occur with far greater frequency than searches conducted pursuant to a warrant) (citing 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §5.2(b), p. 132, and n. 15 (5th ed. 2012)).

 

[6] Riley, 573 U.S. at 403.

[7] See generally Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682, 690-91 (2019) (stating, “without separately considering incorporation, that States’ warrantless search of digital information stored on cell phones ordinarily violates the Fourth Amendment”) (citing Riley, 573 U.S. 373). By mentioning the word “ordinarily,” it is implied that there are exceptions to this rule, just as with all legal rules, thus, the rule may not be so “simple.”

[8] U.S. Const. amend. IV.

[9] Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2186 (2016); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006).

[10] See Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 459-460 (2011).

[11] See Riley, 573 U.S. at 376.

[12] See id.

[13] Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1978) (citations omitted).

A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person’s premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed. And since the exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, it is proper to permit only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated to benefit from the rule’s protections. There is no reason to think that a party whose rights have been infringed will not, if evidence is used against him, have ample motivation to move to suppress it.

 

See also Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 230 (1973); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 389 (1968); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 492 (1963); cf. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961); Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 304 (1921).

 

[14] Shaver v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 789, 798 (1999); see Brown, 411 U.S. at 230 n.4; see also United States v. Hensel, 672 F.2d 578 (6th Cir. 1982); United States v. Hargrove, 647 F.2d 411 (4th Cir. 1981); Smith v. Garrett, 586 F. Supp. 517 (N.D.W.Va. 1984); McMillian v. State, 65 Md. App. 21 (Md. App. 1985); People v. Mercado, 114 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y.S.2d 1985); Sanborn v. State, 251 Ga. 169 (Ga. 1983); State v. Hamm, 348 A.2d 268 (Me. 1975)).

 

[15] See Rakas, 439 U.S. at 128.

 

[16] See Hicks v. State, 929 So. 2d 13, 14 (2006); see generally Shaver, 30 Va. App. at 799 (1999) (providing examples of a lack of standing to argue privileges under the Fourth Amendment); see e.g., United States v. McCambridge, 551 F.2d 865, 870 n.2 (1st Cir. 1977) (finding that a defendant had no standing to challenge the search of a stolen suitcase because he did not have an ownership interest or other rights to it); Josephs v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 87, 98 (1990) (en banc) (finding that a passenger in a stolen vehicle had no expectation of privacy in that vehicle); Commonwealth v. Strickland, 707 A.2d 531, 534 (Pa. Super. 1998) (finding the search of the vehicle that the defendant was driving was permissible because the defendant could not establish a legally cognizable expectation of privacy in that which was stolen); State v. Hamm, 348 A.2d 268, 273 (stating that society is unwilling to recognize as reasonable a thief’s expectation of privacy in stolen property); Graham v. State, 47 Md. App. 287, 295 (Md. App. 1980) (holding that the court will not recognize a thief’s expectation of privacy in a stolen backpack and moped)).

 

[17] See State v. Dixon, No. 13-09-00445-CR, 2010 WL 3419231, at *18-19 (Tex. App. Aug. 27, 2010) (holding that a cell phone could not be abandoned because the phone was stolen and the owner accordingly did not intentionally relinquish ownership of the device even though he did not try to reclaim his phone for weeks after the theft). But see, People v. Schutter, 249 P.3d 1123, 1126 (Colo. 2011) (en banc) (holding that an iPhone accidentally locked in a public restroom that the defendant could not retrieve without a store employee was not abandoned, and, therefore, “[a]ssuming, without deciding, that the Fourth Amendment could tolerate, under some set of circumstances, some kind of warrantless examination of a cell phone to ascertain how it might be returned to its owner, this case cannot present that set of circumstances”).

By Merrin Overbeck

https://pixabay.com/photos/cell-phone-phone-cell-mobile-690192/

Currently, the average person in the United States spends over four hours a day on their cell phone.[1] Cell phones have become a vital part of most people’s lives, from sending text messages, to listening to music, to using its GPS function. However, there are serious privacy rights at issue regarding situations when government officials’ and law enforcement officers’ access this information without going through the proper procedures.

