ConnectIcAIT

"ConnectIcAIT" connects Innovation, Artificial Intelligence and Technology and gives you a glimpse into its legal aspects - keep updated and enjoy!

[uniqueitnews]

China surveillance of journalists to use 'traffic-light' system

Documents detail how one province is making a facial-recognition system to spot "people of concern".

Live facial recognition - Giving rise to next level surveillance?

The Henan Public Security Bureau in China is planning on introducing face recognition on public places to track “concerned persons” such as

“foreign journalists, foreign students, and migrant women, as well as [...] individuals by ethnicity [...]”

[https://ipvm.com/reports/henan-neusoft]

Would this ever be possible in Europe. The answer is NO!

The EDPB & EDPS have called for a general ban on the use of AI for human recognition in public accessible areas [https://edps.europa.eu/press-publications/press-news/press-releases/2021/edpb-edps-call-ban-use-ai-automated-recognition_en] - with good reason.

Although, the proposed AI Act ought to introduce a high-risk level for practices possibly interfering with fundamental rights, a general ban for the aforementioned practice might be a good idea. Evidently, it violates fundamental rights such as: Data privacy/protection; non-discrimination; freedom of expression etc.

[uniqueitnews]

IoT – and what about the standard?

When talking about the Internet of Things (IoT) and its legal implications, privacy and security are very high on the list [https://www.insidetechlaw.com/internet-of-things/what-are-the-key-legal-considerations]. This is understandable. Almost all data collected by “things” will in one way or another have to do with personal data or rise security threats. Nonetheless, interoperability and standards are also extremely important, as a truly connected IoT world is only possible with common standards. Otherwise, a world of various "mini IoT bubbles" will exist and devices from different manufacturers might not be able to connect, establishing lock-in effects.

Therefore, common standards are essential. Elseways, in the future you might only be able to monitor your smart home with e.g. your Apple watch because other devices are not interoperable with your smart fridge or heating system. As more and more "things" can be connected, it is crucial that connectivity is actually possible and not prevented by network effects.

IoT should not be dominated by just a few big companies taking over the world, but should be enabled by various different stakeholders

- to foster competition, creativity and innovation.

There is no autonomy without connectivity

How essential connectivity really is, can be indicated by the example of autonomous vehicles. Driverless cars wouldn´t be possible without communication technology standards, setting common grounds for car-to-car communication as well as the surrounding intelligent road infrastructure. Otherwise, they couldn´t react to one another or e.g. traffic light signals, making it impossible to use them.

Reaching decisions on common technology standards, to enable connectivity and interoperability, is not easy, nonetheless essential. Stakeholders have to find a consensus, even if this is extremely difficult due to their different interests. How difficult this actually can be, was just recently indicated by the automotive industry in 2019. When the EU Commission was in favour of a WiFi standard but the Council of European Union ultimately decided against it due to intense lobbying and made 5G the standard for autonomous cars (see further: Herbert Smith Freehills: EU Council rejects European Commission WiFi plans).

As indicated by the automotive industry, the struggle to agree on a certain standard is real, but inevitable. IoT will only truly be possible, if consensus on technology standards is reached - what will be one of the biggest challenges of smart technologies. Without standards and thus interoperability, there is no connectivity and thus only little IoT bubbles will exist.

[uniqueitnews]

Are cookies out?

Ever wondered why you are getting very personalised ads when browsing online?

The answer is simple: Cookies. Cookies are widely used by website owners or third parties to monitoring almost every click you make.

Since stricter rules on cookies, such as the GDPR, came into force, companies have been thinking about new ways to continue using personal data and offering behavioural online advertising without breaking the rules.

Zero-party data might just be the next big thing.

Say Goodbye to Cookies

Zero-party data yields better insights — and offers consumers more control.

[uniqueitnews]

Let’s talk money

Are virtual currencies (VCs) such as Bitcoin, Dogecoin or Ether legal in the EU/UK? Is Bitcoin money and why are central banks developing their own digital currencies?

photo by: pexels.com - Pixabay

VCs are widely used today. Nearly everybody has heard of Bitcoin, but is it money in a legal sense? According to the European Central Bank (ECB) Bitcoin is a crypto-asset, created / issued by a computer network instead of a government / central bank. As bitcoin is based on a decentralised system, it is not governed and backed by a central public authority, which makes it relatively volatile [https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/educational/explainers/tell-me/html/what-is-bitcoin.en.html]. Not being issued by an authorised “electronic money issuer” according to Art. 2 (3) e-money Directive (2000/46/EC), Bitcoin, Dogecoin or Ether don´t fulfil the requirements of “electronic money” (Art. 2 (2) e-money Directive). Hence, they are not considered legal currencies in the EU and UK. Yet, these cryptocurrencies are not illegal. They´re crypto-assets and can be used as a payment method. They´re just not considered money in a legal sense.

Thus, VCs are valuable assets and can be widely used to pay for goods and services, even though, their value is not stable, as they are not backed by a central government body. Hence, their value can fluctuate quickly - as Elon Musk's tweet about Tesla's environmental concerns over Bitcoin just recently illustrated.

To be able to use the advantages offered by online currencies as well as engaging in the online era, central banks worldwide are working on introducing their own digital currencies (Central Bank Digital Currency = CBDC). Which will be fully backed by them, ensuring stability.

