After Over-Privileged Permissions: Using Technology and Design to Create Legal Compliance

Consumers in the mobile ecosystem can putatively protect their privacy with the use of application permissions. However, this requires the mobile device owners to understand permissions and their privacy implications. Yet, few consumers appreciate the nature of permissions within the mobile ecosystem, often failing to appreciate the privacy permissions that are altered when updating an app. Even more concerning is the lack of understanding of the wide use of third-party libraries, most which are installed with automatic permissions, that is permissions that must be granted to allow the application to function appropriately. Unsurprisingly, many of these third-party permissions violate consumers’ privacy expectations and thereby, become “over-privileged” to the user. Consequently, an obscurity of privacy expectations between what is practiced by the private sector and what is deemed appropriate by the public sector is exhibited. Despite the growing attention given to privacy in the mobile ecosystem, legal literature has largely ignored the implications of mobile permissions. This article seeks to address this omission by analyzing the impacts of mobile permissions and the privacy harms experienced by consumers of mobile applications. The authors call for the review of industry self-regulation and the overreliance upon simple notice and consent. Instead, the authors set out a plan for greater attention to be paid to socio-technical solutions, focusing on better privacy protections and technology embedded within the automatic permission-based application ecosystem

The Dilemma of Private Justice Systems: Big Data Sources, the Cloud and Predictive Analytics

Abstract: In the age of big data, demanding customer expectations, and increasingly limited access to justice for small claims arising from online sales, business organizations are moving to enhanced online customer complaint platforms and insisting upon increased online justice resolution systems. At the same time, online businesses, even websites you fail to think of as a business, are moving from traditional analytics that provide a snapshot of the past, to solutions that provide an accurate picture of the present and a prediction of future trends. For many, predictive analytics is the wave of the future. In many ways, the use of predictive analytics is a wonderful occurrence, as our packages will arrive in a more timely manner, our advertising will be more personal and our online and physical lives will be tailored, monitored and adjusted to our interests, life styles and immediate needs without so much as a hiccup. However, what will happen when the current push for private online dispute resolution systems meets the current big data gathering of a private market? Will the private online dispute resolution providers use the information gathered for good, or as a means to quickly resolve disputes without notice of the law, personal rights and/or ethical outcomes? Worse yet, what will happen when the private market of online dispute resolution faces the demands of a business environment that would prefer analytic outcomes to be skewed to favor the business? Bear in mind, these issues do not arise in a prediction, these private online dispute resolution mechanisms already exist and are growing in support and use on a daily basis. This paper will explore the emerging issue that occurs when private online dispute resolution providers are allowed, without transparency, oversight, or regulation, to create a justice system that knows a lot of personal information about you but is required to follow no legal standard or regulation to resolve your dispute with a merchant

Pliers and Screwdrivers as Contributory Infringement Devices: Why Your Local Digital Repair Shop Might Be a Copyright Infringer, and Why We Must Stop the Craziness

In September of 2012, Apple announced that it had received two million pre-orders for the iPhone 5 within the first twenty-four hours it was available. And while this number is staggering, the previous year the iPhone 4S sold over one million devices during its first twenty-four hours of pre-order sales. While the iPhone is a single example, it represents a much larger truth—the use of embedded software and digital devices permeates our daily lives. Naturally, as technology becomes more ingrained, consumers will expect the ability to repair technology at a local repair shop. In addition, as the cost for technology drops and release dates accelerate, more individuals will frequently swap out older generation technology for the new model. While many individuals will trade in their older technology, a majority will hold on to it and later throw it away without a thought about the possible uses of the old device. And few will consider, even for a fleeting moment, the issues that will arise in relation to the new and old device because of the copyright laws. These issues include our ability to seek repair from local shops, to trade in devices, to recycle goods with embedded technology, and of course, to maintain the technology. All of these issues demand the right people to have the right information, often contained in a manual. Fortunately, the issue of manuals being free from copyright protection has been dealt with previously in the automobile industry. Unfortunately, the issue was overcome in the name of environmental law, thus avoiding the much larger debate in terms of the copyright protection afforded manuals that contain basic and important information. The time has come to renew the debate and consider the long-term consequences associated with protections afforded this critical information. This Article aims to briefly consider the growth of embedded technology, the importance of manuals and other information, the growth of the throw-away culture, the environmental impacts of restrictions on the sharing of information, and the current legislative initiatives to address the overly strong protections afforded this important information. In light of this, this Article calls for more attention and discussion as it relates to the current copyright protections, and for a more balanced approach to these protections. This Article concludes by demonstrating the law must institute three changes to create a better balance: (1) limit the copyright protections afforded manufacturers in relation to manuals and similar publications to life of the device or new generation release, whichever is earliest, (2) remove restrictions related to unlocking and similar technology work-arounds, and (3) insist upon protections for the information contained within the trade-in device

