Knox Guilty Again: The Evidence Might Not Always Be What It Is

POSTED BY Veronica LaClair

In 2009 Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were convicted, by an Italian court, of the gruesome stabbing murder of Knox’s roommate, Meredith Kercher. In 2011 the two were acquitted of Kercher’s murder due to a lack of evidence, after being in custody for nearly four years. The Italian Supreme Court, in March 2013, determined that the jury acquitted Knox and Sollecito without considering all the evidence and with discrepant testimonies. The court therefore issued an order for a new trial.

At the conclusion of the new trial in January of 2014 Knox and Sollecito were found, for a second time, guilty of Kercher’s murder. Knox was sentenced to 28 years and six months in prison, while Sollecito received a 25 year sentence. Knox and Sollecito are planning to appeal and until a final decision has been handed down by the court it is unlikely that prosecutors will file extradition papers to have Knox brought back to Italy.

Discussion has recently sparked about Knox and what her future will hold and how the end of the Amanda Knox Story will be written. Many are confused with the Italian court’s recent decision, as most of the evidence and testimony used in the new trial was the same as that used in the original trial – which lead to an acquittal. With confusion comes questions, and these questions are leading many individuals to look more closely at what is really going on with the Knox case and its trial evidence.

A new concern has been stirred up in the mist of the Knox case, which is whether or not the police and criminal prosecutors are placing too much faith and reliance on forensic evidence and forensic testimony. It has long been said in reference to evidence, that: it is what it is. Meaning that the evidence doesn’t lie, and the evidence doesn’t change. The problem is that the interpretation of such evidence can be misread and misconstrued when scientists and forensic experts push the boundaries of such evidence too far.

This has been seen in many cases including Mayfield and Peterson. In the Mayfield case authorities were convinced a fingerprint match placed a United States citizen at the heart of the Madrid bombing, when in actuality the fingerprint match was a fluke and belonged to another individual altogether. Moreover, in the Peterson case the jury returned a guilty verdict which was later changed by the court to a grant of a new trial when it was discovered the State’s expert witness had lied about his credentials before his damning bloodstain pattern analysis testimony.

There is an impression that such misrepresentation and overreliance has occurred in the Knox case in reference to the DNA evidence supposedly linking Knox to the murder. Like most forensic evidence there is a depth and limit to its reliability, and it appears that prosecutors might have used evidence that was beyond the threshold of validity and reliability simply because it indicated a match to Know.

An analogous issue has occurred in the past when fingerprints were considered to be a match when seven individual indicators were found to be similar between two samples. However, it is now known that the similarities need to be in the high teens for fingerprints to be considered a possible match. With this analogy in mind, it would seem as though the Knox DNA evidence equated to a seven point finger print match, when a sixteen point match is truly needed in order to satisfy tests and concerns of reliability.

The forensic technology that the criminal justice system relies so heavily on has come under attack in recent years. Forensic science itself is facing a remodeling of its core tenants of reliability and validity, as the field as a whole tries to become more scientifically based. However, it is important that the court be made aware that scientists, now with advances in technology readily available to them, have the ability to make evidence more then what it is by pushing the bounds of reliability before proper testing has been conducted. Until such research and testing can be done it is better to let the evidence speak for itself rather than letting scientist put incriminating words in its mouth.

Score One for the Internet: European Union Affirms the Right to Hyperlink

POSTED BY Andrew Clark

The European Court of Justice that sits in Luxembourg recently decided the Case of Nils Svensson et al. v. Retriever Sverige. The Plaintiffs in this case, Svensson et al., brought an action against the Defendant, Retriever Sverige, to obtain compensation for the use of hyperlinks by the Defendants, which directed users to the Plaintiff’s website. The question before the court was whether person who places a hyperlink to a copyrighted work with out the copyright holder’s permission violates copyright or related areas of law?

