Who Will Regulate Robots?

Image via Wikipedia

by Ryan Calo, Stanford Center for Internet and Society, January 20, 2012

As robots leave the factory and battlefield and enter our homes, hospitals, and skies, it is not clear who will come to regulate them. But we can begin to spot some interesting patterns. Students of this transformative technology should keep their eye on both the claims and disavowals of authority over robots by state and federal agencies. Each hold potential dangers for our civil liberties and for the future of robotics. …

For full text of this article, visit Who Will Regulate Robots? | Stanford Center for Internet and Society.

See also Calo’s article The Drone as Privacy Catalyst in Standford Law Review.

Related articles

• Robot Law and Policy Conference of the Day (geeks.thedailywh.at)

Legislating Privacy After US v Jones

Legislating Privacy after U.S. v. Jones: Can Congress Limit Government Use of New Surveillance Technologies?

by Robert Gellman, JD, Communia Blog, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, January 25, 2012

The Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Jones, a case that addressed the use of global positioning system GPS tracking devices for law enforcement purposes, is hot privacy news. Almost immediately, the decision sparked numerous and sometimes conflicting comments. The issue here is whether the decision will prompt Congress to consider legislation and what that legislation might look like.

The majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia used a property-based approach to conclude that attaching a GPS device to a car and using the GPS to monitor the car’s movements on public streets constitutes a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The narrow basis for the decision turned on the fact that the government physically occupied private property the car for the purpose of obtaining information.

A concurring opinion by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by three of his colleagues reached the same outcome, but Alito wanted to determine whether the car owner’s reasonable expectations of privacy were violated by the long-term monitoring of his car. Essentially, Alito thought that the majority’s property analysis was not scalable to present day surveillance issues and that an expectation of privacy standard would reach the same result without the baggage of the property-based approach.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the majority opinion, but she also filed a concurring opinion. She observed that physical intrusion is not always necessary for surveillance e.g., by tracking a cell phone and argued that how surveillance is done may affect an expectation of privacy. So in her opinion Sotomayor asked whether people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded in a manner that allows the government to ascertain their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and more. She even questioned the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. That was the holding in United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 1976 , a case increasingly criticized by privacy advocates as inconsistent with life today.

…

For full text of this article, which provides an insightful overview of what crafting and passing updated privacy legislation might entail, visit Legislating Privacy After US v Jones « Communia.

Robert Gellman, JD is a privacy and information policy consultant in Washington, D.C. He served for 17 years on the staff of a subcommittee in the House of Representatives. He can be reached at bob [at] bobgellman. [dot] com or visit his website at http://www.bobgellman.com/. Also check out his article Location Privacy: Is Privacy in Public a Contradiction in Terms?

Related articles

• Supreme Court GPS Tracking Case: Round-up and Resources (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
• Supreme Court Relies on Kerr’s Theory of Fourth Amendment and Property (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
• Location Privacy: Is Privacy in Public a Contradiction in Terms? (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)

Evaluating Access to Spatial Data Information in Rwanda

by Felicia O. Akinyemi, URISA Journal 2011, Volume 23, No 2

Abstract: Access to spatial data is of growing interest to practitioners and society for the use of geospatial technology pervades all fields, and all sectors of the economy can use the same information in different applications. Means of data access appropriate to any given context must be found. This study targeted organizations active in spatial data collection, management, dissemination, and use. It examines their willingness to cooperate in sharing spatial data in Rwanda. Key areas covered are the conditions of data access and restrictions to data usage as well as the willingness of users to pay for spatial data. A majority of the organizations give out data free to users on request, while others restrict access to data for some categories of users. Private-sector users are more willing to pay for spatial data. This study captures producers’ and users’ perspectives to spatial data access. Also, it reveals the situation of spatial data sharing in a developing-country context where explicit policies to cater to such activities are absent.

For full text of the article, click here.

From Public Records to Open Government: Access to Massachusetts Municipal Geographic Data

by Robert Goodspeed, URISA Journal 2011, Volume 23, No 2

Abstract: Increasingly, citizens are demanding access to raw data from governments to hold public officials accountable, look up facts, conduct analysis, or create innovative applications and services. Cities and towns create data using geographic information systems such as layers describing parcels, zoning, and infrastructure that are useful for a wide range of purposes. Through a public records request to all 351 Massachusetts municipalities, this paper investigates whether these data are accessible to citizens in practice. Some response was received by 78.6 percent of the municipalities. Two municipalities refused access to all electronic records. Many others charged fees ranging up to $453 or placed legal restrictions on the data through licensing that could chill or prohibit creative reuses of the information through emerging technologies. Other practical barriers limited public access to data, such as limited resources, government officials’ limited technical knowledge, and outsourcing to private vendors. A followup survey among municipalities that did not respond to the request was conducted to determine if they had GIS systems or data policies, and this information was collected for 80.3 percent of the municipalities. Finally, the paper discusses the legal, policy, and technical steps that can be taken by governments to move from a “public records” to an “open government” paradigm for transparency of government data. The policy recommendations for municipalities include publishing GIS data for free online and with minimal legal restrictions.

