Last Week in Tech Policy #59: Smart Glasses for Law Enforcement

In 2015, ABI Research estimated that approximately 90% of smart glasses would be sold to police, military, security, warehouse, and bar code scanning operations. Smart glasses, such as Google Glass, have to potential to improve the safety of police officers and bring wanted individuals to justice, but also present major issues in the realms of privacy and government surveillance.

Continue reading “Last Week in Tech Policy #59: Smart Glasses for Law Enforcement”

TLPC Files Reply Comment in 911 Apps Proceeding

After the release of the Federal Communications Commission’s public notice seeking comment on 911 applications, student attorney Eilif Vanderkolk filed a reply comment addressing the issues of locational data, interface design, and cybersecurity in 911 smartphone applications. These issues were previously raised by TLPC in the whitepaper published by the Clinic last fall, and remain important during the NG911 transition .

 

TLPC and Boulder Valley School District File Comments and Replies in E-Rate Waiver Proceeding

After releasing a public notice seeking comment on the Boulder Valley School District’s (BVSD) petition to waive certain provisions of the Federal Communications Commission’s E-Rate rules, the Commission has now received two rounds of comments. TLPC student attorneys Max Brennan and Caroline Jones filed comments and reply comments on behalf of BVSD requesting that the Commission grant the waiver, which seeks to bridge the homework gap for students living in Boulder’s low-income housing community.

Over 50 parties filed initial comments, including industry and trade groups, public interest organizations, and school districts.

User-Testing Requirements for Accessibility in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act

This comment explains why user-testing requirements for accessibility are necessary for usable advanced communications services or products. Written in conjunction with Professor Clayton Lewis of CU-Boulder’s Coleman Institute, the TLPC’s comment explains why user-testing best serves the purposes of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act. The comment additionally explains how the Act applies to people with cognitive disabilities and, moreover, analyzes how the Act may be defined to the full extent that Congress intended. This interpretation ensures that people with disabilities have full access to advanced communications technologies. The comment proposes a complaint-based enforcement process that will help implement reasonable user-testing requirements for accessibility.

User-Testing Requirements for Accessibility in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act

Online Privacy: Concerns About Employer or Insurance Company Detection of Disability-Related Browser Add-ons

This comment raises concerns about an individual’s digital fingerprint as revealed by browser add-ons. Add-ons are pieces of software that enhance the capabilities of a larger software application, such as a web browser. When an individual visits a website, most websites ask the computer for the browser’s installed add-ons, and other information about a user’s computer (such as screen size), to ensure that the content and information it sends to a computer is properly formatted. This information may be thought of as an individual’s “digital fingerprint.”

Add-ons have many useful benefits. However, a digital fingerprint also creates the potential for employers, insurance companies, and others to discriminate based on add-on information. The TLPC’s comment to the FTC highlights concerns that a party (for example, an employer) could see that a user (for example, a job applicant) has an add-on installed that is specific to his disability. This information could be potentially misused. Consider a person with a vision impairment, who uses a screen reader add-on, in applying for a job on the potential employer’s website. The potential employer sees the installed add-on and decides not to hire the applicant because the employer does not want to pay for accessibility programs for the applicant. The TLPC argues that regulatory agencies should be sensitive to such abuse and consider whether additional safeguards are warranted.

Comment on FTC’s Proposed Privacy Framework

Reexamination of FCC Spectrum Enforcement and Dispute Resolution Mechanism

The FCC’s leadership in spectrum management has led to increased spectrum accessibility, more flexibility in how licensees and unlicensed users utilize the spectrum, and a greater reliance on market-type mechanisms. These developments each reflect a welcome migration away from a command and control-type approach to managing the spectral resource. In this Comment, the TLPC encourages the FCC to take the next step in spectrum management by reexamining existing spectrum enforcement mechanisms. Speedy and predictable ways to enforce rights are an important dimension of a well-functioning market. There is reason to question whether existing enforcement mechanisms are sufficient given wireless regulatory and market trends. In Spring 2011, Colorado Law’s TLPC filed a Reply Comment under the FCC’s Dynamic Spectrum Notice of Inquiry (NOI). The TLPC’s filing explains why the FCC should reexamine its existing enforcement and dispute resolution mechanisms in order to adapt to an environment where more intensive and dynamic spectrum activity is likely to increase the frequency of spectrum rights disputes.

University of Colorado Reply Comment ET Docket No. 10-237

Social Media for Emergency Communications (March 2011)

by Meg Panzer

This comment, submitted to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), analyzes how consumers have used social media during an emergency, how consumers will expect to use social media for emergency purposes in the future, and to what extent public safety jurisdictions might employ social media tools as a way to interact with the public.  This filing requests that the FCC encourage social media use as part of emergency response and provide guidance to jurisdictions that wish to employ social media tools during a crisis.

Comments of Samuelson-Glushko Technology Law and Policy Clinic