 

On June 22, 2018 in Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 that the Fourth Amendment right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to cell phone location information.[2] This location information, called cell site location information (CSLI), is gathered by cell phone service providers such as Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon. According to the Court in Carpenter, this information creates a “detailed chronicle of a person’s physical presence compiled every day, every moment over years.”[3] Because of how revealing this information can be, law enforcement officers are now required to apply for and get a search warrant from a judge or a magistrate before obtaining this information.[4] If law enforcement officers are able to legally obtain a search warrant, this information can be vital to their investigations into suspected crimes; however, if a warrant is not obtained, this information could allow law enforcement officers to unconstitutionally intrude upon individuals’ right to privacy.

 

In order to understand why access to this type of information is such a significant issue, it is necessary to understand that “cell phones operate-by constantly connecting to cell towers to exchange data- mak[ing] it possible for cell providers to collect information on everywhere that each phone- and by extension, each phone’s owner- has been for years in the past.”[5] This has major criminal law implications because these cell phone towers are constantly gathering information about individuals through their operational cell phones. The gathering of this information by cell phone service providers allows law enforcement officers to have access this bank of information. Access to cell site location information allows law enforcement officers to accurately determine a user’s location without necessarily requiring the phone user’s knowledge or consent.[6]

 

The privacy concerns caused by the gathering of cell site location information raises is worsened by programs such as Trax™, created by the technology company ZetX. This program is aimed specifically at law enforcement officers. This software “recognizes cell phone data in any format from any provider and uses it to map the cell towers, create visuals of call information, highlight callers’ habits, and even autofill search warrants.”[7] Trax™ also allows law enforcement officers to “receive real-time notification of a subject’s location via GPS.”[8]

 

This software essentially allows law enforcement officers to automate the organization and display of cell site location information.[9] While there are clear benefits for law enforcement investigations, there is the possible issue of access to this software when it comes to prosecutors’ obligation to turn over discovery to defense counsel.[10] While the founder of ZetX states that law enforcement officers “can send Trax™ reports to the prosecutor and the defense attorney for discovery,” there is the potential issue that defense attorneys will not typically have access to this software. Because the ZetX website requires an email associated with a law enforcement agency to log on and create an account[11], there is the issue that this software could provide a means of not having to turn over the raw data that the software uses to create its graphics to defense counsel.

 

Another major way that ZetX and Trax™ changes the status quo of applying for and obtaining search and arrest warrants is the company’s promotion of the use of “reverse warrants” to request identifying information for every phone that was in the vicinity of where a crime was committed at a certain time.[12] Normally, search or arrest warrant targets a known object or individual. Reverse warrants raise constitutional issues due to the fact that they “guarantee a sizable number of non-criminals will be swept up in the data haul.”[13] These warrants can raise Fourth Amendment concerns because judges deciding whether to issue these warrants will likely not be able to easily understand the true area that the warrants are requesting information for; and therefore, the search will be broader than the Fourth Amendment allows for.[14]

While it is not likely that judges will learn about this issue and fix how they approve search or arrest warrants, raising awareness of this issue is the first step so that challenges to this technology’s constitutionality can be brought forward and addressed.

[1] See Melanie Curtin, Are you on your phone too much? The average person spends this many hours on it every day, Inc.com, (Oct. 30, 2018), https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/are-you-on-your-phone-too-much-average-person-spends-this-many-hours-on-it-every-day.html.

[2] See Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2223, 201 L. Ed. 2d 507 (2018).

[3] Id. at 2220.

[4] See 18 U.S.C. §2703 (2012) (explaining that the Stored Communications Act allows government officials and law enforcement officers to obtain this information from cell phone providers).

[5] Andrew Crocker and Jennifer Lynch, Victory! Supreme Court says fourth amendment applies to cell phone tracking, Eff.org, (June 22, 2018), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/victory-supreme-court-says-fourth-amendment-applies-cell-phone-tracking.

[6] See V. Alexander Monteith, Cell site location information: a catalyst for change in fourth amendment jurisprudence, 27:1, Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 82, 84 (2017) (explaining that officers are able to run these searches without requiring the cell phone owner’s permission).

[7] Melanie Basich, Trax from Zetx: visual analysis, Police Mag., (Jul. 17, 2014), https://www.policemag.com/341174/trax-from-zetx-visual-analysis.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] While it is possible for defense counsel to gain access to this search, offices such as the public defender’s must specifically request that their email address be approved.

[11] See Request Trax™ Demo, ZetX, https://phonelookup.zetx.com/requestdemo

[12] See Tim Cushing, Minnesota judges spent only minutes approving warrants sweeping up thousands of cellphone users, Techdirt, (Feb. 12, 2019, 10:45 AM), https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190211/08125241570/minnesota-judges-spent-only-minutes-approving-warrants-sweeping-up-thousands-cellphone-users.shtml; see also Aaron Mak, Close enough: police departments are using “reverse location search warrants” to force Google to hand over data on anyone near a crime scene, Slate.org, (Feb. 19, 2019, 5:55 AM), https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/reverse-location-search-warrants-google-police.html

[13] Tim Cushing, Minnesota judges spent only minutes approving warrants sweeping up thousands of cellphone users, Techdirt, (Feb. 12, 2019, 10:45 AM), https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190211/08125241570/minnesota-judges-spent-only-minutes-approving-warrants-sweeping-up-thousands-cellphone-users.shtml

[14] See Aaron Mak, Close enough: police departments are using “reverse location search warrants” to force Google to hand over data on anyone near a crime scene, Slate.org, (Feb. 19, 2019, 5:55 AM), https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/reverse-location-search-warrants-google-police.html; see also Aaron Mak, Close enough: police departments are using “reverse location search warrants” to force Google to hand over data on anyone near a crime scene, Slate.org, (Feb. 19, 2019, 5:55 AM), https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/reverse-location-search-warrants-google-police.html

By: Stephanie Seibert

Image Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/08/28/banning-neo-nazis-extremists-twitter-how-police-and-avoid-bias/2139370001/.

In today’s social media – centric world there seems to be an overwhelming number of platforms available for individuals to express their thoughts and ideas. Big Tech companies such as Twitter, Facebook and Google alike allow users to post their content at a click of a button. At first glance, these platforms seem to be advancing the First Amendment and furthering its agenda of freedom of speech. However, these Big Tech firms are currently coming under scrutiny for, at times, restricting content which would violate some freedom of speech ideals[1].

These Big Tech firms are finding it hard to police content while avoiding bias. Social media platforms are facing contradictory demands to oversee internet content, without infringing on First Amendment rights.[2] There are balances that must be considered when allowing people to express themselves in a way that does not harm society; this endeavor is becoming increasingly hard as technology expands and grows[3].

A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen[4]. Social media users use social media platforms to engage in various types of protected First Amendment speech[5]. Accordingly, social media lawsuits and legislation regarding the First Amendment stem from deprivations under the Free Speech Clause[6].

Members of congress have been attempting to pass legislation that places a burden on social media providers to prove that they aren’t using bias to filter content[7].  Michael Beckerman, head of the trade group Internet Association, said these proposed legislation forces platforms to “make an impossible choice: either host reprehensible, but First Amendment- protected speech, or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism. That shouldn’t be a tradeoff.[8]”

Congressional legislation is not the only place that social media providers are coming under scrutiny; the judiciary is also handing down rulings that place extra burdens on the Big Tech companies[9]. Litigation has come into the judiciary as social media users challenge other users or social media providers for limiting or banning social media users’ ability to participate in the social media platforms based on their viewpoints[10]. These bans are being challenged as an unconstitutional form of discrimination under the First Amendment.

The issue with these cases being solved in the judiciary is how courts adapt established First Amendment jurisprudence to the world of social media.[11] Courts are struggling to find remedies for these types of litigation. The court system is, per se, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. The judiciary is attempting to tailor precedent First Amendment jurisprudence and apply it to a “revolutionary technology.[12]” At times this leads to the court taking a “rights-centric approach” and creating remedies that are distinct to the specific social media technology used to violate the First Amendment[13].