For full text of the article, click here.

Related articles

• Access to local GIS data (spatialityblog.com)

Supreme Court GPS Tracking Case: Round-up and Resources

UNITED STATES v. JONES
615 F. 3d 544, affirmed.

From Cornell University Legal Information Institute [HTML version has links to cited cases]:

• Syllabus [HTML] [PDF]
• Opinion, Scalia [HTML] [PDF]
• Concurrence, Sotomayor [HTML] [PDF]
• Concurrence, Alito [HTML] [PDF] 

From the Supreme Court and American Bar Association websites:

• Supreme Court Opinion No. 10-1259, Argued Nov 8, 2011 and Decided January 23, 2012 [PDF]
• Oral Argument Transcript [PDF]
• Merit and Amicus Briefs, American Bar Association, Accessed January 23, 2012

 

Legislation

In his written opinion, “Alito said the court and Congress should address how expectations of privacy affect whether warrants are required for remote surveillance using electronic methods that do not require the police to install equipment, such as GPS tracking of mobile telephones. Alito noted, for example, that more than 322 million cellphones have installed equipment that allows wireless carriers to track the phones’ locations (ABC News, Jan 23, 2012).”

In his article linked below, Robert Gellman provides a nice overview of the complexities of the legislative process for updating privacy legislation after US v. Jones:

• Legislating Privacy after US v. Jones: Can Congress Limit Government Use of New Surveillance Technologies? Robert Gellman, Communia Blog of the Science and Technology Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, January 25, 2012

For a list of proposed location privacy legislation as of Fall 2011, visit the home page of Kevin Pomfret’s Centre for Spatial Law and Policy.

 

Case Summaries  and Commentaries (in no particular order, and disclaimer, opinions are those of the original authors and some may not be correct in their analysis)

January 24-25, 2012

• Jones Confounds the Press, Tom Goldstien, SCOTUS Blog, Bloomberg, January 25, 2012
• Legislating Privacy after US v. Jones: Can Congress Limit Government Use of New Surveillance Technologies? Robert Gellman, Communia Blog of the Science and Technology Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, January 25, 2012
• Three Thoughts on US v Jones, Margot Kaminski, Concurring Opinions, January 24, 2012
• Jones is a Near-Optimal Result, Paul Ohm, Concurring Opinions, January 24, 2012
• United States v. Jones: Privacy in Public Space? Piece it all Together and You Get 5, Priscilla Smith, Concurring Opinions, January 24, 2012
• Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Gerard Magliocca, Concurring Opinions, January 24, 2012
• Why Scalia is Right in Jones: Magic Places and One-Way Ratchets, Derek Bambauer, January 24, 2012
• Here’s Why You Should Care (A Lot) About the Supreme Court’s GPS Ruling, Neal Ungerleader, Fast Company, January 25, 2012
• Searching for Clarification: United States v. Jones and Searches Under the Fourth Amendment, Reasonably Prudent: Tax, Technology and the Law Blog, January 24, 2012
• All Hail Samuel Alito, Privacy Champion Extraordinaire, Jeffery Rosen, The New Republic, January 24, 2012

