Biometric Identification: a modern convenience or a violation of privacy

With the increasing use of biometric identification systems personal privacy and security is decreasing.  The technology that less than 20 years ago seem so advanced that it would only appear in a James Bond movie or some futuristic display of what life would be like in the future is now common place.

             Biometric Identification systems have created increased polarity among privacy experts.  Biometric identification systems take video surveillance to new level by facilitating the creation of individual profiles that can be entered into a database allowing biometric identification systems to recognize a profile match.  This could potentially lead to an increase in the capture of dangerous criminals, prevention of terrorist attacks, and quicker rescue of kidnapped children, but it could also be used in ways that are unconstitutional and violate civil rights.  Another concern surrounding biometric identification screening is reliability with some studies showing that they are really not that accurate.  This causes concern among civil liberty groups about the government using this technology to identify criminals and terrorists. 

            Widespread use of biometric identification systems would mean a significant decrease in personal privacy, by reducing what is left of our individual expectation of privacy outside of our own homes.  It would be difficult to argue that anyone could have any expectation of privacy at all if biometric systems were scanning, identifying, and logging our every move.  This creates a problem for persons wanting to bring common law claims for violation of privacy rights because most common law claims are based on the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test articulated in Katz v. United States.

            It is not only the government who seeks to use the data, private industry is utilizing the technology in marketing and advertising as well as security.  This is turning biometric identification into a multibillion dollar industry.  In response to the privacy threat of private industry engaging in biometric information collection, storage, and utilization some states have passed legislation regulating the use of data and requiring express consent from individuals before a profile can be made.  
           Facebook and shutterfly have each been sued in Illinois for using biometric data without consent, in the Facebook case; a district court judge dismissed the case based on jurisdiction without addressing the merits of the case.  More recently however, a case against Shutterfly was allowed to proceed through litigation.  If the case gets heard on the merits it will become a landmark case in this emerging area of the law.  The results of the law suite will likely have a substantial effect on privacy claims in the future and shape how other states create biometric information protection statutes.
          

          

Question of the Week No. 3

The commercial use of facial recognition technology for security, access, marketing and customer service is rapidly growing.  Privacy advocates argue that widespread use of the technology will allow businesses to identify and track almost anyone in public without their consent or even knowledge.  Businesses argue that individuals should not expect complete privacy in public and that some loss of privacy is outweighed by the benefits the technology offers consumers and businesses.  Multiple privacy, government and industry organizations have listed best practices regarding the commercial use of biometric technology, but the recommendations often conflict and no consensus has been reached.

Should businesses be required to obtain a person’s consent, express or implied, before using facial recognition technology?

Weekly Takeaway, Week Two

To address growing concern about information permanency on the web the European Union has enacted a "right to be forgotten".  This law, as played out in recent court settings, gives individuals expanded but still limited power to control what information about them is accessible via the web.

• Citizens can petition to have links from search engines like google removed, this means that the information is still kept by the original custodian, but a general search query of a person's name will not generate a link to the information on the custodians server.
• The law, as it has evolved thus far, is limited to personal information that is "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive".  This is the standard that a court will use to settle any disputes.
• Petitions to have search results deleted are assessed on a case by case basis weighing the interests of the public to the information with the interest of the individual who is petitioning  to limit public access to the information.
• Search engines themselves, like google, are required to make the assessments and balance the interests under the supervision of independant national data protection authorities.
• In the event of a dispute between site operators and individuals the courts will have the final say whether (1) the information meets the standard and (2) The site operators properly balanced the interest of the individual in limiting access to the information with the interest of the public in have the information available.

While the United States of American has yet to adopt a "right to forget" law, the notion of balancing interests in information is not foreign to us.  Some examples are:

• Juvenile Records, these records are generally not accessible to the public and cannot be used against an individual except in very rare circumstances. 
• Sex offender registries
• White collar criminal registries

The discussion of protections for anonymous speech surges once again as the internet is filled with posts, tweets, likes, shares, and comments that range from politically, socially, and culturally thought provoking to devious, offensive, and criminal.  

