Category: Blog Posts Page 50 of 76

By Kirk Kaczmarek

In 1848, James Wilson Marshall was walking along the American River near Coloma, California when he spied gold in the riverbed.[1] Thus began the California Gold Rush.[2] Within twenty months of Marshall’s discovery, the non-native American population increased by over 12,400%.[3] In 1852, the Gold Rush’s peak year, miner forty-niners extracted an inflation-adjusted $2.623 billion in gold.[4] This exploding and newly wealthy population supported further economic growth, as merchants and other service providers made more money than the miners ever did.[5] As for Marshall, he was unable to secure legal claim to the gold fields, and completely missed any form of windfall.[6]

The next gold rush might happen in outer space as governments and private companies consider mining asteroids for rare earth metals. For example, NASA has placed a rush on plans to investigate an asteroid estimated to contain $10,000 quadrillion in iron and nickel by 2022.[7] Goldman Sachs has indicated that, “while the psychological barrier to mining asteroids is high, the actual financial and technological barriers are far lower,” and that the world’s first trillionaire will be an asteroid miner.[8] Whether humans mine asteroids is fundamentally a matter of economics. And whether investors end up wealthy or following in Marshall’s footsteps will require clarity in a currently unclear area law.

When considering whether to mine at a location on earth, geologists consider resources and reserves.[9] Resources are mineral deposits that geologists identify through exploration.[10] Reserves are the portion of resources that feasibility studies determine are economically viable for mining.[11] Thus, resources and reserves do not estimate how much of a mineral is available on the planet – they are merely labels that help us measure the quantity of minerals available against market demand.[12] Conversely, terminal depletion refers to the actual lack of a mineral.

Today, China produces over 90% of the world’s rare earth metals.[13] Unfortunately, China claims that its reserves for numerous rare earth metals will deplete within twenty years.[14] Terminal depletion is unlikely; geologists would likely discover more resources in the meantime, though issues in the supply chain might occur.[15] But whether these resources would have the economic viability to become reserves is less certain, especially when confronted with the possibility of turning asteroids into mineral reserves. This possibility is quickly growing noticeably closer.

On October 3, 2018, a mission headed by the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency successfully landed a robot onto an asteroid, Ryugu, for the first time in history.[16] On December 3, 2018, NASA expects to collect a sample from asteroid Bennu and return it to earth.[17] With the convergence economic and physical capabilities, asteroid mining seems like an inevitable future.

In the United States, private companies like Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Chris Lewicki’s Planetary Resources hope to gain access to the asteroid mining market.[18] The United States government appears to support their entrepreneurialism. In 2015, the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act passed with bipartisan support. Title IV of this act directs the President to facilitate the private commercialization and recovery of resources found in space.[19] The act also states that miners are entitled to own the resources they mine.[20] Some might argue that this act conflicts with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which states that “outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation.”[21]

Can a country mine minerals and remain in compliance with the Outer Space Treaty? Can a country contract a corporation to mine minerals on its behalf? What if two corporations try to mine the same asteroid at the same time? What if these corporations are headquartered in different countries? Who will clean up the debris left orbiting the earth as spacecraft exit the atmosphere and return with valuable payloads? Should we require licenses to mine asteroids? The hypotheticals are as endless as space itself.

The law governing this emerging field is understandably immature. As a leader – if not the leader – in space exploration, United States ought to remember the case of James Marshall, and its own analogous position as the discoverer. Growing pains are likely unavoidable as we reach into a new era of exploration and innovation. However, by giving some forethought to the international law governing asteroid mining, the United States might mitigate the worst of those pains.

 

[1] See Events in the West 1840-1850, PBS (2001) https://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/events/1840_1850.htm, James Wilson Marshall, PBS (2001) https://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/i_r/marshall.htm.

[2] See James Wilson Marshall, supra 1.

[3] See Gayle Olson-Raymer, The California Gold Rush and the Controversy of the State Constitution, Humboldt State University (2014)  http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/hist383/GoldRush.html.

[4] See id. See CPI Inflation Calculator, Inflation Calculator https://www.officialdata.org/1852-dollars-in-2018?amount=80000000.

[5] See Karen Clay & Randall Jones, Migrating to Riches? Evidence from the California Gold Rush, 64 The Journal of Economic History 4, 1021-1022 (2008) https://www-jstor-org.newman.richmond.edu/stable/pdf/40056467.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Abe44b6164c135df13a516fed60ed92ca.

[6] See James Wilson Marshall, supra note 1.

[7] See Brid-Aine Parnell, Nasa Will Reach Unique Metal Asteroid Worth $10,000 Quadrillion Four Years Early, Forbes (May 26, 2017, 6:12 am) https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridaineparnell/2017/05/26/nasa-psyche-mission-fast-tracked/#376228844ae8.

[8] See Aaron Mamiit,  The World’s First Trillionaire Will be the One Who Harnesses Space Mining, Tech Times (April 23, 2018, 8:37 am EDT) https://www.techtimes.com/articles/225886/20180423/the-worlds-first-trilionnaire-will-be-the-one-who-harnesses-space-mining.htm.

[9] https://www.geologyforinvestors.com/classification-of-mineral-resources-and-reserves/.

[10] See id.

[11] See id.

[12] https://www.mining-technology.com/features/featuremined-into-extinction-is-the-world-running-out-of-critical-minerals-5776166/

[13] See id.

[14] See id.

[15] See id.

[16] See Numerous Boulders, Many Rocks, No Dust: MASCOT’S Zigzag Course Across the Asteroid Ryugu, DLR (October 12, 2018) https://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10081/151_read-30235/#/gallery/32338.

[17] See The Mission, OSIRIS-REx Mission https://www.asteroidmission.org/objectives/, Mission Operations, OSIRIS-REx https://www.asteroidmission.org/objectives/mission-operations/.

[18] See Staff, Classification of Mineral Resources and Reserves, Geology for Investors https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/space-mining-may-be-only-a-decade-away-really/2017/04/28/df33b31a-29ee-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html?utm_term=.23a3f5ddd07c.