Courts are ill equipped to understand the technological distinctions of social media and it is ill advised that courts make legal rulings based on technologies that frequently change and evolve.[14] This leads to outdated rulings and creates confusions and uncertainty about which precedent applies to liability in these First Amendment cases dealing with social media.[15] These court rules will have a chilling effect on both social media users and providers and will negatively impact social media platforms’ environment of free speech. Additionally, courts ruling on social media risks judicial overreach.[16] There is a risk that the courts will try to expand what constitutes as state action. Big Tech firms are private actors, but there is a risk to the nature and number of litigations that will occur if the courts find that policing content constitutes as state action[17].

Will the judiciary set a precedent for social media providers to follow? Will Congress pass legislation detailing the best way for users’ First Amendment rights to be protected? Will social media providers just be stuck performing a balancing act trying to not infringe First Amendment rights while policing content on their sites? Social media is an invaluable part of todays’ society, and emphasis should be placed on finding a solution to possible First Amendment violations while allowing social media platforms to police content to maintain a safe environment for users.

 

 

 

 

[1]Marcy Gordon, How Should Big Tech Police Content while Avoiding Bias?, USA Today (Sept. 5, 2019, 7:25 PM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/08/28/banning-neo-nazis-extremists-twitter-how-police-and-avoid-bias/2139370001/.

[2] Id.

[3] See Amanda M. Williams, Notes & Comment: You Want to Tweet About it But You Probably Can’t: How Social Media Platforms Flagantly Violate the First Amendment, 45 Rutgers Comp & Tech L.J. 89, 93 (2019)

[4] Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1735-36 (2017).

[5] Id.

[6] See Kathleen M. Hidy, Article:Social Media Use and Viewpoint Discrimination: A First Amendment Judicial Tightrope Walk With Rights and Risks Hanging in the Balance, 102 Marq. L. Rev. 1045, 1053 (2019).

[7] Marcy Gordon, Tech Giants Face Questions on Hate Speech Going into Debates, AP News (Sept. 5, 2019, 7:53PM), https://apnews.com/b8fef98153c24c8dbcc7778115089806.

[8] See Gordon, supra note 1.

[9] See Hidy, supra note 6 at 1081.

[10] Id. at 1046

[11] Id. at 1081

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id. at 1082

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

By: Seth Bruneel

Image Source: http://www.law.ou.edu/news-and-media/ou-college-law-named-apple-distinguished-school

Intro

I’ll admit, I’m biased. Team Apple all the way. I’m also pro-no-paper. Some people need to print it, touch it, handle it, feel it, and write on it in order for it to get into their brain. I’m the opposite. I just read it. I can retain information that I read off a screen. It’s a mindset and habit, a habit that has served me well as a law student. Plus, the Cloud makes it possible. So, whether you are trying to save the environment, enjoy a minimalist lifestyle and save your back from the books, or are just curious, let me share a few tips and tricks I figured out along the way.

 

Best for…

This is both a “should-you” and “how-to” because the answer is yes you should! Anyone could benefit from and enjoy going all in on the iPad but there are categories of people who would more readily see the benefits.

First off, there is no need to be overly “tech-savvy.” Apple has worked really hard to make its products easy/simple to use. There are also resources available to get you started. YouTube has countless videos on “how-to.” Apple offers classes in its Apple Stores. And, depending on your school, there may be someone designated to assist and educate students and faculty so they can make the most of their tech.

My first thought was for commuting students. I know some people who drive up to two hours one way. Imagine if you forgot your textbook or notebook at home. It would be paralyzing and could mean a whole day is wasted by either making the extra trips or by spending a day not doing what you need to do. Having everything in one, easy to remember and carry place would minimize the risk of forgetting anything and it is much less to lug around. Backpacks are handy but there is no need for “intellectuals” to carry fifty pounds of luggage just for a day at school.