The social value of anonymous speech has kept it protected under the first amendment.  There are many examples of anonymous speech both historically and currently that support protecting anonymous speech.  Some examples are:

• The Federalist Papers that were written under a pseudonym
• The Watergate Scandal being uncovered by an anonymous person called "deep throat"
• The many individuals who stand up for freedom in countries under repressive governmental control yet cannot do so using their real names.

These are contrasted by actors such as "internet trolls" who anonymously post images and words with the intent to harm, offend, and commit criminal acts while cowering behind an anonymous user name. 

Courts have ordered that some anonymous users be identified when the gravity of the offense they have committed merits court action, however these situations are limited because (1) it is not always possible to identify a person from computer tracking information, (2) courts are hesitant to order a website operator to disclose such information, and (3) individuals must try to de-identify the perpetrator using all other reasonable means before the court will act.

Seeking Redress in Court: John and Jane Doe Litigation

        Circumstances Where a Plaintiff’s Anonymity Should Be Preserved

In response to increased ability of technology to track not only the inane aspects of a person’s life but indeed very private information, there should be a uniform balancing test to address pseudonymous plaintiffs in light of current technology.

Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that, “the title of the complaint must name all the parties” to the lawsuit. Although State and Federal Courts differ on whether to allow plaintiffs to sue anonymously. Similar circumstances have met the required threshold of weight given to the privacy interest in anonymity, up against the presumptive right to public access of court proceedings. For instance, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade allowed proceedings to occur under a pseudonym due to the fear of retaliation. States differ to their viewpoint on when to allow such lawsuits involving pseudonymous plaintiffs to go forward. For instance, Utah has

tacitly allowed plaintiffs to proceed under the pseudonyms; yet, does not set out an explicit balancing test demonstrating its reasoning. Although such cases seem to pertain to the immense privacy interest in children involved in sexual abuse cases.

In Doe v. Merten, a constitutional challenge was brought by Virginia students that were not U.S. citizens in lieu of their failure to be admitted into six Virginia colleges, but were unable to precede anonymously as their immigration status was not considered a “matter of sensitive and highly personal nature.” Factors that are considered:

“(1) to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature; (2) whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even more critically, to innocent non-parties; (3) the ages of the person whose privacy interests are sought to be protected; (4) whether the action is against a governmental or private party; and relatedly (5) the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to proceed anonymously.”

Doe v. Porter the Sixth Circuit granted Plaintiffs’ request for anonymity in a claim against the Board of education, which allowed a program called the Bible Education Ministry to take place across three county schools.  In weighing the factors, the Court reasoned that due to the sensitive “quintessentially private matter” of religion, plaintiffs would have faced immense vilification by the conservative religious community if they were denied anonymity. In addition, a letter to the local newspaper stating that the plaintiff was a coward demonstrated that plaintiffs would withstand retaliatory harm. I would argue that community backlash could similarly present itself in an on-line forum concerning a “simple” sexual harassment or other type of case previously denied anonymity. Because of recent technological advances, the vast interconnectedness of the people that “know” each other, and the swift way in which communication occurs; the current approach favoring anonymity in litigation falls short. Courts should be require a factor balancing test, one that avoids pigeonholing specific categories of claims as inadequate for the “preservation of privacy” under the first prong and broadens the second prong of harm.

Balancing of the 1^st Amendment Open Access to Court Proceedings

The importance of maintaining privacy whilst seeking justice is paramount, as a simple take down of content doesn’t necessarily rid the web of the private information. In Doe v. Smith, 412 F.Supp.2d 944 (2006), a woman brought a claim against an old boyfriend for distributing a videotape of the two engaged in a sexual act when she was a minor. Considering the nature of the tape, the woman hoped to proceed to litigate the case under a pseudonym but was denied. Following a remand from the Seventh Circuit, Justice Easterbrook noted that that medical issues alone are not sufficient. In addition, the court cited Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d 667, 669 (7th Cir.2004) stating that: “The concealment of a party's name impedes public access to the facts of the case.”

The court again reaffirmed the Seventh Circuit’s demonstration that sexual harassment cases are not to be brought anonymously—unlike rape cases, or where a “likely target of retaliation by people who would learn her identity only from a judicial opinion or other court filing.”  Moreover, the court noted that Smith would face considerable disgrace in conjunction with the charges and thus, she should share in the “limelight” of public opinion. In addition, the court found it important that she was already “known” to be the girl in the recordings. However, in light of the sheer vast number of people on the internet, the argument that she was already know to be the girl on the recording ignores the real threat of further mental harm of the video resurfacing or new people learning of her identity.

