Category: Blog Posts Page 65 of 75

By: Corinne Moini,

“Depending on whom you talk to and what month it is, the United States and the European Union are either on the brink of a digital trade war or reaching a historic e-commerce deal.”[1] The current state of disarray between the two parties is due to a landmark European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) decision. More specifically, on October 16, 2015, the ECJ invalidated the fifteen-year U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, a data-storage agreement between the United States and the European Union.[2] The case in which the ECJ’s groundbreaking decision came from is Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner.[3] Where Schrems, an Austrian law student, filed a complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (“DPC”) about Facebook transferring large amounts of his personal information to the United States.[4] The complaint was filed in a post-Snowden era, expressing concern for how little data protection existed against surveillance by the United States.[5] The DPC rejected his complaint and Schrems appealed his claim to the Irish High Court, which was referred to the ECJ for clarifications.[6]

The ECJ issued a much broader holding, answering the immediate question about DPC authority and invalidating the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Agreement.[7] The ECJ held that the Safe Harbor agreement does not provide adequate protection. This agreement allowed American companies “to self-certify” that they were providing “adequate protection” for the data of European users.[8] The Court suggests that the Safe Harbor agreement “enables interference, by United States public authorities, with the fundamental rights of persons,”[9] and to permit this agreement to continue would be “compromising the essences of the fundamental respect for private life…and of the fundamental right to the rule of law.”[10]

Even more unsettling to the United States, is the looming legal enforcement against American companies, if they do not implement protections that align with European data security laws. The Working Party 29, an association of European Data Protection Commissioners,[11] has threatened to begin legal enforcement after February 1, 2016, if a new agreement between the two parties cannot be made.[12] The end of the safe harbor agreement affects over 4,000 U.S. companies that outsource data from the EU to the United States.[13] As we are entering the third week of February, it is clear that deadline for a new agreement has passed. However, the European national data protection agencies have delayed legal enforcement against American companies because the European Commission announced a tentative agreement called the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.[14] The deal makes several changes to the previous agreement; but most of which are “toothless…including expedited dispute resolution requirements, [and] [additional] layers of annual reviews and expand[ed] privacy bureaucracies at both the Department of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission.”[15] The European data agencies are currently reviewing the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and anticipate a decision regarding the new agreement by the end of March. Until then U.S., privacy lawyers remain wary. Brian Hengesbaugh, a lawyer at Baker & McKenzie, who helped negotiate the original safe harbor deal in 2000, commented, that “the ruling is so sweepingly broad that any mechanism used to transfer data from Europe could be under threat.”[16] For now, American companies that collect data from the EU should implement new data protection laws and tread lightly.

 

[1] Abraham Newman, After Safe Harbor: Bridging the EU-U.S. Data-Privacy Divide, World Politics Review (Feb. 9, 2016), http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/17898/after-safe-harbor-bridging-the-eu-u-s-data-privacy-divide.

[2] See U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, Federal Trade Comm’n, https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/privacy-and-security/u.s.-eu-safe-harbor-framework (last updated Nov. 6, 2015).

[3] See Case C-362/14, Maximillian Schrems v. Irish Data Protection Commissioner, InfoCuria, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=en&nat=or&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-362%252F14&td=%3BALL&pcs=Oor&avg=&page=1&mat=or&jge=&for=&cid=284436 (last visited Feb. 15, 2016).

[4] See id.

[5] See Max Schrems v Irish Data Protection Commissioner (Safe Harbor), Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr., https://epic.org/privacy/intl/schrems/ (last visited Feb 15, 2016).

[6] See id.

[7] See Donald G. Aplin, Views on the Invalidation of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor From James H. Koenig, Of Counsel, Paul Hastings, Bloomberg BNA (Nov. 23, 2015) http://www.bna.com/views-invalidation-useu-n57982063840/.

[8] BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34442618.

[9] Press Release, Court of Justice of the European Union, The Court of Justice declares that the Commission’s US Safe Harbour Decision is Invalid (Oct. 6, 2015)
(available at http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-10/cp150117en.pdf).

[10] Id.

[11] See EU Data Protection Directive, Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr., https://epic.org/privacy/intl/eu_data_protection_directive.html (last visited Feb 15, 2016).

[12] See Kelli Clark, The EU Safe Harbor Agreement Is Dead, Here’s What To Do About It, Forbes (Oct. 27, 2015) http://www.forbes.com/sites/riskmap/2015/10/27/the-eu-safe-harbor-agreement-is-dead-heres-what-to-do-about-it/#ba5b29971719.

[13] See Mark Scott, Data Transfer Pact Between U.S. and Europe Is Ruled Invalid, NY Times (Oct. 6, 2015) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/technology/european-union-us-data-collection.html.