I also thought of other students who use public transportation. I met someone who “goes to school in Boston,” and he would spend up to an hour a day on a combination of buses and trains, not to mention the time waiting for the next one. The iPad is perfect for someone in that situation because everything they need is in their hands. They can get reading done and make notes and highlights without busting out a large, hard to hold book complete with four different colors of highlight. Much easier to quickly stow and retrieve to continue reading as the commute continues and connections are made.

While an undergraduate student I had a laptop. It was pretty large, kind of heavy, usually needed a charge, and always felt fragile in my backpack. (Okay so this was 2010 but still…) So, it turned into, essentially, a desktop computer. Later in college, I just switched to a desktop computer. It was at this point that I got my first iPad. I realized that, even the early iPad (which has only gotten better) was great for notes, reading, and email. If I needed more computing power or to dive into large documents with formatting and formalities, I could just use the computer at my apartment. But I didn’t need all that strapped to my back all day every day. So, that is a long way of saying that the iPad life is great for people who already have a good computer (or one they just can’t let go). The iPad can be used when “out and about” and then the “ole reliable” is perfect for bigger projects.

Also, current Apple users will enjoy expanding their “Apple Universe.” Apple does a great job of setting up their products such that they only overlap slightly in use and function, while at the same time working together seamlessly. Examples include their “Airdrop” and “Handoff” functionality. Anyone with an iPhone, Mac computer, and iPad can send/receive calls, FaceTime, and text message from each and every device. For the true Apple believers, there is also the AppleTV, which allows easy streaming from any Apple device to a much larger (or second) screen.

There is a final category of people that I don’t know what to call other than a “non-desker.” This is the guy or girl who, independent of their academic performance, never seems to be found in the library like everyone else. They get their reading assignments done by the pool, at the gym, in a random hole-in-the-wall coffee shop or restaurant, or up on a roof with a view. These are the people who can focus anywhere. For them, the all-in-oneness of the iPad would be ideal to further unleash their creativity and travel-ability/adventures. Their only limitation would be battery life. Maybe you strive to be this type of person but didn’t know how to be. Until now.

 

 

Limitations

Before you run out to the Apple Store and plop your piggy bank on the counter, I will warn you that there are a few limitations on exclusive iPad use in law school. Some of those limitations will depend on your school itself. At my school, the University of Richmond School of Law, final exams cannot be administered on iPads. In fact, exams must be completed on a laptop. There are loaner laptops available during finals but there is no guarantee that one will be available because everyone is expected to have access to one.

There is also a possible limitation regarding printing. Some university systems don’t allow printing from “portable devices” such as phones and tablets. Sometimes there are work arounds by emailing to a friend or by printing from a lab computer in the law school’s library (if available). Even the most paper free student can’t get around some professors wanting papers printed and turned in.

Another limitation is word processing on the iPad. Microsoft Word and Apple Pages have come a long way but they still don’t do everything on the iPad that a “real” computer will. Getting all the ideas on the page isn’t the problem, the biggest limitations will be related to formatting.

You will also need to watch out for the professors who ban the use of laptops in their classroom. It is a bit of a gamble but this can be factored into your choice of law school or could be easy to find out if this is the norm or if the non-laptop class is an oddity. I’ve even found some professors allow laptops in some of their classes but not in others, depending on subject or class size. So, a little research is needed before taking the plunge.

Then there is the whole separate debate about typed versus handwritten notes. Part of that debate is the way you personally learn and part is the ability to be distracted. Personally, I have terrible handwriting, so typing is my preferred method. I also think that the screen and access to the internet can be distracting, but just because your laptop or iPad isn’t distracting you, doesn’t mean you are paying attention. And, with a stylus, there are ways to hand-write notes on the iPad so if typing is the issue, it can be overcome. There are also accessibility functions and settings such as “do not disturb” and “Screen Time” that are available to help control the impulse to entertain yourself when a professor dips into the history of property law in Medieval England. Again.

It is also worth checking out the multimedia and other features of your law school to see if they are Apple friendly. For example, my school has projectors in each room with varying hookups to display whatever you have to the whole room. Hooked up to each projector is an AppleTV. This makes it easy to share your iPad screen for presentations or even for a professor teaching a class.

