Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Acknowledgments -- 1. Introduction: Irresistible Bargains -- 2. Technologies of Convenience and Efficiency -- 3. Technologies of Ubiquity and Obscurity -- 4. The Internet of Things and the Smart City -- 5. Avenues of Resistance -- 6. Conclusion: Technology, Surveillance, and the Social Contract -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index -- Back Cover.

"Cell phone apps share location data in exchange for giving users a more detailed and unique experience. Software companies store user data in cloud storage in exchange for allowing users to access their files from any computer. Biometric scanners read fingerprints in exchange for improved security. Employees at a Swedish company agreed to have microchips implanted in their hands in exchange for greater convenience in opening doors and buying food. As technology becomes ever more inescapable, the ability to freely consent to these exchanges becomes increasingly unclear. Robert Pallitto uses the social theory of bargaining to explore the daily compromises we make with technology. We effectively bargain with the machine by giving up certain freedoms (e.g., privacy) in exchange for benefits (e.g., convenience), but is resistance to such bargains still possible when the technologies are backed by pervasive, and often coercive, corporate and state power? What do the liberal concepts of freedom and choice mean when our choices are already to a great extent determined by the technologies structuring our existence? Can we still talk about a social contract, when we are not always aware of the agreements we are making, the benefits we receive come with hidden costs, and the state is allied with corporate and military interests that receive benefits at the expense of the people? Bargaining with the Machine examines these thorny and complex questions by exploring the various "irresistible bargains" that confront people today"--

"An interesting worthwhile addition to the celebration of the important role of Magna Carta in our continuing constitutional debates."--Law and Politics Book Review "Pallitto provides a comprehensive look at the Magna Carta by examining its influence on the colonies, pre-Civil War slavery cases, federal common law, the "rights revolution" of the Warren Court and its contraction by the Rehnquist Court, and the recent claims of executive authority to detain indefinitely those classified as "enemy combatants" in the so-called war on terror. This work is comprehensive and an extremely good read."--Choice "Well suited for readers who are comfortable with a thorough legal analysis of the theory of common law constitutionalism. Pallitto makes a distinct contribution to this field in his discussion of how the fundamental principles, which have come to be associated with Magna Carta, relate to habeas corpus and the War on Terror."--Los Angeles Review of Books.

Introduction : the secret presidency -- The secret presidency in historical-theoretical perspective -- The classified president -- State secrets and executive power -- The shadow president : the attorney general and new anti-terror laws -- The president and national security surveillance -- The new executive privilege -- Conclusion : the secret presidency

This article explores the use of the concept of "mosaics" in individual rights litigation, a topic that has received virtually no scholarly attention. Originally a construct used in analysis of intelligence data, the mosaic theory has been transposed to the litigation context and applied in a range of recent case law. Here, the article examines the theory's use in two settings that have important implications for individual liberties: to support the state secrets privilege as a form of information control, and to defeat habeas petitions filed by "war on terror" detainees. In these areas, the mosaic concept is used in two distinct ways: restrictively, to inhibit information development by the public, and expansively, to enhance information development by the government. These uses of the "mosaic theory" threaten civil liberties and thwart processes of ensuring executive accountability. Within the discussed contexts, courts can and should limit the use of the mosaic theory. Mosaics will likely remain part of the narrative structure of legal claims and defenses, but the absorption of "mosaic" into the grammar of executive power should be resisted.

This article explores the use of the concept of "mosaics" in individual rights litigation, a topic that has received virtually no scholarly attention. Originally a construct used in analysis of intelligence data, the mosaic theory has been transposed to the litigation context and applied in a range of recent case law. Here, the article examines the theory's use in two settings that have important implications for individual liberties: to support the state secrets privilege as a form of information control, and to defeat habeas petitions filed by "war on terror" detainees. In these areas, the mosaic concept is used in two distinct ways: restrictively, to inhibit information development by the public, and expansively, to enhance information development by the government. These uses of the "mosaic theory" threaten civil liberties and thwart processes of ensuring executive accountability. Within the discussed contexts, courts can and should limit the use of the mosaic theory. Mosaics will likely remain part of the narrative structure of legal claims and defenses, but the absorption of "mosaic" into the grammar of executive power should be resisted.

The administration of George W. Bush engages in the use of "extraordinary rendition," the kidnapping of foreign citizens and the delivery of those citizens to third‐party jurisdictions. In at least one such rendition, a foreign national was kidnapped from U.S. soil and delivered to a foreign jurisdiction where he was tortured. These renditions are accomplished outside of treaties and courts and are solely the result of presidential fiat. The claims to executive power to undertake these actions are of recent origin, and the great balance of U.S. history and law weighs against these claims. The actions of the Bush administration have been aided by judicial deference, a deference that challenges historical assumptions and law concerning executive power.