Press

CIS in the news.

Leave blank for all. Otherwise, the first selected term will be the default instead of "Any".
  • Self-driving cars get ready to roll

    Date published: 
    March 3, 2016

    "Q: Is this an uphill battle for self-driving car proponents?

    Not necessarily. Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina who studies the technology, says federal guidelines may help take pressure off states to create their own regulations.

  • Google self-driving car hits public bus near Mountain View headquarters

    Date published: 
    March 1, 2016

    "However, Bryant Walker Smith, a risk, technology and mobility expert at Stanford University and assistant professor in both law and engineering at the University of South Carolina, suggested that the accident doesn't mean much in the overall debate over self-driving cars.

    "I'm no more or less optimistic about the technology or the rate of deployment after this crash," Smith said. "It is simply something that was going to happen eventually and doesn't change my sense that the technology has not yet been demonstrated to be ready over a wide range of conditions.""

  • When Regulating Self-Driving Cars, Who’s at the Wheel?

    Date published: 
    March 1, 2016

    "Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, believes automated vehicles are already legal in the United States, and wrote a 110-page law review article aimed at proving his point. To reach his conclusion, Smith combed through state laws, federal regulations and even international treaties. “It comes down to a question of interpretation or enforcement discretion,” he says. “A state or a community that is really supportive of automated driving may well conclude that the laws already support it.

  • The First ‘Robotic' Car Crash Happened in 1947

    Date published: 
    March 1, 2016

    "This case is a curio of weird American history, and it’s a frustrating look at gender roles at the time. But it’s not entirely frivolous to look back at the case now that a Google driverless car has been deemed at fault in a crash.

  • Apple Goes to Washington Fresh From Big Boost in iPhone Fight

    Date published: 
    February 29, 2016

    "The ruling should help in the California case because Orenstein fully supported Apple’s arguments, a company executive said on a call with reporters. The Justice Department said it will appeal his decision.

    Orenstein’s decision “lays out in excruciating detail for the government all the reasons why they’ve overreached here,” according to Albert Gidari, director of privacy at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School."

  • Google's self-driving car caused an accident, so what now?

    Date published: 
    February 29, 2016

    ""This is just one accident, and we will likely see more," said Bryant Walker Smith an assistant professor of law at the University of South Carolina. "The world is a messy place and roads are messy places so this isn't the last accident we'll ever see with a self-driving vehicle."

    Walker Smith specializes in studying the development of laws and regulations involving self-driving cars.

    He understands why this accident will generate lots of headlines, but beyond that he says it doesn't tell us much.

  • 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.

  • 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 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.

  • 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."

Pages