Interesting, if non traditional…

https://www.bespacific.com/artificial-intelligence-and-the-law/

Artificial Intelligence and the Law

Via LLRX Artificial Intelligence and the Law – David Colarusso founded and co-directs the Suffolk University Law School’s Legal Innovation & Technology (LIT) Lab. By training he is an attorney and science educator. By experience, he’s a data scientist, craftsman, and writer. LLRX is pleased to share what Colarusso states is not a traditional syllabus, because this class he is teaching is not a traditional class. He won’t just ask you to “think like a lawyer,” he will require that you act like one. In-class time will be devoted mostly to running simulations of varying fidelity for ten potentially precedent making cases and arguing the merits of proposed AI legislation. In addition to serving as an attorney—taking a case from trial through appeal—you will have the chance to act as a judge, jury, legislator, and legislative advisor. He says…”we’re in for some serious play.”

Two more variations.

https://pogowasright.org/minnesota-and-rhode-island-pass-comprehensive-privacy-legislation/

Minnesota and Rhode Island Pass Comprehensive Privacy Legislation

Lindsey Tonsager, Conor Kane, and Olivia Vega of Covington and Burling write:

Minnesota and Rhode Island are the latest states to pass comprehensive privacy legislation, joining a number of states who have enacted similar laws. This blog post summarizes the statutes’ key takeaways.

Minnesota

On May 19, 2024, the Minnesota legislature passed HF 4757, an omnibus bill containing a comprehensive privacy statute (“the Act”). The Act was signed into law on May 24, 2024, and takes effect on July 31, 2025. The Act resembles the comprehensive privacy statutes in Virginia and other states, though there are some notable distinctions.

Read more at Inside Privacy.

What could I do in defense? Anti-drone drones?

https://pogowasright.org/backyard-privacy-in-the-age-of-drones/

Backyard Privacy in the Age of Drones

Hannah Zhao writes:

Police departments and law enforcement agencies are increasingly collecting personal information using drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles. In addition to high-resolution photographic and video cameras, police drones may be equipped with myriad spying payloads, such as live-video transmitters, thermal imaging, heat sensors, mapping technology, automated license plate readers, cell site simulators, cell phone signal interceptors and other technologies. Captured data can later be scrutinized with backend software tools like license plate readers and face recognition technology. There have even been proposals for law enforcement to attach lethal and less-lethal weapons to drones and robots.

Over the past decade or so, police drone use has dramatically expanded. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Atlas of Surveillance lists more than 1500 law enforcement agencies across the US that have been reported to employ drones. The result is that backyards, which are part of the constitutionally protected curtilage of a home, are frequently being captured, either intentionally or incidentally. In grappling with the legal implications of this phenomenon, we are confronted by a pair of U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 1980s: California v. Ciraolo and Florida v. Riley. There, the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless aerial surveillance conducted by law enforcement in low-flying manned aircrafts did not violate the Fourth Amendment because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy from what was visible from the sky. Although there are fundamental differences between surveillance by manned aircrafts and drones, some courts have extended the analysis to situations involving drones, shutting the door to federal constitution challenges.

Read more at EFF. This article was originally published by The Legal Aid Society’s Decrypting a Defense Newsletter on August 5, 2024 and was reprinted on EFF with permission.

Convoluted? (I am easily confused…)

https://pogowasright.org/privacy-protections-of-the-stored-communications-act-gutted-by-california-court/

Privacy Protections of the Stored Communications Act Gutted by California Court

Stephanie Pell and Richard Salgado of the Lawfare Institute write:

On July 23, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District issued a whopper of a decision that looks to upset decades’ long understandings of how users’ data is protected from disclosure by providers under the Stored Communications Act (SCA). It eviscerates the SCA’s prohibitions that prevent communication platforms from disclosing user communications and other content generally, including selling the content and, in some circumstances, providing it to governmental entities without a search warrant. It also overwhelms the considered, specific exceptions to the prohibitions that Congress crafted that will have ripple effects globally. While the appellate court takes solace in its belief that there are other mechanisms that might help fill the privacy-protection void it created, the decision diminishes the original comprehensive coverage of the SCA to a shadow of what Congress intended.

The companies directly involved in the case, Snap and Meta, are seeking review by the California Supreme Court of the sweeping decision.

Read more at the Lawfare Institute.