Among the greatest emerging challenges to global efforts to promote and protect human rights is the role of private sector entities in their actualization, since international human rights rules were designed to apply primarily, and in many cases solely, to the actions of governments. This paradigm is particularly evident in the expressive space, where private sector platforms play an enormously influential role in determining the boundaries of acceptable speech online, with none of the traditional guardrails governing how and when speech should be restricted. Many governments now view platform-imposed rules as a neat way of sidestepping legal limits on their own exercise of power, pressuring private sector entities to crack down on content which they would be constitutionally precluded from targeting directly. For their part, the platforms have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the level of responsibility they now wield, and in recent years have sought to modernize and improve their moderation frameworks in line with the growing global pressure they face. At the heart of these discussions are debates around how traditional human rights concepts like freedom of expression might be adapted to the context of “platform law.” This Article presents a preliminary framework for applying foundational freedom of expression standards to the context of private sector platforms, and models how the three-part test, which lies at the core of understandings of freedom of expression as a human right, could be applied to platforms’ moderation functions.
{"title":"Squaring the Circle Between Freedom of Expression and Platform Law","authors":"Michael Karanicolas","doi":"10.5195/tlp.2020.236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/tlp.2020.236","url":null,"abstract":"Among the greatest emerging challenges to global efforts to promote and protect human rights is the role of private sector entities in their actualization, since international human rights rules were designed to apply primarily, and in many cases solely, to the actions of governments. This paradigm is particularly evident in the expressive space, where private sector platforms play an enormously influential role in determining the boundaries of acceptable speech online, with none of the traditional guardrails governing how and when speech should be restricted. Many governments now view platform-imposed rules as a neat way of sidestepping legal limits on their own exercise of power, pressuring private sector entities to crack down on content which they would be constitutionally precluded from targeting directly. For their part, the platforms have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the level of responsibility they now wield, and in recent years have sought to modernize and improve their moderation frameworks in line with the growing global pressure they face. At the heart of these discussions are debates around how traditional human rights concepts like freedom of expression might be adapted to the context of “platform law.” This Article presents a preliminary framework for applying foundational freedom of expression standards to the context of private sector platforms, and models how the three-part test, which lies at the core of understandings of freedom of expression as a human right, could be applied to platforms’ moderation functions.","PeriodicalId":185385,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116424774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As access to the internet has become easier and more widespread in recent years, children have also started getting both increased and easier access to the internet, whether at home or at school. This access, coupled with a decrease in supervision while on the internet, implicates certain questions in regard to children. Questions involving data privacy rights are relevant to both adults and children in the digital age, but there are certain concerns that arise uniquely for children. This Note will focus on one piece of legislation that concerns data privacy rights for children—the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) (16 C.F.R. § 312). The main question that this Note will seek to answer is whether COPPA is adequate in protecting children’s data privacy rights. Part II will explore the history behind COPPA and explain what it actually is, defining key terms as used in the legislation as well as explaining certain provisions. Part III will discuss problems that have arisen under COPPA recently, analyzing lawsuits that have occurred under COPPA as well as the legislation’s shortcomings which have been highlighted in recent events. Finally Part IV will offer possible solutions to these problems, explaining what other scholars have suggested as solutions to these problems as well as other suggestions.
{"title":"Children’s Right to Privacy on the Internet in the Digital Age","authors":"Bethany Brown","doi":"10.5195/tlp.2020.238","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/tlp.2020.238","url":null,"abstract":"As access to the internet has become easier and more widespread in recent years, children have also started getting both increased and easier access to the internet, whether at home or at school. This access, coupled with a decrease in supervision while on the internet, implicates certain questions in regard to children. Questions involving data privacy rights are relevant to both adults and children in the digital age, but there are certain concerns that arise uniquely for children. This Note will focus on one piece of legislation that concerns data privacy rights for children—the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) (16 C.F.R. § 312). The main question that this Note will seek to answer is whether COPPA is adequate in protecting children’s data privacy rights. Part II will explore the history behind COPPA and explain what it actually is, defining key terms as used in the legislation as well as explaining certain provisions. Part III will discuss problems that have arisen under COPPA recently, analyzing lawsuits that have occurred under COPPA as well as the legislation’s shortcomings which have been highlighted in recent events. Finally Part IV will offer possible solutions to these problems, explaining what other scholars have suggested as solutions to these problems as well as other suggestions.","PeriodicalId":185385,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122118228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper explores a specific risk-mitigation strategy to reduce privacy concerns in the Internet of Health Things (IoHT): data anonymization. It contributes to the current academic debate surrounding the role of anonymization in the IoHT by evaluating how data controllers can balance privacy risks against the quality of output data and select the appropriate privacy model that achieves the aims underlying the concept of Privacy by Design. It sets forth several approaches for identifying the risk of re-identification in the IoHT as well as explores the potential for synthetic data generation to be used as an alternative method to anonymization for data sharing.