Following this logic, Ralph L. Jacobson speaks to the ease of the publics’ ability to access court files freely. He goes onto proclaim that even within a simple auto accident, glaring back at the person viewing the claim could relay private medical information—as damages may have necessitated the disclosure of a PTSD diagnosis. Under this line of analysis, privacy does not just entail the subject matter of the claim but possibly extends to other private information.

A Legal Test Should Be Employed When Anonymity Is Requested Allowing for a Balancing of First Amendment Rights Against the Public’s Right

Perhaps one could argue that if Plaintiff must defend himself publically, it is only equitable that the plaintiff not be the only person in the limelight of public opinion. Because the First Amendment favors openness, giving the public a chance to scrutinize the judicial process should remain essential; decidedly, courts could still create greater protection in light of technological development by limiting access.

In light of the presumption of access to judicial proceedings under the First Amendment, federal courts have employed various balancing tests in regards to whether to allow plaintiffs the ability to litigate under a pseudonym. Notably in federal criminal cases, the government has uniformly protected juveniles. In regards to an adult victim seeking to be anonymous, courts have shown apprehension in light of defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront one’s accuser.

Although there is no uniform consensus in regards to a particular balancing test, courts generally given great weight to the request for anonymity when it involves victims of sexual assault, juveniles, and religious and political speech/religious. In Anonymity and the Law, A. Michael Froomkin notes that “political speech receives the highest constitutional protection because it ‘occupies the core of the protection afforded by the First Amendment.’

Victims of Sexual Assault Are Especially at Risk of Re-Victimization by Technology

Being a child doesn’t guarantee going forth in anonymity. Courts need to take a much stricter approach in regards to not only sexual assault claims but harassment. Because of the legal framework surrounding the First Amendment Right to be anonymous, girls that undergo sexual harassment are subject to the pernicious nature of many online “opinions” relayed in blogs, tweets, and even through similar shared friends on Facebook.

A Kansas District Court denied Plaintiffs’ anonymity for a claim against their teacher for a claim of childhood sexual harassment and battery. Although it was noted that the teacher “allegedly traced his finger . . . between her breasts, and . . . squeezed her left buttock.” The court’s reasoning that disclosure will at most create an embarrassing situation—which alone does not justify anonymity—further detailing that following the Tenth Circuit, it was not a highly sensitive matter. Now this may very well be true in older cases but current sexual harassment cases—especially involving young girls—should arguably be waived in favor of anonymity.

In contrast, Diego v. John Roe 543 U.S. 77, U.S., Dec. 06, 2004

A police officer used a pseudonym in the case where he was discharged by the police department. The department found the online video of him stripping off his police uniform. In relationship to the privacy rights of an unwanted sex tape—where the girl was only 16-year-old at the time, it is obvious what constitutes a “sensitive and highly personal nature.” Although a uniform test for balancing when anonymity may be utilized may not solve the subjectivity problem but it is a starting point. Moreover, I would argue that the factors of the Fifth Circuit should be expanded upon to encompass a broader view of the first prong.

Advancement in Technology Requires a Uniform Test

Technology is not only rapidly advancing but the ease in the collection of private information is astounding. The ever increasing encroachment of privacy in relationship to technology should warrant greater anonymity; notably, in cases such as Doe v. Smith as continued online involvement simply exacerbates the victim’s suffering. Courts however are inconsistent in regards to permitting anonymity in civil and criminal law. “Some courts have concluded that sexual abuse victims should be given fewer rights to use pseudonyms in civil cases because the victim voluntarily filed a civil case.”

However, claiming the plaintiff should share in the public acknowledgement of the sexual harassment claim weights heavily against the victim in light of the quick explosion of news stories. Sexual harassment cases are not simply an embarrassing disclosure; but can become a recurring traumatizing event. Simply denying specific cases like Doe v. Smith and other more serious sexual harassment cases the right to anonymity merely creates a podium for online abuse.

