Wanted: Spectrum Bounty Hunters

Wanted: Spectrum Bounty Hunters Wilson Scarbeary[1]† Print Version: Wanted- Spectrum Bounty Hunters Politicians on both sides of the aisle love to promote market solutions to regulatory problems, especially when it comes to telecommunications policy. Despite this preference, bounties, and similar financial incentives—historically, popular market solutions to regulatory problems—have yet to be widely used in wireless policy. In response, this paper considers three hypothetical kinds of bounty programs that could be used to regulate harmful interference or address critical vulnerabilities in wireless systems. A number of Continue reading →

Closing the Cybersecurity Gap In Medical Devices – Proposing a Safe Harbor System

Closing the Cybersecurity Gap In Medical Devices – Proposing a Safe Harbor System Allee Johnson[1]† Print Version: Safe Harbor for Medical Devices Over the last decade, the number of medical devices on the market have skyrocketed. While these devices allow for a better quality of life for their recipients, they come with their own host of concerns. Patients have been consistently victimized by data breaches, which expose their personal health information for the world to see. Unfortunately for these patients, the adequate compliance and litigation Continue reading →

The Misguided Activism of the Cryptocurrency Industry: Reckoning With The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970

The Misguided Activism of the Cryptocurrency Industry: Reckoning With The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 Grant Hespeler[1]† Print Version: Cryptocurrency & Bank Secrecy Act Introduction 161 I. Background: Privacy Rights from Olmstead to Katz 163 A. The Olmstead Era 163 B. Katz Balances the Scales 165 II. FinCEN’s Proposed Rule and Cryptocurrency Activism 167 III. The Bank Secrecy Act and Miller 171 A. The Bank Secrecy Act 171 B. Miller Upholds the Bank Secrecy Act 172 C. Cryptocurrency Activism Precluded by the Bank Secrecy Act Continue reading →

Systems Theory, Surveillance Capitalism, and Law: Native Wisdom and Feedback Loops to Boost the Constructive Use of Big Data

 Systems Theory, Surveillance Capitalism, and Law: Native Wisdom and Feedback Loops to Boost the Constructive Use of Big Data Adam J. Sulkowski, Danielle Blanch-Hartigan, Caren Beth Goldberg, Amy K. Verbos, Maoliang Bu, and Remy Michael Balarezo Nuñez[1]† Print Version: Native Wisdom & Big Data Introduction 136 I. Data Collection-and-Use: Evolution and Application 137 A. Surveillance Capitalism 137 B. Abuses of Our Online Presence in the Context of Employment 138 C. The Implications of Expanded Data Collection-and-Use in Healthcare 140 II. A Cautiously Offered Counter-Narrative: Why Continue reading →

Chronicles of Internet Openness: The Brazilian Case Study

Chronicles of Internet Openness: The Brazilian Case Study Jeffrey Omari[1]† Print Version: Brazilian Internet Openness In 2014, a data profiling company, Cambridge Analytica, gained access to the private data profiles of 50 million Facebook users. Through promotional offers that compensated users for taking a personality quiz, the company obtained personal data from users’ profiles and their Facebook “friends.” These Facebook users were unaware their data had been hijacked and that their information would be sold to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Allegedly, the data was Continue reading →

(F)RANDONOMICS

(F)RANDONOMICS Roya Ghafele[1]† Print Version: (F)randonomics (F)RAND royalty rates for standard essential patents (SEPs) can and have been determined by Courts around the world. The question whether it is possible to determine (F)RAND rates does not present itself. This article offers an overview of the ‘Top Down’ and the ‘Comparable License Approach’ as they have been frequently recognized by Courts across the globe. The reasoning Courts have employed when making use of the methods are described to the extent possible in a neutral manner, as Continue reading →

Protected Grounds and the System of Non-Discrimination Law in the Context of Algorithmic Decision-Making and Artificial Intelligence

Protected Grounds and the System of Non-Discrimination Law in the Context of Algorithmic Decision-Making and Artificial Intelligence Prof. Dr. Janneke Gerards & Prof. Dr. Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius[1]† Print Version: PROTECTED GROUNDS AND THE SYSTEM OF NON-DISCRIMINATION LAW IN THE CONTEXT OF ALGORITHMIC DECISION-MAKING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Algorithmic decision-making and similar types of artificial intelligence (AI) may lead to improvements in all sectors of society but can also have discriminatory effects. While current non-discrimination law offers people some protection, algorithmic decision-making presents the lawmakers and law Continue reading →