Heavyweight Bots in the Clouds: The Wrong Incentives and Poorly Crafted Balances That Lead to the Blocking of Information Online

The United States and the European Union have long recognized the need to protect ISPs from potential liability from customers using their services to infringe intellectual property rights. These protections arise from a long-standing belief that intellectual property right holders should bear the burden of protecting their property, even in the quick moving Internet environment. However, a recent series of cases has called into question the ISPs’ liability protections as their technology is often the only real means to prevent wide scale infringing activity. This series has caused courts to revisit ISPs’ liability and to impose a ‘cooperative burden’ requiring ISPs to assist in the protection of intellectual property rights. In creating this burden, the ISPs and right holders have reacted by working together to craft technology advances that identify infringing activities. However, the technology is not yet ready for wide scale use and is often accompanied by policies that encourage the over-identification of material that should never be considered infringing. The over-identification is even more troubling in the face of automatic blocking activities that allow entities to claim material that is not part of their intellectual property portfolio. This activity is preventing communication, blocking the dissemination of information, and sometimes holding rightful owners of the material hostage to the automatic bot shut down activities. Simply put, this new cooperative burden is creating an odd set of incentives with no regard for individual internet users’ rights. This paper will consider incentives created under the law for ISPs to over-protect intellectual property rights. The paper will then consider the creation of an appropriate balance between stakeholders within the online world—one that re-evaluates the priority given to right holders and instead truly balances the burden of protecting intellectual property in the online world. Finally, the paper will suggest that the law must be reconsidered in light of the new technologies being employed by ISPs and intellectual property right holders in an effort to combat online piracy at the expense of individual users

Heavyweight Bots in the Clouds: The Wrong Incentives and Poorly Crafted Balances That Lead to the Blocking of Information Online

The United States and the European Union have long recognized the need to protect ISPs from potential liability from customers using their services to infringe intellectual property rights. These protections arise from a long-standing belief that intellectual property right holders should bear the burden of protecting their property, even in the quick moving Internet environment. However, a recent series of cases has called into question the ISPs’ liability protections as their technology is often the only real means to prevent wide scale infringing activity. This series has caused courts to revisit ISPs’ liability and to impose a ‘cooperative burden’ requiring ISPs to assist in the protection of intellectual property rights. In creating this burden, the ISPs and right holders have reacted by working together to craft technology advances that identify infringing activities. However, the technology is not yet ready for wide scale use and is often accompanied by policies that encourage the over-identification of material that should never be considered infringing. The over-identification is even more troubling in the face of automatic blocking activities that allow entities to claim material that is not part of their intellectual property portfolio. This activity is preventing communication, blocking the dissemination of information, and sometimes holding rightful owners of the material hostage to the automatic bot shut down activities. Simply put, this new cooperative burden is creating an odd set of incentives with no regard for individual internet users’ rights. This paper will consider incentives created under the law for ISPs to over-protect intellectual property rights. The paper will then consider the creation of an appropriate balance between stakeholders within the online world—one that re-evaluates the priority given to right holders and instead truly balances the burden of protecting intellectual property in the online world. Finally, the paper will suggest that the law must be reconsidered in light of the new technologies being employed by ISPs and intellectual property right holders in an effort to combat online piracy at the expense of individual users

Information and the Regulatory Landscape: A Growing Need to Reconsider Existing Legal Frameworks

Advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems are already being used to enhance our lives and to transform the way businesses operate. Businesses across a broad spectrum of industries are exploring the potential gains offered by AI systems. In fact, the use of AI systems is already widespread in areas such as transport, finance, defense, social security, education, policing, public safety, and healthcare. The recent explosion of machine learning technology is arguably a product of two things: “tremendous increases in computational power and enormous volumes of accumulated data.” Unsurprisingly, legal frameworks and industry-based governance regimes have failed to keep up with the newest AI. The existing gaps have led to industry attempting to fill the void, but these attempts are in their infancy and often fail to fully consider the various stakeholders impacted by the ubiquitous gathering and corresponding use of data

When Baby Steps Just Won\u27t Work: Small Farmers Are Our Best Hope Reducing Food Insecurity and We Are Not Doing Enough

The concept of “baby steps” is well-known among psychologists and movie buffs alike. In the classic movie “What About Bob,” Dr. Leo Marvin (played by Richard Dreyfuss) gives to Bob (Bill Murray), a highly dependent and worried individual, a copy of his book Baby Steps. Dr. Marvin explains, “It means setting small, reasonable goals for yourself. One day at a time, one tiny step at a time—doable, accomplishable goals.” For many, the concept of “baby steps,” methodically working on simple, constrained pieces of a problem, is a useful approach in solving complex and difficult problems. Unfortunately, accomplishing large goals through small increments can take a considerable amount of time and coordination. And, in the case of solving world hunger, time is up. Prior attempts to address the issue of hunger have been based on baby steps, and now we must abandon such incremental approaches and focus on large-scale changes. Otherwise, the world will soon see a food crisis like never before. The first part of the paper asserts that increased access to financing is needed for smallholder farmers to help boost farm productivity and reduce food scarcity. The second part, describes a new protocol to an existing convention, the Cape Town Convention (defined below), that some argue will benefit agriculture financing. The paper concludes by considering the actual impact the new protocol would have on small farmers’ ability to reduce food and asserts that while the protocol might end up being a successful one, it is still just a baby step toward the stated goal of eliminating world hunger

When Baby Steps Just Won\u27t Work: Small Farmers Are Our Best Hope Reducing Food Insecurity and We Are Not Doing Enough

The concept of “baby steps” is well-known among psychologists and movie buffs alike. In the classic movie “What About Bob,” Dr. Leo Marvin (played by Richard Dreyfuss) gives to Bob (Bill Murray), a highly dependent and worried individual, a copy of his book Baby Steps. Dr. Marvin explains, “It means setting small, reasonable goals for yourself. One day at a time, one tiny step at a time—doable, accomplishable goals.” For many, the concept of “baby steps,” methodically working on simple, constrained pieces of a problem, is a useful approach in solving complex and difficult problems. Unfortunately, accomplishing large goals through small increments can take a considerable amount of time and coordination. And, in the case of solving world hunger, time is up. Prior attempts to address the issue of hunger have been based on baby steps, and now we must abandon such incremental approaches and focus on large-scale changes. Otherwise, the world will soon see a food crisis like never before. The first part of the paper asserts that increased access to financing is needed for smallholder farmers to help boost farm productivity and reduce food scarcity. The second part, describes a new protocol to an existing convention, the Cape Town Convention (defined below), that some argue will benefit agriculture financing. The paper concludes by considering the actual impact the new protocol would have on small farmers’ ability to reduce food and asserts that while the protocol might end up being a successful one, it is still just a baby step toward the stated goal of eliminating world hunger

Technology, Ethics, and Access to Justice: Should an Alogrithm be Deciding Your Case?

At a time of U.S. budget cuts, popularly known as the “sequester,” court systems across the nation are facing financial shortfalls. Small claims courts are no exception. Among the worst hit states is California, which is suffering staffing cutbacks that result in long delays prompting consideration of the old maxim, “justice delayed is justice denied.” Similar problems, albeit on a larger scale, are evident in other nations including India where the Law Commission has argued that the millions of pending cases combined with the lagging uptake of technological best practices has impeded judicial productivity, leading to “disappointment and dissatisfaction among . . . justice-seekers.” As justice systems continue to struggle with inadequate resources, and individuals are confronted with the reality that pursuing claims, especially low-value claims, are often not worth the effort, justice is being denied to millions of individuals