(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.
(by Blake E. Reid, TLPC Director)
In collaboration with the University of Colorado aerospace engineering Professor Scott Palo, the TLPC filed comments before the Federal Communications Commission urging the Commission to set reasonable fees for university small-satellite researchers in the Commission’s annual fee and streamlined small-satellite proceedings.
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.
(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.
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.
(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”
(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”
(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?”
(by Galen Pospisil, Colorado Law 2L)
For most of the 20th Century, a single company provided telecommunications services in the United States. Under the slogan “one policy, one system, universal service,” AT&T provided local and long distance telephone service at uniform prices to almost every home and business in America.
Today, hundreds of companies provide telecommunications services under individual pricing policies. And yet, the goal of universal service remains. Policymakers face the challenge of ensuring that all Americans have access to telecommunications services without the intricate system of regulated rates that the Bell System relied upon.
Continue reading “Last Week in Tech Policy #67: One Policy, Universal Service?”
Today the TLPC filed three reply comments to the U.S. Copyright Office as part of the seventh triennial Section 1201 proceeding. Under Section 1201 of the DMCA, parties may petition the Copyright Office every three years to create or modify exemptions when the DMCA adversely affects noninfringing activities. Opponents filed public comments in February responding to the initial long form comments filed in December.
Continue reading “TLPC Files Three DMCA Reply Comments for Disability Services, Multimedia E-Books, and Security Research”