Cultivated Compendium

Craig Mundie, writing in Foreign Affairs, says that in the era of big data a new approach is needed. Instead of worrying about limiting data collection, control should be focused on "the moment when it is used."

One of Mundie's arguments against curbing the collection of data is that there can be dividends from aggregated data, such as learning how to "better address public health issues, learn more about how economies work, and prevent fraud and other crimes."

Mundie suggests building a version of digital rights management into electronic personal data in order to protect it: "All electronic personal data would have to be placed within a 'wrapper' of metadata, or information that describes the data without necessarily revealing its content. That wrapper would describe the rules governing the use of the data it held. Any programs that wanted to use the data would have to get approval to 'unwrap' it first. Regulators would also impose a mandatory auditing requirement on all applications that used personal data, allowing authorities to follow and observe applications that collected personal information to make sure that no one misused it and to penalize those who did."

The Guardian's Cyril Ghosh writes that one downside to the fight to establish same-sex marriage rights in the United States is the demise of civil unions. Most states that had civil unions have phased them out in favor of converting them to marriages, Ghosh says. Civil unions have many advantages, he says: "There are a number of good reasons why both heterosexual and homosexual couples may wish to enter into a civil union instead of a marriage. For example, for many couples, civil unions provide a secular alternative to marriage that aligns with their values. Some may not be ready for a commitment like 'marriage' – a word that's laden with history and tradition. Others may not wish to enter into a marriage contract because they believe the institution carries distinctly religious connotations. They may also see marriage as a patriarchal institution and be ideologically opposed to it. Finally, many couples that have been married and divorced may not be ready to marry again, even though they might want to codify their relationship with their current partners and lovers in some way."

Re/code reports that the four biggest television networks told the U.S. Supreme Court in their brief filed Monday that "Aereo, which provides broadcast TV shows to subscribers over the Internet without paying licensing fees to stations, is violating federal copyright law designed to protect content creators and distributors. Aereo has denied violating broadcasters’ copyrights through its unique  online delivery system, although the company joined broadcasters in asking the Supreme Court to review the case."

According to their brief, the networks said a win for Aereo would "'launch a race by cable and sattelite companies to develop competing methods to capture copyrighted content and re-sell it without paying for the right do so. That would give broadcasters little choice but to reconsider the quality and quantity of programs they broadcast for free over the air.'"

SCOTUSBlog's Lyle Denniston reports that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court appears to favor the Environmental Protection Agency's position in favor of climate-change regulation in the six cases the court heard today: "As is so often the case when the Court is closely divided, the vote of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy loomed as the critical one, and that vote seemed inclined toward the EPA, though with some doubt.   Although he seemed troubled that Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., could call up no prior ruling to support the policy choice the EPA had made on greenhouse gases by industrial plants, Kennedy left the impression that it might not matter."

The EPA's opponents argue that the agency has stretched the Clean Air Act out of shape, Denniston reports.

One of the issues taken up by the court is whether the EPA "'permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouses gases.'” 

The Third Circuit is considering a constitutional challenge to New Jersey's ban on lawyers putting complimentary quotes from judges' opinions into ads, the New Jersey Law Journal. Only the full text of the opinion with the comments can be presented, the Journal notes.

On one hand, proponents of the ban argue it ensures that the judiciary does not appear to be biased in favor of one side and won't be pulled into  impermisible judicial endorsements. On the other hand, one of the appellate judges said during oral argument that judges' opinions "'can be quoted all over the place,' in law reviews, symposia and in court," so why can't a judge's comment about an attorney in an opinion be used in attorney advertising, the Journal further reports.

Brennan Center for Justice's Andrew Cohen wrote in an opinion piece that "not a single national news organization has filed a single motion recently seeking to dissolve or at least diminish the great cloud of secrecy that has sprung up over the past few months over lethal injections in America." But several media organizations went to court to exercise their First Amendment rights to access the police videos of the arrest of Justin Bieber, he wrote.

There should be media efforts to gain information about lethal injections, especially as states are passing laws to restrict information about their death-penalty procedures, Cohen says: "In Georgia, for example, lawmakers last summer passed a secrecy law so broad that it precludes even the state’s own judiciary from having access to information about lethal injection drugs. It was immediately challenged by a death row inmate named Warren Lee Hill—who promptly got a trial judge to enjoin its enforcement—but no media organization that was asked to get involved in the litigation (and some were) chose to do so."

Cohen concludes that First Amendment rights are never more vital "than when the goverment seeks to execute someone in the name of the state--and seeks to do so in darkness."

A challenge to Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage and on joint adoption by same-sex couples is going to a bench trial this week, the Detroit Free Press reports: "A key issue in this trial will be whether children raised by same-sex parents fare better or worse in life than children raised by heterosexual parents — or whether there’s no difference in their well-being." The plaintiffs argue that even under the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, rational basis, that there is no reason to deny them the right to get married and adopt children, the Free Press further reports.

The New York Times reports on the copyright issues photographers face: "Technological advances, shifting artistic values and dizzying spikes in art prices have turned the world of visual arts into a boxing ring for intellectual-property rights disputes. Photographers, in particular, are complaining not only that their work is being stolen by other artists, but also that their ability to create new work related to their originals is also being compromised." At issue is whether fair use protects must of that alleged infringement. Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers, told the Times they would like to see a small-claims copyright board created by Congress to resolve the bulk of disputes, most of which are in the range of a few hundred dollars. But Osterreicher also said that a legislative fix isn't likely anytime soon.