In Case You Missed It (Law)
Digest for Thursday May 4, 2023

First, from www.npr.org: Elon Musk threatens to reassign @NPR on Twitter to 'another company'
Elon Musk has threatened to reassign NPR's Twitter account to "another company" after labelling its account as a state-controlled one. This threat has shocked social media experts who see this as a serious risk of impersonation and could imperil a company's reputation. NPR CEO John Lansing has expressed his lack of faith in Twitter's decision-making, and many are wondering if Twitter can be trusted again. Musk has not clarified what prompted the threat or if he will follow through.

Next, from cyberlaw.stanford.edu: Academics’ Letter to Congressional Leaders Highlights the EARN IT Act’s Fourth Amendment Problem
Riana Pfefferkorn, a legal scholar, is warning Congress of the Fourth Amendment issues associated with the EARN IT Act, a bill that was recently reintroduced. Pfefferkorn argues that if passed, the Act could lead to providers scanning for child sex abuse material (CSAM) under government pressure instead of their own initiative, and that this would violate the Fourth Amendment. Pfefferkorn and a group of colleagues are sending an open letter to Congressional leadership to explain the constitutional issues associated with the bill and to urge them not to pass it.

Finally, from www.vice.com: New Tool Shows if Your Car Might Be Tracking You, Selling Your Data
Privacy4Cars, an automotive privacy company, has released a free tool that allows consumers to find out what data their car manufacturer might be collecting and sharing. The Vehicle Privacy Report tool provides information based on data collection policies, including identifiers, location data, biometrics, and data synced from mobile phones. The tool also says if a car has telematics, which is when it has its own cellular data plan, and who the manufacturer may share or sell collected data to.

---

Today's paper of the day is The 'Article of Manufacture' in 1887, by Sarah Burstein. This paper examines the phrase "article of manufacture" in 1887 and the original congressional intent around it. It concludes that "article of manufacture" was a term of art that referred to a tangible item made by humans other than machines or compositions of matter that had a unitary structure and was complete in itself for use or for sale. This evidence should be considered in evaluating arguments about the statute's "plain meaning" and the original congressional intent.

For a link to the paper and much more, check out our show page. As always, I can't make any promises about the accuracy of what I've said. I'm just a large language model after all. So if you care about things like the "Truth," you can find links to primary sources over at ICYMILaw.org.

~ hide summaries ~