[14] Press Release, European Commission, EU Commission and United States agree on new framework for transatlantic data flows: EU-US Privacy Shield (Feb. 2, 2016) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-216_en.htm.

[15] Larry Downes, The Business Implications of the EU-U.S. “Privacy Shield,” Harvard Business Review (Feb. 10, 2016) https://hbr.org/2016/02/the-business-implications-of-the-eu-u-s-privacy-shield.

[16] Mark Scott, supra note 12.

 

Photo Source:  http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/20151010_IRD001.jpg

 

By: Jenni Lyman

The Netflix series, Making a Murderer, influenced 275,000 viewers to demand President Obama to overturn Steven Avery’s conviction.[1] Avery’s supporters believe he was framed by law enforcement and is innocent in the murder of Teresa Halbach.[2]

Avery’s blood was found on the inside of Halbach’s Toyota.[3] The defense’s theory is that police gathered the sample from a vial in Avery’s criminal file and subsequently planted the blood.[4] Armchair detectives cringed imagining the slimy detectives poking the vial to extract Avery’s blood.[5]

Avery’s defense team is comprised of two attorneys, Dean Strang and Jerry Buting.[6] Strang believes the critical point in Avery’s trial was the FBI test that discredited the linchpin of their argument–Avery was framed.[7] In Strang’s opinion, this fateful test was the turning point that shifted the proceedings in favor of the prosecution.[8]

What is this test and has the technology improved since Avery’s trial?[9] In sum, EDTA is the preservative the FBI tests for to see if the anticoagulant used for storing blood in vials is detected in the blood sample.[10] Unfortunately for Avery, the test came back negative for any trace of EDTA.[11] If the test came back positive it would prove the defense’s theory that the blood was planted in Halbach’s Toyota from the unassuming vial that sat dormant in Avery’s criminal file.[12]

Speculation proposes the chemical was too diluted to be detected.[13] As for improved technology, more experiments need to be conducted that replicate crime scene conditions to put the test to the test.[14]

In the meantime, the defense could appeal on the [somewhat shocking] fact that at the time of Avery’s trial, Wisconsin state law did not require a Daubert test to admit expert testimony.[15] The Daubert test holds expert testimony to a higher level of scrutiny.[16] Here, the EDTA test had not been done since the O.J. Simpson trial.[17] The arcane test’s bleak track record suggests it would not be admissible under a strict scrutiny test.[18]

In addition to the lack of the Daubert test and equally abhorrent is the fact there was no pre-trial Daubert hearing.[19] The bonus of a Daubert hearing is that it is conducted outside of the jury’s presence.[20] Here, the jury heard the damning evidence surrounding the test. So, the fetching defense was forced to scramble and convince the jury that the FBI’s sloppy work was not reliable.[21] Moreover, it would be difficult to find an apt limiting instruction to cure such a jury.[22]

For now, Avery remains behind bars while viewers await an EDTA test fit to render justice.

 

 

[1] See Edward Helmore, Making a Murderer Spurs 275,000 Viewers to Demand Pardon for Central Character, Guardian (Jan. 9, 11:48 AM), http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/09/netxflix-murder-whoddunit-petition (noting the White House later released a letter stating action must be done at state-level).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Making a Murderer (Netflix television series Dec. 2015).

[6] See Jethro Nededog, The Moment When Everything Turned Against Steven Avery in the ‘Making a Murderer’ Trial, Bus. Insider (Jan. 7, 2016, 3:11 PM), http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-edta-test-blood-test-2016-1.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Helmore, supra note 4.

[10] See Jen Yamato, ‘Making a Murderer’ Defense Attorney Dean Strang: We May Represent Steven Aver Again, Daily Beast (Jan. 7, 2016, 3:14AM), http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/07/making-a-murderer-defense-attorney-dean-strang-we-may-represent-steven-avery-again.html.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Erika Engelhaupt, Are These Crime Drama Clues Fact or Fiction?, Nat’l Geographic, (Jan. 26, 2016), http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/.

[14] Id.

[15] Yamato, supra note 10.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] See also Fed. R. Evid. 702.

[20] See id.

[21] Yamato, supra note 10.

[22] See also Fed. R. Evid. 105.

 

Photo Source:  http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2016/01/01/14/Screen%20Shot%202016-01-01%20at%2014.48.45.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

By: Brandon Bybee

When the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act,[1] (CISA,) was on the floor of the Senate in October of 2015, significant pushback was exhibited by major corporations.[2] Despite those pushbacks the bill passed in the Senate on October the 27th.[3] It was then received in the House on the following day, where it has been held at the desk ever since.[4] If passed in the House and signed into law, the bill would have brought significant privacy concerns to information technology experts who had been following the proposed legislation.[5] Technically, the bill is still being held on the House desk for floor consideration, however it is unlikely that it ever leaves. This isn’t because the bill won’t pass, it’s because quietly, it already has.

