Next-Generation Data Governance

By: Kimberly A. Houser & John W. Bagby The proliferation of sensors, electronic payments, click-stream data, location-tracking, biometric feeds, and smart home devices, creates an incredibly profitable market for both personal and non-personal data. It is also leading to an amplification of harm to those from or about whom the data is collected. Because federal law provides inadequate protection for data subjects, there are growing calls for organizations to implement data governance solutions. Unfortunately, in the U.S., the concept of data governance has not progressed beyond the management and monetization of data. Many organizations operate under an outdated paradigm which fails to consider the impact of data use on data subjects due to the proliferation of third-party service providers hawking their “check-the-box” data governance systems. As a result, American companies suffer from a lack of trust and are hindered in their international operations due to the higher data protection requirements of foreign regulators. After discussing the pitfalls of the traditional view of data governance and the limitations of suggested models, we propose a set of ten principles based on the Medical Code of Ethics. This framework, first encompassed in the Hippocratic Oath, has been evolving for over one thousand years

The GPTJudge: Justice in a Generative AI World

By: Maura R. Grossman, Paul W. Grimm, Daniel G. Brown, and Molly Xu Generative AI (“GenAI”) systems such as ChatGPT recently have developed to the point where they can produce computer-generated text and images that are difficult to differentiate from human-generated text and images. Similarly, evidentiary materials such as documents, videos, and audio recordings that are AI-generated are becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate from those that are not AI-generated. These technological advancements present significant challenges to parties, their counsel, and the courts in determining whether evidence is authentic or fake. Moreover, the explosive proliferation and use of GenAI applications raises concerns about whether litigation costs will dramatically increase as parties are forced to hire forensic experts to address AI-generated evidence, the ability of juries to discern authentic from fake evidence, and whether GenAI will overwhelm the courts with AI-generated lawsuits, whether vexatious or otherwise. GenAI systems have the potential to challenge existing substantive intellectual property (“IP”) law by producing content that is machine, not human, generated, but that also relies on human-generated content in potentially infringing ways. Finally, GenAI threatens to alter the way in which lawyers litigate and judges decide cases. This article discusses these issues, and offers a

Forensic Evidence and Rule 3.8: What Does the Use of Bite Mark Evidence Tell Us About Prosecutorial Ethics?

By: Brendan Clemente Rule 3.8 of the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct should include rules that specifically address unethical uses of forensic evidence in criminal prosecutions. Forensic evidence is common in criminal trials. But the traditional rules of ethics do not effectively address the use of forensic evidence. Rule 3.8 should include a rule requiring prompt and full disclosure of information about expert witnesses whom the prosecutor plans to call and all relevant information that the prosecutor knows about a forensic method’s application in the case. Rule 3.8 should also include a requirement that the prosecutor use reasonable diligence to learn about a forensic method and possess a good faith belief that the method’s application in the case will be reliable before introducing the evidence at trial. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 22 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 1

Causation and Conception in American Inventorship

By: Dan L. Burk Increasing use of machine learning or “artificial intelligence” (AI) software systems in technical innovation has led some to speculate that perhaps machines might be considered inventors under patent law. While U.S. patent doctrine decisively precludes such a bizarre and counterproductive result, the speculation leads to a more fruitful inquiry about the role of causation in the law of inventorship. U.S. law has almost entirely disregarded causation in determining inventorship, with very few exceptions, some of which are surprising. In this essay, I examine those exceptions to inventive causality, the role they play in determining inventorship, and their effect in excluding consideration of mechanical inventors under current law. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 20 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 116

Purpose or Profit?: The Rise of Public Benefit Corporations in the Technology Industry

By: Alanna Potter Over the last several years, the demand for socially responsible companies has exploded. Many states have responded to this demand by offering a new corporate form, the public benefit corporation (“PBC”), which arguably allows companies to prioritize social benefit in a way that traditional corporations cannot. The technology industry has adopted the PBC structure at higher rates than corporations in other industries. This Note offers reasons for the appeal of PBCs to corporations generally and to the technology sector in particular. This Note also explores why technology companies may be able to achieve the goals discussed without the need for PBCs. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 20 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 90

A Fresh Start: Surveillance Tech and the Modern Law Firm

By: Titus R. Willis The legal community is rapidly evolving: firms are more beholden to clients than ever, associates are growing more competitive with one another, and younger firm employees are more willing than ever to subject themselves to surveillance from their employers. These evolutions come alongside a boom in surveillance technology. Tech companies now provide services that can track every keystroke a lawyer makes on a company computer, analyze the content of their computer screens, or even develop algorithms to measure employee productivity. How does the modern law firm respond to these new technologies? How do they weigh their obligations to clients with the privacy considerations of their employees? This Note examines these key questions and makes a comment about the honor of the legal profession along the way. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 19 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 75

Crashed Software: Assessing Product Liability for Software Defects in Automated Vehicles

By: Sunghyo Kim Automated vehicles will not only redefine the role of drivers, but also present new challenges in assessing product liability. In light of the increased risks of software defects in automated vehicles, this Note will review the current legal and regulatory framework related to product liability and assess the challenges in addressing on-board software defects and cybersecurity breaches from both the consumer and manufacturer perspective. While manufacturers are expected to assume more responsibility for accidents as vehicles become fully automated, it can be difficult to determine the scope of liability regarding unexpected software defects. On the other hand, consumers face new challenges in bringing product liability claims against manufacturers and developers. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 16 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 300

These Walls Can Talk! Securing Digital Privacy in the Smart Home Under the Fourth Amendment

By: Stefan Ducich Privacy law in the United States has not kept pace with the realities of technological development, nor the growing reliance on the Internet of Things (IoT). As of now, the law has not adequately secured the “smart” home from intrusion by the state, and the Supreme Court further eroded digital privacy by conflating the common law concepts of trespass and exclusion in United States v. Jones. This article argues that the Court must correct this misstep by explicitly recognizing the method by which the Founding Fathers sought to “secure” houses and effects under the Fourth Amendment. Namely, the Court must reject its overly narrow trespass approach in lieu of the more appropriate right to exclude. This will better account for twenty-first century surveillance capabilities and properly constrain the state. Moreover, an exclusion framework will bolster the reasonable expectation of digital privacy by presuming an objective unreasonableness in any warrantless penetration by the state into the smart home. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 16 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 278