Technology

Online
Essay
Tax Law and Flexible Formalizations
Sarah B. Lawsky
Howard Friedman '64 JD Professor of Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.

Thanks to Joshua Blank, Erin Delaney, Michelle Falkoff, and Denis Merigoux for helpful conversations and for comments on earlier drafts.

Changing technologies render tax law’s intricacy legible in new ways. Advances in large language models, natural language processing, and programming languages designed for the domain of tax law make formalizations, or “representation[s] of [ ] legislation in symbols[ ] using logical connectives,” of tax law that capture much of its substance and structure both possible and realistic. These new formalizations can be used for many different purposes—what one might call flexible formalizations. Flexible formalizations will make law subject to computational analysis, including creating automated explanations of the analysis and testing statutes for consistency and unintended outcomes. This Essay builds upon existing work in computational law and digitalizing legislation.

Machine Learning Tax Technology
Online
Essay
What Kind of Oversight Board Have You Given Us?
Evelyn Douek
Evelyn Douek is a lecturer on law and S.J.D. candidate at Harvard Law School, and Affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center For Internet & Society. She studies global regulation of online speech, private content moderation, institutional design, and comparative free speech law and theory. She has participated, at Facebook’s invitation, in several workshops on the FOB, all unpaid and in her academic capacity. Tweet @evelyndouek.

The Facebook Oversight Board (the “FOB”) will see you now—well, at least a very small number of a select subset of you.

Big Tech Content Regulation Facebook Facebook Oversight Board Judicial Review Social Media Technology
2
Essay
75.1
Government Data Mining and the Fourth Amendment
Christopher Slobogin
Stephen C. O’Connell Professor of Law, University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law

The author would like to thank participants in workshops at Stanford Law School and Florida Law School for their feedback on the content of this article, and Victoria Ianni for her research assistance. This paper is a version of a talk given at The University of Chicago Law School’s Surveillance Symposium, June 15–16, 2007.

Fourth Amendment Privacy Technology
2
Essay
75.1
Reviving Telecommunications Surveillance Law
Paul M. Schwartz
Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law, Director, Berkeley Center for Law and Technology

My work on this paper began while I was a Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, and it benefited there from the support of the Milton and Miriam Handler Foundation. It also received support from the Dean’s Research Fund at Brooklyn Law School as well as a summer research grant from Boalt Hall. Patricia Bellia, Jon Michaels, Chris Slobogin, Stephen Sugarman, and Frank Zimring offered helpful suggestions.

Privacy Technology Telecommunications
2
Essay
75.1
Cybersecurity in the Payment Card Industry
Richard A. Epstein
James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago and Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution
Thomas P. Brown
Partner, O’Melveny & Myers

Both authors have consulted for Visa Inc. But our views on this subject are our own. We thank Chad Clamage, Stanford Law School, Class of 2008, and Ramtin Taheri, The University of Chicago Law School, Class of 2009, for their valuable research assistance on earlier drafts of the article.

Financial Regulation Privacy Technology
2
Essay
75.1
Privacy, Visibility, Transparency, and Exposure
Julie E. Cohen
Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

Thanks to Susan Cohen, Oscar Gandy, Ian Kerr, David Phillips, Neil Richards, Rebecca Tushnet, participants in the Unblinking Workshop at UC Berkeley, and participants in The University of Chicago Law School’s Surveillance Symposium for their comments on an earlier version of this paper, to Kirstie Ball for sharing her work in progress on exposure as an organizing concept for surveillance, and to Amanda Kane and Christopher Klimmek for research assistance.

Institutional Design Privacy Technology
2
Essay
75.1
The Memory Gap in Surveillance Law
Patricia L. Bellia
Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School

I thank A.J. Bellia, Susan Freiwald, Nicole Garnett, John Nagle, Ira Rubenstein, and Paul Schwartz for helpful comments and discussions, and research librarian Christopher O’Byrne for expert research assistance.

Privacy Technology Telecommunications
2
Essay
75.1
Privacy Decisionmaking in Administrative Agencies
Kenneth A. Bamberger
Assistant Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law
Deirdre K. Mulligan
Clinical Professor of Law; Director, Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic; Director, Clinical Program, UC Berkeley School of Law

Much appreciation to Colin Bennett, Malcolm Crompton, Peter Cullen, Lauren Edelman, Robert Gellman, Chris Hoofnagle, Robert Kagan, Jennifer King, Anne Joseph O’Connell, Fred B. Schneider, Ari Schwartz, Paul Schwartz, and the participants at The University of Chicago Law School’s Surveillance Symposium for insight, comment, and discussion; Nuala O’Connor Kelly and Peter Swire for consenting to be interviewed about their experience in privacy leadership roles within the United States government; Sara Terheggen, Marta Porwit Czajkowska, Rebecca Henshaw, and Andrew McDiarmid for their able research.

Administrative Law Privacy Technology

Volumes