January 23, 2012

• U. S. Supreme Court Unanimously Rule that GPS Installation and Tracking of a Vehicle Constitutes a Search, But The Justices Disagree on Rationale – Are Lines Being Drawn on Privacy Rights and New Technology?, Jeff Neuberger, New Media and Technology Law Blog, January 23, 2012
• A Unanimous Privacy Victory in US v. Jones, Jim Harper and Julian Sanchez [Video Podcast on YouTube], January 23, 2012
• “Jones”ing for a Fourth Amendment Upgrade, Julian Sanchez, Cato Institute, January 23, 2012
• US v. Jones: A Big Privacy Win, Jim Harper, Cato Institute, January 23, 2012
• United States v. Jones is a Near-Optimal Result, Professor Paul Ohm, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy, Freedom to Tinker Blog, January 23, 2012
• The New Doctrine of What Is a Fourth Amendment Search, What Jones Does Not Hold, What’s the Status of The Mosaic Theory After Jones, Why Did Justice Sotomayer  Join Scalia’s Majority Opinion in Jones, and Three Questions Raised by the Trespass Test in US v. Jones, Professor Orin Kerr + comments, The Volokh Conspiracy, January 23, 2012
• Daniel Solove and other contributors, Concurring Opinions, January 2012
• Tight Limit on Police GPS Use, Lyle Denniston, SCOTUS Blog, Bloomberg Law, January 23, 2012
• Supreme Court Decision in Warrantless GPS Tracking Case Offers Little Guidance in Consumer Privacy Context, Christopher Wolf, Hogan and Lovells, January 24, 2012
• Supreme Court: GPS Location Tracking Qualifies as Search, Tony Romm, Politico, January 23, 2012
• What Does The Supreme Court Ruling Against Warrantless GPS Tracking Mean? Carl Franzen, TPM, January  23, 2012
• Supreme Court Rules That GPS Is A Search, But That’s About All, Doug Mataconis, Beyond the Beltway, January 23, 2012
• Overnight Tech: Lawmakers Weigh in on High Court’s GPS Ruling, Brenden Sasso, The Hill, January 23, 2012
• Supreme Court Rules in Highly Watched GPS Case, John Moe, MarketPlace, January 24, 2012
• Alito v. Scalia: Two Conservative Supreme Court Justices Brawl Over Technology and Privacy, Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, January 23, 2012
• U.S. Supreme Court decides government use of GPS for monitoring constitutes search under the 4th Amendment, Alex Howard, Gov Fresh, January 23, 2012
• A Supreme Court Justice’s Radical Proposal Regarding The Privacy of Your Google Searches, Facebook Account & Phone Records, Kashmir Hill, Forbes, January 23, 2012
• Supreme Court Deals Blow To Government Surveillance, Saying Warrant Needed For GPS Tracking, Kashmir Hill, Forbes, January 23, 2012
• Supreme Court Rejects Willy-nilly GPS Tracking, David Kravets, Wired, January 23, 2012
• Supreme Court holds warrantless GPS tracking unconstitutional, Timothy B. Lee, Ars Technica, January 23, 2012
• Jones a Victory for Privacy but Only Beginning of Fixing Fourth Amendment Doctrine, Berin Szoka, TechFreedom, January 23, 2012
• Supreme Court Requires Warrant for GPS Tracking, Center for Technology and Democracy, January 23, 2012
• Justices Say GPS Tracker Violated Privacy Right, Adam Liptak, New York Times, January 23, 2012
• What Does the Supreme Court GPS Ruling Mean for Privacy? Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, Digits, Wall Street Journal, January 23, 2012
• Why the Jones Supreme Court Case Is Worse Than It Sounds, Rebecca Rosen, The Atlantic, January 23, 2012
• Supreme Court Rules Government Violated Privacy Rights in GPS Tracking Case, ACLU, January 23, 2012

• EPIC US V Jones Analysis
• CDT Amicus Brief
• CDT Summary of Supreme Court Case, Does GPS Tracking Require a Warrant?

• US v. Jones: Where Privacy, Technology and the Constitution Collide, John Whitehead [Video Podcast on YouTube], Rutherford Institute, October 10, 2011
• US v. Jones, Professor Douglas Godfrey, IIT Kent College of Law [Video on YouTube], OyezToday.com, November 7, 2011

Law Review Articles

• Tied Up in Knotts? GPS Technology and the Fourth Amendment, Renee McDonald Hutchins, 55 UCLA Law Review 1 (2007)
• The Case for the Third-Party Doctrine, Orin Kerr, Michigan Law Review Vol 107, 2009
• Kerr Defends the Third-Party Doctrine [counterpoint], Jim Harper, The Technology Liberation Front, May 30, 2008
• The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and The Case for Caution, Orin Kerr, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 801, 200

Location Privacy: Who Protects?

by Catilin D. Cottril, URISA Journal 2011, Volume 23, Issue 2

Abstract: Interest in and concerns related to the issue of privacy in the location-aware environment have been growing as the availability and use of location-based services (LBS) and data have been expanding. Recent events such as “Locationgate” have brought this issue to the forefront of interest for lawmakers, application developers, agencies, and users; however, understanding the varying levels of responsibility for each has been lacking. This article attempts to provide a clear review of the methods by which privacy protection may take place at the levels of law, technology, and management so a better understanding of how a comprehensive approach to privacy protection may take place. While the majority of policy aspects reviewed are U.S.-based, an attempt has been made to provide an overall view of locational privacy policy environments on an international scale as well. It is hoped that this effort will result in a clearer understanding of the ways in which privacy protection efforts should address the related concepts of law, technology, and practice to effectively minimize the risk of privacy harm.

