Ryan Calo is an assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Law and a former research director at CIS. A nationally recognized expert in law and emerging technology, Ryan's work has appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, Wired Magazine, and other news outlets. Ryan serves on several advisory committees, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and the Future of Privacy Forum. He co-chairs the American Bar Association Committee on Robotics and Artificial Intelligence and serves on the program committee of National Robotics Week.
Is it lawful for a car to drive itself? In the absence of any law to the contrary, it should well be. A new bill is working its way through the Nevada state legislature that would remove any doubt in that state. A.B. 511 directs the Nevada Department of Transportation to authorize autonomous vehicle testing in certain geographic areas of Nevada. Should vehicles meet Nevada DOT standards, they would be permitted to "operate on a highway." The bill defines not only autonomous vehicle, but artificial intelligence as well. AI is "the use of computers and related equipment to enable a machine to duplicate or mimic the behavior of human beings." An autonomous vehicle uses "artificial intelligence, sensors, and [GPS] coordinates to drive itself." To be clear: autonomous vehicles are not yet the law of the land in Nevada. This bill must pass through two committees and receive a hearing before it can be voted on and become law. Some preliminary thoughts on the bill in its present form follow.
Requiring notice is an extraordinarily popular way to regulate. In online privacy, for instance, giving notice about their practices is among the only affirmative obligations websites face. The strategy is also one of the most heavily criticized. Not only does no one read privacy policies, skeptics rightly point out, but many believe that their mere existence guarantees certain base level protections that may or may not exist.
Should we give up on notice? My recent draft paper argues: maybe not. We should explore two possibilities, at any rate, before we do. The first is that regulators may sometimes select the wrong form of notice for the job. Today most website “terms” say that the company “may disclose data pursuant to lawful requests.” That does very little to further user understanding or action. But maybe it could work to:
As an alternative, I argue for a concept I've been calling "visceral" privacy notice. Rather than tell people at length what your privacy practices may be, you show them what they really are. Facebook took a step in this direction today, joining Google and Yahoo! in what I hope to be an emerging best practice.
The intuition that privacy and innovation are somehow opposed is surprisingly common. It is true that overzealous or reactionary appeals to privacy can cut off interesting ventures. (For instance, some believe Steamtunnels would have evolved into a social network in 1999 were it not shut down by the Stanford University due to privacy and copyright concerns.) But privacy generally supports innovation, and vice versa.
In a fresh and recent whitepaper, Brookings Institution senior fellow Benjamin Wittes and law student Jodie Liu turn the standard privacy argument on its head: as they see it, many supposed threats to our privacy actually benefit it.
The Federal Aviation Administration announced its proposal this morning for what rules should govern small unmanned aerial systems, meaning drones 55 pounds or lighter. We do not know how long it will take for the rules to go into effect. When they do, the new rules will permit vastly more drone use in the United States, bringing us closer into line with other countries where drones can be commercially operated today.
We are not ready for driverless cars because our public officials lack the expertise to evaluate the safety of this new class of automobiles.
It is always fun, and sometimes worrying, to see imagination come to life. I was on a panel last year at UC Berkeley around robotics and law. We talked about some of the conundrums robots and artificial intelligence might pose for law and policy–the subject of my forthcoming work Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw. One hypothetical involved a shopping “bot” that randomly purchases items on the Internet.
"A future where ROSS, or similar robot lawyers, is used across the country might not be too far away, according to Ryan Calo, a law professor and writer who focuses on the intersection of technology and law. “The use of complex software in the practice of law is commonplace — for instance, in managing discovery,” said Calo. “Watson is a tool — in law or medicine or another context — to assist professionals in making judgments. Eventually, I bet not using these systems will come to be viewed as antiquated and even irresponsible, like writing a brief on a typewriter.”'
"All of which begs the question, is this that big a deal? “We need to figure out what kind of danger drones actually prose,” says Ryan Calo, who specializes in law as it applies to robotics, at the University of Washington. “Is it enough to spend millions of dollars protecting against them at every airport?”"
"Ryan Calo, a law professor at the University of Washington, thinks that though this isn’t the first effort Google has made to curb what it deems dangerous advertising (even within the financial sector) it’s a substantial one that will have an effect for both consumers and payday lenders. “It’s one thing to have a bunch of lawmakers take a stand. It’s quite another to have the main search engine not carry ads,” Calo says. “It has a signaling function.
""If you're looking for an economically-efficient way to deliver packages, you'd be better off using a bicycle," said Ryan Calo, an assistant law professor at the University of Washington specializing in robotics."
""Just imagine a world in which bots are out there looking for vulnerabilities and other bots or artificial intelligence is simultaneously poking holes, plugging holes, poking back," said Ryan Calo, a law professor and director of the Tech Policy Lab at the University of Washington, a think tank that examines cybersecurity and AI policy."
The University of Washington School of Law is delighted to announce a public workshop on the law and policy of artificial intelligence, co-hosted by the White House and UW’s Tech Policy Lab. The event places leading artificial intelligence experts from academia and industry in conversation with government officials interested in developing a wise and effective policy framework for this increasingly important technology. The event is free and open to the public but requires registration. -
CIS Affilate Scholar Ryan Calo wil be part of a panel titled "Understanding the Implications of Open Data".
How can open data promote trust in government without creating a transparent citizenry?
CIS Affiliate Scholars Peter Asaro, Ryan Calo and Woodrow Hartzog will all be participating in this two-day conference.
Registration is open for We Robot 2015 and we have a great program planned:
Friday, April 10
Registration and Breakfast
Welcome Remarks: Dean Kellye Testy, University of Washington School of Law
Introductory Remarks: Ryan Calo, Program Committee Chair
CIS Affiliate Scholar Ryan Calo on Good Morning America segment "Popularity of Drones Raises Privacy Concerns," many have reported drones with cameras invading their privacy.
Ryan Calo, Assistant Law Professor at the University of Washington and an affiliate scholar at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, talks about testing Google’s driverless cars.
Listen to the full show at Marketplace Tech.
Tony Dyson, noted roboticist and special effects model-maker, and the builder of R2D2, discusses the future of robotics with Professor Ryan Calo of the University of Washington School of Law.
The Federal Aviation Administration has released long-awaited proposed rules to regulate commercial drone use. The rules would allow anyone over 17 to take a test to get permission to fly a commercial drone without needing a pilot's license, a key concern of the drone industry.
Commercial drones would have to fly below 500 feet, only during daylight, and always be visible to their operators.