The Islamic State has combined its extreme violence with digital and cyber technologies to produce and distribute globally videos recording atrocities it commits. This article argues that those in the Islamic State who make and distribute these atrocity videos are committing war crimes under international law. After introducing the unprecedented phenomenon the atrocity videos represent (I.), the article first examines the relationship between international law and propaganda in war and peace (II.) The article then argues the atrocity videos violate prohibitions in international humanitarian law and constitute war crimes (III.). The article concludes by presenting criticisms of this argument and responses to the critiques (IV.).

The on-demand economy involves a business model in which workers contract for the opportunity to provide services directly to customers or users as independent contractors, as opposed to employees, through various technology platforms. The classification and treatment of these workers as independent contractors has raised issues relating to the application of traditional labor and employment laws. While this business model allows greater innovation for companies and flexibility for workers, it has faced challenges from government agencies and some workers who have sought to apply longstanding workplace protections to these arrangements. Their efforts resemble trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. In particular, businesses like Uber have received significant attention as a result of class action lawsuits in the United States challenging the classification of workers as independent contractors. This article will address some of the nebulous standards applied to determine whether someone is an independent contractor or an employee entitled to traditional workplace protections, the issues raised by the use of independent contractors in the growing on-demand economy, and the need to modernize labor and employment laws to reflect the nature of the 21st century workforce.

The FTC has long viewed itself as a regulator of data protection and cybersecurity practices, although its authority in this area has been largely unexamined by courts. A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation has decided, for the first time at the federal appellate level, that the FTC does indeed have the authority to bring enforcement proceedings against companies for cybersecurity and data protection practices that are allegedly “unfair acts" violating the federal FTC Act. The decision did not conclude that the expanding body of FTC cybersecurity guidance and allegations in private enforcement actions are entitled to judicial deference. However, in evaluating whether Wyndham had constitutionally-required “fair notice" of what practices could violate the FTC Act, the court did conclude that the FTC guidance and allegations helped put businesses on notice of what practices might be unfair under the FTC Act.This article describes the court’s explanation of the legal basis for FTC “unfair" cybersecurity and data protection actions (I.) and the court’s decision affirming the FTC’s authority to bring such actions (II.). It then discusses at a high level the growing body of FTC guidance and allegations about unfair cybersecurity and data protection practices (III.) to help businesses understand the kinds of “unfair" practices of which they may be deemed to have “fair notice."