CLASS EXERCISE---ANONYMITY APPLIED

Despite the recent trend of websites to adopt policies requiring a real name for online posters, the students were overwhelmingly opposed to such policies in principle and strongly favored the right to post anonymously online.  There was some sentiment, however, for the current state of the law that allows anonymity to be pierced in some situations pursuant to a court order.  To test the strength of   the student' views they were given a hypothetical based on an actual incident where in 2013 an anonymous poster on 4Chan's /b/ Random board perpetrated an internet hoax  by encouraging young girls to cut themselves in protest of pop star Justin Bieber being seen smoking a marijuana joint.  The anonymous poster started a "#cutforbieber" hashtag which went viral on the internet and posted several graphic images of girls who purportedly cut their arms as part of the campaign.  The campaign was later revealed to be a hoax and fortunately no girls actually cut themselves.  In the hypothetical presented to the students, however, several girls actually harm themselves and one dies.  In the hypothetical there is a resulting  public outcry and a call for the website involved to change its anonymous posting policy.  The hypothetical situation and the student response is set out below:

                                                  The Hypothetical
A group of 10-12 year old Justin Bieber fans, in response to the 4Chan hoax, cut themselves. Three girls are hospitalized and one dies.  The grieving fathers want to expose the anonymous person who perpetrated the hoax.  They hold a news conference and demand that you, as owner of the website, take the following actions: 

1.  explain why you would allow your website to be used  by anonymous “animals” to  intentionally prey on impressionable young girls; and

2.  change your policy and require everyone to establish an account using a real name so wrongdoers may be held accountable.

The media are at 4Chan's corporate headquarters waiting for your response and the CEO has tasked you with drafting a written statement to be issued. 

The students were broken into two groups and given 20 minutes to draft  a written statement for the media.

                                            Group One's Statement

First, we would like to apologize to the families of the injured girls and to everyone who was injured or offended by the post. Our current policy embraces the First Amendment protection of anonymous speech. A “real names policy” could potentially chill speech and our legal system considers even offensive speech to be protected under the First Amendment. 4Chan wants to encourage and facilitate the free flow of ideas and opinions, even if offensive to some. However, due to this tragic event, 4Chan will be adopting a change wherein users will be given the option to sign in using a verified Open ID provider like Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. We will adopt a modified version of the http://Slashdot.org moderation and meta-moderation scheme, which will work as follows:

 

-         --- Only users using an Open ID https://openid.net provider will be allowed to submit posts for articles;

 

-         --- Anonymous comments will be allowed, but will be given a base score of zero, and will not be displayed by default;

 

-         --- Only verified users who have a net positive contribution to the site will be periodically provided a quota of “upvoting” or “downvoting” posts and comments, for a limited period;

 

-         --- Upvoted posts will be displayed by default, with a numeric score greater than zero;

 

-          ---Downvoted posts will not be displayed by default, and have negative scores;

 

-          ---Moderators will be kept in check by meta-moderators, who will also be awarded points periodically; and

 

-          ---Users with a negative score will have all their posts posted with a negative score. 

 

                                                          Group Two's statement

We are deeply saddened by the loss of the young girls who were preyed on by these devious bloggers. We will do all that you can to assist the families cope with this terrible tragedy. Here at 4Chan we have always valued and will continue the value the fundamental rights that we enjoy as Americans, including and especially the Rights enshrined in the First Amendment. To be sure, history has taught us that these rights sometimes come with a price—sometimes a terrible price. However, history has also taught us that these rights are too valuable to be diluted by fear and are worth protecting. One of 4Chan’s many purposes is to create a forum where people from many walks of life can come to exchange ideas in an effort to promote greater social awareness and foster a robust debate on important issues. To further this cause, 4Chan has always allowed its users to post anonymously in effort to respect and bolster the First Amendments rights of all those who use our service.

 With these goals in mind, 4Chan will continue to preserve its current anonymity policy. Although we are aware of the potential dangers associated with anonymity, we have also witnessed how anonymity has historically been a catalyst to social change. We will and we cannot allow fear to weaken our commitment to individual liberty and providing a forum for social advancement. Although we remain committed to this policy, we will do all that we can to ensure the families find the justice and peace that they deserve.