For full text of the article, click here.

Related articles

• Protecting Location Privacy Against Inference Attacks (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
• Monday’s Musings: Seven Basic Privacy Rights Users Should Demand For Social Business (forbes.com)

What Does the Supreme Court GPS Ruling Mean for Technology and Privacy?

By Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, Digits, Wall Street Journal, January 23, 2012

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police violated the Fourth Amendment when they attached and used a GPS device to track a suspect’s vehicle without a warrant. … [But the Court's decision] applies only to the placement and use of a GPS device that had to be attached to the suspect’s car. The justices said the device was an intrusion onto the suspect’s property, even if the car was being driven on public roads. The opinion doesn’t say anything about what would happen if the government were able to track the car through other electronic means, without ever touching the vehicle. …

For full text of the article, visit What Does the Supreme Court GPS Ruling Mean for Privacy? – Digits – WSJ.

Related articles

• Supreme Court Ruled on GPS Tracking Case, Backs Privacy Rights (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
• Supreme Court Relies on Kerr’s Theory of Fourth Amendment and Property (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)

Supreme Court Relies on Kerr’s Theory of Fourth Amendment and Property

As noted by Professor Daniel Solove, Orin Kerr is cited by the Supreme Court in both the majority opinion and in a concurring opinion of US v Jones for his article, The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 801 (2004).  The majority opinion relies heavily on Orin’s theory of the Fourth Amendment and property that he sets forth in the first part of his article.

The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution

by Orin S. Kerr, George Washington University – Law School, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 801 (2004)

 Abstract: This article argues that courts should approach the Fourth Amendment with caution when technology is in flux. When a technology is new or developing rapidly, courts should adopt modest formulations of Fourth Amendment protections that recognize the effectiveness and institutional advantages of statutory privacy protections.

The cautious approach is justified on three grounds. First, caution is consistent with existing judicial practice. The reasonable expectation of privacy test generally has been used by the courts as a term of art that remains closely tied to property law concepts. When a technology implicates privacy but not property, current judicial practice tends to avoid broad interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.

Supreme Court Ruled on GPS Tracking Case, Backs Privacy Rights

By Jess Bravin, Wall Street Journal, What They Know, January 23, 2012

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled Monday [in United States v. Jones] that police must obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS tracker to a suspect’s vehicle, voting unanimously in one of the first major cases to test constitutional privacy rights in the digital age. … The court split 5-4 over the reasoning behind Monday’s decision, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority that as conceived in the 18th century, the Fourth Amendment’s protection of “persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” would extend to private property such as an automobile. …

For full text of the article, visit Supreme Court Backs Privacy Rights in GPS Case – WSJ.com.

For full text of the Court’s opinion in United States v. Jones, click here.

Related articles

• Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking (wired.com)
• GPS Surveillance: A Crossroads for the Fourth Amendment (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
• CDT Summary of Supreme Court Case, Does GPS Tracking Require a Warrant? (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
• Supreme Court Considers GPS Tracking Case Today (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
• New CRS Report on Governmental Tracking of Cell Phones and Vehicles (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)

Google Inc + World Bank = Empowering Citizen Cartographers?

by Patrick Meier, iRevolution, January 20, 2012

World Bank Managing Director Caroline Anstey recently announced a new partnership with Google that will apparently empower citizen cartographers in 150 countries worldwide.  …So what’s the catch? Google’s licensing agreement for Google Map Maker stipulates the following: Users are not allowed to access Google Map Maker data via any platform other than those designated by Google. Users are not allowed to make any copies of the data, nor can they translate the data, modify it or create a derivative of the data. In addition, users cannot publicly display any Map Maker data for commercial purposes. Finally, users cannot use Map Maker data to create a service that is similar to any already provided by Google. …

For the full text of Patrick Meier’s discussion on data access and licensing issues, visit Google Inc + World Bank = Empowering Citizen Cartographers? | iRevolution. This has important implications for participatory mapping projects for humanitarian aid and sustainable development.

Related articles

• Google Inc + World Bank = Empowering Citizen Cartographers? (irevolution.net)
• World Bank – Google Partnership for Community Mapping Raises Data Access Questions (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
• World Bank and Google join forces to empower mapping communities around the world (google-latlong.blogspot.com)
• Empowering Citizen Cartographers (nytimes.com)