——_=_NextPart_001_01C3E75C.DE620678
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

End = User Digest: 1 New Message F= or Culture Forum (a8i273te@law.fordham.edu)   The emails listed below have been placed in your personal= Quarantine since you received your last End User Digest. They will be deleted after 14 days. To deliver an email to your inbox, click on Release.= To deliver an email to your inbox and add the email sender to your Safe Senders List, click on Safelist. This ensures that no e= mails from that sender will be blocked in the future. To report messages that are not spam but are reported in the digest= , click on Not Spam. Request New End User Digest   Request Safe/Blocked Senders List=    Manage My = Account   Help  <td class=3Dtableheader nowrap Quarantine     Score From Subject Date View   Delete   Release&= nbsp;  Safelist   = Not Spam  100 denuncias@pdv= al.gob.ve Dear Sir/Madam 2012-02-02 05:54:35

——_=_NextPart_001_01C3E75C.DE620678
Content-Type: image/gif;
name=”logo.gif”
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Description: logo.gif
Content-ID:
Content-Location: logo.gif
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×25SF5X7SOiQEyuJlCCZBWm43dcCXlcIQW5swKFR5apEjFV4rdII2G400sjizB1y1J00qmQ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×8EvyWiFi2soZK33IJglpDfmd7lNoHeWnpkPIUoj1gkQuKjNYQ7+rWM+aNrkQoOJC1LaRU0iWQ
ZXeVmHERJLuFFc1xCtJZiZBXIR1VDPs6IxFiaAiPK9wCc85U4l3peB/6vSxr+mvfyvJyj2k4MBp7
Y04ee1YZz/AbVyY8kBsQAxq0rUt4I4LaxA0EajBRJoh7HvwQSZDniryAzkTse2BhDvI7TF7IQQpZ
TIUcL80CiSdDfLoQmC2vIQwmWI5X84mC0LLPIrlJcer46MF6WiKTJkpFVULPUH/61HQlRik842RU
u9rTWosOKEz96lprUla2zjVVAgIAOw==

——_=_NextPart_001_01C3E75C.DE620678–

In response to this announcement, opponents have challenged the new
policy as both invading the privacy of users and shutting out
competitors. Members of Congress question whether Google is
sacrificing its users to boost its online advertising business as it
pushes into new areas such as social networking and mobile devices.
Others simply call the new practice frightening.

The only way to turn off the data-sharing feature is to quit using
Google, as there is no choice to opt-out of the new policy. To combat
a potential mass exodus, Google has launched an ad campaign
specifically addressing its new policy and encouraging Google users to
learn more about how the policy is protecting them. The Good to Know
campaign has been launched in two-dozen U.S. newspapers and magazines
and in public places such as the NYC subways to encourage people to
protect themselves and their information on the Web. Google further
asserts that the new policy benefits users by helping them find the
information they are looking for more quickly.

But regardless of Google’s intentions behind the new policy, what is
clear is that Google is following us.

For additional information please see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/google-moves-to-integrate-user-data-across-services/2012/01/24/gIQAmv8GOQ_gallery.html#photo=1
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/google-defends-new-privacy-policy-to-congress.html

- Samantha C.

As a general matter, covering contraceptives is logical. Proponents
contend this measure furthers women’s rights, and will likely reduce
the number of abortions. Further, DHHS asserts this decision was based
on an Institute of Medicine study, which concluded that birth control
is medically necessary to “ensure women’s health and well being.”

But critics nationwide are calling this move radical and malicious;
asserting that Obama’s decision uses the power of the state to impose
liberal values on institutions it regards as “backward.” Strong
opposition comes from Catholic Church leaders across the country,
openly denouncing this decision based upon the Catholic teaching that
it is morally wrong to prevent contraception by any artificial means.
Although today many devout Catholics use contraception, despite the
Church’s teachings, these members of the Church are opposed to this
decision due to its symbolic significance – creating a space within
civil society for the oppression of religious conscience.

The strong opposition to this decision exemplifies current political
and religious tensions within the U.S. and even among the branches of
the U.S. government. For example, this decision is at odds with the
recent Hosanna-Tabor ruling, where a unanimous Supreme Court
reaffirmed a broad religious autonomy right rooted in the
Constitution. Therefore perhaps it would have made sense for the Obama
administration to choose a less aggressive path, better balancing the
competing liberty interests at stake here, especially on the eve of an
election.

For additional information please see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-radical-power-grab-on-health-care/2012/01/30/gIQANB7XdQ_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/health/policy/law-fuels-contraception-controversy-on-catholic-campuses.html?_r=2&ref=health

- Samantha C.

Once the confusion settled, reactions to the error varied from
disappointment to anger. The suggestions as to how to deal with the
situation also varied: some suggested a lawsuit as the early decision
college admissions process is binding, while others felt that the 76
should not be re-accepted as they should only be admitted based on the
strength of their application.
(http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/accepted-for-about-three-hours/?ref=nyregion).
Unfortunately this is not the first time a college has mistakenly sent
acceptance letters to prospective students (it likely won’t be the
last), and in the past institutions have chosen to respond
differently—some admitting the students, others rejecting them, all of
them apologizing.

In the end, Vassar has decided to address the situation by refunding
the $65 application fees of those 76 students (a gesture it admits is
likely to be of little consolation), and by personally apologizing to
each of those students. The school’s position is that, given the
limited number of students the school can accommodate in each class,
to admit those students would be unfair to all the applicants
expecting a fair assessment during regular decision.

As a Vassar alum my initial reaction was a mix of outrage and
embarrassment. After thinking about it more, I am ultimately persuaded
by the unfortunate reality that re-accepting a student effectively
denies a place in the class to an applicant that has not yet been
given fair consideration. Any solution will inevitably leave some
dissatisfied. And while I personally feel that re-admitting those
students would undermine the integrity of the admissions process (a
process whose fairness all applicants rely on), I think there is a
good argument to be made to the contrary. Either way, the best that
can be said is that Vassar’s mistake will have at least one positive
outcome: all schools will now be even more careful in sending out
their admissions letters.

A key difficulty here is balancing the claims of injured individuals
with the legitimate needs of collectives and institutions. Given the
fact that the social, as opposed to legal issue involved here, is so
context dependent (dependent on the size of the error relative to the
size of the entering class), it is an issue that seems to me better
suited for resolution outside the courts.

- Nick Buell

After prolonged settlement talks (and one settlement agreement
rejected by the court), the parties submitted an opt-out class action
settlement for court approval. Once again, the court rejected the
settlement as unfair, inadequate, and unreasonable, relying primarily
on the inadequacy of class representation and the fact that the
agreement exceeded the scope of relief available under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. But Judge Chin did not reject the agreement
without offering advice for further negotiations, urging the parties
to consider revising the agreement from an “opt-out” to an “opt-in”
settlement.

Google Books, if fully realized, would have many benefits. It has the
potential to breathe new life into many unnoticed and out-of-print
books. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/technology/05iht-05google.19082002.html?pagewanted=all).
It also has the potential to achieve an even larger benefit: the
creation of a comprehensive digital literary archive. The value of a
universal digital library is significant and has been discussed for
decades, and yet Congress has done little, if anything, to make the
prospect a reality. (For a good discussion of this see Hannibal
Travis, Building Universal Digital Libraries: An Agenda For Copyright
Reform, 33. Pepp. L. Rev. 761 (2006)).

Despite the potential benefits of Google Books, however, Judge Chin
was quite right in rejecting the proposed settlement. For starters,
the settlement, structured as an opt-out settlement, would have bound
all copyright holders who did not take the affirmative step to opt-out
of the settlement, thereby granting Google the right to digitize and
profit from their work, and “effectively grant[ing] Google a monopoly
over digital books.” (Author’s Guild v. Google, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 2d
666 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)).

The settlement would have essentially rewarded Google for
intentionally breaking the law. And while an argument can be made that
perhaps Google’s industrious efforts should not be punished, the task
of evolving copyright law in response to new technologies is charged
to Congress, and has been for a reason. Congress, not a
profit-motivated corporation, is in the best position to institute
such sweeping change.

- Nick Buell

            Typically the commercials are funny spots from beer and
car companies. However there will also be a more serious tone for at
least one commercial. As the New York Times first reported, “[f]or the
first time, the N.F.L., currently the target of more than a dozen
lawsuits accusing it of deliberately concealing information about the
effects on players of repeated hits to the head, will use one minute
of its own commercial time during its signature event to address
player safety, its most critical and sobering problem.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/sports/football/nfl-to-address-head-injuries-in-commercial.html?pagewanted=all.