The EU Court held that there was no violation of copyright law by an unauthorized user directing website visitors to copyrighted works through the use of a hyperlink. The court specified that, “the owner of a website, such as that of Retriever Sverige, may, without the authorisation of the copyright holders, redirect internet users, via hyperlinks, to protected works available on a freely accessible basis on another site.” One important consideration to note is that the holding only applies to hyperlinked work that is freely available to the public; it does not include links that seek to avoid payment or restricted access.

The sanctity of the Internet was protected due to the EU Court’s holding. The Internet is a vast medium of information that is often easier found by clicking from Website to Website rather than searching for specific information. What if the court would have held conversely, that a copyright holder’s permission was required to place a hyperlink on a website? That holding would have made it impossible for users to click from one website to another that included complimentary information, thus forever changing the structure of the Internet. For example, had the converse holding been upheld it would have made writing this blog post difficult. Imagine reading a news article about a current legal issue, but where you’d normally find a hyperlink to the related court case there was nothing. You would then have to search the Internet for the specific source adding unnecessary delay and headache. I do agree with the differentiation between linking to publicly available Websites or works and those with restricted access. I do not feel that it would be appropriate to allow hyperlinks to be used to avoid paying to access a website or other specified restrictions. Thankfully, the holding in this case substantiated the Internet as a great space for the world to share information with others, so long as that information is freely accessible.

Recent Supreme Judicial Court Ruling a Victory for Privacy Advocates

POSTED BY Micah-Shalom Kesselman

Complementing an article written by one of our very own in our most recent published issue, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently ruled on the issue of whether a warrant is needed to obtain cellular site location information (CSLI) from a third party under the state constitution. The lower courts had held that the state was required to obtain a warrant to access Shabazz Augustine’s CSLI, regardless if it retrieved the information under Federal law. The highest court in Massachusetts took the case on appeal and listened to arguments from both the state and Augstine, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, as well as receiving numerous amicus briefs from organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The SJC held that “the government-compelled production of the [Augstine’s] CSLI records by Sprint constituted a search in the constitutional sense to which the warrant requirement of art. 14 applied.” Before anyone celebrates this as a victory for privacy rights, it should be noted that the court explicitly refrained from wading into a Fourth Amendment analysis and decided the issue strictly along the contours of Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution. In its opinion, the SJC observed that “a majority of [Federal] courts [have] ruled that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the CSLI because it is a third-party business record.”

This is certainly a major and important victory for privacy advocates in Massachusetts. There are still major issues to be resolved. As the SJC itself explained, though the Circuits generally fall on the side of third-party CSLI being accessible without a warrant, there is still a split. The nature of federal law enforcement also makes it more likely that such investigative practices will be useful as compared to state law enforcement. Furthermore, the familiar issues of tracking via digital footsteps are still kicking about. So, though a privacy victory, let’s keep a practical sensibility and keep in mind the long haul still to go.

YouTube Matures Over Long Seven-Year Litigation Against Viacom

POSTED BY Abner Pinedo

YouTube is an efficient video sharing website owned by Google. It is known as the second largest search engine in the world. It is easy for just about anyone to upload any kind of media online nowadays. People use it for, including but not limited to, streaming music, television shows, tutorials, and news. However, over the past few years YouTube has been struggling in the realm of Copyright law and has fought fiercely.

In the past and currently, YouTube, as an Online Service Provider (OSP), protects itself using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) safe harbor provisions found under 17 U.S.C. § 512, which exempts service providers from liability of infringement for a copyrighted work’s transmission. If YouTube is aware of any material on their website that violates a copyright holder’s rights it removes the video. At this point, the subscriber that originally uploaded the “infringing” material has an opportunity to counter YouTube (OSP) and can republish the material, if they so desire. This is were most lawsuits arise in the context of YouTube.

The most recent battle between YouTube and Viacom—owns MTV, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon—deals with YouTube’s posting of Viacom’s programs on their website without their permission. Google was able to reach licensing agreements with several other entertainment companies, but were unable to reach an agreement with Viacom. Viacom originally sued YouTube back in 2007 for the alleging infringement of 79,000 unauthorized clips. Viacom’s unsuccessfully attempted to narrowly define the Online Service Provider definition in order to oust YouTube from its safe harbor protection. Recently, Viacom and Google have finally reached an undisclosed settlement agreement after a seven-year legal battle.

Over the course of the suit, YouTube has become a well-rounded copyright citizen. Viacom’s aggressive arguments of YouTube knowledgeable awareness of infringement has aided in YouTube’s new stricter take-down policies enabling them to work with more content owners. Through YouTube’s advertisement tactics and monetary opportunities they have created new opportunities for many known and unknown copyright owners. Now that the suit has finished it is only a matter of time before YouTube and Viacom agree to a partnership, increasing YouTube’s popularity and viewership success.

NameTags Like Never Before

POSTED BY Bridget Sarpu

Many people have attended events where they must sport the “Hello, My Name is…” nametags, in order for other guests to be able to easily identify one another. With new advancements in technology, traditional nametags may be obsolete, replaced with a much creepier, smartphone or Google Glass application.

NameTag is a new facial recognition app that lets users scan faces of strangers and match the face to the owner’s online and public record. If NameTag successfully locates the owner’s face online, it retrieves any public information and presents it to the user of the application. Information can include full name, relationship status, school attended, current occupation, interests, and more. According to a recent press release, NameTag also will be able to scan a face through the National Sex Offender Registry and can tell a user the criminal records of individual. Soon, people may not need traditional nametags if they can just scan a person’s face and receive all available information on their smartphone.

The app, developed by FacialNetwork.com, is available for iOS and Android devices and is believed to be available soon for Google Glass. Specifically, NameTag sends photographs wirelessly to a server, compares the photographs to millions of records and in seconds returns a match complete with a name, additional photos, and social medial profiles. Technology is already being developed to allow the scanning of profile photos from dating sites such as Match.com, PlentyOfFish.com, and OkCupid.com. For added peace of mind, the user can also cross-reference the photos against more than 450,000 entries in the National Sex Offender Registry.   Other criminal databases are perused and report information such as online court records. Once the application gathers all the details of the scanned face, it not only presents the information to the user who originally scanned the face but then it uploads them to FacialNetwork.com’s database for future easy access.

Kevin Alan Tussy, NameTag’s creator, claims to have developed the app for the purpose of safety. He believes there is an added benefit of giving users an easy way to learn more about their future friends, coworkers, or dates, creating an instant connection based on mutual interests or hobbies. Tussy said in a statement, “It is much easier to meet interesting new people when we can simply look at someone, see their Facebook, review their LinkedIn page or maybe even see their dating site profile. Often we were interacting with people blindly or not interacting at all.”[1]

The app is not officially sanctioned Glassware, applications accepted on Google’s new Glass wearable technology. Google has made clear that it is against their developer policies to approve any Glassware that has any sort of facial recognition technology. Therefore, Google will not make NameTag available through the company’s official channels. However, it could still be possible for the FacialNetwork.com to distribute the app themselves, and have users side load it. Plus, individuals using Glass could potentially “jailbreak” the technology and upload NameTag and begin to use it on a daily basis. Obviously, the issue of facial recognition has led some serious fears over the invasion of privacy, especially if the app could be used with Google Glass.

Invasion of privacy is a serious issue regarding NameTag and other application using facial recognition software. Legal and moral issues aside, NameTag says that their goal is not to invade user privacy. Tussy believes issues with privacy can be solved by having users sign up and create profiles on NameTag and choose to not have their profile shown in public searches. He states, “It’s not about invading anyone’s privacy; it’s about connecting people that want to be connected. We will even allow users to have one profile that is seen during business hours and another that is only seen in social situations.”[2] So, if a person does not want their information made available, they can actively sign on to NameTag and opt-out of the service. However, one has to know about the service in order to opt-out. Otherwise, people using the app can scan your face randomly when you walk pass them on the street. One argument is that it should be up to the person whether to opt-in to the service, not opt-out. That way, an individual would first need to create a profile and agree to have their information shared to the outside world.

Other privacy issues concerns question whether NameTag’s ability to access sex offender registries is a good thing. Sex offender lists are publicly accessible but some advocates conclude that public sex registries do not increase public safety. According to Kieran Mccartan, an associate professor in criminology at the University of the West of England, is one who questions whether access to such registries will harm social relationships, instead of build them. In an article in the Conversation, Mccartan writes, “The notion that you can check whether a new partner has offending history suggests a less trusting and more suspicious approach to relationships, as well as an attempt to foresee and future-proof any potential problems.”[3] Mccartan also question database maintenance, accuracy and reliability in the use of apps like NameTag. Instead of relying on an app, people should ask their date those pressing questions and base their future on those answers. NameTag’s angle is the program will help enhance people’s social lives and potentially protect individuals who want to know if someone is registered as a sex offender before engaging with them or allowing their children to be near them.

Individuals are not standing by and waiting for apps like NameTag to hit the market, some are taking action. U.S. Senator Al Franken from Minnesota, recently send a letter to FacialNetwork.com. In the letter he expresses his concerns with NameTag, noting that NameTag lets strangers get a broad range of personal information, done without the person’s knowledge or consent, which crosses a bright line for privacy and personal safety. Senator Franken concluded his letter by asking numerous questions regarding NameTag. Questions include whether NameTag will administer an opt-in program, rather than an opt-out program, how NameTag plans on addressing users who may be stalkers, how NameTag is addressing Google’s prohibition on facial recognition software for Glass, etc. The majority of questions come down to whether publicly available data should be easily accessed by others. One argument is that if a person chooses to post pictures on Facebook for everyone to see, he should not complain if others access the information. On the flipside, the opposing argument is individuals do not realize that by uploading their photos to Facebook they may be subjecting themselves to other outside program access.

Although there is plenty of excitement for future technologies like Google Glass, apps capable of using facial recognition software like NameTag will continue to alarm society. Sure, smartphones have cameras that where people could take pictures of strangers without their knowledge but the easy of accessibility of public information with a simple click can be disturbing. NameTag is only in the beta version and not ready for public distribution but the end result is inevitable and society will quickly be forced to wonder who is scanning their faces and what information is readily available for all to see.

[1] Press Release, FacialNetwork.com Announces Beta Release of “NameTag” the First Real-Time Facial Recognition App for Google Glass, http://www.nametag.ws/.

[2]Id. 

[3] Kieran Mccartan, The App that Checks Whether Your Date is a Sex Offender, The Conversation (Jan. 13, 2014), http://theconversation.com/the-app-that-checks-whether-your-date-is-a-sex-offender-21941.

 

Zuckerberg Calls Obama about the NSA

POSTED BY Stephanie Surette

On Wednesday, March 12, Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook founder) called President Obama to express his frustration with the NSA’s surveillance. The controversy around the NSA’s spying has been widely covered in the news since Edward Snowden released data in 2013 revealing the extent of the government agency’s electronic surveillance. So why did Zuckberg call now?

A report from The Intercept revealed some new details about the NSA’s past to “covertly hack into computers on a mass scale.” Originally, the NSA used this technology to gain information from targets where a traditional wiretap was not feasible for one reason or another. The NSA has allegedly accelerated this program and it can now be conducted on a mass scale as some aspects can now be done by a computer that were previously handled by a person.

The below except from The Intercept explains the NSA’s methods to “hack” into individual computers:

In some cases the NSA has masqueraded as a fake Facebook server, using the social media site as a launching pad to infect a target’s computer and exfiltrate files from a hard drive. In others, it has sent out spam emails laced with the malware, which can be tailored to covertly record audio from a computer’s microphone and take snapshots with its webcam. The hacking systems have also enabled the NSA to launch cyberattacks by corrupting and disrupting file downloads or denying access to websites.