Uses

So, what can the iPad do? The iPad will do pretty much anything. Plus, if you think of something you really want it to do, I’d wager that there is an app for that. In a law school setting, the iPad is great for taking notes (however you please), reading, keeping yourself organized, email, recording lectures, collaborating, presenting, and watching (missed classes, webinars, educational stuff of course). One thing that lots of people don’t know or forget about is that the iPad will do split screen. You can have your note taking app open on the right and your e-book open on the left. And other, more entertainment focused apps like the TV app or Netflix, will do picture-in-picture so you can distract yourself while you work. Speaking of apps, below I shared a few of my favorite apps, ranked from “must-have” to honorable mention. Side note, not all apps are free but there are ways to cut costs (see below).

MUST HAVE APPS

            At some point, every man must pick a side. Apple has its own default suite of apps which includes Pages, Numbers, and Keynote. If you pop open your shiny new iPad and find yourself confused as to what these do, they are Apple’s version of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. Both accomplish the same things subject to user preference. Microsoft’s apps are free to download but require you to sign in with a subscription to use. If you have one, great. If you don’t, you might have access with your school email credentials. Either way, most things in law school are done in Microsoft’s Office suite because the professors have it free. You’ll need the Office suite for writing papers and presentations so this really shouldn’t add any cost.

 

Included in this Suite is Microsoft OneNote. For anyone taking notes on iPad or laptop, Mac or otherwise, OneNote is by far the number one used note taking app at my school. It is easy to use and organize. Plus, it syncs across all of your different devices so people with a computer and laptop have access to all of their notes everywhere.

Incidental to OneNote is OneDrive. OneDrive is Microsoft’s cloud storage. You get at least 5 gigabytes of free storage with each account. This is great for syncing all of your notes, files, documents, and folders across multiple computers and with the iPad. OneDrive is not the only option. There are also others such as Box and Google Drive. Google Drive connects with its own popular suite of applications such as Google Dos, Sheets, and Presentations. Depending on what your school or classmates prefer, the iPad can work with any set of applications with just a few taps. Any, or all of the app “packages” are must haves.

Another “must-have” is the Amazon Kindle app. This comes in handy depending how much money you want to spend on books. I prefer e-books (primarily because I can’t lose them) and I don’t mind reading on a screen. The Kindle app makes it easy to read, highlight, bookmark, and make notes as you read. Kindle also syncs across multiple devices. Not all books are offered as an e-book but if it is, there is a good chance Amazon will have it.

 

For the hand writer, my must have is Noteability. It is great for handwriting notes in class or at a presentation of some sort. It is also great for marking up PDFs with handwritten notes and comments. Noteability has an organizational system that lets you organize your notes in categories according to your own personal system so that things are easy to find. Plus, there is even a “build it” feature that lets you look at two documents side-by-side in the app and work on both at the same time.

I even use Noteability to do most of my reading. This is possible by using another must-have app, Adobe Scan, which allows you to use the iPad’s (or iPhone’s) camera as a scanner. I use Adobe Scan to take pictures of textbooks and then mark up the scanned PDFs in Noteability. It is also easy to add more notes later while in class. This also comes in handy when professors hand out printed copies of things. Rather than smashing the single paper into my backpack to be instantly crumpled, I can just quickly scan it and decide if I need to hang onto the physical paper or not (usually the answer is no).

DEFAULTS

            Apple pre-loads the iPad with apps and quite a few can be your best friend. I prefer the default Mail app over Gmail or Outlook, and any email address can use the Mail app. The Calendar is a law student’s best friend. It is easy to keep yourself organized and reminded of what is due and when. Calendar will also sync with any other calendar like Outlook or Google Calendar so it is nice to have everything in one place.