            Michael Hausfeld, a Washington-based lawyer who is
representing some former players involved in concussion-related
lawsuits against the N.F.L., said he had not seen the commercial, but
said, “[t]hey shouldn’t be focused on placing ads. They should be
focused on talking to those players who have suffered the concussions
and the consequences. And saying, ‘What is it we can do?’”

            Player safety has become a bigger topic as the popularity
of the NFL has exploded. Football’s main appeal is the drama of the
collisions in the game, but those collisions also have major
consequences – especially as the players have gotten bigger, faster
and stronger. The N.F.L. is choosing to advertise player safety
instead of promoting other aspects of the game. The N.F.L. spent
several million dollars on the commercial and the creation of an
accompanying Web site —nfl.com/evolution — that will go online Sunday
and give detailed information about the history of the game and
various rules changes. “It is your biggest stage, you’ve got a massive
audience, a massive casual audience, and this topic is probably one of
most important topics for casual fans, particularly mothers,” Mark
Waller, the N.F.L.’s chief marketing officer, said about the decision
to inject a serious subject into the league’s over-the-top party

            The commercial will be shown during the final commercial
break of the third quarter. The closing message is delivered by
Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis: “Here’s to making the next
century safer and more exciting. Forever forward. Forever football.”

            It will be interesting to see if the commercial adds to
the debate about the safety and violence of football or if it is just
overlooked by spectators as a “non-entertaining ad.”

Spencer C.

            On Monday, January 30th, the New York Times published a
front-page article detailing how the State Department is using unarmed
aerial drones in Iraq.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/world/middleeast/iraq-is-angered-by-us-drones-patrolling-its-skies.html?hp=&pagewanted=all).
The goal of these drones is to help protect the United States Embassy,
consulates and personnel.  Senior Iraqi officials say that the program
is offensive to their sovereignty.

            On the same day that the article about drones in Iraq ran,
President Obama confirmed that the United States has engaged in drone
strikes in Pakistan.
(http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/obama-acknowledges-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-112880.html).
 In a Google Plus video chat, the President said the U.S. is “going
after Al Qaeda suspects who are up in very tough terrain along the
border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Obama was careful to qualify
the strikes by stating that, “[w]e have to be judicious in how we use
drones. For the most part, they’ve been very precise precision strikes
against Al-Qaeda and their affiliates, and we’re very careful in terms
of how it’s been applied.” President Obama said drones had “not caused
a huge number of civilian casualties.” He concluded his remarks on the
subject by noting that these strikes are focused on people who “harm
Americans, hit American facilities, American bases . . . [and] for us
to be able to get them in another way would involve probably a lot
more intrusive military action than the ones we’re already engaging
in.”

            The Pakistani officials have similar opinions to the Iraqi
officials. Pakistan’s foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Basit responded
to President Obama’s remarks by saying: “Our position on drone strikes
is clear and based on principles. Drone attacks are unlawful,
counterproductive and hence unacceptable. We cannot condone violation
of our sovereignty.”
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16804247).

            The timing of drones in the news is ironic to fans of the
new Showtime show, Homeland, whose season finale ran in mid-December.
One of the central storylines in Homeland was the Vice President as an
antagonist. In the case of Homeland the vice president wasn’t plotting
to overthrow the American government, he was covering up evidence of a
drone attack he had ordered that killed scores of children, including
the son of the fictional Qaeda leader, Abu Nazir.

            As fans of Homeland have seen, sometimes these strikes can
do more harm than good. With the foreign policy of the United States
changing with the end of the Iraq War it will be interesting to see
the role that drone strikes continue to play.

Spencer C.

The Supreme Court noted that advancements in technology should not
negate the need to respect an individual’s reasonable expectation of
privacy. In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito wrote about a few
other modern technologies that might not fit with the expectation of
privacy that has been protected in many courtrooms throughout the
country’s history. Along with closed circuit television monitoring,
Alito mentioned automatic toll collection systems (such as E-ZPass)
and roadside assistance technology (such as OnStar).

With technology so ingrained in today’s society, it is interesting to
see how it can interact with laws and principles that date back to the
beginnings of the United States. Almost everyone uses cell phones,
email, and the Internet. Not many of those users stop and think about
how much data is collected about their whereabouts, interests, and
purchasing trends. It is certainly a different world from the time of
the Bill of Rights, but it does not mean that the same principles
can’t apply.

– Patrick Blaney