[19] 51 U.S.C.A. § 51302

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NB31DBAB0A3BB11E5AA6DE6442ADFAF1C/View/FullText.html?originationContext=previousnextsection&contextData=(sc.Category)&transitionType=StatuteNavigator&needToInjectTerms=False.

[20] 51 U.S.C.A. § 51303 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NC516B640A3BB11E59891923A4484C9F7/View/FullText.html?originationContext=previousnextsection&contextData=(sc.Document)&transitionType=StatuteNavigator&needToInjectTerms=False.

[21] G.A. Res. 2222 (XXI) http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html.

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cygni_18/41235922900

By: Eric Richard

Not that long ago there was no such thing as an app store, the word “smartphone” wasn’t commonplace, and artificial intelligence existed only in science fiction. Today, we know a very different world. Companies fight to have a best-selling app, smartphones are considered a necessity for everyday life, and artificial intelligence is finding a place in industry after industry.[1] The legal profession is no exception.[2] Year after year people are “taking the law into their own hands,” whether it be through the use of websites like LegalZoom or any number of others. People are trusting lawyers less and trusting their own abilities more. It was only a matter of time before artificial intelligence started playing a role in an attempt to do what lawyers have spent years being trained to do.

One segment of artificial intelligence, natural language processing, is already capable of scanning documents and anticipating their relevancy to a particular case.[3] While some aspects of a lawyer’s work will likely always be safe from machines and artificial intelligence, such as appearing in court, any automation is always cause for concern. [4] Basic document review has already been “outsourced,” although to machines and not to persons of other countries than the United States, with more and more likely to follow.[5] This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, after all, with less time needed to be spent on menial tasks, lawyers will be free to devote more time and manpower to the more complicated aspects of work that come with a common law system.[6]

But what happens when a program is capable of handling more than just the menial tasks? What happens when an app could handle actual lawyering and cut the attorney out of the equation altogether? That’s exactly what people like Justin Kan and Josh Browder are trying to do.[7] Kan is an entrepreneur who is responsible for the video game streaming service, Twitch.[8] After selling Twitch to Amazon for nearly a billion dollars, Kan has set his sights on a different venture, and now operates a legal technology start-up in Silicon Valley.[9] It’s called Atrium, and the company isn’t just looking to replace the menial tasks done by lawyers, it’s engineers are hoping to design artificial intelligence that could even issue stock options to employees of a corporation or assist with fundraising from venture capitalists.[10]

While Kan’s work is still in the early stages, Browder has released an app just this month called DoNotPay that looks to further chip away at the work lawyers are traditionally hired to do.[11] At first, DoNotPay was just a tool that people could use to challenge a parking ticket without the need of an attorney, but now a new update will reportedly allow the user to sue anyone in small claims court in all 50 states.[12] The latest version of the app is still in its infancy, and we have yet to see what successes and complications are going to come, but it’s fair to say that innovation is never going to slow down. Artificial intelligence is muscling its way into the legal profession and apps like DoNotPay might just be the first of it but will certainly not be the last.

 

[1] See Dan Mangan, Lawyers could be the next profession to be replaced by computers, CNBC (Feb. 17, 2017, 1:55 PM), https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/17/lawyers-could-be-replaced-by-artificial-intelligence.html.

[2] See id.

[3] See Steve Lohr, A.I. Is Doing Legal Work. But It Won’t Replace Lawyers, Yet, N.Y. Times (Mar. 19, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/lawyers-artificial-intelligence.html.

[4] See id.

[5] See id.

[6] See id.

[7] See Elizabeth Dwoskin, This Silicon Valley start-up wants to replace lawyers with robots, Wash. Post (Sept. 14, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2017/09/14/this-silicon-valley-startup-wants-to-replace-lawyers-with-robots/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7a7097ee6959; See also Jason Tashea, DoNotPay app aims to help users sue anyone in small claims court–without a lawyer, A.B.A. J. (Oct. 10, 2018, 9:30 AM), http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/file_a_smalls_claims_suit_anywhere_in_the_country_through_an_app/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email.

[8] See Dwoskin, supra note 7.

[9] See id.

[10] See id.

[11] See Tashea, supra note 7.

[12] See id.

Image Source: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/291928

By: Florian Uffer

In an Initial Public Offering (“IPO”), a private company or corporation offers its stock to the public for the first time.[1] The main goal behind going public usually consists of raising capital for different purposes, such as expansion.[2]

The drastic rise of cryptocurrency over the past five years, showcasing an increase in market capitalization of 190.27%,[3] has brought a similar animal into existence: the Initial Coin Offering (“ICO”).

Because ICOs are set in the world of cryptocurrency, a brief introduction to it is needed. Cryptocurrency is an electronic cash system which does not rely on banks or third parties to verify transactions.[4] Rather, transactions are recorded on a blockchain, a digital ledger.[5] This blockchain is used to confirm upcoming transactions, thus enabling direct peer-to-peer payments.[6] As of today, there are three main types of cryptocurrency.[7] First, Bitcoin is a digital currency which can be exchanged among people.[8] The second type, Altcoins, usually are alternatives of Bitcoins with minor changes.[9] Third, tokens reside in their own blockchains and represent an asset or utility.[10]

Just like IPOs, ICOs act as fundraisers of sorts.[11] Interested investors buy in to the offering, and receive a new token specific to the ICO as consideration.[12] The company holding the ICO then uses the raised funds to pursue the respective investment it had in mind.[13] ICOs come with unique advantages and risk of which the investor should be aware.

One of the more obvious advantages of an ICO lies in the volatility of cryptocurrency: in this high-risk/high-reward setting, an investor may be able to realize stellar profits. Additionally, ICOs do not require much paperwork,[14] which reduces the administrative costs. All that is needed is a “white paper,” which describes the project and thus is the primary tool used by investors to decide whether they wish to invest or not.[15]
In considering the dark side, it becomes apparent that ICOs are based on pure speculation.[16] The volatile nature of cryptocurrency combined with the extremely low amount of financial information[17] that is available to investors give rise to an unpredictable financial environment.

