The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Sanjay Dureseti
Sanjay Dureseti is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania and an associate editor of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal. NOTE: Since this article was written, the FBI dropped its case against Apple on March 28 as the bureau was able to unlock the assailant’s iPhone on its own. In the wake of brutal December 2015 terror attacks in San Bernardino, California, the usual political aftermath of mass shootings unfolded. The issue of gun control once again reared its divisive head. [1] Nativist, anti-Islamic sentiment, spurred by the rhetoric of various presidential candidates, further gripped the national consciousness. [2] But perhaps the most lasting and important consequence of the San Bernardino shootings, other than the loss of 14 lives, has been the developing legal conflict between Cupertino-based technology giant Apple and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI.) Given the California assailants’ jihadist roots, carefully cultivated by years of secret adherence to extremist philosophies, the Bureau wanted access to a locked iPhone that belonged to one of the shooters. When requested to construct proprietary software that would allow “backdoor” access to the iPhone, Apple vehemently refused, citing its commitment to never weaken its security features. [3] In response, the FBI obtained a court order that required Apple’s cooperation, a directive that the tech company intends to fight. With both parties set to enter the legal battleground, this case could prove to be a massive landmark in the perpetually evolving dialogue surrounding state surveillance. After revelations of government data-mining brought to light by Edward Snowden, a majority of Americans have become concerned with the potential overreach of governmental institutions with access to increasingly sophisticated technology. [4]
0 Comments
 By Christine Mitchell
Christine Mitchell is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying nursing. Mammograms have long been heralded as a key component of women’s health. If performed regularly, they offer the potential to catch breast cancer before it becomes invasive, leading to lifesaving early interventions. While it is clear that mammography has had a positive impact on breast cancer treatment throughout the world, new legislation may risk taking the technology too far. A mammogram is simply an x-ray image of the breast that is used to spot any unusual tissue masses, such as tumors. Although the recommended frequency of mammograms is controversial, The National Breast Cancer Foundation recommends that women aged forty and older receive a mammogram every one to two years. [1] The true controversy, however, is what doctors must report to patients following a mammogram. A mammogram can reveal dense breast tissue which is found in about half of the female population and is difficult to image using mammography. [2] While dense breasts do not cause breast cancer, they do make the disease more difficult to detect. Laws that have been passed in twenty-four states, and are pending in eleven others, require a physician to report any dense breast tissue detected by a mammogram to the patient, usually by mail after the visit. [3] These laws have been lobbied for by Are You Dense?, an advocacy group dedicated to passing density reporting laws. [4]  By Marco DiLeonardo
Marco DiLeonardo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying International Relations. The creation of the Internet has revolutionized the music industry. Transitioning from CDs and records to an entirely digital medium, music has become so much more accessible for millions of people around the world in a short time period. However, accessibility comes with many complications in the already intricate and unpredictable realm of copyright. Traditional copyright law is historically not suited to handle this emerging technology and is currently undergoing major changes, and the business models of Apple, Pandora, Spotify, Grooveshark, and SoundCloud are seeing a series of legal consequences. In order for Apple to gather music from different artists to sell on the iTunes, it must acquire the permission of whichever label the artist is apart of. The current arrangement is centered on the agreement that the iTunes Store essentially functions as a retail outlet that sells CDs. Apple purchases the rights to sell songs of a certain label and then transfers a portion of the returns back to the music labels. Apple also possesses a streaming feature. However, iTunes Radio functions differently than the typical iTunes song purchase. Rather than a one-time royalty per purchase, in its first year of operation, 2013, Apple paid the label thirteen cents each time a song is played, and now pays the label fourteen cents.[1] Furthermore, the advertisement revenue is distributed in an agreed upon formula. In the first year of operation, Apple paid fifteen percent of the total, and later increased it to nineteen. Royalties are not taken into account if the user already purchased the file or if the listener skips the song before the twenty second mark. [2] |
|
|