If we can do it to a potential
foe, they can do it to us.
https://databreaches.net/2026/01/17/us-cyberattack-blacks-out-venezuela-leads-to-maduros-capture-in-2026/
US
Cyberattack Blacks Out Venezuela, Leads to Maduro’s Capture in 2026
Julian
E. Barnes and Anatoly Kurmanaev report:
The cyberattack that plunged Venezuela’s
capital into darkness this month demonstrated the Pentagon’s
ability not just to turn off the lights, but also to allow them to be
turned back on, according to U.S. officials briefed on the operation.
The Jan. 3 operation was one of the most
public displays of offensive U.S. cybercapabilities in recent years.
It showed that at least with a country like Venezuela, whose military
does not have sophisticated defenses against cyberattacks, the United
States could use cyberweapons with powerful and precise effects.
The
U.S. military also used cyberweapons to interfere with air defense
radar, according to people briefed on the matter, who discussed
sensitive details of the operation on the condition of anonymity.
(Venezuela’s most powerful radar was
not functional,
however.)
Read
more at The
New York Times.
Keeping up...
https://pogowasright.org/u-s-biometric-laws-pending-legislation-tracker-january-2026/
U.S.
Biometric Laws & Pending Legislation Tracker – January 2026
Lauren Caisman
and Amy de La Lama of BCLP provide a useful summary of existing and
proposed biometric laws by state.
Read
their write-up on BCLP.
Not just to
improve vision but to see.
https://pogowasright.org/the-hidden-legal-minefield-compliance-concerns-with-ai-smart-glasses-part-4-data-security-breach-notification-and-third-party-ai-processing-risks/
The
Hidden Legal Minefield: Compliance Concerns with AI Smart Glasses,
Part 4: Data Security, Breach Notification, and Third-Party AI
Processing Risks
Joseph
Lazzarotti of JacksonLewis writes:
As we have discussed in prior posts,
AI-enabled smart glasses are rapidly evolving from niche wearables
into powerful tools with broad workplace appeal — but their
innovative capabilities bring equally significant legal and privacy
concerns.
In Part
1,
we addressed compliance issues that arise when these wearables
collect biometric information.
In Part
2,
we covered all-party consent requirements and AI notetaking
technologies.
In Part
3,
we considered broader privacy and surveillance issues, including
from a labor law perspective.
In
this Part
4,
we consider the potentially vast amount of personal and other
confidential data that may be collected, visually and audibly,
through everyday use of this technology. Cybersecurity and data
security risk more broadly pose another major and often
underestimated exposure from this technology.
The Risk
AI smart glasses collect, analyze, and
transmit enormous volumes of sensitive data—often continuously, and
typically transmitting it to cloud-based servers operated by third
parties. This creates a perfect storm of cybersecurity risk,
regulatory exposure, and breach notification obligations under laws
in all 50 states, as well as the CCPA, GDPR, and numerous
sector-specific regulations, such as HIPAA for the healthcare
industry.
Unlike traditional cameras or recording
devices, AI glasses are designed to collect and process data in real
time. Even when users believe they are not “recording,” the
devices may still be capturing visual, audio, and contextual
information for AI analysis, transcription, translation, or object
recognition. That data is frequently transmitted to third-party AI
providers with unclear security controls, retention practices, and
secondary-use restrictions.
Many AI glasses explicitly rely on
third-party AI services. For example, Brilliant Labs’ Frame
glasses use ChatGPT to power their AI assistant, Noa, and disclose
that multiple large language models may be involved in processing.
In practice, this means sensitive business conversations, images, and
metadata may leave the organization entirely—often without IT,
security, or legal teams fully understanding where the data goes or
how it is protected.
Read
more at Workplace
Privacy, Data Management & Security Report.
Not just
lawyers.
https://scholarworks.uark.edu/arlnlaw/23/
Ethics
of Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers: Shall We Play a Game? The
Rise of Artificial Intelligence and the First Cases
In the 1983
movie WarGames, a young computer hacker accidentally accesses a
United States military supercomputer programmed to run nuclear war
simulations. Four decades after WarGames, lawyers are now facing
similar challenges of learning to use and communicate with artificial
intelligence––hopefully without destroying the world. Artificial
intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, are quickly
being incorporated into legal practice. These systems can draft
documents, perform analysis, and support other legal tasks. While
lawyers adjust to these new technologies, courts and regulatory
authorities are actively developing appropriate frameworks to guide
and supervise the use of these tools within the sector.
This first
installment in this series lays the foundation with a brief history
of artificial intelligence, the rise of generative models, and the
problem of “hallucinations” that make these tools especially
dangerous for lawyers. It also surveys the first wave of cases,
where courts sanctioned attorneys and pro se litigants for relying on
hallucinated citations, imposed new procedural safeguards, and began
confronting broader disputes over evidence, intellectual property,
education, and government transparency. The next installments will
shift from cases to rules by examining the American Bar Association’s
Formal Opinion 512. Formal Opinion 512 is expansive, so it will be
examined in two parts, first through its guidance on competence,
confidentiality, and communication, and then through its treatment of
candor, supervision, and fees. From there, the series ill turn to
the rapidly evolving regulatory landscape, surveying federal
inaction, California’s aggressive framework, the European Union’s
AI Act, and Arkansas’s initial steps. The final entries in this
series will focus on practice by outlining best practices that
lawyers can adopt today and previewing the new skills that will
define the next frontier of lawyer competence.
Let’s gang
up on AI…
http://gmp-pub.com/index.php/ILDJ/article/view/19
The
Rise of Artificial Intelligence and Its Implications for
International Legal Accountability
This study
examines the profound challenges posed by the rapid rise of
Artificial Intelligence (AI) to the framework of international legal
accountability. As AI systems become increasingly autonomous,
complex, and opaque, existing international legal norms historically
designed for human and state actors struggle to provide adequate
regulatory guidance or mechanisms for responsibility attribution.
The research identifies
four interconnected problem areas: legal gaps in governing
AI, difficulties in assigning accountability for autonomous AI
decisions, human rights and humanitarian law implications, and
structural imbalances within global governance. Current
international law lacks coherent provisions that address the unique
characteristics of AI, including unpredictability, machine learning
opacity, and cross-border impacts. These gaps complicate the process
of determining liability when AI systems cause harm, especially in
contexts such as algorithmic discrimination, surveillance practices,
and autonomous weapons deployment. Moreover, AI amplifies risks to
fundamental rights, including privacy, freedom of expression, and due
process, while also challenging the principles of distinction and
proportionality in armed conflict. At the global governance level,
power asymmetries between technologically advanced states, developing
countries, and dominant private technology corporations hinder the
creation of inclusive and effective regulatory standards.
Consequently, the governance of AI is fragmented, slow, and heavily
influenced by actors with disproportionate technological and economic
power. This study argues that a comprehensive, adaptive, and
multilateral legal framework is essential to ensure accountability,
protect human rights, and promote equitable global governance in the
AI era. Strengthening international institutions, harmonizing global
standards, and expanding oversight over non-state actors are crucial
steps toward achieving a balanced and just international AI
governance system.