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?”