On December 18, 2015, President Obama signed into law a $1.1 trillion funding bill,[6] that included provisions and amendments involving everything from oil exports to abortion policies.[7] These various provisions, or policy instructions, are commonly known on Capitol Hill as “riders.”[8] One of those riders, neatly tied in, among provisions regarding transportation and intelligence authorization, is Division N, The Cybersecurity Act of 2015.[9] The act combines the Senate enacted CISA passed in October with other cybersecurity acts passed in the House, but effectively, the CISA, which caused all the backlash, is now law.

So why are cyber experts up in arms about the act? According to Sam Theilman, “The bill would allow private industry to share user information with the Department of Homeland Security, which would be compelled to share it across “relevant government agencies”, presumably including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA).”[10] Days before the Appropriations Act was to be passed, Congressman Jared Polis addressed the implications of tying the CISA into the Appropriations Act[11], but the bill still slipped past into law. Congressman Polis cited a Press Release by the Open Technology Institute, which highlighted some of the ramifications of the bill.[12]

Some of the most pertinent privacy implications include, “Increas[ing] government access to Americans’ personal data with dangerously weak privacy protections,”[13] effectively allowing government agencies to avoid liability when actions are taken pursuant to the bill,[14] and perhaps most importantly, “Undermin[ing] Americans’ rights to privacy and due process by authorizing law enforcement to use information in investigations unrelated to cybersecurity.”[15] So what does this all mean in layman’s terms? Essentially, a government agency can request personal information of an American citizen, from a private entity (such as Google, or Facebook,) and be granted that information regardless of whether the citizen was involved in an actual cybersecurity threat. This information sharing would allow neither the government, nor the private entity to be held liable.[16]

Congressman Polis addresses the unfortunate impact of including the CISA within the Consolidated Appropriations Act, “by slipping this bill into must-pass legislation, House leaders are giving privacy-minded members of Congress an impossible choice: allow a bill that threatens Americans’ civil liberties to become law or force a government shutdown.”[17] He goes on to assert the daunting implications of the bill’s passage, “companies will be encouraged to disseminate information about our patterns of Internet use and even the content of our online communications to the government in virtually all circumstances.”[18] We live in a generation where the NSA and the Patriot Act have raised national concern on government intervention into private citizens’ privacies to possibly the highest level in history. It’s a scary concept that even today, in that atmosphere, a bill as invasive as CISA can still become law, without most people even knowing.

 

 

 

[1] Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, S. 754, 114th Cong. (2015).

[2] See Sam Theilman, Apple, Google and Twitter among 22 tech companies opposing Cisa bill, the guardian (Oct. 21, 2015), http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/21/apple-google-and-twitter-among-22-tech-companies-opposing-cisa-bill [hereinafter Theilman] (listing the companies that had opposed the legislation according to a internet poll).

[3] Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, S. 754, 114th Cong. (2015) (enacted).

[4] Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, S. 754, 114th Cong. (bill tracking) (2015) (LEXIS).

[5] See, e.g., Robyn Greene, Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 is Cyber-Surveillance, Not Cybersecurity, Open Technology Institute (Apr. 9, 2015), https://www.newamerica.org/oti/cybersecurity-information-sharing-act-of-2015-is-cyber-surveillance-not-cybersecurity/ (asserting that the bill would allow for a significant increase in the level of private Americans’ internet information available to government agencies).

[6] Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2015, H.R. 2029, 114th Cong. (2015).

[7] See Mike DeBonis & Kelsey Snell, Here’s what made it in to Congress’s big spending and tax bills, The Wash. Post (Dec. 16, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/16/heres-what-made-it-into-congresss-big-tax-and-spending-bills/#cyber (listing the various policy instructions that made their way into the bill).

[8] Id.

[9] Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2015, H.R. 2029, § N, 114th Cong. (2015).

[10] Theilman, supra note 2.

[11] See Jared Polis, Congress, don’t be fooled by cybersurveillance bill, CNN Opinion (Dec. 18, 2015), http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/18/opinions/polis-cybersecurity-legislation-congress/index.html [herinafter Polis] (imploring Congress to recognize what the bill entailed).

[12] Press Release, Open Tech. Inst., Omnibus Funding Bill is a Privacy and Cybersecurity Failure (Dec. 16, 2015) https://www.newamerica.org/oti/omnibus-funding-bill-is-a-privacy-and-cybersecurity-failure/ [hereinafter Open Tech.] (summarizing the privacy concerns contained within the Consolidated Appropriations Act).