{"title":"Privacy, Risk, Anonymization and Data Sharing in the Internet of Health Things","authors":"Liane Colonna","doi":"10.5195/tlp.2020.235","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/tlp.2020.235","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores a specific risk-mitigation strategy to reduce privacy concerns in the Internet of Health Things (IoHT): data anonymization. It contributes to the current academic debate surrounding the role of anonymization in the IoHT by evaluating how data controllers can balance privacy risks against the quality of output data and select the appropriate privacy model that achieves the aims underlying the concept of Privacy by Design. It sets forth several approaches for identifying the risk of re-identification in the IoHT as well as explores the potential for synthetic data generation to be used as an alternative method to anonymization for data sharing.","PeriodicalId":185385,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130090764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The California Consumer Privacy Act access right has the potential to give Californians a level of control over their personal information that is unprecedented in the United States. However, consumer privacy interests will be in peril unless the access right is accompanied by an effective access request verification requirement. Requiring companies to respond to access requests when they cannot verify that the requestor is the subject of the requested data puts sensitive personal information at risk. Inversely, allowing companies to shirk their access request responsibilities by claiming that data is unverifiable diminishes consumers’ data control rights. Thus, in the context of access request verification policy, there is an inherent tension between privacy as confidentiality and privacy as control. The success of the access right, and thus all CCPA data control rights, hinges on an access request verification policy that successfully balances these competing privacy interests. The endemic identity theft caused by credit application verification systems demonstrates why such balancing cannot be wholly left to private companies. In the credit context, balancing has been driven by the profit maximization interests of businesses, which currently do not align with consumer privacy interests. Fortunately, several scholars have proposed methods for aligning these divergent interests. The strengths and weaknesses from these proposed solutions to identity theft provide a useful framework for building a system that incentivizes companies to prioritize consumer privacy when developing access request verification systems.
{"title":"Can the CCPA Access Right Be Saved? Realigning Incentives in Access Request Verification","authors":"Rebecca Iafrati","doi":"10.5195/tlp.2020.232","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/tlp.2020.232","url":null,"abstract":"The California Consumer Privacy Act access right has the potential to give Californians a level of control over their personal information that is unprecedented in the United States. However, consumer privacy interests will be in peril unless the access right is accompanied by an effective access request verification requirement. Requiring companies to respond to access requests when they cannot verify that the requestor is the subject of the requested data puts sensitive personal information at risk. Inversely, allowing companies to shirk their access request responsibilities by claiming that data is unverifiable diminishes consumers’ data control rights. Thus, in the context of access request verification policy, there is an inherent tension between privacy as confidentiality and privacy as control. The success of the access right, and thus all CCPA data control rights, hinges on an access request verification policy that successfully balances these competing privacy interests. The endemic identity theft caused by credit application verification systems demonstrates why such balancing cannot be wholly left to private companies. In the credit context, balancing has been driven by the profit maximization interests of businesses, which currently do not align with consumer privacy interests. Fortunately, several scholars have proposed methods for aligning these divergent interests. The strengths and weaknesses from these proposed solutions to identity theft provide a useful framework for building a system that incentivizes companies to prioritize consumer privacy when developing access request verification systems.","PeriodicalId":185385,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130923414","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Driverless automobiles may redefine public safety and efficiency, while turning the automobile industry on its head. These innovative machines will pose a challenge to regulatory schemes spanning from transportation and insurance to products liability and internet laws. Enormous companies like BMW, Audi, Uber, and Google have already taken part in placing this rapidly growing technology into consumer hands. The rift that this innovation will create in other industries, coupled with the safety and privacy concerns surrounding its design, will be the catalyst for contentious legislative and legal debates. This Note will explore the ways in which industry flexibility, state and federal involvement, and clearer regulations may be carefully balanced to help the driverless car industry stay on the road. Part one will address the development and historical challenges of driverless vehicles, while parts two and three will look at potential solutions to these challenges.