The major issue arising out of the lack of paperwork inherent in ICO are scams: a 2018 study reported that about 80% of ICOs were fraudulent.[18] The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) manifests these concerns on its website: “While [cryptocurrencies] and the technology behind them may present a new and efficient means for carrying out financial transactions, they also bring increased risk of fraud and manipulation because the markets for these assets are less regulated than traditional capital markets.”[19]

Regulating the ICO market offers numerous advantages. First, increased investor protection would ensue. Requiring more disclosure from ICO offerors and thus ensuring a more consistent financial environment would drastically reduce the rate of scams and thus promote the market for ICOs.[20] Heightened disclosure requirements would also minimize the use of ICOs to raise money for illegitimate purposes, such as money laundering or terrorism funding.[21] Finally, regulation would increase the certainty of investment in the space, and consequently attract more investors.[22]

The market for ICOs however, remains yet to be thoroughly regulated. Due to the revolutionary concept behind cryptocurrency and its technologically advanced nature, relevant U.S. regulatory agencies have found it difficult to rightfully assert jurisdiction over it. In a hearing before the House Committee on Appropriations however, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton addressed the SEC’s view on ICOs. The SEC views tokens as generally falling within the realm of securities.[23] Because tokens are the financial assets involved in ICOs, it seems that the SEC is in pole position to regulate this market in the future.

 

[1] See Initial Public Offering – IPO, Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/ipo.asp (last visited Oct. 25, 2018).

[2] See id.

[3] See Visualizing The Meteoric Rise Of Cryptocurrency in the Past 5 Years, HowMuch.net, https://howmuch.net/articles/top-10-cryptos-past-5-years (last visited Oct. 24, 2018).

[4] Adam Levy, What is Cryptocurrency?, The Motley Fool (Mar. 11, 2018, 7:15 AM), https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/03/11/what-is-cryptocurrency.aspx.

[5] See id.

[6] See id.

[7] See Ray King, Understanding the Different Types of Cryptocurrency, Bitdegree (Sept. 17, 2018), https://www.bitdegree.org/tutorials/types-of-cryptocurrency/#The_Three_Main_Types_of_Cryptocurrency.

[8] See id.

[9] See id.

[10] See id.; Definition of Crypto Token, Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crypto-token.asp (last visited Oct. 25, 2018).

[11] See Initial Coin Offering (ICO), Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/initial-coin-offering-ico.asp (last visited Oct. 25, 2018).

[12] See id.

[13] See id.

[14] See Ameer Rosic, ICOs Pros & Cons. Cutting Through the Noise, Huffpost (July 4, 2017, 8:02 AM), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ico-pros-cons-cutting-through-the-noise_us_595b7f22e4b0c85b96c6646e.

[15] See id.

[16] See id.

[17] Investors usually are only able to consider the ICOs’ “white papers” in making an investment decision, as it is the only paperwork arising out of the ICO. See id.

[18] See 80% of ICOs are Scams : Report, Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/news/80-icos-are-scams-report/ (last visited Oct. 25, 2018).

[19] SEC, Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) (2018), https://www.sec.gov/ICO.

[20] See Thijs Maas, Why ICOs Need to Be Regulated, Hackernoon (Oct. 17, 2017), https://hackernoon.com/why-cryptocurrencies-and-tokens-should-be-regulated-349b920b62c8.

[21] See id.

[22] See id.

[23] See FY 2019 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: Hearing Before the Comm. on Appropriations (2018) (statement of Jay Clayton, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission).  

Image Source: https://www.sec.gov/ICO

By Cam Kollar

The first time I heard about a massive data breach was when OPM sent me a letter in the mail informing me that my personal data may have been compromised. Soon after I realized that these data breaches that are seemingly dismissed were happening more frequently-happening in more industries. Then it was Sony, Target, Equifax, Mossack Fonseca, Facebook….the lists goes on and on.[1] The constant barrage of how our data has been compromised and the fact that you are not as anonymous as you think you are, has been desensitizing individuals across industries.

It isn’t a surprise that most data security specialists state that it isn’t a matter of “if” you will be hacked, but “when”.[2] Regardless, attorneys have a special role-we have to protect clients’ confidences where law firms end up acting as bank vaults for the secrets that people keep from even their closest family members. Law firms saw an increase of data breaches to 22% of respondents according to the ABA 2017 Legal Technology Survey Report.[3] That is an estimate that more than one in five law firms were hacked last year.[4] Firms of every size are affected and unfortunately according to some reports approximately 40% of law firms do not even realize that they were breached![5]

Despite these numbers many law firms are lagging in their cybersecurity procedures. Of note, in Shore v. Johnson & Bell, a former client is holding the law firm responsible for their cybersecurity practices (or then lack thereof) alleging that the large law firm, Johnson & Bell, “left its clients’ confidential information unsecured and unprotected.”[6] Johnson & Bell have since corrected the specified vulnerabilities, which were originally spelt out in the temporarily sealed complaint.[7]

The highlights of the cybersecurity practices that triggered the legal malpractice suit are as follows: Johnson & Bell used a “webtime time tracking system” that was built on a “JBoss Application Server.”[8] The particular software was introduced in 2005, and had an “end of life” recommendation.[9] JBoss terminated full support for the software in September 2007, and maintenance support ended in September 2009.[10] Johnson & Bell was still running the software when the complaint was filed in April 2016.[11] Technology updates quickly and those pesky updates your computer and phones do every so often protect the devices from vulnerabilities and are considered to be maintenance support. Johnson & Bell was possibly running unsupported product for over six years.[12] Adding insult to injury, a partner at Johnson & Bell was aware of reasonable cybersecurity practices as he wrote a paper titled “Don’t Let Cybersecurity Breaches Lead to Legal Malpractice: The Fax is Back.“[13] I believe Joseph Beckman said it clearly when he said, “You can bet Johnson Bell wishes it had invested the money to patch its time-keeping program sometime between 2009 and 2016.” [14]

The costs of data breaches get shared between the clients, attorneys, and law firms. These costs include significant business downtime, loss of billable hours, hefty fees to correct the problems, and effects on lawyer and law firm reputations.[15] According to Lucian T. Pera, legal ethics partner at Adam and Reese LLP in Memphis, Tennessee, and former treasurer of the American Bar Association, lawyers that fail to protect data from hackers due to lax cybersecurity practices risk their licenses.[16]

[1] See Nate Lord, The History of Data Breaches, Digital Guardian, (Apr. 6, 2018), https://digitalguardian.com/blog/history-data-breaches.