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Polis, supra note 11 (“The bill would encourage companies to share information about cyberthreats with the federal government by granting them protection from liability.”)

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

 

Photo Source:  http://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/463286157.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

By: West Smithers

Music seems to be at the center of almost everything we do these days. Whether it’s a pre-party “power hour” or firing up a good old-fashioned playlist at the procrastination station we call our desk, music is always at our fingertips. We have seen, in a relatively short amount of time, the music industry as we once knew it become something entirely different. Where once the desire to even hear the latest song or an old favorite album could only be quenched by a trip to the store or submitting to the fate of the radio, most any track out there is now only a couple of clicks away. Innovations such as online streaming have made the idea of actually purchasing an album seem almost archaic and unnecessary to many people. As a result, the world of music copyright law has become increasingly complicated and controversial.

The underlying issue seems to be that the laws concerning “who pays whom” in the world of music were mostly created at a time when music was mainly distributed via radio or physical forms such as records, each medium’s form and business model unique to the other.[1] While the Internet forced an update of copyright laws in the 1990’s in response to emerging digital media, the use of digital media has increased, and more of these music sources have become characteristic of both physical media and radio.[2] As such, streaming services such as Spotify, Pandora, and Youtube have caused some apparently controversial changes in the music market.

In 2014, Taylor Swift brought this conflict to light by asking for all of her songs to be removed from the popular streaming platform, Spotify.[3] In doing so, she accused the company of not compensating artists and music rights owners fairly. After Swift caused this stir, other artists like Jason Aldean, Prince, and even the Beatles began pulling their songs from the service as well. Popular artist, Adele, delayed releasing her album, 21, onto the site for over a year because Spotify refused to exclusively stream it to “premium service” users.[4] She may now even be keeping her newest album, 25, off of the service for the same reasons.[5] These are merely a few examples of the discontent coming from musicians due to the effects these services may have on how or whether they are compensated for their work.

Earlier this year, in February, the U.S. Copyright Office released a report entitled Copyright and the Music Marketplace.[6] The Copyright Office conducted a study and outlined recommendations for the future of music copyright law, taking the position that the current law does not fit with the times.[7] Popular digital media and streaming services have essentially “blurred traditional lines of exploitation” in music, and determining who gets how much money from who in the music industry has become too complex to be compatible with the current law.[8] The report endorses allowing artists more flexibility under the law to seek higher pay rates and giving music rights owners the ability to withdraw streaming rights from these services.[9] Another issue is the federalization of recordings. Under the current law, pre-1972 recordings are not fully federalized, and services such as Pandora and SiriusXM have been able to exploit these older tunes without compensating their owners.[10] The report advocates for a change here and for other things such as extending public performance rights to terrestrial radio.[11]

The Copyright Office’s report is over 240 pages long and asks for what many consider to be serious reform, and it is still unclear what impact it will actually have on the law. In the meantime, companies such as Pandora and Sirius are attempting to resolve issues out of court to try to gain certainty in this complex issue.[12] Litigation has still been pursued, however, particularly by owners of pre-1972 recordings. Spotify continues to gain, lose and gain back again various artists’ work. Until something is addressed by lawmakers, however, the real questions facing copyright law and the music industry will not be fully answered, and we will be left with uncertainty. This is perhaps why government entities such as the Department of Justice and the House Judiciary Committee are meeting to discuss copyright and antitrust issues. The latter is set to meet this month for its copyright review roundtable in addition to a “listening tour” in which the committee travels to locations across the country to actually speak with creators (including musicians) about the issues they face in their field related to technological advancements.[13]

To learn more about the Copyright Office’s study and the potential changes in copyright law, read the report as well as the congressional report from the Congressional Research Service. Both links are found below.

Technology has made music a great experience for the public, but there is no denying that things have changed for musicians. The question is how much change in the law is merited by this change in the music industry and what effect such change would have. As a music lover and recreational song writer, one question in my mind is how such reform would affect the current exposure to music that many have come to enjoy in this digital age. But while established artists get confrontational with Spotify and Pandora, I’ll just keep listening to this playlist I have going right now (for free) on the largest music streaming platform in the world…Youtube…because at least there’s nothing confusing about a good song.

 

[1] Dana A. Scherer, Cong. Research Serv., R43984, Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21st Century 1 (2015), https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43984.pdf.

[2] Id.

[3] Emily Yahr, Taylor Swift versus Spotify: Why her bold move won’t work for other artists, Wash. Post (Nov. 3, 2014).

[4] Micah Singleton, Adele may be the next superstar to keep her album off Spotify: Spotify’s resistance to premium-only content may keep 25 off the service, The Verge (Nov. 10, 2015, 3:51 PM), http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9706342/adele-25-new-album-not-on-spotify-streaming.

