The first exclusively online law review.

Category: Blog Posts Page 1 of 73

The EU AI Act: Pioneering Regulatory Framework for Artificial Intelligence

The EU AI Act: Pioneering Regulatory Framework for Artificial Intelligence

By Audrey Zhang Yang

 

Introduction

On July 12, 2024, the European Union marked a significant milestone in Artificial Intelligence (AI) regulation with the official publication of Regulation 2024/1689, commonly known as the EU AI Act, in the Official Journal of the European Union.[1] This landmark legislation, comprising 180 recitals, 113 Articles and 13 annexes, establishes a comprehensive framework for the development, deployment, and use of AI systems within the EU.[2] The Act aims to safeguard fundamental rights, ensure public safety, and promote ethical, trustworthy, and human-centric AI innovation.

This work examines the key provisions of the EU AI Act, its scope of application, the risk-based classification system, and the implementation timeline. It also explores the potential impact on various stakeholders in the AI ecosystem and considers the challenges and opportunities presented by this groundbreaking regulation.

Google’s Geofencing Stance: an Ode to Apple in 2016

Google’s Geofencing Stance: an Ode to Apple in 2016

By Michael Mellon

 

 

In 2016 Apple faced off with the federal government, who had obtained an order to compel Apple to create software which would allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to unlock a cellphone used by a suspected terrorist.[1]  The software was needed because Apple had recently redesigned its operating system, making it impossible for anyone to access information stored on one of their devices.[2]  The government maintained that the All Writs Act justified the compulsion because it “empower[s] judges to order that something be done, even if the legislative body (here, Congress) hasn’t officially said that it should be.”[3]  It further relied on a test established in United States v. New York Telephone Co. concerning the same.[4]  Apple was prepared to challenge this, but the issue became moot when the United States Attorney’s Office indicated it had found another means of entry into the phone.[5]  This situation may very well have been the inspiration for Google’s recent stance related to mobile devices.

Satellite States: China and America’s National Security in Space

Satellite States: China and America’s National Security in Space

By Samuel Naramore

Introduction

Over sixty years ago, in April of 1961, the Soviet Union successfully left the terrestrial safety of Earth and entered outer space (“space”) for the first time.[1] The Soviets entering space initiated the Cold War’s Space Race, prompting the U.S. to devote extraordinary amounts of resources towards developing its space capabilities––to beat the Soviets to the Moon.[2] After reaching the Moon in 1969 as part of NASA’s Apollo program, the United States (“U.S.”) claimed the position as the World’s premier space power.[3]

Since the “Space Race” of the Cold War, the U.S. has led the world in public and private expenditure in space.[4] Even though direct spending on space initiatives by the U.S. government has waned under recent presidential administrations, compared to other space-faring nations, the U.S. still invests more in its space program than any other country.[5] This expenditure since 1961 helped the U.S. establish itself as the dominant presence in space and leading the world in technological advancements––many of which American citizens increasingly rely on.[6]

Can AI-Generated Output Be Protected Under Intellectual Property Law?

Can AI-Generated Output Be Protected Under Intellectual Property Law?

By Audrey Zhang Yang

Introduction

AI-generated output represents a groundbreaking integration of technology and creativity that increasingly challenges established norms in the legal world. Inevitably, it raises the question on whether law and policy on intellectual property protection should evolve and adapt to recognize this changing innovation trend. The Progress Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science…by securing for limited Times to Authors…the exclusive Right to their…Writing.”[i] Pursuant to this authorization, the Copyright Act extends copyright protection for “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.”[ii] The Copyright Act neither defined “authorship” not “works of authorship.”[iii] Traditionally, courts assigns authorship to individuals who create original works. However, determining authorship is more challenging in the case of artificial intelligence (AI). Some believe that since AI systems are tools programmed by humans, the programmers are entitled to authorship rights.[iv] Also, when someone instructs AI to solve a problem, that person might qualify as an investor if she formulates a problem in a manner that requires inventive skill.[v] However, laws on intellectual property, patent, and copyright were not originally passed with AI in mind. Therefore, there is no law specifically addressing AI-generated invention in any jurisdiction.

Can I Be Protected Against Myself? Artificial Intelligence and Voice Replication

Can I Be Protected Against Myself? Artificial Intelligence and Voice Replication

By Jarrid Outlaw

With recent advancements in artificial intelligence (“AI”), voice replication has become a simple process that anyone can access and utilize.  Having one’s voice replicated to say anything an AI user wants is scary and can have extremely sinister effects, something that citizens should be protected from.  While everyday citizens are less likely to fall victim to abuse, the fact that such technology, fraught with the potential for violations exists, makes it so legal implications are bound to appear. 

Technological Innovation and the Evolution of Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence

Technological Innovation and the Evolution of Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence

By Sydney Coker

Throughout the course of modern history, the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment have undergone continual scrutiny as the Justices continue to reinterpret the meaning of the Fourth Amendment in the context of technological advancement. The cases of Olmstead and Katz demonstrate the Court’s shift to a metaphysical understanding of search and seizure in the light of technological advancement and its introduction of the right to privacy.

Pluto: Exploring Robotics Law Through the Lens of Science Fiction

Pluto: Exploring Robotics Law Through the Lens of Science Fiction

By Savannah Thorneberry

Robota is a Czech word meaning ‘forced labor,’ from this word, the common term ‘robot’ was born.[1] The term ‘robot’ owes its origins to Czech playwright Karel Capek who, in 1920, created the hit science fiction play Rossum’s Universal Robots.[2] The play depicts robots who are identical to humans in all aspects, minus a soul; without a soul, they lacked the ability to feel and have emotions the way humans do.[3] In media, robots are often portrayed as companions to humans.[4] While robots are not human, the advancement of robotic technology has prompted the discussion of what it means to be human, a question that science fiction and media have long grappled with.[5] Given the ambiguity around AI and robotics and the laws that regulate it, looking to media, specifically science fiction, can provide insights on a range of moral and ethical considerations as to how these laws might be shaped as technology continues to rapidly advance.

Whose DNA is It Anyway? Legal Challenges that Arise from the Use of Genetic Genealogy in Criminal Investigations

Whose DNA is It Anyway? Legal Challenges that Arise from the Use of Genetic Genealogy in Criminal Investigations

By Kim Lo

Since 2018, law enforcement’s use of genetic genealogy to identify and apprehend suspects has been growing [2], especially in high profile cases like the Golden State Killer case and the recent University of Idaho student murders. However, it is not without its critics.

Navigating Big Tech in Today’s Age of Antitrust Enforcement

Navigating Big Tech in Today’s Age of Antitrust Enforcement

By: Allen Masi

In the last year, the United States government has brought antitrust cases against multiple large technology companies.[1] Google, Meta, Apple, and Microsoft have all been under the lens of the federal government.[2] Experts have predicted that 2024 could be a very active year for antitrust enforcers.[3] It is clear that the U.S. government has been paying particular attention to these big technology companies recently. What does this mean for these technology companies and how could possible future action have an impact on consumers?

Page 1 of 73

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén