Older blog entries for MRyan (starting at number 7)

Facebook & The Charitable Deceptions Of Nostalgia

Facebook trends proceed at a spooky (in the quantum sense) pace. It took the New York Times all of a week to pick up on 25 Random Things. I’ve noticed a subtler trend lately, one that is perhaps a more obvious sign of the times. The nostalgic photo album.

It seems that every time I open my account I have been tagged in a new photo from the late 80s or early 90s. I click the link and there I am again in a black and red flannel. And this trend knows no boundaries. I grew up in Italy and was tagged in a group photo from scuola elementare. You can see me in the back row, white shirt tucked into blue sweat pants, followed by two dozen comments along the lines of “che tremendo” or “dai, troppo forte!”

Where is this global flood of nostalgia coming from? I think my generation is finally scared. I think we’re looking at two wars and a bad economy and remembering when Smashing Pumpkins came out and cruelty could still be confused with flirtation. As outlets go, however, I’d say this is fairly healthy. After a historic but short-lived unity, the post-911 Bush years brought ugliness—we saw increased interracial violence and a spike in sales at the box office for horror movies as we tried to muddle through the trauma. I’m fine with a trip down memory lane. We could use, to borrow from Gabriel Garcia Marquez, some charitable deceptions of nostalgia.

Syndicated 2009-02-24 06:57:28 from Ryan Calo's blog

Symposium: Neuroscience And The Courts

The Stanford Technology Law Review’s symposium is scheduled for February 27th, 2009. According to its website, the symposium will “showcase vibrant legal scholarship on the interplay between new advances in neurotechnology and traditional legal principles and concerns.”

“The symposium will address some of the most exciting issues emerging in this field. Topics include:
* How neuroscience evidence will likely be used in the courts, especially in sexual predator prosecutions or in the penalty phase of capital cases
* What the field of neuroscience can offer the courts that the traditional social sciences cannot
* The relevance of psychopathy for the legal and forensic systems
* Whether neuroimaging data can enhance and improve upon understandings of criminal responsibility
* An overview of the current capabilities and limitations of neurotechnology to interpret and interfere with brain signals"

I’m moderating a panel on the ethical ramifications of neuroscientific research. Hope to see you there.

Syndicated 2009-02-20 00:38:47 from Ryan Calo's blog

Women & The Rise Of Code: Is Power A Moving Target?

Outside of a J.R.R. Tolkien novel, power does not reside in any one person, object, or place. But it does cluster. An enormous percentage of those “in power,” that is, in a position to make decisions of societal scope, are trained as lawyers. Nearly every judge has been to law school, as have the majority of legislators, many industry and non-profit leaders, and 26 out of the past 44 U.S. presidents.

It should come as no surprise, then, that much feminist scholarship focuses on the ongoing underrepresentation of women in the legal profession, particularly in its upper echelons. Yale first began formally admitting women to its law school in 1918. Ninety years later, only 17.3 percent of law firm partners are women. Eighteen of the 100 U.S. senators are women, and the federal bench remains about 80 percent male. An impressive body of scholarship seeks to demonstrate that this dearth of women (i) results from ongoing, systemic discrimination; (ii) means women have less input into making, applying, and interpreting law and policy; and (iii) ultimately translates into law that (subtly) discriminates against women or promotes masculine values.

A not untypical counter concedes that women have historically faced discrimination, but insists that there is now every reason to be hopeful. The number of women who serve in the state and federal executive, judicial, and legislative branches is on the rise. Women have in recent years been appointed to serve as chiefs of police and fire in major cities. Last year saw the first female four-star general. A woman was very nearly the Democratic nominee for president in 2008 (and is now the third female Secretary of State). Some argue that this trend will inevitably continue as the women who make up nearly 50 percent of current law students graduate into an ever-more enlightened legal workforce.

Whether women will attain equality within and under the law is an extremely important question. I want to suggest, however, that this debate cannot occupy feminists to the point that they fail to keep an eye on the movements of power itself. Precisely as women begin to make serious gains within the legal profession, it is becoming less and less clear that law will remain the primary repository of societal power.