[5] Id.

[6] Maria A. Pallante, U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and the Music Marketplace (2015), http://copyright.gov/docs/musiclicensingstudy/copyright-and-the-music-marketplace.pdf.

[7] Id. at 25.

[8] Id.

[9] Eriq Gardner, Big Shake-Up to Music Licensing Regime Embraced by U.S. Copyright Office, The Hollywood Reporter (Feb. 5, 2015, 10:44 AM), http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/big-shake-up-music-licensing-770512.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Ali Sternburg, Pandora, Others Seek Certainty in Music Copyright through Settlements, but Issues Remain, Disruptive Competition Project (Nov. 6, 2015), http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/110615-pandora-others-seek-certainty-in-music-copyright-through-settlements-but-issues-remain/.

[13] U.S. H. Comm. on the Judiciary, U.S. Copyright Law Review, //judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/us-copyright-law-review.

By: Quinn Novak,

I spent two solid weeks of my life listening to Sarah Koenig’s melodic voice ring through my headphones. If I had a spare ten minutes during the day, I found myself plugging in and tuning out. Like millions of other people, I was hooked on NPR’s Serial podcast and I needed to know what happened to Hae Min Lee. Did Adnan Syed really kill Hae? Did Jay conspire to kill her? Is Hae still alive and roaming the streets of California with her dad? Spoiler alert: You never find out how Hae died. I was completely devastated and almost hurled my iPad across the room when the final episode ended. Like many Serial listeners, I was left wanting more.

The Serial podcast analyzed Adnan Syed’s 2000 murder conviction of his high school friend, Hae Min Lee, and sparked an influx of further investigation into the murder.[1] In February 2014, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals granted Adnan Syed’s request for review of his case.[2] The court said that the defense should be able to present alibi witness testimony and that these statements could be considered in deliberations on whether Syed deserves a new trial.[3] “The Court of Special Appeals called on the Baltimore Circuit to Court to reopen Syed’s post-conviction hearing so [alibi] testimony could be taken.”[4]

Syed had to petition the Baltimore Circuit Court to grant his hearing [5] and Syed’s new attorney, Justin Brown, filed a motion on August 24, 2014.[6] Although the Maryland Attorney General, Thiru Vignarajah, opposed the motion, the Baltimore Circuit Court granted Syed’s request for a hearing on November 7, 2014.[7]

Syed’s hearing before the Baltimore Circuit Court will allow his lawyer to reopen post-conviction proceedings and introduce new alibi evidence.[8] The hearing will focus on the inadequate legal representation by Syed’s 2000 lawyer, Cristina Gutierez, including the fact that Guitierrez never called alibi witness, Asia McClain.[9] The Serial podcast revealed that Asia McClain had sent several letters to Syed while he was in jail telling him that she remembered seeing him at the public library on the afternoon that the prosecutors claim he killed Hae Min Lee.[10] However, Syed’s lawyer never called McClain to testify about this alibi and the prosecutors actively discouraged McClain to attend post-conviction hearings.[11] If the Baltimore Circuit Court reviews the alibi statements favorably, McClain could finally have her day in court and could offer further insight into the day that Hae Min Lee was murdered.

Another important fact that the Circuit Court hearing will focus on is the unreliability of the AT&T cell phone records that the prosecution used to place Syed’s movements on the day of the murder.[12] Justin Brown submitted a fax cover sheet from AT&T where the company raised the question of reliability of technology in 1999 to pinpoint the location of a cellphone.[13] “Brown obtained an affidavit from the state’s expert witness regarding phone technology, who said he would have wanted to know about [AT&T’s] disclaimer on the fax cover sheet and it would have changed his testimony.”[14] The defense believes that proving the cell phone towers were unreliable to trace Syed’s movements will discredit the prosecution’s theory.

The Serial podcast has played a pivotal role in popularizing Syed’s case and moving towards an appeal. The 1999 murder of Hae Min Lee captivated the nation when the podcast first aired in October 2014.[15] The twelve-episode series was “downloaded millions of times, setting records for a podcast and creating a groundswell of calls for a new trial.”[16] Further, much of the new evidence being presented to the Baltimore Circuit Court was revealed through the podcast’s investigation, such as the circumstantial cell phone tower evidence and potential alibi witness, Asia McClain.[17]

At the end of the day, like so many other listeners and avid followers of Serial, I want closure. Preferably, I would like this closure in the form of a new trial where Jay takes the stand, breaks down in tears on cross-examination, and admits that he framed Adnan and that he killed Hae. Until then, I can dream and attentively keep my ears open for news about this seemingly insignificant case that happened over fifteen years ago.

 

 

[1] Serial, NPR (Fall 2014) (downloaded using iTunes).

