Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) (Updated!)

Today, the TLPC filed long-form comments before the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of the Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA), our client Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI), and a coalition of consumer groups and accessibility researchers. The Commission is considering updates and changes to the IP CTS program, which millions of Americans who are hard of hearing, deaf, and DeafBlind rely on to communicate on equal terms.

Update (Oct. 16): we’ve now filed two additional sets of comments, linked below.

Authorship and Accessibility in the Digital Age

(cross-posted from Authors Alliance)

The Internet has opened up the opportunity for creators to reach worldwide audiences. Authors can transmit digital creations in a matter of seconds by simply uploading an article or ebook, sharing a video, or posting a blog entry. But authors can reach an even wider audience if their digital creations are accessible to those with disabilities. Notwithstanding significant strides made toward making digital content more accessible over the past decade, the prevalence of inaccessible digital content continues to be problematic.

Last fall, Authors Alliance, the Silicon Flatirons Center, and the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology convened a group of content creators, technologists, attorneys, academics, and advocates to discuss the role of creators in making digital works more widely accessible to people with disabilities, reported by TLPC student attorneys.

The roundtable discussion focused on the unique role authors, educators, and libraries play in making digital works accessible; the benefits, obligations, and barriers around accessibility; the availability of authoring tools that facilitate accessibility; and the gaps for digital accessibility that technology and policy might fill.

That conversation led to the creation of the report, Authorship and Accessibility in the Digital Age, which distills these topics into a concise summary of the current landscape, as well as recommendations for further action. We gratefully acknowledge the support of Authors Alliance, Silicon Flatirons Center and the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology in making the roundtable and the report possible. We also thank Angel Antkers, Susan Miller, and Sophia Galleher, student attorneys in the TLPC, for their role in authoring this report; and Rob Haverty at Adobe Document Cloud for his assistance in creating an accessible PDF.

Small Satellites and University Research

(by Blake E. Reid, TLPC Director)

In collaboration with the University of Colorado aerospace engineering Professor Scott Palo and a coalition of other researchers, the TLPC filed comments before the Federal Communications Commission on a variety of issues in the Commission’s proposed new streamlined process for small satellites.

Update (August 7, 2018): we’ve also filed reply comments in the same proceeding.

Gone Fishin’ (kind of!)

The spring 2018 class of the TLPC is off to their summer clerkships and post-graduation endeavors! Blog posts and podcasts will return in the fall, but the TLPC will be open with an active docket this summer. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you’d like to collaborate on a project.

Next-Generation 911 and Data: Transparency, Privacy, and Evidentiary Considerations

(by Connor Boe, TLPC alum)

Data collection, analysis, and storage is cheaper and more reliable than ever before. This advancement in technology is constantly improving public services specifically in services dedicated to emergency response. The adoption of new technologies to increase the amount and diversity of information that public safety entities have access to during an emergency response is called Next Generation 911 (NG911). In a NG911 world, the proliferation of data when responding to emergencies will inevitably increase in size and scope. Though the receipt, processing, analysis, and storage of more data in emergency responses will be beneficial for public safety, it may also create complexities for existing statutory and regulatory obligations these entities have. Specifically, these systems have the potential to complicate state open records law compliance, privacy and data protection obligations, and chain-of-custody rules of evidence. Policy makers, emergency services, and vendors of these services need to consider the legal implications before deploying NG911 systems and not after the fact.

The benefits and drawbacks when choosing to adopt NG911 systems are far reaching. The architecture choices local governments make have the potential to rewrite the public safety answering points relationship with the general public and public safety entities. Advocates and practitioners need to understand that after data is collected by the government in response to an emergency, the information that they collect will be highly scrutinized by the communities in which they serve. These NG911 data management systems need to strike a balance between public safety, personal privacy, the rule of law, and government transparency that is acceptable to all the stakeholders in the community.

