At the same time, hacking, malware, and other cyber-threats continue to grow in frequency and sophistication. In 2010, one security firm recorded 286 million variants of malware and found that 232.4 million identities were exposed. To address these evolving threats, modern security techniques analyze and process massive amounts of data. The Article posits that international law increasingly favors privacy, throwing the symbiotic relationship out of balance. By restricting data processing and by failing to exempt data processing for security purposes, global privacy laws undermine private data by increasing its vulnerability.

The age of American environmentalism has arrived. Surveys show widespread public support for preservation policies, open spaces, and natural parks, while reflecting popular disdain for new development of wild lands. Federal and state governments have reacted to public sentiment by adding acreage to national preserves, increasing the budget for agencies tasked with preservation, and by enacting and enforcing pollution laws and regulations.

Despite popular support and government-initiated efforts, forty million acres of land – larger than the state of Florida – were newly developed between 1992 and 2007. This paper addresses the historic and deeply rooted pro-development policy informing American property law. While critical in the country’s infancy, encouraging land use and development through legal constructs is less important and arguably detrimental now. Long-standing legal constructs encourage land use and as a result discourage conservation. Our need to develop wide swaths of wild land has changed; our common law has not.

One area of property law, easements, fully embraces pro-development policies. The legal principles defining express easements, implied easements, and prescriptive easements favor the development of land while disfavoring parties that allow land to remain “idle.” The pro-development policy undergirding common law property tenets lacks a conservation counterbalance. This paper details several approaches that might curb pro-development bias in easement law.

This short piece includes an account of freshman mistakes, lucky breaks, and the beginnings of a teaching philosophy. It includes resources to guide a new professor’s decisions in choosing a textbook, developing a teaching philosophy, providing student feedback, and self evaluation. Part II, “the first day,” suggests some rather obvious and immediate objectives for a new professor’s first day of class – like, don’t forget to wear pants. Part III, “the first semester,” focuses on lessons learned the hard way and Part IV, “the first year,” identifies a few strategies for improvement given the struggles inherent in the first year.

Since 1929, recovery for accidents suffered on international flights has been limited to bodily injury. Although the most recent treaty governing international commercial flight retained the “bodily injury” language, a close study of the treaty’s history and more importantly, the negotiations among the signatories’ delegates suggests that the great majority of nations intended to broaden allowable recovery beyond strict bodily injury and that many had in fact already interpreted the phrase to include mental injury. As a result, courts interpreting “bodily injury” under the new treaty should closely review the intent of the signatories before adopting the previous treaty’s precedent.

Regulation of international commercial air travel began when it was still considered dangerous and before a broad market existed. To advance its goal of protecting the emerging airline industry, the 1929 Warsaw Convention required arbitrary damages caps, preclusion of punitive awards, and restriction of recovery to bodily injury. As aviation innovations ushered in an era of global commercial air travel, the once-nascent industry evolved into a robust and profitable one. Although the policy to protect the industry was no longer relevant, the treaty’s strictures still applied.

To address perceived inequities stemming from the limitation of recovery to “bodily injury,” courts stretched, and the resulting and fragmented judicial precedent threatened the unity the Warsaw Convention hoped to achieve. Nations frequently convened to expand recovery beyond bodily injury but ultimately achieved only a patchwork of contractual agreements. The most comprehensive of such conventions, the Montreal Convention, successfully modernized its dated progenitor in numerous regards but nevertheless failed to alter Warsaw’s language that limited recovery to bodily injury.

Even though the bodily injury limitation was retained, a thorough review of the negotiations in Montreal indicates that multiple nations have historically interpreted “bodily injury” as a form of personal injury. More importantly, a great majority of delegates advocated for broader recovery than that afforded by “bodily injury.” The United States’ own delegate represented its precedent as broader than that allowed under the majority trend.

Because the policy informing the new treaty materially changed, and because the delegates’ negotiations evinced a decided disposition towards broader recovery, courts faced with claims under the Montreal Convention must undertake a materially different analysis from those courts that addressed similar claims under Warsaw.