Beginning a decade ago with the work of Lawrence Lessig, our eyes are opening to the incredible importance of “code” and other facets of information technology in shaping human possibilities. In predicting the ongoing relevance of the U.S. on the global stage, influential author and political scientist George Friedman cited to the fact that most programming codes are written in English. Computers have become an indispensible part of our everyday experience. More and more of our social, economic, and political activities are moving online. Cyberspace itself is leaving the plastic box of the desktop and intertwining with the world through mobile phones and networked objects (which explains the many recent references to an “Internet of Things”).

If Lessig, Friedman, Joel Reidenberg, Danielle Citron, and many others are correct, then power may be shifting. It may be moving out of the hands of lawyers and into the hands of those who create, program, and maintain the information technologies that mediate our lives.

It turns out that these people are not, by and large, women. In 2003, women made less than a quarter of computer engineers and scientists. Moreover, and in clear contrast to the legal profession, female representation in computer science is trending sharply downward. One study found that the proportion of undergraduate computer science degrees pursued by women declined 15% between 1985 and 2001 (from 37% to 22%). Another study found that female enrollment in computer science programs fell from 26.7% in 1996, to 22.2% in 2005. The Computer Research Association recently reported that between 2001 and 2007, the percentage of women in computer science slipped even further, to 11.8%. With the notable exception of pioneers like Dr. Cynthia Breazeal, the new head of MIT’s influential Media Lab, women have low and declining representation in precisely that clubhouse into which power appears to be sneaking.

Clearly the age of law soldiers on; the underrepresentation of women in the legal profession remains an extremely important topic for study and advocacy. But feminists should be wary also of power’s apparent migration. It is crucial for talented women to enter and lead the field of computing and information technology. Feminist legal scholars concerned with a male monopoly on power should link up with the many practitioners and scholars already studying disproportionality and discrimination in the sciences.

Syndicated 2009-02-16 01:04:25 from Ryan Calo's blog

Privacy Policy Workshop: PowerPoint & Audio

As part of Data Privacy Day 2009, the Center for Internet and Society hosted a Privacy Policy Workshop, sponsored by Covington & Burling LLP. I've attached our PowerPoint slide deck. You can follow along to an audio recording of the event by clicking here.

We had a great turn out and a lot of interesting questions. Thanks to Covington & Burling LLP, especially Mali Friedman for her presentation, and to Intel, especially Jolynn Dellinger, for coordinating Data Privacy Day.

Syndicated 2009-01-29 23:05:17 from Ryan Calo's blog

Database Of Privacy Enhancing Technologies

Please visit the Center for Internet and Society's new wiki (cyberlaw.stanford.edu/wiki) and contribute to our privacy enhancing technology (PET) database.

Stanford Law School student Seth Gilmore got us started on a PET wiki. As the name suggests, PETs are technologies or techniques that assist users in protecting their information from abuse. They include software allowing for anonymous surfing, plug-ins that reveal who is tracking you online, and improvements in browser security. Microsoft and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada cosponsor an award for PETs, and there is a call for papers (due March 2, 2009) for an upcoming PET conference in Seattle.

Syndicated 2009-01-21 20:26:59 from Ryan Calo's blog

Ghostery.com: Not Just A Cool Icon

David Cancel just created a wonderful privacy enhancing technology for Firefox---up there with Ad Blocker Plus in my view. In a simple and straightforward way, Ghostery reveals who is tracking your views of a page on the Internet according to a common but under-examined method: web bugs.

As David explains, "[w]eb bugs are used to track your behavior on the web in order to help the sites you visit to understand their own audiences and to allow advertisers to target ads at you." To expand a little, web bugs are tiny (generally one-pixel) pictures on a web page that tell a host or third-party when and by whom they are being loaded, which in turn reveals that the page itself has been loaded. David's elegant plug-in "scans the web pages you visit to find web bugs" and displays their owners in the upper right hand corner of the page. Ghostery is easy to install, use, and shut off.

Ghostery represents an important development. Although we can sort of opt out of cookie-based tracking by third-party advertising networks, we have a very poor handle on web bugs. (I say "sort of" because in some instances you're not opting out of tracking in the sense of stopping the advertisers from recording whether you've visited a particular page, but only out of being served targeted ads. A discussion of this unfortunate reality here.) David's new privacy enhancing technology helps shore up a major privacy issue on the web. Thanks David!

