Policing Property

  (Source) I. Property and Criminality In the first week after Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd in Minneapolis, the New York City Police Department arrested more than two thousand protesters in New York City. At least a quarter of those arrested were charged with burglary. Mayor Bill de Blasio distinguished between protesters and perceived opportunists, “doing things like looting for pure financial gain, pure criminal gain, nothing to do with protests whatsoever.”  The specter of the looter—lying in wait for the opportunity to take advantage of social upheaval—is connected to ideas about the latent criminality of unpropertied people. It has been used to justify the extensive surveillance of nonwhite communities, and protest movements calling account to injustice. “Law and order” has roots in the protection of property and in white supremacy. The conflation of Blackness and criminality is inextricably tied to the relationship between property and policing, distinguishing criminals from non-criminals. Racial categories emerge from the governance of property relative to those who have historically had none, who we therefore imagine “harbor criminal disregard for the propertied order.” Whiteness is a property, valuable insofar as categorically excluding Black people maintains it.  Maintaining property interests has always been central to the modern [read more]

Diagnostic Methods as a Category of Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter

(Source) The authority to grant to patents arises from Article Eight of the United States Constitution. Specifically, Clause Eight grants Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Through this clause, Congress is empowered by the Constitution to grant copyrights and patents. Under this authority, Congress has enacted and promulgated various statutes in furtherance of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. One such statute is 35 U.S.C. § 101, whose interpretation has been embroiled in controversy over the past decade. The statute delineates the types of subject matter that are patentable. Section 101 renders patentable “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” Laws of nature and natural phenomena are prima facie unpatentable. Additionally, a mathematical formula is unpatentable because it “is merely a statement of a law of nature.” Similarly, medical diagnostic processes should be deemed as a category of patent-ineligible subject matter for numerous reasons. First, courts have repeatedly struck down patent claims to medical diagnostic processes unless they include a step of [read more]

Unauthorized Disclosure: Judicial Violation of Mental Health Privacy

(Source) Brandon Sharp managed a gas company in East Texas. Healthy, in his thirties, Sharp rarely saw a doctor. And yet he owed thousands of dollars in medical bills. Sharp was the target of medical identity theft, which victimizes tens of thousands of people each year. Thieves steal patient information, including names, Social Security numbers, addresses, and medical histories, and then submit fraudulent insurance claims for surgery and prescriptions. Victims, like Sharp, face more than inconvenience: sometimes police arrest them instead of the thief for insurance fraud, or their information is conflated with the thief’s, leading to misdiagnosis. Contrary to popular opinion, the most common mode of theft is not computer hacking or breaking and entering but unauthorized disclosure by providers. Section 33.13 of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law aims to prevent unauthorized disclosure. It prohibits providers from releasing patient information, specifically mental health records, absent an exception. A mental health record includes “all pertinent documents relating to the patient” about legal status, examination, care, and treatment. However, New York state courts routinely violate Section 33.13. Claimants often sue New York when a patient in a state hospital injures them. In these cases, New York courts have ordered hospitals to [read more]