[2] Bill Chappell, Adnan Syed, Subject of ‘Serial’ Podcast, Gets Hearing on New Evidence, NPR (Nov. 7, 2015, 9:53 AM), http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/07/455123673/adnan-syed-subject-of-serial-podcast-gets-hearing-on-new-evidence.

[3] Justin Fenton, ‘Serial’ figure headed to court after request for hearing granted, Baltimore Sun (Nov. 6, 2015, 9:24 PM), http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-adnan-syed-hearing-granted-2015116-story.html.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Juliet Linderman, Adnan Syed Attorney Says Key Evidence Wrong, U.S. News (Aug. 26, 2015, 12:37 PM), http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/26/adnan-syed-attorney-says-key-evidence-wrong.

[7] Chappell, supra note 1; Fenton, supra note 2.

[8] Jackie Solo, Adnan Syed Appeal Update 2015: Motion to Reopen Murder Case Granted One Year After ‘Serial’ Podcast, Int’l Bus. Times (Nov. 6, 2015, 5:16 PM), http://www.ibtimes.com/adnan-syed-appeal-update-2015-motion-reopen-murder-case-granted-one-year-after-serial-2173896.

[9] Chappell, supra note 2.

[10] Fenton, supra note 3.

[11] Linderman, supra note 6.

[12] Solo, supra note 8.

[13] Fenton, supra note 3.

[14] Id.

[15] Daniel Kreps, ‘Serial:’ Adnan Syed Allowed to Present New Evidence, Rolling Stones (Nov. 7, 2015), http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/serial-adnan-syed-allowed-to-present-new-evidence-20151107.

[16] Fenton, supra note 3.

[17] Kreps, supra note 15.

Photo Source:  http://mashable.com/2014/11/06/serial-podcast/#lleMGk9xv8qp

 

By: Ryan Suit,

DNA testing first came about in 1985 and took only two years until it was first successfully used as evidence in a trial in 1987, when Floridian Tommie Lee Andrews was convicted of rape and sentenced to 22 years in jail.[1] Since then, thousands of other criminals have been convicted of crimes in large part due to DNA evidence linking the accused to the scene of a crime.[2] However, a recent study has shown that DNA found at a crime scene might not always mean the accused person was there.[3] The study has shown that the secondary transfer of DNA, or the transfer of DNA of one person to somewhere else by another person, not only exists but actually may be a common phenomenon.[4] This could have significant repercussions for the justice system.

“Touch DNA” is DNA from skin cells that is transferred when one person touches another person or object.[5] The amount of DNA left behind from a person touching something can vary based on the duration and extent that something was touched, and it is possible that no touch DNA can be left behind at all.[6] In the alternative, DNA from a person can be found on something even when that person never touched the object.[7] This is secondary transfer. The study showed that this was possible by conducting an experiment in which “pairs of volunteers [shook] hands for two minutes, after which they handled knives that were later swabbed for DNA samples. In 85 percent of the cases, DNA from the person who did not directly touch the knife was transferred in sufficient quantity to produce a profile. In one-fifth of the samples, that person was identified as the main or only contributor of DNA to the potential weapon, despite never having touched it.”[8]

One of the first documented and recognized cases of secondary transfer DNA involved Lukis Anderson, a 26-year-old man charged with murder in California.[9] The victim was killed during an armed robbery of his home, and paramedics took his body from the scene to the hospital. Upon examining the body, forensic experts found Anderson’s DNA on the victim, and charges were later filed against him. However, during the time of the armed robbery, Anderson had a verified alibi: he was passed-out drunk in the hospital with a .40 BAC. Anderson had been found on the streets and taken to the hospital by the same paramedics who later went to the scene of the armed robbery. While touching the victim’s body, the paramedics must have transferred Anderson’s DNA onto the victim.[10]

The charges against Anderson were dropped, but this single event raises questions about the validity of DNA evidence. DNA tests are 99% accurate in identifying who the DNA is from, but it is now less certain that those tests can be as accurate in placing a person at the scene of a crime.[11] The study may have repercussions felt throughout the criminal justice system. DNA evidence linking someone to a crime may no longer be dispositive. Attorneys will need to put on experts to explain the issue of secondary transfer, and juries will have to give less weight to DNA evidence that used to make or break a case. Old cases may have to be reopened, as innocent men could be behind bars after being wrongfully convicted due to the secondary transfer of their DNA. In sum, this study on DNA evidence may have secondary effects that transfer to the legal world.

 

[1] Randy James, A Brief History of DNA Testing, Time (June 19, 2009), http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1905706,00.html.

[2] Id.

[3] Study raises questions about DNA evidence, ScienceDaily.com, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151028133944.htm.

[4] Id.

