English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

This is a brief reply to published comments by Professor Sherry Colb and Professor Peter Swire on an article by Professor Orin Kerr entitled, "The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution," forthcoming in the Michigan Law Review. This reply will be published along with the lead article and the comments by Swire and Colb. The reply contains a response to Professor Colb followed by a response to Professor Swire. Topics covered include the relative competence of Congress and the Courts in the protection of privacy involving new technologies; the constitutional authority of Congress to protect privacy in new technologies; and the pragmatist case for reading privacy statutes broadly.

Technology, Privacy, and the Courts: A Reply to Colb and Swire