[2] See David Ries, ABA Security TechReport 2017, A.B.A., https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/publications/techreport/2017/security.html.

[3] See id.

[4] Jay Reeves, One in 5 Law Firms Hacked Last Year, Lawyers Mutual (Feb. 22, 2018), https://www.lawyersmutualnc.com/blog/one-in-5-law-firms-hacked-in-2017.

[5] Law Firm Cyber Security Scorecard, Logicforce, https://www.logicforce.com/2018/03/28/law-firm-cyber-security-scorecard/ (last visited Oct. 25, 2018).

[6] Joseph P. Beckman, Law Firm Cybersecurity Breach Opens Door to Lawsuit, Litigation News, A.B.A. (July 31, 2017), https://www.americanbar.org/publications/litigation-news/featured-articles/2017/law-firm-cybersecurity-breach-opens-door-to-lawsuit/.

[7] See id.

[8] See id.

[9] See id.

[10] See id.

[11] Joseph P. Beckman, Law Firm Cybersecurity Breach Opens Door to Lawsuit, Litigation News, A.B.A. (July 31, 2017), https://www.americanbar.org/publications/litigation-news/featured-articles/2017/law-firm-cybersecurity-breach-opens-door-to-lawsuit/.

[12] See id.

[13] See id.

[14] See id.

[15] See id.

[16] Daniel R. Stoller, Memo to Law Firms: Raise Cybersecurity Bar or Risk Client Losses, Bloomberg Law (Feb. 23, 2018), https://biglawbusiness.com/memo-to-law-firms-raise-cybersecurity-bar-or-risk-client-losses/.

Image Source: https://selinc.com/solutions/sfci/cybersecurity-posters/

By: Kara Powell

“More than 1 in 3 women . . . and more than 1 in 4 men . . . in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime[s].”[1] Domestic violence protective orders forbid a perpetrator from performing specific actions that are threating, injuring, or harassing to victims.[2] Protective orders can also include, but are not limited to: financial support orders, court guidance regarding child visitation and custody, and physical distance orders.[3] However, the legal system can be difficult for domestic violence victims to access and navigate.[4]

HelpSelf Legal,[5] which was released in December 2017,[6] is an AI-assisted online platform that provides software services to legal aid associations.[7] Specifically, HelpSelf Legal currently assists individuals prepare and file domestic violence protective orders in California.[8] HelpSelf Legal is improving access to justice for domestic violence survivors, particularly those lacking financial resources. For just fifteen dollars, “[t]he program walks users through a series of questions designed to gather information about which court the document will be filed in, the person against whom the restraining order is sought, the nature of the abuse and whether the user wants to request support.”[9] The questions are lay-person friendly so every individual can use and understand the system.[10]

After the user completes the questions, all the necessary documents are automatically generated.[11] The user reviews and double-checks the information on each document, and then either files the documents on their own or submits the documents to the courts electronically through HelpSelf Legal.[12] The system is similar to the tax preparation software TurboTax.[13] Because the user does not have to physically bring the forms to the appropriate court, this may allow more domestic violence victims to file for protective orders.

HelpSelf Legal was created by Dorna Moini, who had pro bono experience during her time with big law.[14] She created HelpSelf Legal to assist low-income domestic violence survivors access legal assistance.[15] She noticed the disparity between the technology available to pro bono clients and the technology available to law firm clients, and wanted to decrease the gap.[16] Currently, the platform only serves California, “but Moini hopes later to expand into other states.”[17] Wyoming may be the next state to use the HelpSelf Legal software to create domestic violence tools.[18]

HelpSelf Legal works with shelters and legal aid organizations who assist the clients after they have completed the online protective order process.[19] The fifteen dollars domestic violence survivors pay on the front-end goes along way with all the resources HelpSelf Legal is providing and coordinating.

 

[1] Michele C. Black et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2011), https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf.

[2] See How to Get a Personal Protection Order, domesticshelters.org (July 1, 2014), https://www.domesticshelters.org/domestic-violence-articles-information/faq/how-to-get-a-personal-protection-order.

[3] See Robert Ambrogi, Startup Launching Today Provides Automated Legal Help to Those with Low and Moderate Incomes, Starting with Domestic Violence, LawSites (Dec. 13, 2017), https://www.lawsitesblog.com/2017/12/startup-launching-today-provides-automated-legal-help-low-moderate-incomes-starting-domestic-violence.html.

[4] See id.

[5] HelpSelf Legal, https://www.helpselflegal.com/domestic-violence (last visited Oct. 22, 2018).

[6] See Ambrogi, supra note 3.

[7] See e-mail from Dorna Moini (Sept. 25, 2018, 12:05 PM) (on file with author).

[8] John Biggs, HelpSelf Uses Simple AI to Help Those in Legal Trouble, TechCrunch (Apr. 12, 2018), https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/12/helpself-uses-simple-ai-to-help-those-in-legal-trouble/.

[9] Tyler Roberts, Statesman of the Month: Dorna Moini, National Jurist (Jan. 8, 2018), http://nationaljurist.com/smartlawyer/statesman-month-dorna-moini.

[10] See Mary E. Juetten, Access to Justice Through Technology for 2018, Above the Law (Dec. 19, 2017, 3:59 PM), https://abovethelaw.com/2017/12/access-to-justice-through-technology-for-2018/.

[11] See id.

[12] Id.

[13] See Biggs, supra note 6.

[14] See id.

[15] See Ambrogi, supra note 3.

[16] See Biggs, supra note 6.

[17] Id.

[18] See e-mail from Dorna Moini (Sept. 25, 2018, 12:05 PM) (on file with author).

[19] See id.