Notes is a sneaky good app. It works great as a do-to-list or if you are working in collaboration (Google Docs isn’t the only way). It even has a built-in scanner for documents to be uploaded straight to Notes. If you use the Apple Pencil, there is a shortcut that allows you to “tap tap” on the lock screen, which will immediately open a new note—perfect  for jotting down something quickly. Lastly, Apple has been beefing up FaceTime. With group calling on FaceTime, you can find other Apple enthusiasts and create your own “digital” study group.

RECOMMENDED

These next apps aren’t crucial to making the iPad everything you need it to be, but they sure do come in handy.

Westlaw/Lexis Advance – These are both legal research platforms. Both can be used to find cases and even for reading, though I prefer to download the PDF to Noteability and read/mark up there. Once you get to school you can pick which service you prefer but I will say that Westlaw’s app has worked better for me.

Themis/Barbri – Themis and Barbri are bar-prep companies that try to “get you early” by providing some help with your first-year law school courses and eventually with studying for the MRPE.

Citrix AnyConnect – VPN lets you use school resources off campus or to keep your stuff safe when using public WiFi. 

HONORABLE MENTIONS

            These are the apps that not everyone will need or won’t need all of the time but those who truly dive into being an iPad person might find helpful.

If you are going to be using the iPad and a laptop regularly, I suggest looking into Duet or something similar. Duet lets you plug your iPad into the laptop and then use it as a second display screen. Comes in handy when sifting through documents for a memo or reading and taking notes.

Quimbee – for case briefs. You can use them to help you read and get ready for class or have them as a security blanket when you get “cold called” for the first time.

LinkedIn – I’m not a huge fan but I understand some people have had great success networking or even finding jobs using LinkedIn.

Twitter – great for news. I’ve written an article or two about self-driving cars and a few Twitter accounts have come through with better sources than more traditional databases. You can also craft your timeline in a way that you see the conversations the legal community is having in the area of law you are headed into. And as always, networking.

Slack – can be a great tool for organizations to communicate and get work done. I used it as an employee in the library and as a member of a law journal.

Pocket Points – Might be better for the phone but the idea is that you get points for keeping your phone locked when on campus (or driving). The points can then be used in the store for rewards.

The rewards aren’t the best, usually a 10% off coupon, but I now have pretty much unlimited codes for Redbox. They come in handy when I need a break on the weekend.

Poll Everywhere – lets professors or presenters poll the audience using smartphones/tablets/computers.

News – Another default one from Apple. They recently just did a big update that should make it a good place to get news articles that interest you. Can be used for research, breaks, or staying up to date with developing stories.

Podcasts – Lots of great stuff out there.

Xbox – By far the best use of this app is to control the Xbox without having to grab a controller. You can also chat and join a party from the app, rather than through the Xbox.

Entertainment – The iPad is for some people (like my wife) a mini tv that can follow you around while you “work” (or not). There are endless entertainment apps, and it is important to unwind. Try Netflix, TV, Movies Anywhere, Vudu, Xfinity, ESPN, games, books, social media, music… and Apple TV is coming.

      

Which iPad/costs

The iPad isn’t cheap. But neither is law school. Part of your choice whether to iPad or not will be the costs. So, permit me to try an analogy so see how you think about money in general.

I have a good buddy from high school and we both got married around the same time. My wife and I decided to use some of the money from our wedding and some store credit from returns to get a pretty fancy blender. We both agreed that using $500 for a blender was a great plan. My buddy totally disagreed. He was a much bigger fan of the $30 blender. There are tradeoffs with both but it comes down to our thinking that we won’t need another blender for 10 or 20 years. But my friend is perfectly happy using his and when it breaks, he will just go get another $30 blender.

Now the iPad won’t last 10 years but the thinking behind the purchase is similar. It is more money up front but can end up saving money and time later. And there are (recommended) associated costs. You should have a good case on it to prevent accident damage and wear and tear. A case can range from $10 for a simple trifold to $60 for something more substantial with a built-in keyboard. And you will also need a good keyboard. Any Bluetooth keyboard will do. I don’t have but really like Apple’s Smart Keyboard Folio which starts around $160 for the smaller version. I use a simple Magic Keyboard ($100) when I need to type but it might be worth looking around for a good case/keyboard combo. Eventually, depending on how you end up using the iPad, you might like a stand for it but those aren’t necessary or expensive.