Zuckerberg wrote on his Facebook the day after his conversation with the President: “When our engineers work tirelessly to improve security, we imagine we’re protecting you against criminals, not our own government.”  The White House confirmed that President Obama spoke with Zuckerberg, but did not provide details about their conversation.

The allegation that Facebook’s servers are being imitated by the NSA is a serious concern to the private company. Unfortunately, this is not the only recent example of private U.S. technology companies becoming tied up in the NSA scandal. This USA Today article highlights issues that U.S. technology companies are facing selling to foreign consumers because they allegedly turned over information to the NSA. Technology companies, and not just private citizens, have now become entangled in the NSA scandal.

Energy Harvesting: Capturing Ambient Energy to Fuel Wireless Devices May Raise IP and Property Questions

POSTED BY Rebecca Ferrante

Energy harvesting involves the collection of low grade ambient energy from the environment and converting it into usable electrical energy that can power wireless electronic devices.  The energy is sourced from radio frequency waves, environmental radiation, thermal gradients and light or vibration in the environment. As the world’s consumption of fuel grows exponentially, energy harvesting is one viable potential resource for alternative power.

Valued at $131.4 million in 2012, the energy harvesting industry segment is estimated to increase to $4.2 billion in 2019 with growth based on global demand for sensors and wireless sensor networks paired with the driving need for clean energy.  Current applications include vibration-based wireless train monitoring, oil field monitoring systems, windup laptops for use in remote regions, wireless light switches and temperature control, environmental monitoring and alert systems for detecting pollution, forest fires, intrusion, or movement around a border fence.  Newer advancements are marked by mechanisms that charge by human movement including not only the average cell phone, by pacemakers and other electrical biomedical devices.

Currently, little regulation exists that adequately addresses this broad and varied market since the industry is fairly new and high growth, coupled with the fact that the technology is being developed and applied in a myriad of ways.  To help overcome this challenge, the University of Southampton coordinated the Energy Harvesting Open Access Data Repository to collect and post data from researchers and to assist in developing a unified framework from which developers could build while applying established best practices.  As a booming young industry however, one might question the validity of an open source repository that hosts research data, requiring contributors to share their findings for “unrestricted use” subject only to acknowledging the contributor.  Here, intellectual property rights and patent infringement concerns take a back seat; as does commercial competition that operates to restrict cost.

Because ambient energy is plucked from the environment, energy harvesting is often called energy scavenging and as the term implies, likened to stealing.  This concept is promulgated in part by urban legends of radio authorities sent out to diagnose pockets of weak signal strength, only to find a nearby homeowner with fluorescent lights fueled by coiled wire that captured and channeled the station’s radio frequency waves from the air.  In 2013 however, a German student developed an electromagnetic harvester that collected energy from the air that re-charged a AA battery.  This energy is sourced from radio and television transmitters, cell phone networks and satellite communications systems, and so the question may be from whom is the ambient energy stolen and do they have any rights to it.

As technology continues to enable our transition to clean and renewable energy sources, regulations for commerce, safety and resource management will need to keep pace while promoting best practices and competition.

Netflix Refuses ISP Restrictions

POSTED BY Alex Zamenhof

Earlier this month, Netflix and Comcast announced a special arrangement that the two have entered into: namely, that Netflix streaming will be faster for people who have Comcast as their ISP. In a recent article, I found a fantastic description that breaks down exactly how video traffic on the internet works:

“Video traffic on the Internet, like the service that Netflix runs, is very sensitive to delays. As a result the Internet is built in such a way that content is distributed throughout the network in what’s known as content delivery networks, or CDNs. These services strategically place servers throughout the Internet and then they cache certain content, like streaming video, on these servers, so that when customers request a particular video it can easily and quickly be delivered to them. This reduces overall traffic on what’s known as the Internet backbone. And it results in a more efficient use of network resources. It also greatly improves performance and quality of service.”