{"title":"Autonomous Vehicles: A Future Fast Approaching With No One Behind the Wheel","authors":"Sean Bollman","doi":"10.5195/tlp.2020.231","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/tlp.2020.231","url":null,"abstract":"Driverless automobiles may redefine public safety and efficiency, while turning the automobile industry on its head. These innovative machines will pose a challenge to regulatory schemes spanning from transportation and insurance to products liability and internet laws. Enormous companies like BMW, Audi, Uber, and Google have already taken part in placing this rapidly growing technology into consumer hands. The rift that this innovation will create in other industries, coupled with the safety and privacy concerns surrounding its design, will be the catalyst for contentious legislative and legal debates. This Note will explore the ways in which industry flexibility, state and federal involvement, and clearer regulations may be carefully balanced to help the driverless car industry stay on the road. Part one will address the development and historical challenges of driverless vehicles, while parts two and three will look at potential solutions to these challenges.","PeriodicalId":185385,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130112554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In November 2018, The New York Times ran a front-page story describing how Facebook concealed knowledge and disclosure of Russian-linked activity and exploitation resulting in Kremlin led disruption of the 2016 and 2018 U.S. elections, through the use of global hate campaigns and propaganda warfare. By mid-December 2018, it became clear that the Russian efforts leading up to the 2016 U.S. elections were much more extensive than previously thought. Two studies conducted for the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), by: (1) Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project and Graphika; and (2) New Knowledge, provide considerable new information and analysis about the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) influence operations targeting American citizens.By early 2019 it became apparent that a number of influential and successful high growth social media platforms had been used by nation states for propaganda purposes. Over two years earlier, Russia was called out by the U.S. intelligence community for their meddling with the 2016 American presidential elections. The extent to which prominent social media platforms have been used, either willingly or without their knowledge, by foreign powers continues to be investigated as this Article goes to press. Reporting by The New York Times suggests that it wasn’t until the Facebook board meeting held September 6, 2017 that board audit committee chairman, Erskin Bowles, became aware of Facebook’s internal awareness of the extent to which Russian operatives had utilized the Facebook and Instagram platforms for influence campaigns in the United States. As this Article goes to press, the degree to which the allure of advertising revenues blinded Facebook to their complicit role in offering the highest bidder access to Facebook users is not yet fully known. This Article can not be a complete chapter in the corporate governance challenge of managing, monitoring, and oversight of individual privacy issues and content integrity on prominent social media platforms. The full extent of Facebook’s experience is just now becoming known, with new revelations yet to come. All interested parties: Facebook users; shareholders; the board of directors at Facebook; government regulatory agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); and Congress must now figure out what has transpired and what to do about it. These and other revelations have resulted in a crisis for Facebook. American democracy has been and continues to be under attack. This article contributes to the literature by providing background and an account of what is known to date and posits recommendations for corrective action.
