Slashdot Mirror
Domain: greenbag.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to greenbag.org.
Comments · 10
-
Re:Uhg, not Cass Sunstein
Cass Sunstein has written 500 papers.He is the most cited living legal scholar.
Six Degrees of Cass Sunstein compares his collaboration network to that of Paul Erdos.
Of course, the laws of the universe itself are far more important than the laws of one puny human society, so it's quite a reach to make that sort of comparison, but Cass Susstein enjoys thinking about the law and writing articles about the law. A few of his papers may cover odd subject matter, but as long as they remain interesting to the reader, that's all that matters.
-
Re:Unrealisticeven the most mature and responsible adult makes mistakes, and all of this is only human. I, for one, would prefer not to live in a world where everyone's dirty laundry was aired in public, with full search features. This reminds me of Judge James Rosenbaum's article In Defense of the Delete Key [PDF Warning]. Some notable quotes: Sometimes people just have bad ideas, or might just pass an idle - if imperfect - thought. This does not mean the person is vile. Mere evidence that a person who has done "A," but once expressed "B," does not prove that the person is lying or deceitful. The fallacy in the "truth" of the recovered e-mail or computer file is that it might just have been a bad idea, properly rejected, and consigned to an imperfectly labeled wastebasket. The problem is that on the computer's hard drive, it looks like more. Into this classic legal environment comes the computer. It never forgets, and never forgives. An idle thought "jotted" onto a calendar, a tasteless joke passed to a once-trusted friend, a suggestive invitation directed at an uninterested recipient, if done electronically, will last forever. Years later, it can subject its author to liability.
-
Luckily, Rosenbaum is a technology savvy judge
I can't help but feel that the video game publishers lucked-out on who heard their case. James Rosenbaum isn't inclined to assume that technology invalidates common sense application of the law. To this end, he has written several "thought articles" about search and seizure involving data. His article "In defense of the DELETE key" attempts to set some rational restrictions of mining a hard drive for incriminating evidence. He has expanded on this with several other "In defense of
-
Luckily, Rosenbaum is a technology savvy judge
I can't help but feel that the video game publishers lucked-out on who heard their case. James Rosenbaum isn't inclined to assume that technology invalidates common sense application of the law. To this end, he has written several "thought articles" about search and seizure involving data. His article "In defense of the DELETE key" attempts to set some rational restrictions of mining a hard drive for incriminating evidence. He has expanded on this with several other "In defense of
-
Re:Deleting is deleting, period...judge should getI can't find it now, but a federal court judge once made the comment that people need the ability to delete files and have courts recognize them as "destroyed".
You're probably talking about Judge James M. Rosenbaum (United States District Court for the District of Minnesota). "In Defence of the Delete Key", The Green Bag, 2D Series, Vol3, No4, Summer 2000.
Here's the HTML Introduction and here's the actual PDF.
-
Re:Deleting is deleting, period...judge should getI can't find it now, but a federal court judge once made the comment that people need the ability to delete files and have courts recognize them as "destroyed".
You're probably talking about Judge James M. Rosenbaum (United States District Court for the District of Minnesota). "In Defence of the Delete Key", The Green Bag, 2D Series, Vol3, No4, Summer 2000.
Here's the HTML Introduction and here's the actual PDF.
-
Re:Judge Kent's Pigs
Actually, the briefs weren't drafted in crayon--that memorandum was just another example of Judge Kent bullying from the bench.
-
Monitoring is bad but filtering would be worse
I can't support monitoring of the on-line activities of members of the judiciary, not because I have problems with monitoring in general (which I do, but that's another issue) but because it represents our first tentitive steps onto a slippery slope which has the potential of being the root cause of many great miscarages of justice.
Monitoring opens the door for filtering, which by definition operates with the sole purpose of preventing access to certain information. It is an exceedingly dangerour proposition, to suggest that Judges should be prevented from recieving certain information, as a matter of law, however this bears a little explaining. I'm not prtoposing that preventing judges from viewing pornography while they contemplate a legal decision is nessecerily a bad thing, but merely having the capability to filter what a judge sees opens the door to the potential risk of the abuse of the technology. Granted, monitoring is not filtering, but again, it's a slippery slope. Slippery slope arguments are difficult to make because you come off as though you're tilting at windmills, however, I think any technically knowlegable person can see the risks here.
This decision has been a long time in coming. Earlier this year Judge wrote an article in the Green Bag Law Journal called In Defense of the Hard Drive in response to proposals then to monitor the office PCs of members of the judiciary. It seems that proposal has been expanded to an unbelievable degree at this point.
On the bright side, there is a new grounds for appeal for every case brought before any court where this proposed system is implemented. Essentially, the argument could be made that undue influence was excerted over the court by those who monitor the proposed monitoring system; that judges will be hesitant to seek out information theough communications systems made available to him for that specific purpose in his/her chambers.
--CTH -
Monitoring is bad but filtering would be worse
I can't support monitoring of the on-line activities of members of the judiciary, not because I have problems with monitoring in general (which I do, but that's another issue) but because it represents our first tentitive steps onto a slippery slope which has the potential of being the root cause of many great miscarages of justice.
Monitoring opens the door for filtering, which by definition operates with the sole purpose of preventing access to certain information. It is an exceedingly dangerour proposition, to suggest that Judges should be prevented from recieving certain information, as a matter of law, however this bears a little explaining. I'm not prtoposing that preventing judges from viewing pornography while they contemplate a legal decision is nessecerily a bad thing, but merely having the capability to filter what a judge sees opens the door to the potential risk of the abuse of the technology. Granted, monitoring is not filtering, but again, it's a slippery slope. Slippery slope arguments are difficult to make because you come off as though you're tilting at windmills, however, I think any technically knowlegable person can see the risks here.
This decision has been a long time in coming. Earlier this year Judge wrote an article in the Green Bag Law Journal called In Defense of the Hard Drive in response to proposals then to monitor the office PCs of members of the judiciary. It seems that proposal has been expanded to an unbelievable degree at this point.
On the bright side, there is a new grounds for appeal for every case brought before any court where this proposed system is implemented. Essentially, the argument could be made that undue influence was excerted over the court by those who monitor the proposed monitoring system; that judges will be hesitant to seek out information theough communications systems made available to him for that specific purpose in his/her chambers.
--CTH -
Re:Missing the PointBlockquoth the poster:
It's that simple. Since the equipment you are using belongs to the employers and the bandwidth you are using belongs to the employers, they have the right to state any policy they want.
It's not as simple as you -- and most employers -- believe. Look at the following: