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 Nicholas Parsons
Nicholas Parsons is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics. Facebook’s recent Cambridge Analytica scandal and the subsequent congressional hearing on Mark Zuckerberg leave us with questions as to what extent companies should be allowed to access and share the information of its users. But what is the current state of affairs in the realm of internet privacy law? Before being able to state whether any laws should be changed to accommodate an increase in individual internet privacy, the current status of internet privacy law should be reviewed.
0 Comments
 By: Nicholas Parsons
Nicholas Parsons is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics. If you are a permanent resident of Pennsylvania, you have almost certainly heard about Pennsylvania’s upcoming requirement: state-issued IDs and driver’s licenses will no longer be sufficient to board a plane or enter a federal building. Due to its failure to comply with stipulations of the federal REAL ID Act, Pennsylvania is one of a handful of states which will face the maximum punishment for its noncompliance. What you most likely are unaware of, however, is the history behind this requirement, and the reason why Pennsylvania hasn’t complied.  By Nicholas Parsons
Nicholas Parsons is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics. PA State Representative Chris Rabb recently introduced legislation that would commit Pennsylvania to 100% renewable energy by 2050 [1]. This bill would establish commissions for developing plans to transition Pennsylvania’s workforce using short-term benchmarks. Such a change would potentially lead to an uptick in clean energy jobs, while increasing the quality of the air that we breathe. But this is not the first step forward for renewable energy in the state of Pennsylvania; over the past couple decades, numerous bills have been passed to help the transition towards clean energy.  By Nicholas Parsons
Nicholas Parsons is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying philosophy, politics, and economics. As a means of highlighting positive events as well as a method of exposing wrongdoings, the press is a necessity. National and regional press here in America can operate independently of broader organizations or interest groups, allowing them to write freely. When it comes to college press, however, newspapers can be seen as representing or operating under a university, which makes the issue of independence more tricky. States differ in their regulations on student press. In some, like California and several surrounding states, college students have several protections against censorship as well as free-expression protections for student journalists. Other states, like Florida and Texas, are currently in the process of gaining these protections. In Pennsylvania, however, neither is the case. As such, a college newspaper’s independence is not always guaranteed, and the student journalists themselves are not always protected from school interference. [1]  By Nicholas Parsons
Nicholas Parsons is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying philosophy, politics, and economics. We have all heard about the new iPhone X, which employs a new technology that allows the user to open their iPhone simply by looking into the camera. Apple is not the only one currently utilizing facial recognition; for example, Facebook stores biometric data for suggesting tags and Google applies a similar technology to organize photos into groups based on the faces in the pictures This facial recognition technology, however, should be put into question before being used so broadly and freely. If not used carefully, it could come into conflict with several laws. The biggest concern is that authorities will be legally allowed to compel suspects or persons of interest to open their phones with facial recognition. [1] This problem could mirror the one encountered with previous iPhones that have a thumbprint lock. Because a fingerprint is a physical part of each individual, it doesn’t qualify as a “password” in the traditional sense. Thus, it’s uncertain whether it should fall under the Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination in the same way that passwords and passcodes fall under it. [2]  By Nicholas Parsons
Nicholas Parsons is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. Right now, Pennsylvania is faced with a historic opportunity to revolutionize state infrastructure. Because of a settlement from a recent lawsuit, Pennsylvania has over 118 million dollars to spend on infrastructure-related environmental improvement projects. And while few are aware, the public has some input in how this money will be spent. Last December, Volkswagen was sued by the EPA for secretly violating pollutant emission standards through the usage of “defeat devices.” [1] The cars in question were in violation of the Clean Air Act, for emitting a quantity of nitrous oxide well above the legal limit. As remedies of the case, the company was required to recall and repair 85% of the vehicles in violation, create an Environmental Mitigation Trust Fund, and invest in Zero Emission Vehicles. [2]  By Nicholas Parsons