This progress is closely monitored by the Atlantic Council, as illustrated below:

violet = launched digital currency green = pilot phase of digital currency petrol = development phase " blue = research phase "

The UK is still in the research phase, but the EU has already entered the development stage.

In July 2021 the ECB has launched the digital euro project, starting in Oct. 2021 and lasting for around two years. Aiming to e.g. assess the impact and different possibilities of implementing a digital euro [https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/digital_euro/html/index.en.html].

Once introduced, a digital euro would be guarded by the ECB. To ensure value stability and thus distinguish it from crypto-assets, which in contrast are highly volatile, as indicated above.

To reshape and rethink the future of money and be fit for the digital era, central banks worldwide are working on their own digital currencies. With only 7 digital currencies introduced yet, there is still a long way to go [https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/cbdctracker/].

So, in essence: VCs are legal in the UK and EU. They are crypto-assets which can be used as payment methods but do not constitute money in a legal sense. Nonetheless, they help to reshape money and push governments into developing their own form of digital currency. They are vital to rethink the current monetary system and help to fully embrace the challenges and chances of the digital era.

[uniqueitnews]

File sharing? Do you remember Napster? Can we really declare: “Napster nearly killed the music industry”?

In the late 1990s / early 2000s Napster was used by millions of users, to illegally share copyrighted music online. But did Napster only have a negative effect? I bag to differ.

Without P2P networks, enabling users to freely choose their music, the music industry would probably still be stuck in the old days, selling hard copy music records. The urge for legal on demand streaming services gave rise to spotify, SoundCloud or Netflix, revolutionising the music industry. Enabling users to legally choose from millions of songs online, instead of having to buy CDs with tons of "unwanted" songs.

To not forget what Napster was all about and its revolutionising impact, have a quick look at the following article

Oversharing: how Napster nearly killed the music industry

Twenty years ago, the idea of free music was so compelling that up to 80m users downloaded Napster and broke the law. The aftershocks are st

[uniqueitnews]

Are there legal rules for social media platforms or can you just take over the world with them?

The US media´s “Facebook Papers” make us think once again about the massive influence that social media platforms have worldwide [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/25/what-are-the-facebook-papers/]. A world without them is hard to imagine. They no longer just connect us with friends but have become our point of contact for almost all situations in life. On LinkedIn we find new jobs, Instagram influencers have reinvented advertising and news media companies are replaced by Facebook and Twitter.

photo by: pexels.com - ThisIsEngineering

But do social media platforms have to abide by rules or can they simply block accounts, e.g. Donald Trump's, and take control of the world?

In general, there are various rules social media platforms have to adhere to. Even though, they act globally, the legal framework for intermediary liability varies from country to country and will here only be discussed for the US, EU and UK. Overall, however, it can be said that copyright and IP infringements, excessive violence and hate speech are prohibited and platforms can be held liable if they fail to respond appropriately, to content published on their platforms by third parties (due to the notice and take down principle).

photo by: pexels.com -cqfadvocat

In the US section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 1996 is often referred to in relation to social media. Indicating, no intermediary should be treated as a publisher regarding information provided by third parties. According to The Washington Post [Drew Harwell, “Pranksters have already defaced Trump´s new social network” 21.10.2021; https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/21/trump-truth-social-fake-accounts/] Trump heavily criticized this section during his presidency but has just recently claimed his new social media platform “Truth Social” would fall under section 230, making him irresponsible for content published by its users online.

A limited liability regime is introduced for IP violations by section 58 DMCA 1998. Therefore, platforms are only liable when failing to react to complaints, rather than being liable in the first place and having to check every content online.

The EU has also adopted a limited liability regime and notice and take down approach (Article 12-15 eCommerce Directive), complemented by rules such as Article 10 ECHR, data protection and Copyright. In addition, stricter rules can be implemented by member states, as indicated by Germany´s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG). Furthermore, the EU just recently implemented new rules regarding terrorist content online – requiring host providers to remove such content within 1 hour of receipt of a competent authorities order.

The UK has taken a similar approach and introduced own rules such as section 5 Defamation Act 2013, limiting operator´s liability with regard to defamatory content.

A lot has changes since implementing these rules. Social media platforms are no longer mere intermediaries, but to a large extent regulate themselves, what is actually published. Therefore, the EU is planning on implementing new rules (a Digital Services (DSA) and Markets Act (DMA)). Whether this approach is promising and will effectively regulate social media platforms, remains to be seen.

[uniqueitnews]

Copyrighting all the melodies to avoid accidental infringement | Damien Riehl

How breaking down music to math (numbers), writing a program to cover all existing melodies and copyrighting all melodies can help musicians/songwriters avoid copyright infringements 

[uniqueitnews]

Australia: AI passes the inventor test

AI systems can be named inventors under the Patents Act and Patents Regulations says the Australian Federal Court in Justice Beach's decision in Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 8...

Can AI be seen as an "inventor" in a legal perspective and actually be named as such, when claiming a patent? 

Although this is not true for e.g. the EU and the US yet... things could change, as the Australian judgment indicates. So, the discussion in patent law might change in the future - from if/how software is patentable, as in the G1/19 decision from earlier this year, to whether or not AI can be seen as an “inventor”.