Apple gets around to AR, the NHL enters esports, the Internet of Things may bring new meaning to “workers unite,” so many medical records, and more …
Much like humans, bots come in all shapes and sizes. In social media networks, these bots can like what you post and even increase your followers. Companies use bots for all types of things—from booking a ride to giving makeup tutorials. Some bots can even solve your legal problems. Besides saving time and money, bots have the potential to reduce errors and increase a business’s customer base. But what happens when bots spy on users and share personal information? Or when they make racial slurs and offensive comments?
“Pleeeease?!” Buying a quick gift or giving in to your child’s pleas for a new toy is quickly becoming a more serious decision. In the age where toys can happily entertain kids by talking to them, the few precious moments those toys buy parents may not be without risk. It’s possible for anyone within an internet-connected toy’s Bluetooth range to connect to the toy and receive their audio recordings, while being up to 100 feet away. For example, in December 2015, VTech allegedly exposed the personal information of 6.4 million children, which included their names, genders and birthdays. Stealing a child’s personal information is, at the very least, concerning. However internet-connected toys come with an additional danger—localized hacking. Just look at Cayla, an internet-connected fashion doll manufactured and sold by Genesis Toys. My Friend Cayla answers fact-based questions, plays games, reads stories, and even solves math problems. Genesis uses third-party voice-recognition software by U.S.- based company, and the doll requires an iOS/Android application to use the software. The doll’s mobile application researches and supplies Cayla with factual answers to questions, but it also prompts children to set their physical location, parents’ names and school name.
The Internet of Things does not have to be Skynet to threaten us humans; perhaps tired of defeating carbon-based Go and chess masters, Google’s DeepMind pits its AI agents against each other; exactly when will AR and VR be fully embraced; and more …
To the surprise of no one, Instagram is pretty popular; Samsung puts a billion dollars into the Internet of Things; the FCC’s trying to decide if radio noise is a problem; and there’s an approach to virtual reality that won’t make you want to throw up.
AI teaching assistants and the NBA’s interest in VR aside, this week’s roundup has plenty of darker-themed stories, including torture-proof passwords, live-streamed suicide and death while AR gaming.
It’s apparent by now that along with an expected economic impact of billions or even trillions of dollars, the Internet of Things (IoT) also brings with it a host of security, health and policy concerns. (See our earlier post on managing the cybersecurity risks of the medical IoT for just one facet of these concerns.)
The U.S. government has noticed, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), part of the Department of Commerce, is now seeking comments to guide its own rulemaking on the IoT. In a recent client alert, colleagues Aimee Ghosh, Sheila Harvey, and Glenn Reynolds break down what exactly the NTIA will be looking for in terms of feedback.
Last week, the en banc Federal Circuit declined to rehear its November 10, 2015, decision in ClearCorrect v. ITC, 2014-1527, leaving the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (ITC) Section 337 jurisdiction to “material things” that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights. This denial and the 2015 Federal Circuit decision have wide implications for a variety of industry sectors, especially those involved with the Internet of Things or any company that may transfer digital assets across the U.S. border. Regarding the case, this denial restricts the ITC from prohibiting ClearCorrect’s importation of digital files used to manufacture teeth aligners that allegedly infringed complainant Align Technology’s patents. (For more details on the November 10, 2015 decision, see our post, “Living in a Nonmaterial World: Determining IP Rights for Digital Data.”)