{"title":"GOVERNANCE OF THE FACEBOOK PRIVACY CRISIS","authors":"L. Trautman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3363002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3363002","url":null,"abstract":"In November 2018, The New York Times ran a front-page story describing how Facebook concealed knowledge and disclosure of Russian-linked activity and exploitation resulting in Kremlin led disruption of the 2016 and 2018 U.S. elections, through the use of global hate campaigns and propaganda warfare. By mid-December 2018, it became clear that the Russian efforts leading up to the 2016 U.S. elections were much more extensive than previously thought. Two studies conducted for the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), by: (1) Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project and Graphika; and (2) New Knowledge, provide considerable new information and analysis about the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) influence operations targeting American citizens.By early 2019 it became apparent that a number of influential and successful high growth social media platforms had been used by nation states for propaganda purposes. Over two years earlier, Russia was called out by the U.S. intelligence community for their meddling with the 2016 American presidential elections. The extent to which prominent social media platforms have been used, either willingly or without their knowledge, by foreign powers continues to be investigated as this Article goes to press. Reporting by The New York Times suggests that it wasn’t until the Facebook board meeting held September 6, 2017 that board audit committee chairman, Erskin Bowles, became aware of Facebook’s internal awareness of the extent to which Russian operatives had utilized the Facebook and Instagram platforms for influence campaigns in the United States. As this Article goes to press, the degree to which the allure of advertising revenues blinded Facebook to their complicit role in offering the highest bidder access to Facebook users is not yet fully known. This Article can not be a complete chapter in the corporate governance challenge of managing, monitoring, and oversight of individual privacy issues and content integrity on prominent social media platforms. The full extent of Facebook’s experience is just now becoming known, with new revelations yet to come. All interested parties: Facebook users; shareholders; the board of directors at Facebook; government regulatory agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); and Congress must now figure out what has transpired and what to do about it. These and other revelations have resulted in a crisis for Facebook. American democracy has been and continues to be under attack. This article contributes to the literature by providing background and an account of what is known to date and posits recommendations for corrective action.","PeriodicalId":185385,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","volume":"95 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113983643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The tragedy that occurred on September 11, 2001 changed airline security forever. Post 9/11, Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security vast power over passengers. This article seeks to examine whether the new airline security procedures are overly invasive, legal, or even effective. If the current system is ineffective or unconstitutional, an alternative must be sought. The Supreme Court has held that searches are required to be no more extensive or invasive than needed to protect security. This article posits that if new airline security measures are not conducted in a manner that respects the privacy and constitutional rights of passengers, they must be replaced with an alternative, such as behavioral profiling. In modern society, it is paramount that we heed the warning of Benjamin Franklin, "those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
{"title":"Airport Security: Over-Reaching New Heights","authors":"C. Antolak","doi":"10.5195/TLP.2018.217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/TLP.2018.217","url":null,"abstract":"The tragedy that occurred on September 11, 2001 changed airline security forever. Post 9/11, Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security vast power over passengers. This article seeks to examine whether the new airline security procedures are overly invasive, legal, or even effective. If the current system is ineffective or unconstitutional, an alternative must be sought. The Supreme Court has held that searches are required to be no more extensive or invasive than needed to protect security. This article posits that if new airline security measures are not conducted in a manner that respects the privacy and constitutional rights of passengers, they must be replaced with an alternative, such as behavioral profiling. In modern society, it is paramount that we heed the warning of Benjamin Franklin, \"those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.\"","PeriodicalId":185385,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126432950","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Tribal sovereignty has been recognized by the American government since the establishment of the United States and tribal sovereign immunity has been a part of American jurisprudence for over a century. Tribal sovereign immunity continues to play an important role in modern times, especially in the last few years with the rise of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings stemming from the America Invents Act of 2011. IPR proceedings are filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and heard by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as an alternative to or in conjunction with traditional patent litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Therefore, patent owners may have to defend their patents both at PTAB and in federal court. PTAB has recently granted its first motion to consider the issue of tribal sovereign immunity as it relates to patents covering the branded drug Restasis®. This case involves two giants of the pharmaceutical industry: Allergan PLC (Allergan), a brand name drug manufacturer who holds the Restasis® patents, and Mylan N.V. (Mylan), a generic pharmaceutical company.