Image Source:  https://www.shouselaw.com/colorado/domestic_violence/CO_permanent_protective_order.html

By: Catherine Schroeder

With society’s increasing dependency on ever-changing technology, particularly cell phones, the need to protect individuals’ privacy in criminal investigations is paramount.[1] Cell phone users  no longer share personal information with their cell phone carriers but with apps and search engines.[2] Furthermore, cell phone carriers are adding smaller cell sites, in addition to macro cell towers, which allows cell phone carriers to determine a cell phone’s location within smaller and more targeted boundaries.[3] While this cell phone technology is evolving at a fast pace, the law is slow to adapt.[4] The judiciary and legislatures, both state and federal, must anticipate emerging technology in order to fully protect individuals’ privacy.[5]

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Carpenter v. United States may give insight into how the Court will handle digital privacy in the near future.[6] In a narrow ruling, the majority held that law enforcement’s acquisition of over 127 days of cell-site location information (CSLI) constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and required a warrant.[7] The majority reasoned that tracking a cell phone’s location for that length of time gives a complete record of an individual’s whereabouts.[8] Similar to tracking GPS information from a car, tracking a cell phone’s location reveals a person’s “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”[9] The intimate and exhaustive nature of the information led the Court to conclude that the warrantless search was unconstitutional.[10]

Proponents of increased protection of privacy in the digital era hailed this decision as a win.[11] They argue because the third-party was developed in the 1960s and ‘70s, the doctrine does not take into account the precision and invasiveness of information available today.[12] The majority in Carpenter addressed these concerns and declined to extend the third-party doctrine, citing the nature of the data collection and recognizing that the necessity of cell phones in modern life renders the voluntary exposure rationale of the third-party doctrine mute in the particular circumstance.[13] Despite its narrow ruling, proponents of digital privacy have been hopeful the rationale may be applied to other information held by third parties, such as search history, emails, and more.[14] Nathan Wessler, ACLU attorney who argued before the Court on Carpenter, stated this decision “provides a path forward for safeguarding other sensitive digital information in future cases–from…smart-home appliances…[to] technology that is yet to be invented.”[15]

However, after the recent confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the dissent’s approach, which considered the majority’s ruling an “undue restriction” on law enforcement, may be the Court’s future approach to digital privacy with cellphones.[16] During Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, proponents of increased digital privacy criticized several of his previous rulings .[17] In Klayman v. Obama, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence that upheld the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk telephone metadata program from the Bush Administration.[18] The NSA would collect information about numbers dialed and the length of phone calls without a warrant and store this information.[19] The FBI could look through this data with permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.[20] In an unprompted concurrence, where the majority did not even write a full opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that this constituted a “special need” that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty.[21]

For proponents of increased digital privacy, the more concerning decision by Justice Kavanaugh is his joining of the dissent for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Jones.[22] Justice Kavanaugh and the dissent found that Jones’s reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements on public highways was nonexistent, despite the month long GPS tracking.[23] This is in stark contrast to the majority ruling in Carpenter that relied on the Supreme Court’s concurrence in Jones, which opposed Justice Kavanaugh’s reasoning.[24] The Jones majority used a property-based rationale to determine the tracking was an unconstitutional search, but the concurrence in Jones foresaw longer term GPS monitoring, possibly using cell phone data, as “impinging on expectations of privacy.”[25] In Justice Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, he stated he was only applying a property-based rationale as later implemented by the Supreme Court majority;[26] however, the dissent he joined did clearly state that Jones had no expectation of privacy.[27] Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion  is not likely to change if the facts in front of him included a month-long surveillance in Jones to a little over two months in Carpenter.[28]

It is unclear how Justice Kavanaugh will rule on issues of digital privacy. As an appellate judge, he was bound by precedent in interpreting the third-party doctrine.[29] However, since the Carpenter decision was a narrow ruling to its specific facts, it is more likely that Justice Kavanaugh will move the Court to the direction of the dissent in Carpenter. Proponents of increased digital privacy may have been too hasty with their celebrations.

 

[1] See Anne Pfeifle, Alexa, What Should We Do About Privacy? Protecting Privacy for Users of Voice-activated devices?, 93 Wash. L. Rev. 421, 424 (2018).

[2] See Craig Silliman, Technology and Shifting Privacy Expectations (Perspective), Bloomberg Law: Big Law Business (Oct. 7, 2016), https://biglawbusiness.com/technology-and-shifting-privacy-expectations-perspective/.

[3] See id.

[4] See Pfeifle, supra note 1, at 458.

[5] See Pfeifle, supra note 1, at 457.

[6] See Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213 (2018).

[7] See id. at 2217.

[8] See id.

[9] See id. (quoting United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 415 (2012)).

[10] See id. at 2223.

[11] See Louise Matsakis, The Supreme Court Just Greatly Strengthened Digital Privacy, Wired (June 22, 2018, 12:26 PM), https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-supreme-court-digital-privacy/.

[12] Editorial Board, The Supreme Court’s Privacy Case Shows Congress Needs to Draw New Lines, Washington Post (Dec. 10, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-supreme-courts-privacy-case-shows-congress-needs-to-draw-new-lines/2017/12/10/c4d85c12-d940-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.0de888bbcb05.

[13] See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2220.

[14] See Matsakis, supra note 11.

[15] Id.  

[16] See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2221; See Michael Macleod Ball, Kavanaugh’s Views on Privacy, Fourth Amendment Should Make Republicans Think Twice, The Hill (Sept. 3, 2018, 4:00 PM EDT), https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/404751-brett-kavanaughs-views-in-privacy-and-the-fourth-amendment-should-make (“Kavanaugh’s nomination…raises troubling concerns about our right to be free of unwarranted government oversight in an age of expanding capacity to engage in surveillance without our knowledge.”).

[17] Ball, supra note 16.

[18] Matthew Feeney, Kavanaugh, Klayman, and the Fourth Amendment, Cato Institute (July 13, 2018, 1:19 PM), https://www.cato.org/blog/kavanaugh-klayman-fourth-amendment.

[19] See id.

[20] Ball, supra note 16.

[21] Klayman v. Obama, 805 F.3d 1148, 1149 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

[22] United States v. Jones, 625 F.3d 766, 767–68 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

[23] See Jones, 625 F.3d at 769.

