The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School is a leader in the study of the law and policy around the Internet and other emerging technologies.
CIS in the news.
""This case adds to the disagreement over how to analyze compelled decryption orders in the context of passcodes," said Riana Pfefferkorn, associate director of surveillance and cybersecurity at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, in an email to The Register."
"Brian Nussbaum, a professor at the University of Albany who studies terrorism and cybersecurity, says waves of widespread violence come in “ideological bursts.”
"“This isn’t a setback,” said Ryan Singel, a fellow at Center of Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, who supports the law. It was expected that the law would be put on hold, he said, “and it’s ready to go into effect once the federal decision comes down.”"
"“There is this gray space of decisions that are not wrong and not right,” said Patrick Lin, a philosopher at the California Polytechnic State University who specializes in technology ethics. “They’re judgement calls.”"
"“What happens with autonomous vehicles may set the tone for other AI and robotics, since they’re the first to be integrated into society at scale,” Patrick Lin, director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group at Cal Poly University, told The Verge. “So it’s important that the conversation is as informed as possible, since lives are literally at stake.”"
"In the 2013 report, “Enhanced Warfighters: Risk, Ethics, and Policy,” Cal Poly San Luis Obispo professor Patrick Lin and others raised concerns about the operational, ethical and legal implications of enhancing warfighters. “Besides the obvious issue of free and informed consent of the test subject, there may be issues about the wider effects of an enhancement. … These are open-ended questions we don’t have a policy for yet. The technology is starting to outpace the policy and it becomes increasingly difficult to legislate these things,” Lin said in an interview."
"“The core problem, I think, is going to occur many times a day in the real world, just not in a crazy crash dilemma,” says Patrick Lin, a philosophy professor at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, who specializes in the ethics of emerging technologies and was not involved with the study.
“We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.” This truism—by the media-scholar John Culkin about the work of Marshall McLuhan—is more potent than ever in the age of data and algorithms. The technology is having a profound effect on how people live and think.
Some of those changes are documented in “Re-Engineering Humanity” by two technology thinkers from different academic backgrounds: Brett Frischmann is a law professor at Villanova University in Pennsylvania and Evan Selinger teaches philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology in New York.
"My fellow Forbes contributor Patrick Lin has long been involved in these discussions. He's the Director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group at Cal Poly and an affiliate scholar at Stanford's Center for Internet and Society. When asked about the current code conundrum, he replied that in order to make progress, two critical things are necessary:
"Harlan Yu, executive director of UpTurn based in Washington, D.C., a group that participated in a review of MPD's body camera policy, said the individual or the next of kin should "always have access" to body camera footage before filing a police complaint.
Yu said a review of Memphis police policies shows the agency does not have "any provisions" like that in the department's policy.
"“Filtering Out the Bots: What Americans Actually Told the FCC about Net Neutrality Repeal” is a study completed by Ryan Singel—a Media and Strategy Fellow at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society—in which he took a “state-by-state, district-by-district look at linguistically unique comments fled to the FCC in the 2017 repeal proceedings.”
"Ryan Calo, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law, allows that the document "concedes a lot to industry," but he adds that "it also reflects some mature thinking on the part of the DOT."
"“Do Not Track could have succeeded only if there had been some incentive for the ad tech industry to reach a consensus with privacy advocates and other stakeholders—some reason why a failure to reach a negotiated agreement would be a worse outcome for the industry,” said Arvind Narayanan, a professor at Princeton University who was one of the technologists at the table. “Around 2011, the threat of federal legislation brought them to the negotiating table. But gradually, that threat disappeared.
"According to Daphne Keller, a director at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford’s school of law, outing those anonymous defendants might be the only way Miltenberg can get the case heard. It’s likely that Google – which was not named in the suit – and Donegan as the document’s creator will be immunized by federal statute and could get the case dismissed, Keller said.
"The Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner expressed similar concerns, as did Riana Pfefferkorn, a Stanford legal fellow, who called the bill "dangerous and misguided.""
"It isn't just our interactions with other humans that could be affected. “I worry a lot about how we’re building this world that’s supposed to be for convenience, comfort, and speed, but in fact makes us feel like someone is always listening, whether they are or not,” says Ryan Calo, a professor of law at the University of Washington who has studied the impacts of anthropomorphic robots on society.
"“The lack of potential for harm certainly is a factor in a decision not to disclose,” said Albert Gidari, the consulting director of privacy at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, in an email."
"Harlan Yu, the executive director of Upturn, a Washington nonprofit consultancy that has studied body cameras, says that live-streaming could erode community trust and help enable more controversial technologies down the road.
“The capability to livestream all BWC footage back to a department- or precinct-wide command center… will further entrench body-worn cameras as tools for police surveillance of communities, rather than tools for transparency,” he wrote in an email."
"Are officers deliberately neglecting their cameras – even shutting them off – to undermine the transparency promised by expensive investments in body cameras and in-car video systems?
And are supervisors letting them get away with it?
“We are seeing this happen over and over,’’ says Harlan Yu, executive director of Upturn, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that studies the role of police technology in protecting civil rights."
"Ryan Calo
Associate Professor, Law, University of Washington, and faculty co-director of the University of Washington Tech Policy Lab