Press

CIS in the news.

Leave blank for all. Otherwise, the first selected term will be the default instead of "Any".
  • Legal Analysis Finds Judges Have No Idea What Robots Are

    Date published: 
    February 27, 2016

    "We can’t be sure what Brieant was thinking when he ordered poor Walter killed (Brieant died in 2008), but a new legal analysis by Ryan Calo, an assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Law, has found that there have been a whole litany of cases involving robots. Upsettingly, many decisions involving robots suggest American judges have a fundamental lack of understanding about what robots are and how they function.

  • Apple privacy battle with Washington looms as watershed moment

    Date published: 
    February 26, 2016

    “There are a lot of ways in which the debate over the past year and a half has been déjà vu all over again,” says Riana Pfefferkorn, a cryptography fellow at Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society. “We’re seeing a lot of the same arguments on behalf of law enforcement that they made in the 1990s.”"

  • Fifty Billion Connected Devices Bring Tort, Software Law Clash

    Date published: 
    February 26, 2016

    "The product liability challenge embedded in connected devices, which include everything from smart coffee pots and ovens to medical devices and cars, is “the collision between two traditional sets of legal questions,” law professor Andrea Matwyshyn of Northeastern University in Boston told Bloomberg BNA.

    On the one hand we have “relatively established product liability law dealing with physical objects, where we've basically created a series of legal protections for consumers to enable them to have a minimum floor of functionality and safety,” she said.

  • Can unlimited video really be that bad?

    Date published: 
    February 26, 2016

    ""It's just another form of favoring one application over another," said Barbara van Schewick, a Stanford law professor. In January, she published a report accusing T-Mobile's Binge On service of violating Net neutrality."

  • Apple May Use a First Amendment Defense in That FBI Case. And It Just Might Work

    Date published: 
    February 25, 2016

    "“The human equivalent of the company signing code is basically saying, ‘We believe that this code is safe for you to run,'” says Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties for the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School. “So I think that when you force Apple to cryptographically sign the software, it has a communicative aspect to it that I think is compelled speech to force them to do it.”

  • Nine key legal cases about robots, and the messy legal future of robotic devices

    Date published: 
    February 25, 2016

    "Robot legal theorist Ryan Calo writes, "I thought you might enjoy my new paper, canvassing decades of American case law involving robots. Courts have had to decide, for instance, whether a robot represents something 'animate,' whether the robot band at Chuckie Cheese 'performs,' and whether a salvage crew 'possesses' a ship wreck by visiting it with a robot sub."

  • Should Apple Help Customers Hide Personal Info From Government?

    Date published: 
    February 25, 2016

    ""Can you force Apple to design their product in a particular way and that also could have a speech component?" wondered Ryan Calo, an assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Law. "If what's being compelled here is a change to the way we speak, then it's not the company and its bits and bytes at issue — it's yours and mine.""

  • Protecting the Open Internet

    Date published: 
    February 25, 2016

    Q: What does net neutrality mean?

    A: Net neutrality is a principle that has allowed the Internet to serve as a platform for free speech, innovation and economic growth. According to that principle, Internet service providers like Verizon or Comcast that connect us to the Internet should not control what happens on the Internet. That means that ISPs should not have the power to block or slow down websites, make some sites more attractive than others, or charge Internet companies fees to reach people faster. 

  • Google, Facebook Among Those Preparing To Sign Court Filing In Support Of Apple

    Date published: 
    February 25, 2016

    "“I think it’s fair to say there’s an extraordinary amount of support for Apple right now,” said Andrew Bridges, a partner at the law firm Fenwick & West LLP who has represented Google in the past. Bridges said he was in touch “with a number of companies” interested in signing onto a brief supporting Apple, but declined to say which ones.

  • Driverless Cars Brave Mean City Streets

    Date published: 
    February 24, 2016

    "All of these companies' efforts fall into one of two kinds of technologies, said Bryant Walker Smith, an engineer and lawyer at the University of South Carolina: cars that do something everywhere or cars that do everything somewhere.

    "The current state of technology," Smith said, "is that we don't have vehicles that can do all of the driving all of the time." Vehicles like those at Gateway will be limited to specific conditions, community, and geography. Those vehicles require slow speed, simplified environment, and some form of supervision.

  • Meet Marc Zwillinger: Apple's secret weapon in its battle against the FBI

    Date published: 
    February 24, 2016

    "“When they leave, they all recognize the extraordinary power the government has,” said Albert Gidari, a recently retired privacy lawyer who worked with Google and referred Zwillinger to Apple. Zwillinger sends Gidari brownies each holiday season as a thank you.

    “They know from their time on hand that power can be abused,” Gidari said."

  • Apple's Best Arguments Against the U.S. Over iPhone Access

    Date published: 
    February 24, 2016

    "Indeed, the act wasn’t meant to lead to new lawmaking, said Jeffrey Vagle, executive director of the Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. One could argue that compelling a company to produce something -- code, for instance -- effectively does just that.

    But the dearth of applicable case law is a problem for this argument, Vagle said. The New York Telephone ruling set a strong precedent that communications firms had a duty to “provide technical assistance.”"
  • Pourquoi Apple invoque la liberté d’expression face au FBI

    Date published: 
    February 24, 2016

    "Le premier amendement protège la liberté d’expression, qui comprend également “le droit de ne pas s’exprimer”, explique aux “Echos” Rianna Pfefferkorn, chercheuse spécialisée en cryptographie et vie privée à l’école de droit de Stanford.

Pages