November 21, 2014
The Richmond Journal of Law and Technology is pleased to present the first issue of the Twenty-First Volume. With its first publication in 1995, JOLT became the world’s first law review to be published exclusively online. It was with that original publication that JOLT established itself as one of the leading publications in the legal technology field. Today, JOLT has continued the bold tradition of publishing articles to further scholarship in areas of new and emerging fields that fall at the intersection of technology and the law.
Rarely has the intersection of technology and the law been more apparent than in the recent Supreme Court decision of Riley v. California. In our first article, entitled “Riley v. California: The New Katz or Chimel?,” Adam Lamparello and Charles MacLean analyze the Riley decision in which the Court held that warrantless searches of a cell phone incident to arrest were unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The authors analyze the legal landscape that lead to the Court’s decision in Riley and ultimately assert that Riley is the new Katz for the digital age. Lamparello and MacLean conclude by suggesting that in a world of constantly changing technology, Riley marks the beginning of increased privacy protections in the rapidly evolving digital age.
In our second article, “The Reasonable Information Security Program,” Peter Sloan provides a detailed overview of the requirements of information security programs under various federal and state statutory regimes. Early in the article, Sloan proposes—and later proceeds to thoroughly analyze—six essential elements of a reasonable information security program. Following his analysis, Sloan recognizes that while the six elements that he proposes are not dispositive, they provide a reliable framework for a reasonable information security program.
The issue is rounded out by our final article, entitled “Clapper v. Amnesty International and Data Privacy Litigation: Is a Change to the Law “Certainly Impending”?,” written by John L. Jacobus and Benjamin B. Watson. The article analyzes the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International on data privacy litigation. It begins with a background on prior Supreme Court standing decisions. The authors then discuss the implications of the Clapper holding on future determinations of standing in cases where plaintiff’s personal information has been unwarrantedly collected and distributed. Jacobus and Watson conclude by acknowledging that while lower courts may not consistently adhere to Clapper, courts are still likely to view the decision as a limitation on data privacy standing; a realization that will have a lasting impact on future litigation of these issues.
On behalf of the entire 2014-2015 JOLT staff, I want to extend our sincerest thanks for your continued readership. It has been a pleasure working with each of our authors and I would like to thank them for their hard work and dedication to each article. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the JOLT Editorial Board and staff for the hard work they put forth in completing this issue. Additionally, JOLT greatly appreciates the ongoing support from the University of Richmond School of Law and is especially grateful for the guidance of our faculty advisors, Dean Jim Gibson and Professor Chris Cotropia.
Thank you for visiting JOLT. We are confident that you will enjoy our first issue. As always, your questions, comments, and suggestions are encouraged and welcome at email@example.com.
Laura M. Bedson
1. Riley v. California: The New Katz or Chimel? by Adam Lamparello and Charles MacLean
2. The Reasonable Information Security Program by Peter Sloan
3. Clapper v. Amnesty International and Data Privacy Litigation: Is a Change to the Law “Certainly Impending”? by John L. Jacobus and Benjamin B. Watson