Suchergebnisse

The article notes that electronic disclosure of evidence ("e-discovery") refers to the disclosure of evidence during the pre-trial stage of court proceedings, such as civil proceedings (litigation) or government investigations, when the requested information is in electronic format. Electronic information is considered different from paper because of its immaterial form, volume, transience and impermanence. Electronic information is usually accompanied by metadata, which is not present in paper documents and which can play an important role as evidence. The main document that allowed the digitalization of US civil proceedings was the amendments of 2006 and 2015 to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing the conduct of Court proceedings in US federal Courts. It is emphasized that one of the most hotly contested aspects of electronic disclosure of evidence has become the problem of electronic data security. The destruction of emails and other electronic data is as egregious and punishable by the court as the destruction of other documentary evidence related to a civil lawsuit. The decision in the case "Zubulake v. UBS Warburg" 2005 established important practices regarding "e-discovery". In addition, this decision showed that various specialists can be involved in the project of electronic disclosure of evidence: lawyers of the parties, forensic experts, IT managers and office managers. In this regard, the comparative analysis of the above issues is of particular importance.

Tables. ; Signed (p. [4]): R.L. Borden, who was the leader of the Liberal-Conservative Party, 1901-1920. Cf. Encyclopedia Canadiana. ; Includes index. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Electronic reproduction. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; 44

Tables. ; '"The Government is responsible for every thing which takes place in any department."--Sir Wilfrid Laurier.' ; Includes index. ; Electronic reproduction. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; 44

Intro -- WIRETAPS AND ELECTRONIC EAVESDROPPING: FEDERAL LAW AND LEGAL ETHICS -- WIRETAPS AND ELECTRONIC EAVESDROPPING: FEDERAL LAW AND LEGAL ETHICS -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- Chapter 1 PRIVACY: AN OVERVIEW OF THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT -- SUMMARY -- INTRODUCTION -- BACKGROUND -- TITLE III: PROHIBITIONS -- Illegal Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping -- Person -- Intentional -- Untitled -- Interception -- Content -- By Electronic, Mechanical, or Other Device -- Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications -- Endeavoring to Intercept -- Exemptions: Consent Interceptions -- Exemptions: Publicly Accessible Radio Communications -- Exemptions: Government Officials -- Exemptions: Communication Service Providers -- Domestic Exemptions -- Illegal Disclosure of Information Obtained by Wiretapping or Electronic Eavesdropping -- Illegal Use of Information Obtained by Unlawful Wiretapping or Electronic Eavesdropping -- Shipping, Manufacturing, Distributing, Possessing or Advertising Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communication Interception Devices -- TITLE III: GOVERNMENT ACCESS -- Law Enforcement Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping -- TITLE III: CONSEQUENCES OF A VIOLATION -- Criminal Penalties -- Civil Liability -- Civil Liability of the United States -- Administrative Action -- Attorney Discipline -- Exclusion of Evidence -- STORED ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS (SCA) -- SCA: Prohibitions -- SCA: Government Access -- SCA: Consequences -- PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES (PR/T&T) -- PR/T&T: Prohibitions -- PR/T&T: Government Access -- PRT&T: Consequences -- APPENDIX A. STATE STATUTES OUTLAWING THE INTERCEPTION OF WIRE(W), ORAL(O) AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS(E) -- APPENDIX B. CONSENT INTERCEPTIONS UNDER STATE LAW -- APPENDIX C. STATUTORY CIVIL LIABILITY FOR INTERCEPTIONS UNDER STATE LAW

This article addresses the U.S. Supreme Court's formulation of "practical obscurity" in Reporters Committee v. Department of Justice, a seminal case interpreting the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). By examining lower federal court opinions interpreting Reporters Committee and by analyzing the effects of the Court's opinion on the implementation of the privacy exemptions of the FOIA, this article finds that the Court's opinion has greatly narrowed the scope of the FOIA and limited the power of the FOIA to democratize electronic information. Exemptions from the presumption of disclosure inherent in the FOIA were designed to balance the public's right to know against other competing interests. Historically, courts have balanced the public interest in disclosure against privacy interests when weighing privacy claims made under the FOIA. The Department of Justice argued for a change in this analysis, however, and in Reporters Committee successfully urged the adoption of a narrower definition of disclosable records. This new analysis expands the scope of privacy under the FOIA while it restricts the scope of acceptable public interest arguments in favor of disclosure. This article demonstrates how the Court's decision in Reporters Committee—specifically, its formulation of practical obscurity as a value worth protecting—holds far-reaching implications for federal access law and for FOI laws around the world.

INTRODUCTION: The tobacco control community has raised some concerns about whether studies on electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) published in scientific journals hide conflicts of interest (COI) and whether such reports are biased. This study assessed potential COI in the e-cigarette scientific literature. METHODS: Cross-sectional study was conducted on e-cigarette publications indexed in PubMed up to August 2014. We extracted information about the authors (affiliations, location, etc.), publication characteristics (type, topic, subject, etc.), results and conclusions, presence of a COI statement, and funding by and/or financial ties to pharmaceutical, tobacco, and/or e-cigarette companies. An algorithm to determine the COI disclosure status was created based on the information in the publication. Prevalence ratios (PRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to identify associations with COI disclosure, controlling for several independent variables. RESULTS: Of the 404 publications included in the analysis, 37.1% (n=150) had no COI disclosure statement, 38.6% declared no COI, 13.4% declared potential COI with pharmaceutical companies, 3.0% with tobacco companies, and 10.6% with e-cigarette companies. The conclusions in publications with COI, which were mainly tied to pharmaceutical companies, were more likely to be favourable to e-cigarette use (PR=2.23; 95% CI: 1.43-3.46). Publications that supported the use of e-cigarettes for both harm reduction (PR=1.81; 95%CI: 1.14-2.89) and smoking cessation (PR=2.02; 95% CI: 1.26-3.23) were more likely to have conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of the publications reporting studies on e-cigarettes did not have a COI disclosure statement, and this proportion was even higher in news articles, editorials and other types of publications. Papers with conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarette use were more likely to have COI. Journal editors and reviewers should consider evaluating publications, including funding sources, to determine whether the results and conclusions may be biased. ; This study was funded in part by the Sociedad Española de Epidemiología. The Tobacco Control Unit of the Institut Català d'Oncologia is funded by the Government of Catalonia (Directorate of Research and Universities grant 2017SGR319). The funding institutions, had no role in the study design and execution, in the analysis and/or reporting of the results and necessarily do not endorse them. E. Fernández was supported by the Instituto Carlos III, Government of Spain, co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) (INT16/00211 and INT17/00103). Cristina Martínez was supported by the Instituto Carlos III, Government of Spain, co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) (INT17/00116) and the Catalan Government, PERIS (9015-586920/2017). ; Sí