I also highly recommend getting the Apple Pencil. Some see it as a $100 stylus but I can tell it you it is worth every penny. It has outlasted every other stylus I’ve tried and nothing is as precise. If you plan on doing lots of handwriting or highlighting, you will be glad you spent the money.

There are ways to save on books by using the iPad. Law school textbooks are expensive, so any little bit helps. Costs can carry with the format. Some books are more expensive as a Kindle e-book while others are available as a PDF. The best way to save costs is to check with the library at the law school. They should have course books on reserve so you can check it out and scan the pages you need to read that week. Then you don’t spend any money on books. The tradeoff being you don’t get the hard copy to use during open book exams. One solution might be to pool resources with your digital study group and buy one book, split the costs four ways and you each have access to the hard copy but just scan the pages you need for highlighting and reading.

Another cost associated with using the iPad are the apps. Most of them are free to download but you might find one, like Notability, can cost up to $10 (of the ones I mentioned above only Noteability and Duet are not free, both $10). If you are cost conscious, there are ways in law school to get gift card codes for Apple’s App Store and iTunes. LexisNexis offers points for daily research, watching training videos, and attending events on campus. These points can be cashed in for a number of prizes including money for App Store and iTunes. The points add up quickly enough that you can get whatever apps you need within a few months. I ended up spending my points on Noteability, Duet, and the rest on I cashed in on movies.

Now, the iPad itself starts at $400 (for an iPad mini) and goes up to over $1000 (for the iPad Pro 12.9”). I recommend “test driving” (visit an Apple Store or Best Buy in person and play with the different sizes and options) and then getting the “$500 blender,” meaning I recommend the Pro in whichever size fits you. Starting with a higher performing device means it will be sure to last the full three years. Get one you know you will be happy with over the three long years of law school.

I have the 12.9” iPad Pro 64GB. I call it my “iPad Mega.” Apple touts that it is about the size of an 8/5”x11” piece of paper and it is. It fits just fine in my backpack and doesn’t blind anyone who sits behind me in class. I do enjoy the size of the screen but I find it heavy to hold. If you are committed to the iPad and a desk, then the bigger one is for you and the size and weight won’t be a problem. If you plan on using the split screen feature (or using it as second monitor) and handwriting most of your notes with the Apple Pencil, you might be happier with the big (12.9”) one. For those who will use it ancillary to a laptop for mostly reading or who are more often on-the-go, then the 11” iPad might be all you need.

I’ll also let you in on a little secret… My iPad was free! I didn’t get it right when I started law school. I got it my third year (however I had an iPad that I purchased while doing my undergrad that I used throughout my first two years). My iPad was included with my bar prep course which was paid for by my future employer. Themis Bar Prep offers a ‘technology package” which throws in an iPad for $400. I “negotiated” for the big one and my firm agreed to pay the difference. Check with your local Themis representatives to see which iPad they offer, when you get it, and if there is room to “customize.”

Part of the reason I recommend the Pro version is that it has a better screen. With all the time spend staring at the screen, it is better for your eyes to have the higher quality screen. Another reason to spend a little more upfront for more long-term benefits.

As for how much memory, with all the options for cloud storage, the 64GB is very doable. However, if you get it early it might be worth the extra $150 to upgrade to 256GB to avoid running into problems when your iPad gets full.

However, there is no need for the cellular connectivity option. No need to add $150 up front and then $10/month (on Verizon). If someone else is footing the bill, great, but still no need to ask for it. Most of the world is covered in WiFi and certainly all of the places I do my studying. And if I find myself in a bind I can always hot spot from my phone. If you are on the go constantly, plan ahead a little bit and download what you need ahead of time or use the VPN to stay secure.

Conclusion

All in all, “to iPad or not to iPad” is an individual decision. Factors to consider include your personal study habits (you might not have nailed down yet), tech comfort level, money, law school support and connectivity, and practicality. You know where I stand, and things have worked out great for me.

Sent from my iPad