[24] See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2215.

[25] United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 415, 430 (2012).

[26] Ball, supra note 16.

[27] See Jones, 625 F.3d at 769.

[28] See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2213; See Jones, 565 U.S. at 768.

[29] See Feeney, supra note 18.

Image Source: http://www.houseofbakchodi.com/digital-privacy-case-supreme-court-over-cell-phone-record/

By: Paxton Rizzo

DNA testing has seen a rise in popularity after becoming more available to the general public. Not surprisingly, the popularity for DNA testing of man’s best friend was quick to follow. The technology that allows us to understand where we come from, now also allows us to understand where our dogs come from. Knowing what breeds make up our dogs may not just be some fun gift idea but may prove helpful in moving some dogs that have been falsely labeled as “Pit Type” out from under breed targeted legislation.

Canine DNA testing is done using the same process as human DNA testing. A cheek swab is taken from the dog and mailed to whatever company is providing the testing.[1] Company choice is especially important for accuracy when testing dogs. Owners should look for a company with a bigger database if they want the test to be as accurate as possible.[2] The bigger the database, the more DNA repeating sequences it has to in or to and compare them to sequences from dogs known to belong to a specific breed.[3] These repeating DNA sequences are known as single-nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs; different breeds have different signature SNPs.[4] Larger databases have more SNPs aggregated and matched to specific breeds, thus resulting in more accurate tests.[5]

Many mixed breed dog’s appearances do not portray what their genetics are. In the legal field, this has proven detrimental to some mixed breed dogs. Currently, Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) targets one dog type in particular that almost every American has heard of, the Pit Bull.[6]  In legislation the term “Pit Bull” is often broken down to mean Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers.[7] Defining what breeds they mean is necessary because the American Kennel Club (AKC), the largest dog breed registry in the country, does not recognize the “Pit Bull” as a breed. To put it all together at this point, the “breed” Pit Bull has no breed standard that breeders would breed their dogs to meet because it is not a real breed. Thus, there is no standard repeating code or SNPs that could determine a dog as a “Pit Bull”.

The lack of a breed standard creates the confusion that causes misidentification of mixbreed dogs.[8] BSL bans the breeds of dogs that traditionally make up the baseline DNA of what the public would call “Pit Bulls”.[9] Those breeds are AKC recognized, thus DNA testing can reveal whether a particular dog has those breeds in its make up, but to be certain, DNA testing would be necessary.[10] There are many breeds of dogs that legislation does not target that when mixed with other breeds resembles what some would call a “Pit Bull”.[11] Veterinarians and Shelter workers, with and without breed identification training, have mixed success rates when attempting to identify breed based on phenotype.[12] Many iterations of BSL relies on individuals who have no breed identification training to try and distinguish what is and is not a “Pit Bull,” a type of dog we have already established has no standard of what it will look like.[13]  This has led to many dogs being seized that were not among the breeds defined as “Pit Bulls,” such as Niko, a boxer mix in Kansas City.[14] DNA testing was able to prove that this boxer mix seized by animal control in Kansas City was not a Pit Bull.[15] That ordeal that lasted 8 months prompted a near by town in Kansas to repeal its breed specific legislation,[16] possibly realizing it was unenforceable on appearance alone.

Virginia is not a state that has any breed specific legislation, but there are apartment complexes and other living situations that do not allow owners to have a “Pit Bull.” The Richmond SPCA was curious to see if breed identification available through DNA testing would increase the adoption of dogs that resembled what would be considered a Pit Type dog.[17] What they found was that the breed identification in this legal environment did not make perspective owners any more or less likely to adopt a dog and what most owners really cared about was temperament.[18]

Canine DNA testing is revealing that dogs that look like a “Pit Bull” may not have any Pit Type dog in them; they may just be a Great Dane mixed with Chow Chow.[19] Alternatively, they may have 50% American Bull Dog in them, a breed that some legislation considers a pit type dog, but the other 50% of that same dog may be Lassie.[20] The ability to test their dog may provide with modern DNA technology may provide owners with the ability to protect their dog from breed specific legislation or know if the breed specific legislation applies to them. The more DNA testing that is done on dogs the more we will see that any dog can be a “Pit Bull,” and every dog is a “Pit Bull”, which could make legislation that has been challenged on fairness impossible to enforce.

 

[1] Kathryn Socie-Dunning, Dog DNA Tests: Mixed Results, Whole Dog Journal (July 2018), https://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/21_7/features/Dog-DNA-Tests-Mixed-Results_21872-1.html.

[2] See id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] See Kate Horowitz, DNA Tests Show Many Shelter Dogs Are Mislabeled as Pit Bulls, Mental Floss (Feb. 20, 2016), http://mentalfloss.com/article/75759/dna-tests-show-many-shelter-dogs-are-mislabeled-pit-bulls.

[7] See Dana M. Campbell, Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed-Specific Legislation, GPSolo, July/Aug. 2009, at 38.

[8] See Id. See also Horowitz, supra note 7.

[9] Campbell, supra note 8, at 38.

[10] See Horowitz, supra note 7. See also Emily Weiss, Bully This – The Results Are In…, ASPCApro, (Sept. 26, 2013), https://www.aspcapro.org/blog/2013/09/25/bully-—-results-are-….

[11] See Weiss, supra note 11.

[12] See id. See also Horowitz, supra note 7.

[13] Campbell, supra note 8, at 39.

[14] Id. at 38.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] See Weiss, supra note 11.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

By: Kirk Kaczmarek

Analysts have repeatedly claimed that blockchain technology would upend the way we transact.[1] However, Bitcoin’s precipitous downward spiral has seemingly stopped the blockchain revolution in its tracks.[2] But blockchain enthusiasts may soon have cause to rejoice. Brave, an emerging privacy-focused web browser integrated with cryptocurrency may lay the groundwork for the heralded blockchain takeover of transactions.

Google is a paradox – a tech giant that brought in 32.5 billion dollars in Q2 2018 while providing most of its services for free; [3] a user base that conducts 3.5 billion Google searches a day while distrusting the company itself.[4] How does Google manage to turn these opposing forces into massive profits, and is its reign over the internet kingdom unassailable?