 AUTHOR NOTE: As an aside, neither group discussed the possibility of having the site post a prominent warning that content posted on the site, including comments and images may be offensive, inaccurate or fake.  We ran out of class time to discuss why this approach was not considered and whether such an approach would be reasonable.  Interestingly, a majority of students were unaware  that the acronym used to identify the 4Chan Random Board,  "NSFW", stood for "not safe for work." 

Question of the Week No. 2

Police booking photos are routinely taken when a person is arrested by a law enforcement agency.  These mug shots are public documents in most states and have spawned several websites which post the mug shots online, e.g. mugshots.com.  In 2013, Utah passed a law that forces people who want copies of mug shots to swear under oath that they will not post it on a website that charges a fee to remove the photo.  Open records advocates have warned that the bill sets a dangerous precedent of the government demanding to know what someone intends to do with public information.  Privacy advocates argue that some arrested persons are never charged with a crime or are acquitted and should not have to pay a fee to eliminate an embarrassing and private incident.  Is Utah’s mug shot law sound public policy?

LEARNING TAKEAWAYS FOR WEEK ONE

1.  The word privacy does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.  However, a right of privacy has been inferred from the First Amendment, the Third Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.

2.  The right of privacy has been defined in many different ways and is flexible and is not absolute.  A right of privacy may be legally recognized under constitutional law, statutory enactment and common law.

3.  The legal touchstone of a right of privacy is whether there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy."  To be recognized the person claiming the right of privacy must exhibit a subjective expectation of privacy and that expectation must be deemed reasonable by society.  This test, formulated in the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision of U.S. v. Katz, was in the context of a Fourth Amendment decision, but has been recognized and applied in many other contexts, both civil and criminal.

4.  Context often determines whether a right of privacy is legally recognized and has been invaded. The context may include, among other things, the location of the alleged invasion, the nature of the information or interest at issue and the manner of the invasion.  Technology is having a profound impact

5.  The four common law privacy torts include intrusion upon seclusion, casting someone in a false light, misappropriation of name or likeness and disclosure of private facts.  The common law privacy torts are state based claims and not all four torts are recognized in every state.  Utah recognizes all four torts.

WHY A REAL NAME POLICY FOR ONLINE COMMENTS MAKES SENSE (EXCEPT WHEN IT DOESN'T)

The debate about anonymity on the internet has raged since the advent of the internet. The debate usually pits free speech advocates against proponents of civility and accountability with both sides approaching the issue with an all or nothing mentality.  The  past few years, however,  have witnessed a growing trend among website owners to require persons to use their real names in order to post or comment online.  Facebook, YouTube and  Quora are just a few of the more notable websites that have recently joined this trend. One commentator has even  advocated a mandatory internet-wide real names policy.  This post identifies the main arguments for and against a real name policy and sets out the authors view as to the proper policy that should be adopted.

                Promoting Civility &  Insuring Accountability

Advocates for requiring a person to use their real name (or at least a recognized user name) primarily argue that such a policy raises the level of civility and quality of discourse on the internet, fosters accountability, discourages trolls and abusive posts and provides valuable contextual information for the reader to assess the post.  Persons who are defamed anonymously are often unable to seek judicial relief because the wrongdoers are anonymous.   And, there are numerous example of persons abusing their power and avoiding accountability for what they say by hiding behind the cloak of anonymity.   The poster child for this latter concern was the U.S. Attorney in New Orleans, who was a highly respected attorney and one of the longest serving U.S. Attorneys in the country, but resigned in December of 2012 when it was discovered that two of his top deputies were using the internet to anonymously attack persons their office was investigating.   Another example is the Cleveland, Ohio State Judge who made anonymous comments about several high profile cases that were pending before her and then sued the paper when she was outed.  Slate Senior Editor Emily Bazelon reflects the views of many when she argues that a free democracy is better off when everyone is forced to put their name to their words, noting that online anonymous users are poisoning civil discourse with their vile and defamatory comments, all under the excuse of "free speech."   4Chan, Whisper, Yik Yak and other anonymous sites have become vehicles for racist, misogynist and generally hateful commentary without any accountability.

