More at: IGF-USA
Over the past several years, law enforcement has utilized new cutting-edge technologies to apprehend the most violent of criminals – murders, rapists and abductors. One such innovation, known as license plate recognition (LPR), takes photographs of license plates and logs their time and location, creating a searchable database that has allowed police to reduce investigation times and get felons off the streets.
However, a new law recently signed by Governor Mike Beebe, could put an end to LPR use in Arkansas, hamstringing law enforcement by limiting the use of a critical crime-fighting tool that helped solve thousands of violent crime cases across the country.
It was 20 years earlier than ICANN, and 25 years ahead of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that Woody Allen said “80 percent of life is just showing up,” but he could have just as easily been talking about our current multistakeholder policy situation.
The emergence of powerful multistakeholder governance and engagement models has fundamentally changed the way we do Internet policy, and the roles that companies, organizations and individuals play in the process. The days when business, for instance, could sit on the sidelines and intercede only when policy reached an inflection point, are long gone.
To succeed in today’s landscape, industry has to show up early, often, and in force. The IGF-USA takes place in Washington DC July 16th, and my message to business colleagues can be described in two words: Show up.
Ridesharing companies and their customers are the newest target of California’s bizarre crusade to crack down on Internet-powered businesses (“Risky business behind wheel of new economy”; Forum, June 22). This time, regulators are getting help from deep-pocketed insurers and personal injury lawyers who look at the sharing economy and see dollar signs.
The ostensible target of this latest misadventure: something called an “insurance gap” when consumers get a ride with a Lyft or Uber driver instead of a taxicab.
Two miles (and a short Tube ride) from where ICANN is gathering in London, rests an original copy of the Magna Carta, which introduced the concept of imposing limits on the powers of the king. I’m taking the proximity of this icon of constitutional history as a good omen for our task: to create a charter to limit ICANN’s powers and enhance its accountability, in the wake of the U.S. Government’s decision to terminate its legacy role.
ICANN management has only recently — and reluctantly — acknowledged the need for enhanced accountability mechanisms to replace the leverage the US government wields through its ability to withhold the IANA contract from ICANN’s custody. It now falls to the broader Internet community to create a permanent mechanism by which to review (and potentially reverse) actions of the ICANN the corporation.
The day Google opened its online submission process to comply with the European “right to be forgotten” ruling, the company received 12,000 requests – one every seven seconds – from users demanding that information be pulled from search results.
The cost of ignoring those requests, or getting them “wrong” in the eyes of the EU courts? Google could face fines of a billion dollars per incident. In the European Union, the process of whitewashing history is underway.
With the ruling, the court is forcing Google to perform the impossible balancing act between the newly invented “right” be forgotten and the Internet’s unique power to preserve, contextualize, and disseminate information.
As the national debate over license plate readers reaches consensus on an approach that protects privacy and safety concerns alike, Massachusetts has veered down a radical path by considering a new bill that would sidetrack cops and severely weaken technology that saves lives and protects communities.
This bill does nothing to strengthen or safeguard Registry of Motor Vehicle databases or in any way ensure that they are being used effectively for purposes allowed under existing federal privacy protections.
Instead, the bill borrows heavily from an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) draft in banning private collection of license plate data and drastically limiting how long police can store license plate images.
The debate over commercial and personal use of facial recognition technology was bound to be contentious once you put technology companies in the same room with hard-line privacy advocates. But recent developments call into question whether compromise is even possible.
In February, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) kicked-off a process to develop a voluntary code of conduct for how companies and their customers use facial recognition tools. This week, participants in the process – including privacy advocates, companies, and technologists – will meet again to try finding areas of consensus.
If recent history is any indication, consensus will be very hard to find.
The majority of Californians agree that license plate reader (LPR) technology helps law enforcement solve crimes and any restrictions on who can photograph license plates would be unacceptable, according to a new poll conducted by Zogby Analytics and commissioned by Vigilant Solutions.
The poll of 800 California residents (with a margin of error of +/- 3.5%), conducted during the first week in April, showed overwhelming support for the benefits of LPR technology and disdain for government limits on personal and corporate photography.
By more than a 6:1 margin, California residents said that they believe that license plate recognition technology helps to solve crimes. Read more
NetChoice engages in federal and state efforts to breakdown the barriers to e-commerce. Whether this involves dealing with taxes on the Internet and goods through the Internet, non-tech neutral privacy initiatives, or other international Internet issues, NetChoice will weigh in to protect the free operation of e-commerce.