Google monetizes its services by treating its users as a product. Google collects data each time you use one of its services – everything from your name, birthday, gender, location, e-mail content, YouTube comments, the websites you visit, photographs and videos you save or view, contacts you add, calendar events, and more[5] – and then stores it all in data centers.[6] Next, Google uses this data to target advertisements to certain people.[7] This targeting process involves contracting with an almost innumerable number of middlemen, driving up the cost of advertisements.[8]

Monetizing free services in this way has become the norm; social media is one visible example.[9] Last March, Apple CEO Tim Cook scathingly rebuked this user-as-the-product business model.[10] In response, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended this practice as “the only rational model that can support building this service to reach people.”[11]

However, another tech industry heavyweight is challenging the status quo.

Enter Brendan Eich, the inventor of JavaScript and a cofounder of Mozilla – the organization responsible for the popular Firefox web browser and Thunderbird e-mail client.[12] In 2015, Eich founded and became CEO of Brave Software.[13]

Brave Software is developing an integrated two-pronged platform that Eich hopes will upend the current internet advertisement system by protecting user data, effectively targeting advertisements, and creating an entirely new marketplace for web-based advertising. The platform consists of the Brave web browser, and the Basic Attention Token (BAT), an Ethereum-based cryptocurrency associated with the value of web surfers’ attention.

Ironically, the Brave browser is based Chromium and should support all the same functionality that Google Chrome provides upon its full release. However, Brave differentiates itself in three key ways: it (1) blocks all advertisements by default, giving users the choice to opt into advertisements, (2) blocks all trackers by default, again allowing users to opt in, and (3) is integrated with BAT.

Via browser extensions, popular web browsers today are already capable of blocking advertisements and trackers.[14] However, this practice is unsustainable – without advertisement revenue, free internet services could not exist.[15] BAT integration is Brave’s solution to this problem.[16]

Consider watching a video on YouTube. Four entities are involved in this marketplace: (I) YouTube is the website publisher, (II) the person who made the video is the content creator, (III) the company who paid for the pre-video advertisement is the advertiser, and (IV) the viewer is the user. Brave offers a way for all four entities to benefit from the user’s attention.

Publishers, content creators, and users obtain BAT wallets – a cryptocurrency key that acts like an online bank account specifically for transacting in BAT.[17] Advertisers pay Brave in BAT to include advertisements in a catalogue.[18] This catalogue periodically updates directly to the Brave browser.[19] Rather than having the user send data to data centers, Brave keeps all the data stored locally on the user’s device; no third parties ever gain access to user data.[20] Should the user opt into advertisements, this data matches with the catalogue, and displays advertisements on the publisher’s website.[21]

Brave takes a small cut of the BAT from the transaction.[22] The content creators and publishers also take a cut. And finally, the user takes a cut as well.[23] By sharing the value of the user’s attention between the content creators, publishers, and users themselves, Brave creates a system that allows users to protect their data without obstructing the advertisement marketplace that keeps the internet free.[24]

If successful, Brave’s impact on internet-based services and advertisements could be enormous. However, the effects rippling from a successful large-scale implementation of an Ethereum-based cryptocurrency is perhaps even more intriguing. By cutting out middlemen and contracting entirely on the users’ devices, BAT highlights Ethereum’s potential as a means to form contracts automatically on a massive scale. If BAT can accrue value based on the platform itself, not merely its speculative value as a cryptocurrency, then the long-awaited blockchain revolution may arrive at last.

 

[1] See Andrew Rossow, How Blockchain Technology Can Help Power a New 21^st Century Metropolis, Forbes (Sep. 19, 2018, 10:37 am), https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewrossow/2018/09/19/how-blockchain-technology-can-help-power-a-new-21st-century-metropolis/#560242167d65, Joichi Ito, Neha Narula, Robleh Ali, The Blockchain Will Do to the Financial System What the Internet Did to Media, Harvard Business Rev. (March 8, 2017) https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-blockchain-will-do-to-banks-and-law-firms-what-the-internet-did-to-media.

[2] See Nathaniel Popper, Su-Hyun Lee, After the Boom: Hard Lessons for Cryptocurrency Investors, The New York Times (Aug. 20, 2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/technology/cryptocurrency-investor-losses.html.

[3] Alphabet Announces Second Quarter 2018 Results, Alphabet Inc. (June 30, 2018)

https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/2018Q2_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf.

[4] See Google Search Statistics, Internet Live Stats http://www.internetlivestats.com/google-search-statistics/, Anuck Jesdanun, Ryan Nakashima, Don’t Trust the Tech Giants? You Likely Rely On Them Anyway, (June 11, 2018) https://phys.org/news/2018-06-dont-tech-giants.html; Robert Klara, How Bad Is It for Google and Facebook that Consumers Don’t Trust Them?, (Jan. 21, 2016) https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/how-big-problem-it-google-and-facebook-consumers-don-t-trust-them-169108/.

[5] See Making It Easy to Understand What Data We Collect and Why, Google https://safety.google/privacy/data/, Ben Popken, Google Sells the Future Powered By Your Personal Data, (May 10, 2018) https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-sells-future-powered-your-personal-data-n870501.

[6] See Google Data Center FAQ, (Mar. 16, 2017) https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2017/03/16/google-data-center-faq.

[7] See We Do Not Sell Your Personal Information to Anyone, Google https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/.

[8] See Brave Software,  Basic Attention Token (BAT): Blockchain Digital Based Advertising, 5 (2018) https://basicattentiontoken.org/BasicAttentionTokenWhitePaper-4.pdf.

[9] See Steve Campbell, How Do Social Networks Make Money, MSNBC (April 30, 2010) https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-do-social-networks-make-money-case-wondering/.

[10] See Interview by Chris Hayes and Kara Swisher with Tim Cook, CEO, Apple, in New York, N.Y. (Mar. 27, 2018) https://www.recode.net/2018/4/6/17206532/transcript-interview-apple-tim-cook-msnbc-kara-swisher.