Working with several 911 stakeholders, the TLPC drafted and is pleased to release the attached white paper, which discusses attempts to discuss how the architecture of NG911 systems will impact existing legal obligations and discuss the opportunities that local governments will have when adopting these systems.

Municipal Drone Policy

TLPC student attorneys and Colorado Law 2Ls Kristine Roach, Trey Reed, and Jay Gurney recently finalized a white paper on municipal drone policy. The paper outlines some of the many drone applications for hobbyists, businesses, researchers and governments, while considering disruption and intrusion concerns.

Given these competing concerns and interests, the paper outlines different approaches to municipal drone policies and regulations, including the prospect of federal preemption. The paper also analyzes 4th Amendment limitations on municipal drone surveillance and open records requirements implicated by municipal drone use. While the analysis is most pertinent to Boulder, the drone policy considerations are intended to be applicable to municipalities across the United States.

Our thanks to Prof. Deborah Cantrell, Prof. Ann England, Prof. Margot Kaminski, Tom Carr, Boulder City Attorney, Julia Richman, Boulder Chief Information and Analytics Officer, and Cory Dixon, IRISS Chief Technologist for their help in the development of this paper.

Last Week 69: The Privacy Bargain

(by Jay Gurney, Colorado Law 2L)

“She sees you when you’re sleeping
She knows when you’re awake . . .”

Smart Home devices like Amazon’s Alexa or Google Home are increasingly prevalent in American homes. Users prime the device by uttering a trigger word, in Amazon’s case, “Alexa.” Upon activation Alexa lights up, listens to, records, and responds to user’s requests.

These devices are often asked to stream music, sync to other “smart home” devices or answer questions varying from “What is the weather?” to “What is the net worth of Cardi B?” After processing a user’s Spotify request, for example, Alexa’s light turns off—signaling it is not recording—while the music continues.

As with other technological products, the data gathered from smart home requests can be provided to third parties such as advertisers. It can also be used to tailor and improve user experiences. Furthermore, the data acts as inputs for complex artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, creating “smarter” products.

Continue reading “Last Week 69: The Privacy Bargain”

Last Week in Tech Policy #68B: The Olympics in Virtual Reality

(by Emily Caditz, Colorado Law 2L)

Last month, the world tuned into the XXIII Olympic Winter Games held in Pyeongchang, South Korea. The Olympics is one of the world’s most celebrated sports competitions and gives viewers from all around the world the opportunity to watch the most talented athletes from their home country compete head-to-head against athletes from other participating nations.

Generally, the public has watched television, listened to the radio, or read the newspaper to keep up with Olympic coverage. In Pyeongchang, however, Intel partnered with the Olympic Broadcasting Services to provide Olympic viewers with a different Olympic viewing experience: virtual reality (“VR”). Continue reading “Last Week in Tech Policy #68B: The Olympics in Virtual Reality”

Last Week in Tech Policy #68A: Who Needs the Right to be Forgotten?

(by Kristine Roach, Colorado Law 2L)

The right to erasure, colloquially known as the right be forgotten, has been adopted by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It gives individuals the right to have their personal data erased:

  • Where the personal data is no longer necessary in relation to the purpose for which it was originally collected/processed.
  • When the individual withdraws consent.
  • When the individual objects to the processing and there is no overriding legitimate interest for continuing the processing.
  • The personal data was unlawfully processed (i.e. otherwise in breach of the GDPR).
  • The personal data has to be erased in order to comply with a legal obligation.
  • The personal data is processed in relation to the offer of information society services to a child.

However, the right is not absolute and the requestee can refuse to erase data of the requestor for the following reasons:

  • to exercise the right of freedom of expression and information;
  • to comply with a legal obligation for the performance of a public interest task or exercise of official authority.
  • for public health purposes in the public interest;
  • archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific research historical research or statistical purposes; or
  • the exercise or defense of legal claims.

Continue reading “Last Week in Tech Policy #68A: Who Needs the Right to be Forgotten?”