[5] Suzanna Ryan, Touch DNA. What is it? Where is it? How much can be found? And, how can it impact my case? (January 2012), http://www.ryanforensicdna.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Touch_DNA_article.59101908.pdf.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Study, supra note 3.

[9] South Bay Paramedics Likely Brought Innocent Man’s DNA to Murder Scene, CBS SF Bay Area (June 28, 2013, 12:41 AM), http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/06/28/south-bay-paramedics-likely-brought-innocent-mans-dna-to-crime-scene/.

[10] Id.

[11] James, supra note 1.

 

Photo Source:  http://www.finalcall.com/artman/uploads/2/justice_dna300x225.jpg

By: Sarah Jessee,

If you have been on a plane recently you may have noticed the decreasing leg-room and shrinking seat width, but the seating changes may becoming more drastic.[1] On October 1, 2015 Airbus, a European aircraft manufacturer, filed a patent for stacked seating in airplanes.[2] The patent explained the justification for stacked seating and described the seating design proposal:

In modern means of transport, in particular aircraft, it is very important from an economic point of view to make optimum use of the available space in a passenger cabin… [i]n order to still more efficiently use the space in a passenger cabin of an aircraft, U.S. Pat. No. 4,066,227 proposes to position an elevated deck structure on a main deck floor in the passenger cabin of a wide-body aircraft for providing mezzanine seating area in a substantially unused upper lobe of the aircraft fuselage.[3]

Many concerns arise with the idea of stacked seating in an airplane. Is this “unused upper lobe” referring to the already limited space designated for carry-on items? How will flight attendants be able to assist those on the upper level? Are passengers expected to climb a ladder to get to their seats?[4] Most importantly, how could passengers be evacuated in case of an emergency? Despite the uncertainties and concerns with stacked seating, there are some possible benefits.

           [5]

Other than reduced airline costs, the design proposal may actually create more legroom.[6] Many airplane passengers dread that moment the flight attendant comes on the speakers reporting they have reached the appropriate altitude and passengers can recline their seats. This reduces the already limited legroom. However, with Airbus’s stacked seating design, not only would passengers’ legroom increase when the passenger above you reclined, but passengers would be able to recline further.[7] The stacked seating design would allow passengers on both the upper and lower level to fully recline.[8] Despite these advantages, there are still concerns with space when the seats are in an upright position. [9]

However, we may never know how a flight attendant will deliver the after-dinner coffee to upper level passengers because this is one of the 600 patents Airbus files a year.[10] The company stated, “Airbus Group and its divisions apply for hundreds of patents every year in order to protect intellectual property… [t]he vast majority of items and processes patented never become fully realized technology or products.”[11] So whether you were excited or terrified by the idea, it is unlikely you will see yourself in a stacked airplane seat in the future.[12]

 

 

 

[1] Alison Griswold, New Airbus Patent Would Stack Passengers on Top of Each Other, Slate, Oct. 9, 2015, http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/10/09/airbus_files_patent_to_ stack_airline_passengers_on_top_of_each_other.html.

[2] U.S. Patent No. 4,066,227 (filed Oct. 1, 2015).

[3] Id.

[4] Hugo Martin, Are Stacked Seats the New Plan to Pack in Airline Passengers?, L.A. Times, Oct. 11, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-are-stack-seats-the-next-trend-in-airline-seating-20151009-story.html.

[5] Suzy Strutner, These ‘Stacked’ Plane Seats Could End the Legroom Problem Forever, huffinton Post, Oct. 7, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/airbus-stacked-seats_561509c7e4b0fad1591a1338.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Griswold, supra note 1.

[10] Strutner, supra note 5.

[11] Martin, supra note 4.

[12] Strutner, supra note 5.

 

 

Photo Source:  http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/4365/16×9/600.jpg

By: Matt O’Toole

Have you ever wondered what kind of tablet applications are out there for disabled people? You probably aren’t the only one. In fact, part of your answer may to do with the fact that they are little out accommodating those affected with disabilities.

When the ADA was enacted in 1990, the Internet was only in its nascent stage, and e-commerce as we think of it today was unheard of.[1] Nevertheless, some courts have extended the ADA’s reach to websites that offer and sell goods or services to the public, mandating that websites are accessible to persons with disabilities.[2]

Putting aside the merits of whether the ADA, in its current form, should apply to websites at all, the question that is then raised is: how do companies make their websites fully accessible?[3] Unfortunately, there currently are no generally accepted ADA standards for website construction and that seems like a big issue that gets very little attention.[4]

How can this country be so advanced in its technology but yet be so behind on its advances to folks with disabilities?

According to the United States Bureau, 8.4% of our population has a disability, under the age of 65.[5] There is certainly a market out there and whether legislation has done enough to reach that remains to be seen.