[11] Alyssa Newcomb, Mark Zuckerberg Fires Back at Apple CEO’s ‘Extremely Glib’ Comment, NBC (Apr. 2, 2018) https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/mark-zuckerberg-fires-back-apple-ceo-s-extremely-glib-comment-n862056.

[12] See Sebastian Anthony, Mozilla co-Founder Unveils Brave, a Browser that Blocks Ads by Default, Ars Technica (Jan. 21, 2016. 9:07 am) https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/mozilla-co-founder-unveils-brave-a-web-browser-that-blocks-ads-by-default/.

[13] See Brave Software Raises $2.5 Million and Expands Technical Team, The Business Journals (Nov. 17, 2015) https://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2015/11/17/SF59778.

[14] See John Corpuz, Best Ad Blockers and Privacy Extensions, Tom’s Guide (Jan. 12, 2018) https://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/565-best-adblockers-privacy-extensions.html.

[15] See Brave Software, supra note 8, at 1.

[16] See id.

[17] See Jennie, Understanding Basic Attention Token (BAT): An Easy Introduction, Medium (December 4, 2017) https://medium.com/@CryptoJennie/understanding-basic-attention-token-bat-an-easy-introduction-42633b3a1ba.

[18] See id.

[19] See id.

[20] See id.

[21] See id.

[22] See id.

[23] See id.

[24] See id.

Image Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Basic_Attention_Token_Icon.svg

By: Alexis George

As yet another election cycle approaches one seemingly harmless practice is still widely debated in the United States – should voters be able to take photos of themselves, or selfies, while carrying out their civic duty? In the age of widespread social media use it’s not difficult to see how this question has become more widespread over recent years. Nevertheless, unbeknownst to many voters, taking a selfie while in a voting booth or with your completed ballot is actually illegal in many states.

One of the best examples of this little known fact playing out in real life is the case of Justin Timberlake. Timberlake took a photo of himself with his filled out ballot for the 2016 Presidential election and posted it on social media but did not find out until afterwards that in his home state of Tennessee, it is actually a misdemeanor offense to take ballot selfies.[1] In fact, in Tennessee the misdemeanor offense of taking photos at polling places carries the potential punishment of thirty days in jail and a fifty dollar fine.[2] The issue of taking photos at polling places has come up in other states as well as at least five courts have ruled on the issue resulting in a circuit split between the First and Sixth Circuits over whether the practice should or should not be legal.[3]

Further, it was determined in November 2016 that as many at least 17 states had laws against ballot selfies while in only 19 states was taking a ballot selfie legal or not banned.[4] In the remaining states laws are unclear as to whether taking photos at polling places is or is not legal.[5] In Oklahoma for example, an official told the Associated Press that the law “appeared to ban” ballot selfies but that the penalties for breaking the law by posting a photo taken at a polling place “aren’t clear.”[6]

One of the main reasons for the disagreement among states over the legality of ballot selfies is the issue of balancing freedom of speech against the integrity of the voting process.[7] Jeffrey Hermes, deputy director of the Media Law Resource Center described the problem as “a very unusual case” as it is usually considered a violation of the First Amendment to ban political speech, which essentially is what taking a ballot selfie is.[8]

Many proponents of laws banning taking photos inside polling places or with completed ballots argue that these laws need to be upheld because they protect voter privacy.[9] Proponents on this side argue that the laws not only protect voters’ integrity, but also protect voters from being intimidated or induced.[10] The idea here is that if ballot selfies are allowed it could encourage “vote buying,” or the practice of voters being rewarded for providing proof that they voted for a certain candidate.[11] This argument makes it difficult for many states to come to a consensus about whether to make ballot selfies legal or not as voter privacy has long been a central concern of state legislatures—especially those which have enacted laws banning ballot selfies.

On the other side of the issue there is also a very well-founded concern. Proponents of making ballot selfies legal often argue that the selfies are protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of speech provision because they represent political speech.[12] Further, protecting political speech has consistently been an important theme throughout Supreme Court precedent.[13] Another argument to legalize ballot selfies has been that it encourages more civic engagement among younger generations and essentially makes the whole process of voting more fun. In fact, in an amicus brief urging the legalization of ballot selfies in New Hampshire, Snapchat, a popular communications app, argued that selfies are how young voters engage in the political process.[14]

Even today it is not clear whether an overall move towards the legalization of ballot selfies will take place. Given the popularity of technology and social media in general, the issue has garnered more support over the years. Nevertheless, even leading up to the approaching midterm elections a number of state legislatures have still decided against making ballot selfies legal.

 

[1] Roy S. Gutterman, Ballot Selfies: New Political Speech in Search of First Amendment Protection in Social Media, 8 Wake Forest J. of L. & Pol’y 211 (2018).

[2] See id.

[3] See id.

[4] Jefferson Graham, Want to take a ‘ballot selfie’? Here’s where it’s legal, and not, USA TODAY (Nov. 6, 2016, 10:01 AM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/06/ballot-selfie-beware-s-often-illegal-despite-flurry-late-attempts-change/93299316/.

[5] See id.

[6] Abby Ohlheiser, Yes, your ballot selfie still might be illegal. Sorry., Wash. Post (Nov. 8, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/10/26/yes-your-ballot-selfie-still-might-be-illegal-sorry/?utm_term=.381c05e8dc24.

[7] See id.

[8] See id.

[9] Katie Reilly, Here’s Where You’re Allowed to Take a Selfie While Voting, TIME (Oct. 26, 2016), http://time.com/4546190/2016-presidential-election-ballot-selfies/.

[10] Katie Rogers, Can You Take a Voting Selfie? States Wage Legal Battles Days Before Election, N.Y. Times (Nov. 2, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/us/politics/voting-selfie.html.

[11] Graham, supra note 4.

[12] Daniel A. Horwitz, A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words: Why Ballot Selfies are Protected by the First Amendment 18 SMU Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 247, 253 (2015).

[13] Gutterman, supra note 1, at 229.

[14] Graham, supra note 4.

Image Source: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/26/texplainer-can-i-take-ballot-selfie-texas/