Netflix has already built its own CDN (Content Delivery Network). The idea behind this is that Netflix would not have to pay a third party to provide its service to an ISP. However, big ISPs believe that Netflix should have to pay for the requisite increase in service necessary to stream effectively. While Netflix is trying to cut out the middle-man, the big ISPs are aiming to charge Netflix just as if it were a CDN itself. How do they achieve this? By dropping not so subtle hints that should Netflix refuse their offers of deals, then Netflix streaming may experience a slower connection on their servers.

This is tantamount to extortion in my book. Netflix is stepping on the toes of big ISPs, and they recognize this. With Comcast’s imminent merger with Time Warner, the ISP provider is slated to become the biggest provider in the US, owning some 30% of the market. Aside from antitrust issues, which are already being lobbed, it creates problems for emerging services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon who are all on the verge of premiering their own video streaming services, networks, or other similar things that have historically been the sole ground of the ISPs.

Netflix has made the logical statement that users who stream using Netflix’s own CDN experience significantly better viewing – a fact that is not in dispute by ISPs. This is now the critical juncture, where either Netflix tries to stand up for itself, or gets amalgamated into one or more of the existing ISPs.  Unfortunately, because Netflix is on top of its game in the streaming world, it is true that ISPs must spend more money to upgrade their servers to keep pace with Netflix – therefore, it does make sense that those ISPs want a portion of the pie in exchange for upgrading their servers. I believe that in the near future, we will either see one or two ISPs dominate, or a whole host of choices: perhaps Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Facebook, etc. will begin to pioneer their own subscription services to compete with the big ISPs. This would put the US more in line with other nations around the world, where there are a multitude of choices, rather than just a few big names.

How Natural is All Natural?

POSTED BY Kayla Morency

In the 1970’s, biologists began experimenting with genetics and biotechnology, which ultimately resulted in genetically engineered DNA.  This new process involved the crossbreeding of various animal, plant, viral, and bacterial genes, which would not naturally occur in the environment.  In fact, the first patented genetically modified organism (GMO) was used by General Electric to consume oil in the event of large spills.  However, only a few individuals ever imagined that GMOs would later become a common ingredient in most food products, and by the late twentieth century, the genetically modified food crop began to appear on grocery store shelves.  These genetically modified food crops became increasingly popular in the marketplace, because the GMO capabilities provide accelerated growth rates, increased resistance to pathogens, and longer shelf lives.  Although this new food source has become a common ingredient in most processed foods, the scientific community and the public are becoming increasingly concerned about the health consequences this phenomenon poses.  However, unlike the European Union, which has taken a more skeptical approach to this technology, the U.S. remains one of the few industrialized nations that does not require GMO labeling of consumer goods.  Nevertheless, the U.S. is starting to see the people mobilize and demand that they be fully informed on the products they are purchasing and consuming.

Even though the U.S. is starting to see a shift in public attitudes away from consumer ignorance towards consumer awareness, there has not been any significant progress requiring GMO products be labeled as such.  There has been very limited legislative action taken, and although several states are in the process of considering GMO labeling bills, individuals are finding other ways to demand government action.

Recently, a federal consumer fraud class action suit was filed against one of the largest processed food manufacturers, Frito-Lay.  Several purchasers of Frito-Lay products allege that the company failed to provide truthful and accurate information by using GMO ingredients under the guise “All Natural.”  While the company pledged that their products contained all natural ingredients, it failed to acknowledge that the products also contained genetically modified corn and genetically modified soy.  As a result, consumers contend that Frito-Lay violated state and several federal fraud and consumer deception laws.  Although Frito-Lay remains a subsidiary of PepsiCo, another leading manufacturer of processed foods, the class action suit has been dismissed with respect to the parent company, because there was no evidence to suggest it participated in the advertising campaign; meanwhile, Frito-Lay will be compelled to defend against the use of GMO products.  Even though PepsiCo uses genetically modified sweeteners in its products, unlike Frito-Lay, it adhered to existing U.S. policies by simply not labeling them.