             Protecting Whistleblowers & Fostering Robust Speech

Proponents of anonymity acknowledge that abuses may sometimes occur, but argue that anonymous speech has a long and hallowed tradition in our country and, indeed, enjoys constitutional protection.  Absent anonymity, speech will be unnecessarily chilled, they argue.  How many abused women, whistleblowers and political dissidents will come forward if they must do so using their real names?  Anonymous Facebook and Twitter communications were essential during the Arab Spring and anonymity allows victims of domestic violence to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.  In a recent post, David Maas of the Electronic Frontier Foundation identifies 16 different groups of persons who benefit from anonymity besides trolls and political dissidents. Maas argues that anonymity is important to anyone who doesn't want every facet of their online life tied to a Google search of their name.  He focuses on the free speech promoting aspects of anonymity when he argues " To suggest anonymity should be forbidden because of troll-noise is just as bad as suggesting a ban on protesting because the only demonstrators you have ever encountered are from the Westboro Baptist Church—the trolls of the picket world.

The website geekfeminism.org has created a Wiki which compiles a list of persons harmed by a real names policy.

Some commentators argue that anonymity actually promotes truth and trustworthiness on the internet. http://irevolution.net/2013/10/22/trustworthiness-and-truth/.  And, of course, review sites like Avvo and Yelp depend on anonymity to encourage users to give candid reviews of services and products and have vigorously defended the right of anonymity by resisting efforts to unmask the identity of site users.  Although courts have generally been supportive of protecting the anonymity of online reviewers,  there have been some exceptions, particularly when a plaintiff claims he or she has been defamed by a false review or that the reviewer violated a term of employment.  For examples of recent court rulings in this area see  here, here, here, here and here.

Traditional media, who are struggling to adjust to the online world, have adopted various approaches.  Some newspapers allow anonymous comments, but editors moderate all posts by reserving the right to delete comments that violate the papers posted community guidelines, such as no racist, sexist or personal attacks.  KSL TV follows this approach in its Comments Policy.  This is labor intensive, however, and with the economic challenges traditional media, this approach has lost favor of late. The Salt Lake Tribune allows opaque user names, but you are required to have a real email address in order to open an account which is a prerequisite to posting comments.  Comments are not moderated by Tribune editors, but are subject to being deleted if they violate the Tribune's terms of use.  Other newspapers permit readers to self police the comments by allowing readers to give a thumbs up or thumbs down on each comment.  If a particular comment receives a certain number of down votes it is removed.  With Facebook's ubiquity and the ability to log onto a site via Facebook, many newspapers allow a commenter to check in with Facebook and have reported that such a policy has improved the quality of comments.

                 Anonymity, But With Potential Accountability

 While it certainly is well within the rights of any website to dictate its own terms of use, I place my thumb on the free speech side of the scale when it comes to anonymous speech.  We unavoidably stifle and restrict free expression when we rule out anonymous statements.  That does not mean that anonymous posters should be given free reign to libel and attack others with impunity; it just means that they have the right to speak anonymously and they must be willing to accept the consequences in the event their identity is discovered.  In today's increasingly transparent world, it is becoming very difficult to be truly anonymous in the face of a persistent effort to learn someone's identity.  Moreover, there are existing legal processes that allow a judicially compelled disclosure of identity when certain legal threshold showings are made.  In my view, this regime (allowing initial anonymity with judicially compelled disclosure under certain circumstances) strikes a reasonable balance between the competing interests.

Question of the Week No. 1

Should the U.S. Congress statutorily recognize a “right to be forgotten”? 

WELCOME TO INFORMATION PRIVACY LAW

This course focuses on personal privacy and addresses the challenges of protecting privacy in an age of information abundance.  We explore how new technology, coupled with an emerging ethos of sharing reflected by the explosive growth of social networking, has empowered government, business and individuals to monitor our everyday lives and collect, aggregate, use and sell personal information on a scale never before imagined.

The course uses a modified "flipped classroom" pedagogy where my videotaped lectures, assigned readings and other basic information about the week's privacy topic are available online and are viewed and read before each relevant class.  These materials and the student blog postings form the bases of in-class discussions.

 The course YouTube Channel may be accessed at 

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL418YWgVqZ8Y4R8N-UX74r2RHAV8h70aO

This public blog and the YouTube Channel, also public, are a part of the overall instructional design for the course which also uses TWEN (The Westlaw Educational Network)  which is accessible only by students enrolled in the course.