{"title":"Tribal Sovereign Immunity as a Defense in Overcoming IPR Challenges of Brand Name Pharmaceutical Patent Validity at PTAB – Effects on the Industry","authors":"Elana Williams","doi":"10.5195/TLP.2018.216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/TLP.2018.216","url":null,"abstract":"Tribal sovereignty has been recognized by the American government since the establishment of the United States and tribal sovereign immunity has been a part of American jurisprudence for over a century. Tribal sovereign immunity continues to play an important role in modern times, especially in the last few years with the rise of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings stemming from the America Invents Act of 2011. IPR proceedings are filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and heard by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as an alternative to or in conjunction with traditional patent litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Therefore, patent owners may have to defend their patents both at PTAB and in federal court. PTAB has recently granted its first motion to consider the issue of tribal sovereign immunity as it relates to patents covering the branded drug Restasis®. This case involves two giants of the pharmaceutical industry: Allergan PLC (Allergan), a brand name drug manufacturer who holds the Restasis® patents, and Mylan N.V. (Mylan), a generic pharmaceutical company.","PeriodicalId":185385,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130702278","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The potential effects of law are far-reaching and research is ongoing regarding the intersection of law and technology. Given the widespread availability of online legal documents today, the laws of various jurisdictions can be reviewed and researched in their full text form. However, in the not-so-distant past, this task was overwhelmingly more difficult. Many jurisdictions, unable to keep pace with the increased volume of statutes, regulations, and judicial decisions, compiled indexes of legal information rather than catalogs of full documents. These indexes made comparisons between jurisdictions difficult and left researchers unsure of whether they had captured all relevant information. However, in the middle of the 20th century, researchers began to tap into the potential of computers in relation to information retrieval. Much of the early pioneering work in the legal field was conducted by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh, who developed the “Pittsburgh System” that was a precursor to the computerized legal research tools that are ubiquitous today.
{"title":"Pioneers in Computerized Legal Research: The Story of the Pittsburgh System","authors":"Tina B Hershey, D. Burke","doi":"10.5195/TLP.2018.212","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/TLP.2018.212","url":null,"abstract":"The potential effects of law are far-reaching and research is ongoing regarding the intersection of law and technology. Given the widespread availability of online legal documents today, the laws of various jurisdictions can be reviewed and researched in their full text form. However, in the not-so-distant past, this task was overwhelmingly more difficult. Many jurisdictions, unable to keep pace with the increased volume of statutes, regulations, and judicial decisions, compiled indexes of legal information rather than catalogs of full documents. These indexes made comparisons between jurisdictions difficult and left researchers unsure of whether they had captured all relevant information. However, in the middle of the 20th century, researchers began to tap into the potential of computers in relation to information retrieval. Much of the early pioneering work in the legal field was conducted by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh, who developed the “Pittsburgh System” that was a precursor to the computerized legal research tools that are ubiquitous today.","PeriodicalId":185385,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","volume":"149 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129363211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gregory L. Demers, J. Piereson, Mark A. Cianci, Peter L. Welsh
Rapid advancements in information technology have transformed day-to-day university operations and, in doing so, have altered the landscape of risk management. Authors Gregory L. Demers, J. William Piereson, Mark A. Cianci, and Peter L. Welsh provide an overview of some of the most significant social-media-related risks faced by colleges and universities, before considering ways to mitigate these risks through a broad insurance coverage plan. The article explains how, given the relative novelty of this field, the coverage afforded by insurance policies inevitably will vary, often significantly, from insurer to insurer.
信息技术的快速发展已经改变了大学的日常运作，并由此改变了风险管理的格局。作者Gregory L. Demers, J. William Piereson, Mark a . Cianci和Peter L. Welsh概述了高校面临的一些最重要的与社交媒体相关的风险，然后考虑如何通过广泛的保险覆盖计划来减轻这些风险。鉴于这一领域的相对新颖性，本文解释了保险政策所提供的覆盖范围如何不可避免地会因保险公司而异，通常是显著的差异。
{"title":"The Antisocial Effects of Social Media and How Colleges and Universities Can Manage Related Litigation Risks","authors":"Gregory L. Demers, J. Piereson, Mark A. Cianci, Peter L. Welsh","doi":"10.5195/TLP.2018.206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/TLP.2018.206","url":null,"abstract":"Rapid advancements in information technology have transformed day-to-day university operations and, in doing so, have altered the landscape of risk management. Authors Gregory L. Demers, J. William Piereson, Mark A. Cianci, and Peter L. Welsh provide an overview of some of the most significant social-media-related risks faced by colleges and universities, before considering ways to mitigate these risks through a broad insurance coverage plan. The article explains how, given the relative novelty of this field, the coverage afforded by insurance policies inevitably will vary, often significantly, from insurer to insurer.","PeriodicalId":185385,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129857422","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：