Syndicated 2009-01-11 23:16:42 from Ryan Calo's blog

“Robots again.” That’s how federal appellate judge Alex Kozinski begins his dissent from the Ninth Circuit’s decision not to rehear Wendt v. Host International. The “robots” refers to animatronic replicas of Cliff and Norm from the TV series Cheers built by an airport bar chain as a gimmick. The “again” refers to the earlier case of White v. Samsung, where Samsung ran ads depicting a robot version of Wheel of Fortune’s Vanna White with the tag line “Longest-running game show, 2012 A.D.” She sued. (To her credit, however, Ms. White kept her head. She did not turn into a car and drive over to Samsung headquarters, as was no doubt her first instinct.)

People suing over robot versions of themselves is just one of the ways robots make ordinary cases more interesting. As personal robotics moves toward the multibillion-dollar market Bill Gates and some analysts predict, we are likely to see more—and more interesting—robot-driven litigation. What follows is a little tour of robot case law to date.

Wendt and White are examples of torts, such as "appropriation of likeness," involving the right to publicity. Robot versions of people also complicate trade tariffs. According to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, "[t]oys representing animals or non-human creatures (for example, robots and monsters)" get different treatment from toys representing straightforward humans. The U.S. Court of International Trade once had to sort out whether various Marvel action figures were human. Robot Wolverine was a cinch; the parties eventually stipulated to his categorization as non-human. Others were not so easy. Today’s figures are even trickier. What if someone tried to import a Cylon figurine of Helo and Athena’s daughter on Battlestar Galactica?

Copyright law presents another context where robot toys trigger lawsuits. It turns out, for instance, that “robot-like battle machines … and direct communication between machine and human brain” are “familiar themes” not entitled to copyright protection. (“Familiar themes” makes it sounds almost comforting…) Nor, thank God, does trademark protect the concept of pitting small robots against one another in battle.

On the more physical side of things, criminal law gives us the recent example of Reinhardt v. Fuller. Dave Reinhardt was holed up in his parent’s house following a dispute over his inheritance. The local swat team arrived and deployed a two-and-a-half foot tall robot complete with cameras, a microphone, a mounted gun, and a “claw… for breaking glass” to subdue Reinhardt. “Appellant fired four shotgun blasts at the robot.” He was soon arrested.

Industrial robots have also wrought their share of chaos. In what is no joking matter, a court denied liability on the part of the robot manufacturer where a worksite was improperly secured, “thereby exposing [plaintiffs] to the danger of injury by being caught in the robot's jaws.”

Amusing, however, is the 1998 case of Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. v. Cybo Systems, Inc., where an industrial parts company convinced its manufacturer client to take on Al Bove and Al Treu, two “robot technicians,” as installation support. The client gave the robots a shot, but ended up having to hire a human technician to finish the job.

I predict that robot-related litigation will only grow. A personal robot wanders into a neighbors yard collides and with a toddler. Is this robot like a dog, in which case the owner may be liable? Or is there a cause of action against the manufacturer? Experts argue that the use of intelligent robots may cause us to rethink the laws of war. Others argue that robots will one day themselves hold rights and liabilities. The possibilities are endless. We may even eventually see a robot practice group akin to today’s practice groups around video games. Maybe Al Bove and Al Treu could join up. I hear they are looking for work.

Cast of cases by order of appearance:

Wendt v. Host Intern., Inc., 197 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 1999). White v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992) Toy Biz, Inc. v. U.S., 248 F.Supp.2d 1234 (CIT 2003) FASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 869 F.Supp. 1334 (N.D. Ill 1994) Robot Wars LLC v. Roski, 51 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (S.D.N.Y.1999) Reinhardt v. Feller, 2008 WL 5386802 (E.D. Ca. 2008) Payne v. ABB Flexible Automation, Inc., 116 F.3d 480 (8th Cir. 1997) Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. v. Cybo Systems, Inc., 17 F.Supp.2d 151 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)

Share this page