Led by student attorneys Sebastian Blitt, Madeline Finlayson, and Sarah Misché, the TLPC filed an amicus brief on November 6 on behalf of a group of CU Law and Engineering professors. The brief was filed in People v. Dhyne, a case pending before the Colorado Supreme Court involving the search and seizure of a computer based on the association between an internet protocol (IP) address and a physical address.
The TPLC’s brief on behalf of Professors Blake Reid, Eric Wustrow, and Vivek Krishnamurthy, which was filed in support of neither party, urged the Court to consider the “totality of the circumstances” when examining the constitutionality of search warrants based on the association between an IP address and physical address.
Due to technological changes in the last 20 years, the brief explained that the strong connection that once existed between an IP address and a physical address has attenuated. Given the increasingly strong privacy interests that individuals possess in electronic devices, the TLPC brief suggests that a “totality of the circumstances” approach is best suited to evaluating whether search warrants in such contexts meet the constitutional requirements of probable cause and particularity.
The TLPC’s amicus brief in Dhyne can be downloaded by clicking here.
(by Sanam Analouei, Colorado Law 2L)
As the United States embarks on the ambitious journey to transform its emergency service infrastructure with Next Generation 911 (NG911), I developed a white paper delving into the pressing accessibility concerns surrounding this life-saving system, especially for people who are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or Deaf Blind (D/HH, or DB). The white paper explores the promises and pitfalls of NG911, revealing a landscape fraught with unresolved issues that could leave people in the D/HH or DB community struggling to access vital emergency services. The paper is divided into two sections: pre and on-call issues and post-call concerns.
Continue reading “Canvassing the Current and New Accessibility Issues Arising from 911’s Transition to NG911”
Today, the TLPC filed comments on behalf of its client, Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI), and a coalition of more than 20 accessibility advocacy and research organizations before the Federal Commmunications Commission. The comments urge the FCC to proceed with ensuring the accessibility and usability of video conferencing services by finalizing a decade-long pending rulemaking on the scope of “interoperable video conferencing services” governed by the FCC’s rules under the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act.
July 18, 2022 update: the TLPC filed reply comments on the same matter—see the bottom of the post.
TLPC student attorneys Rebecca Gruber, Richard Koch, and Stacey Weber, with the aid of Professor Margot Kaminski, developed comments responding to the Attorney General’s Pre-Rulemaking Considerations for the Colorado Privacy Act. Their response to the considerations, filed in anticipation of formal rulemaking in the fall, discusses several areas for potential rulemaking that closely impact the strength and effect of consumer privacy rights and company obligations in handling consumer data. The submission can be downloaded below.
With the assistance of TLPC Student Attorneys Cameron Benavides, Sam Retter, and Garrett Janney, a coalition of thirteen technology and intellectual property clinical law professors filed comments with the Copyright Office on the Office’s recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on law student participation in Copyright Claims Board (CCB) proceedings under the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act. CCB proceedings allow the adjudication of copyright “small claims” disputes. The professors highlighted a range of concerns, centered on the CASE Act’s opt-out mechanism, that likely will limit their willingness and ability to participate in CCB proceedings. The comments can be downloaded below.
cross-posted from Authors Alliance
The following blog post was authored by Becca Lynch, a student clinician with the Samuelson-Glushko Technology Law & Policy Clinic at University of Colorado Boulder under the supervision of Professor Blake Reid, as part of an Authors Alliance student clinic project on library e-book licensing legislation.
Continue reading “The Constitutionality of Library E-Book Licensing Legislation”
Led by Colorado Law student attorneys John Jang, Victoria Venzor, and Peter Troupe, the TLPC today filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on behalf of a coalition of accessibility, security, and repair individuals and organizations, supporting the lawsuit of security researcher Dr. Matthew Green and others, represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, over a controversial copyright law. The brief urged the court to conclude that Section 1201 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code, added by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, violates the First Amendment by chilling fair uses aimed at making copyrighted works accessible to people with disabilities, researching security vulnerabilities in computer software, and repairing software-enabled vehicles and devices. Section 1201 prohibits the circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs) on copyrighted works, requiring accessibility, security, and repair organizations to pursue exemptions in a burdensome triennial rulemaking conducted by the U.S. Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. The brief details the substantive and procedural harms of Section 1201 and the rulemaking to the First Amendment rights of people with disabilities, disability services organizations and libraries, security researchers, and ordinary consumers and repair professionals.
In light of the ongoing pandemic, emergency call centers (ECCs) and public safety answering points (PSAPs) are faced with the question of whether to screen callers for COVID-19. The benefits of this screening will protect first responders—but on the other hand, ECC/PSAPs are concerned that screening callers may raise legal issues.
TLPC student attorney Kelsey Fayer drafted a white paper addressing whether ECC/PSAPs need to comply with privacy laws. First, caller screening information, if it is voluntary, likely satisfies relevant compliance requirements. Second, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) likely does not apply to PSAP/ECCs regarding a caller’s COVID-19 status. Finally, PSAP/ECCs should work with local public health authorities to implement privacy best practices. The white paper includes a 50-state chart mapping current PSAP/ECC practices around screening callers and state health privacy laws that may be applicable to PSAP/ECC COVID-19 caller queries.
In consultation with Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI), the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), the American Council of the Blind (ACB), the Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA), and the Technology Access Program (TAP) at Gallaudet University, the TLPC and our sister Communications and Technology Law Clinic (CTLC) at Georgetown Law developed an overview of critical technology accessibility priorities for a new administration at the Federal Communications Commission. The overview encourages the transition team and the FCC to:
- Prioritize accessibility in agency leadership;
- Relocate the Disability Rights Office to a new Office of Civil Rights;
- Address videoconferencing accessibility problems in response to the pandemic;
- Get the Real-Time Text transition back on track;
- Bolster video programming accessibility; and
- Improve the accessibility of wireless handsets.
(by Kelsey Fayer, Colorado Law 2L)
Today, the TLPC, in partnership with our sister Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa, filed comments drafted by Prof. Margot Kaminski (Colorado Law) and Prof. Vivek Krishnamurthy (University of Ottowa) on behalf of a coalition of privacy researchers before the
Continue reading “TLPC and CIPPIC Samuelson-Glushko Clinics File OPC Comments for Privacy Researchers on the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence”
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC).