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 Tanner Bowen
Tanner Bowen is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying business. With the increasing usage of data mining and forecasting in the private sector, it seems inevitable that the public sector will try to leverage these technologies to become more efficient and to better allocate resources. But, as we discussed in the last few of my blog posts, this implementation will not come without potential legal hiccups from the United States judiciary. Although concepts like non-delegation and due process can seem somewhat intangible to the average citizen, the one area where machine learning can greatly impact the lives of individuals will be whether its usage will lead to discriminatory practices. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination by states, and since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bolling v. Sharpe, we see that there may even be a Fifth Amendment claim involving a violation of the Due Process clause. [1] However, this standard is not the standard the federal government has to explain in disproportionate impact cases. Specifically, “a purpose to discriminate must be present.” [2]
0 Comments
 By Tanner Bowen
Tanner Bowen is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying business. In my last blog post, we started talking about potential legal hurdles endemic to the usage of machine learning algorithms by federal and state governments. Particularly, we mentioned some issues that courts will grapple with in deciding whether these algorithms violate the nondelegation provision of Article I of the United States Constitution. But, as one can imagine, there are a plethora of legal issues that might make it onto the dockets of federal courts concerning the proliferation of technology in government rulemaking decisions. In this post, we will examine the question: Do machine learning algorithms in lieu of rulemaking violate our guarantee of due process as citizens? Due process considerations are not novel when it comes to the federal government. Since federal agencies have been making and executing rules, they have had to justify actions that could deprive individuals of property or entitlements for centuries. Yet, as discussed in my last post, it seems that if these algorithms are used in a more support or research function, then we might not cross the issue of due process. But let us assume that these algorithms will be used for large-scale policy decisions. What does our current legal system hint at concerning these optimization techniques?  By Tanner Bowen
Tanner Bowen is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying business. In popular culture, insider trading is a very prevalent topic with which we are all familiar. We’ve all seen movies or TV shows where a character is accused of insider trading, or you’ve used it as a punchline to a joke about your friend going to business school. The ironic fact of this all is that even though insider trading seems to be clear-cut in the minds of Americans, it is still a legally murky area. Going back to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, it made sense to put prohibitions against fraudulent and deceptive trading practices after the Great Depression. In fact, capital markets work best whenever they are built upon the principles of trust and transparency. That is why Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act put in a rule (Rule 10b5-1) which outlawed the use of “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance” in trading securities. Okay –so far, still no mention of “insider trading.”  (Commons Photo Credit: Source)
By: Tanner Bowen Tanner Bowen is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying business. In popular culture, insider trading is a very prevalent topic with which we are all familiar. We’ve all seen movies or TV shows where a character is accused of insider trading, or you’ve used it as a punchline to a joke about your friend going to business school. The ironic fact of this all is that even though insider trading seems to be clear-cut in the minds of Americans, it is still a legally murky area. Going back to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, it made sense to put prohibitions against fraudulent and deceptive trading practices after the Great Depression. In fact, capital markets work best whenever they are built upon the principles of trust and transparency. That is why Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act put in a rule (Rule 10b5-1) which outlawed the use of “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance” in trading securities. Okay –so far, still no mention of “insider trading.”  By Tanner Bowen
Tanner Bowen is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying business. Aside from dreading taxes, drivers of automobiles have always faced another unpleasant reality of life: accidents. Whether this involves rear-ending another driver or slamming into that pole in the parking lot, we are subjected to the headache of who is liable for the accident and how our insurance will cover it. Flash forward to the present, and the development of autonomous vehicles is well within our grasp as a society. Numerous car companies have enabled assisted driving features such as automatic brakes that activate if the car senses an object that is too close. On the other end of the spectrum is Tesla Motors Inc., which in 2015 activated its autopilot mode (which allows autonomous steering, braking, lane switching, and a host of other features). But this summer, a Tesla Model S using autopilot struck a big rig while traveling on a divided highway in Florida, killing the driver. [1]  By Tanner Bowen
Tanner Bowen is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying business. War often elicits unthinkable acts of atrocity against other human beings. Throughout human history, and specifically starting with World War II, the horrors of war have become even more monstrous because of the growing number of civilian casualties as a result of warfare. This reality of war often begs the question: “How can we ensure the safety of our civilian population amidst current developments in chemical and biological war tactics?” One such response was taken by the United States government through subjecting human participants to various chemicals.  By Tanner Bowen
Tanner Bowen is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying business. “It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” [1] In cases involving sealed and unsealed documents, the Supreme Court has developed a policy in which access to court records should be strongly favored. Although parties do enter into agreements to seal documents after a district court trial, the party that moves to seal the records thus has a strong burden of proof to show that there is a “compelling reason” to keep access to these records at a minimum.  By Tanner Bowen
Tanner Bowen is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying business. Within the last few years, the topic of immigration has come to the forefront of American politics. From the recent shooting this summer by an undocumented immigrant of a woman in San Francisco to the different plans set forth by presidential hopefuls about how to fix the “immigration problem,” the topic is unfortunately as difficult to discuss as it is complicated. [1] One of the agencies at the forefront of this debate is the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. In particular, there are numerous allegations that the USCIS is purposefully delaying the Freedom of Information Act requests that immigrants need for their citizenship hearings. To provide some context, the Freedom of Information Act was passed in 1967 to provide residents within the United States with the ability to request significant amounts of information from any federal governmental agency. [2] Throughout the naturalization process to become citizens, immigrants applying for citizenship need various items of documentation from the U.S. government whenever they appear before an immigration judge. In addition, if their petition for citizenship is denied, people often submit FOIA requests to obtain additional evidence to appeal the ruling.  By Tanner Bowen
Tanner Bowen is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying business. The history of college athletics has been a long and complicated one. During the course of this history, the NCAA has developed a set of rules in order to foster a sense of amateurism at the collegiate level, while still allowing students to both perform athletically and obtain a solid college education. Out of all of these rules, the most highly contested is whether student athletes should be paid above the cost of attending the school. The NCAA has said no, and the courts have taken a similar opinion on this subject. In the court case O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that college athletes should not be paid above the full cost of attendance to a university. But what was particularly interesting about this case was that it was brought under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1898, as the plaintiffs alleged that the NCAA was engaging in anticompetitive activities through not allowing deferred compensation. In particular, they were restraining “trade” in the sense that college athletes could not sell their names, images, or likenesses (NILs) to video game producers or other licensors.  By Tanner Bowen
Tanner Bowen is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying business. In recent American politics, most citizens have experienced a heightened sense of uneasiness about the development of technology and the extent to which the government can obtain and retain their personal information. A prime example of this tension took place earlier this year, when Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) decided to filibuster the soon-to-expire Patriot Act, a law first passed after 9/11 which extended the government’s ability to monitor citizens in its efforts to combat terrorism. [1] However, the public’s concern over invasions of its privacy isn’t just limited to the behavior of the government. With the growth of numerous technology-driven entertainment sectors, corporations are now coming under attack for the ways in which they handle personal data. One particular effort to control companies’ actions is the Video Privacy Protection Act. This legislation arose following the 1987 Supreme Court confirmation hearing of Judge Robert Bork, during which his personal movie rental data was released to the public. [2] The Act restricts video service providers’ retention and disclosure of a consumer’s personal information. [3] The retention component specifies that the corporation must destroy all of its information about a customer within one year after he or she stops using the company’s services. This last point in particular has yielded interesting rulings from a few of the Circuit Courts. |
|
|
