AND, CARS, OTHER DEVICES, APPLIANCES AT HOME COLLECT HUGE AMOUNTS OF DATA, DON'T THEY? AS CONSUMERS, WE FEEL WE OWN THAT DATA. IT'S OURS. BUT IT CAN BE BOUGHT AND SOLD IN EXCHANGED AND MINED IN A WAY THAT CONSUMERS HAVE NO CONSENT OVER. AND IT ENHANCES THE DOMINANCE OF JUST A FEW OF THOSE TECH COMPANIES, JUST A FEW OF THOSE CORPORATIONS, CORPORATE POWER IS EMBOLDENED AND ENABLED, IN MANY RESPECTS, BY THE END AMOUNT -- BY THE AMOUNT OF DATA THEY COLLECT. THERE IS FOREST ARBITRATION. WE HAVE A RECORD OF IT TODAY. COMPLAINTS ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT, WHICH, FORTUNATELY, WE HAVE ADDRESSED. I HAVE BEEN PROUD TO WORK ON THE ENDING FORCED ARBITRATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT, WHICH PRESIDENT BIDEN SIGNED AFTER WE PASSED IT JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO. I'VE HEARD HARROWING STORIES FROM SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND VICTIMS OF WORKPLACE HARASSMENT WHO WERE SILENCED AND NOT JUST BY FORCED ARBITRATION. FORCED ARBITRATION APPLIES TO EVERYBODY WHO HAS A CELL PHONE. YOU HAVE A FORCED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT. MANY WORKERS HAVE FORCED ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS. NURSING HOMES HAVE FORCED ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS. THE POINT IS THAT YOU HAVE DEDICATED YOUR LIFE TO ACCESS TO THE COURT THE RIGHT OF A TRIAL, THE RIGHT TO A JURY, THE RIGHT TO A JUDGE. NONE OF IT IS POSSIBLE WHERE THERE IS A FORCED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT, THAT'S WHY I'VE WORKED ON A MEASURE CALLED THE "FAIR ACT" THAT WOULD MAKE ANY FORCED PREDISPUTE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT INVALID AND UNENFORCEABLE IF BOTH SIDES WANT -- UNENFORCEABLE. IF BOTH SIDES WANT ARBITRATION, THAT'S FINE, BUT ACCESS TO THE COURT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. I KNOW YOU ARE LIMITED TO WHAT YOU CAN SAY ABOUT MEASURES AND POLICY ISSUES, BUT I HOPE THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER THE TREND THAT THE COURT HAS ADOPTED IN SUPPORT OF FORCED ARBITRATION AND DENIAL OF RIGHTS LIKE CLASS ACTION, AND REVIEW WHETHER THEY ARE APPROPRIATE. LET ME JUST FINISH WITH A COUPLE OF QUICK POINTS. ON THE HARVARD LOG REVIEW ARTICLE, ON REGISTRATION OF SEX OFFENDERS, CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS, I MUST SAY I READ THIS ARTICLE SEVERAL TIMES. IN MY VIEW, IT IS AN ANALYSIS NOT ADVOCACY. WOULD YOU AGREE? JUDGE JACKSON: JUDGE JACKSON: EXACTLY. ONE OF THOSE STATUTES WAS IN CONNECTICUT. IT WAS CHALLENGED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND, DOUBLE JEOPARDY. IT WENT TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. I DEFENDED IT THERE. IT WAS UPHELD 9-0. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOUR ARTICLE WAS CITED, BUT I WOULD PUT THIS LOG REVIEW ARTICLE VERY MUCH IN THE CATEGORY OF ANALYSIS, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT. AND I WOULD CALL IT PROTECTION, NOT PUNISHMENT OR PREVENTION. THAT'S THE ARGUMENT I MADE TO THE SUPREME COURT. I ASK THAT THIS ARTICLE WOULD BE PUT IN THE RECORD. 