Nicholas Parsons is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. Should a set of adults be allowed to name their child whatever they desire? Our First Amendment right to free speech is a fundamental, inalienable freedom which extends to numerous external applications. But how much liberty do we have when it comes to naming ourselves, or our children? There, the answer is less clear. Here in America, numerous states have regulations that add limits to the types of names that can be given, for a variety of reasons. However, oftentimes the lines are blurred. In some states, the law is vague; in others, seemingly arbitrary; and in a few others, simply nonexistent. Take, for instance, a very recent case of a child in Georgia. Two parents, Elizabeth Handy and Bilal Walk, wanted to give their daughter the surname “Allah”, because to them, it is “noble.” Despite the fact that the state of Georgia accepted that surname for their two other children, they said that this particular child would not be allowed to have that as a last name. Georgia contended that the girl’s last name “must match one of the parents - or be a combination of the two.” [1] This presents several very real problems for the daughter. Because of the state’s refusal to issue a birth certificate, the child cannot receive a Social Security number, is unable to enroll in school, and is barred from numerous other privileges as a result of Georgia’s decision.  By Nicholas Parsons
Nicholas Parsons is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. Every corner of the Earth suffers from war, contamination, and vast social problems. But there exists one place where these problems have yet to take root: outer space. Over half a century has passed since the very first space flight, and there such issues have not arisen to any significant extent. But in order to prevent problems like conflict, pollution, and property rights battles in space, laws are necessary. The field of space law is currently quite small, but as space travel becomes increasingly prevalent over the coming decades and centuries, regulation will be an exigency in order to maintain diplomatic tranquility and to discourage the suffusion of space junk. Imagine riding a rocket into orbit, but not an astronaut, as a tourist in a commercial ride. This was once a fantasy, but with the onset of privatized space flight, this has already become a reality. [1] Some “space tourists” already exist, thanks to the organization known as Space Adventures. [2] In addition, numerous private companies, including Boeing and SpaceX, are in the midst of developing space vehicles that have the ability to ferry tourists into space. These personal space flights are not without legal ramifications. Even with training, there is a lot of risk involved in flying a rocket filled with just a few passengers. Therefore, in America, companies must be licensed by the Federal Aviation Agency’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, to ensure that all safety requirements are in check. [3] That said, this is just the tip of the iceberg for the regulatory measures that have been put in place to ensure space is not exploited in any way.  By Nicholas Parsons
Nicholas Parson is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics (PPE). Our innovations and understanding of the world is constantly growing and improving. In the healthcare industry, we have made leaps and bounds in how we understand ourselves. In recent decades, there have been vast developments in the understanding of the human genome, in the control of previously irrepressible diseases, and in such incredible accomplishments as bionic limbs and the growing of organs. In such cases of marked improvement, we can only hope that policy will grow to accommodate for these developments. However, many legal roadblocks still exist which pose challenges to quality and expediency of care. One of these issues lies in transfers of patients’ medical information from facility to facility. Many situations can necessitate a transfer of medical information from one medical establishment to another, including but not limited to: a change of insurance, a different location of residency, or a general unhappiness with one’s current care provider. Depending on the direness of the situation, it can be vital that the medical records are transferred quickly. Given that we live in an increasingly computerized age, these records ideally could be sent immediately. However, the reality of the situation is far more complex.  By Nicholas Parsons
Nicholas Parsons is a Sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. After Antonin Scalia’s passing in February 2016, the United States Supreme Court was thrust into a unique position. The court is currently even in justice count, with the justices themselves fairly balanced between Democratic and Republican ideologies. At first glance, this balance appears to be optimal for an objective court of law; but upon a more skeptical look, it’s found that this balance has many unintended consequences. With such a balanced court, many partisan issues can no longer be decided by majority. Since February, the Supreme Court has dealt with issues of extreme importance, including immigration, contraception, public unions, and affirmative action. With issues as salient as these, coming to a definitive decision is a necessity in order to ensure justice in the interpretation and validation of laws. To rectify this issue, the court has had to respond in a variety of nuanced and contentious ways. The first issue after this February that suffered a split opinion, Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore, was a case dealing with the potential discrimination of two married women under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. [1] The 4-4 opinion of this case was a per curiam opinion: an opinion made in the name of the court as a whole, often done when the court is tied on an issue. Here, the opinion dealt was a sentence-long decision affirming the judgment of the lower court that initially presided over the case. [2] While per curiam decisions don’t act as precedents for future cases, the decision itself became a precedent for more vague and dissatisfying split decisions to come. |
|
|