As the political arena currently stands, there are a number of potential implications that this suit may have on the future of the food industry.  For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to clearly define the term “natural” when incorporated into food labels.  Therefore, many individuals are hopeful that this suit and others pending will put enough pressure on the FDA to address this largely contested issue.  In addition, advocacy groups, such as the Non-GMO Project and the Right to Know GMO, continue to generate public concern among consumers through advertising campaigns and mobilize voters in support of over a dozen pending mandatory GMO labeling statutes.  Many are hopeful that consumer pressure, even in the form of litigation, will motivate legislatures to pass mandatory GMO labeling statutes, making these consumer fraud suits obsolete.  However, until then, support for mandatory labeling statutes and boycotts of non-GMO products appears to be on the rise.

Autonomous Vehicles are the Future or Not?

POSTED BY Abner Pinedo

Imagine a scenario where a blind man is operating a vehicle by himself on a freeway and is able to arrive safely to his destination. This far-fetched scenario only once imagined in Sci-Fi films is one of many possibilities that Google Inc. illustrates as possible in a YouTube video they posted up called “Self-Driving Car Test: Steve Maha.” Between 2011 and 2012, California, Nevada, and Florida have passed laws allowing the use of automated vehicles on the road in their prototype stages. Google claims that their automated self-driven vehicle is going to revolutionize safety and efficiency for society. The Google Car boasts over 300,000 driven miles in real-time traffic without any reported accidents to date. They claim their autonomous vehicle has the potential of bringing our average 32,000 motor vehicle accidents a year to zero. This is the future Google’s working on for us.

The legality of these new vehicles on the road seems possible, but what exactly is allowed? Three bodies of law govern the United States’ vehicle laws: the 1941 Geneva Convention, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the vehicle codes that each State has enacted. These laws combined create a complex body of law, some requiring that there should be a driver in control of the vehicle at all times. These laws do not particularly prohibit the legality of automated vehicles, but does complicate their admissibility. For example, most states assume the notion of a prudent or reasonable licensed human driver with the ability to use their own sound judgment.

California, Nevada, and Florida have all allowed Google’s automated prototype to be legal on the roads. These states have passed similar bills all defining “autonomous vehicles” and the ability to obtain virtual or automated licenses. The policy behind these bills is to facilitate the creation and use of these new technologies safely on the highways. However, these passed bills do not address general tort liability, insurance, environmental impact assessment, and more.

If autonomous vehicles are to become legal they are going to change the structure of a lot of our industries, especially of those of insurance companies. It is going to affect who gets sued and who is liable of an accident. For example, who would be held responsible for a fender-bender when a computer is automatically controlling the vehicle? Would the blind man be held liable or would Google be? Since the bills don’t resolve the human drivers’ obligations behind the wheel and the vehicle standards, it is likely that the Google car will remain a prototype for sometime. The question regarding who’s liable and how much in damages will be paid is left to the courts and legislation to decide. These decisions need to be well balanced in order to not deter companies from entering into this new sector and it cannot make the drivers fully responsible for a machine’s decisions in order to not dissuade drivers from purchasing the vehicles.

The question of liability would further be complicated by the different definitions of “autonomous” established between the legislature and the DMV in these states. For example, the Nevada’s legislature definition of autonomous vehicle does not require a human operator. However, the Nevada DMV’s definition of autonomous does require some form of human intervention. The potential driver could in fact argue that they should not be held liable, because the legislature does not conceivably require human input, thus the creator of the vehicle would be deemed at fault. These inconsistencies need to be thoroughly fixed and altered. Nevada legislature did urge for the DMV to amend their definition of autonomous in order to comply with their definition of autonomous. Without a clear definition and consistency, liability for an accident related to autonomous vehicles can become a mess. It is clearly an exciting time we live in. Nevertheless, self-driven vehicles have a long way towards fully being able to exit its prototypic stages and into our garages.