Congress instituted section 508 in 1998 to make new online opportunities available to people with disabilities and to encourage the development of software and technologies to help make this happen.[6] An amendment of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 508 requires federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology available to disabled citizens.[7]

In 2006, the National Federation of the Blind brought Target to district court and charged that Target’s Website is inaccessible to the blind and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, along with several other California human rights act.[8]

“What this means is that any place of business that provides services, such as the opportunity to buy products on a Web site, is now a place of accommodation and therefore falls under the ADA,” said director of user experience for Mindshare Interactive Campaigns LLC Kathy Wahlbin.[9]

As baby boomers start to turn the corner, the number of disabled users increases and the software continues to develop.[10] Section 508 will continue to be relevant and I’m not sure that it’s necessarily the government at fault here. It is just that the advancement of technology comes more people, and more disabled user. It is just that we shouldn’t leave them behind.

With technology now moving to much greater heights than just the internet, I think instead of making more updates to Snapcaht, folks should consider making phone applications more accessible to those in need.

Photo Source: http://icdn5.digitaltrends.com/image/old-people-with-ipad-655×400.jpg

 

 

[1] Kyle David, Web Accessibility: Section 508 Compliance , Blog, (Oct. 28, 2015), http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202728515700/New-ADA-Lawsuits-Target-Website-Accessibility?mcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=ALL. [hereinafter David]

[2]Id.

[3] Michael J. Chilleen and Brad Leimkuhler, New ADA Lawsuits Target Website Accessibility, Corporate Counsel (June 5, 2015), http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202728515700/New-ADA-Lawsuits-Target-Website-Accessibility?mcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=ALL&slreturn=20150929131629

[4]Id.

[5]United States Census Bureau. (Oct. 28, 2015), http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/00.

[6]See David supra, note 1.

[7]Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355 (1973).

[8] Nat’l. Fed’n of Blind v. Target, 452 F.2d 946, 956 (2006).

[9]See David supra, note 1.

[10]Id.

By: Curtis Hazelton,

In our society, it makes perfect sense for one to be accountable for his or her actions, so why should unmanned aircrafts be any different? The Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration have recently proposed a possible fix to this accountability issue.

Traditionally, unregistered aircrafts (manned or unmanned) could fly up to 600 feet above ground level, a rather empty section of the skies, where they were unlikely to fly into anything.[1] Although600 feet above ground level seems spacious fordrone users, not every drone user flies their drone within the 600 feet fly-zone nor do they follow the guidelines of drone-free locations. According to Department of Transportation Secretary, Anthony Foxx, “Registration will help us enforce the rules against those who operate unsafely, by allowing the FAA to identify the operators of unmanned aircraft.”[2] Regulation of the traditionally unregistered aircraft may make it easier to address the important issues of insurance and liability.

The increase of personal drone purchase and operation in the United States has caused many problems.The FAA stated that so far in 2015, pilots reported unsafe activity by unmanned aerial vehicles about 100 times a month.[3] In July, 5 “unmanned aircraft systems” prevented California firefighters from dispatching helicopters with water buckets for up to 20 minutes over a wildfire that roared onto a Los Angeles-area freeway, burning out cars.[4] During the second round match of the U.S. open between FlaviaPennetta and Monica Niculescua drone flew over the stadium and crashed into the stands. Subsequently, the match was stopped for a period while officers examined the drone and the operator arrested for reckless endangerment and operating a drone in a New York City public park outside of prescribed area.[5] The aforementioned situations highlight the need to impose liability on drone operators for accidents caused by drones.

Although some people are wary about government regulation, the registration proposal by the FAA and DoT could be the best way to ensure that drones and other unmanned aircraft are used safely. Though the Department of Transportation is still working to finalize their efforts to require drone registration before the holiday season, drone users, new and old, should be on the lookout for a change in legislation.

Photo Source: http://skift.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/travel-channel-drone-australia.jpg

 

 

 

[1] Jordan Golson, The Feds Want a National Drone Registry by Christmas,

Wired (Oct. 19, 2015, 2:28 PM) www.wired.com/2015/10/the-feds-want-a-national-drone-registry-by-christmas/.

[2]Id.

[3] Renee Marsh and Ben Brumfield, U.S. announces task force aimed at mandatory drone registration, CNN (Oct. 19, 2015 6:11 PM)www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/politics/drone-registration-task-force-announced/index.html

[4]Id.

[5] Laura Wagnor, Drone Crash At U.S. Open; New York City Teacher Arrested, National Public Radio (Sep. 4, 2015, 2:24 PM) www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/04/437539727/drone-crash-at-u-s-open-new-york-city-teacher-arrested.