Adobe Responds to AI Fears With Plans for Updated Legal Terms; Bloomberg Law, June 12, 2024

Cassandre Coyer and Aruni Soni, Bloomberg Law; Adobe Responds to AI Fears With Plans for Updated Legal Terms

"“As technology evolves, we have to evolve,” Dana Rao, Adobe’s general counsel, said in an interview with Bloomberg Law. “The legal terms have to evolve, too. And that’s really the lesson that we’re sort of internalizing here.”

Over the weekend, some Adobe customers revolted on social media, crying foul at updated terms of use they claimed allowed Adobe to seize their intellectual property and use their data to feed AI models. 

The Photoshop and Illustrator maker responded with multiple blog posts over several days seeking to reassure users it wasn’t stealing their content, including a pledge to quickly rewrite its user agreement in clearer language. Rao said Tuesday that Adobe will be issuing updated terms of use on June 18 in which it will specifically state the company doesn’t train its Firefly AI models on its cloud content.

The unexpected online storm around the updates is the latest example of how sweeping technological changes—such as the rise of generative AI—have bolstered users’ fears of copyright violations and privacy invasions. That sentiment is part of the landscape the tech industry must navigate to serve a creator community increasingly on edge.

What happened is “more of a lesson in terms of how to present terms of use and roll out updates in a way that can address or alleviate customer concerns, especially in the era of AI and increased concern over privacy,” said Los Angeles-based advertising attorney Robert Freund."

New privacy rules could spell the end of legalese — or create a lot more fine print; The Washington Post, May 24, 2018

Elizabeth Dwoskin, The Washington Post; New privacy rules could spell the end of legalese — or create a lot more fine print

"“The companies are realizing that it is not enough to get people to just click through,” said Lorrie Cranor, director of the CyLab Usable Privacy and Security Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s former chief technologist. “That they need to communicate so that people are not surprised when they find out what they consented to.”

That has become more apparent in the past two months since revelations that a Trump-connected consultancy, Cambridge Analytica, made off with the Facebook profiles of up to 87 million Americans. Cranor said that consumer outrage over Cambridge was directly related to concerns that companies were engaging in opaque practices behind the scenes, and that consumers had unknowingly allowed it to happen by signing away their rights.

Irrespective of simpler explanations, the impact and success of the GDPR will hinge upon whether companies will try to force users to consent to their tracking or targeting as condition for access to their services, said Alessandro Acquisti, a Carnegie Mellon computer science professor and privacy researcher. "This will tell us a lot regarding whether the recent flurry of privacy policy modifications demonstrates a sincere change in the privacy stance of those companies or is more about paying lip service to the new regulation. The early signs are not auspicious.""

Facebook patent tries to guess users' socioeconomic status; Axios, February 2, 2018

Kim Hart, Axios; Facebook patent tries to guess users' socioeconomic status

"A new patent from Facebook describes a system that would use data points it collects on the user — like education, travel history, the number of devices owned, and homeownership — to predict their socioeconomic status. The patent was spotted by CBInsights.

Why it matters: The social network, which is already coming under fire for knowing too much about its users, could use such a system to better target ads and content to specific audiences."

Tech Giants Brace for Europe’s New Data Privacy Rules; New York Times, January 28, 2018

Sheera Frenkel, New York Times; Tech Giants Brace for Europe’s New Data Privacy Rules

"Ms. Jourová said as the new rules take effect, countries outside Europe could begin demanding similar data protection measures for their citizens.

“There will be a moment, especially as more and more people in the U.S. find themselves uncomfortable with the channels monitoring their private lives,” she said."

WTF is GDPR?; TechCrunch, January 20, 2018

Natasha Lomas, TechCrunch; WTF is GDPR?

"The EC’s theory is that consumer trust is essential to fostering growth in the digital economy. And it thinks trust can be won by giving users of digital services more information and greater control over how their data is used. Which is — frankly speaking — a pretty refreshing idea when you consider the clandestine data brokering that pervades the tech industry. Mass surveillance isn’t just something governments do.

The General Data Protection Regulation (aka GDPR) was agreed after more than three years of negotiations between the EU’s various institutions.

It’s set to apply across the 28-Member State bloc as of May 25, 2018. That means EU countries are busy transposing it into national law via their own legislative updates (such as the UK’s new Data Protection Bill — yes, despite the fact the country is currently in the process of (br)exiting the EU, the government has nonetheless committed to implementing the regulation because it needs to keep EU-UK data flowing freely in the post-brexit future. Which gives an early indication of the pulling power of GDPR.

Meanwhile businesses operating in the EU are being bombarded with ads from a freshly energized cottage industry of ‘privacy consultants’ offering to help them get ready for the new regs — in exchange for a service fee. It’s definitely a good time to be a law firm specializing in data protection."

Amazon has a patent to keep you from comparison shopping while you’re in its stores; Washington Post, June 16, 2017

Brian Fung, Washington Post; Amazon has a patent to keep you from comparison shopping while you’re in its stores

"Amazon was awarded a patent May 30 that could help it choke off a common issue faced by many physical stores: Customers’ use of smartphones to compare prices even as they walk around a shop. The phenomenon, often known as mobile “window shopping,” has contributed to a worrisome decline for traditional retailers.

But Amazon now has the technology to prevent that type of behavior when customers enter any of its physical stores and log onto the WiFi networks there. Titled “Physical Store Online Shopping Control,” Amazon’s patent describes a system that can identify a customer’s Internet traffic and sense when the smartphone user is trying to access a competitor’s website. (Amazon chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos is also the owner of The Washington Post.)...

Just because a company wins a patent doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll use it. Sometimes companies file for patents to ensure they have the option to put the idea into practice later, or to keep other companies from implementing the concept. So, a system such as the kind Amazon’s envisioning might never be rolled out. And even if it is, chances are shoppers could still get around the system by staying off the in-store WiFi."

When a Public Family Is Publicly Attacked; New York Times, 2/5/16

KJ Dell'Antonia, New York Times; When a Public Family Is Publicly Attacked:

"While Ms. Howerton and her supporters report Twitter accounts for abuse, she is also asking YouTube to take down the video commentary that makes use of her video and other family images. She has filed a privacy complaint, which YouTube rejected, and is waiting for it to respond to her new complaint, alleging copyright violation. Neil Richards, a law professor at Washington University and author of “Intellectual Privacy: Rethinking Civil Liberties in the Digital Age,” said he thinks Ms. Howerton’s belief that she can regain control of the footage may be overly optimistic.

“The use of home video and family images for political debate is something that has real consequences,” he said. “She has made her life choices, her experiences, her children’ experiences, a matter for public debate. When people do this they do expose themselves to criticism and attacks and some of them are quite unpleasant.”

Eric Goldman, a professor of law and director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law, agreed that because Ms. Howerton herself used family video as part of a political discussion, she may have little legal recourse when that video is used as part of a larger video engaged in social commentary on the same topic. In many situations, videos or pictures posted online can become “fair game” for critics to use in online attacks against the poster’s position or for other undesirable political or social statements, Mr. Goldman said in an email."

The new way police are surveilling you: Calculating your threat ‘score’; Washington Post, 1/10/16

Justin Jouvenal, Washington Post; The new way police are surveilling you: Calculating your threat ‘score’ :

"Police officials say such tools can provide critical information that can help uncover terrorists or thwart mass shootings, ensure the safety of officers and the public, find suspects, and crack open cases. They say that last year’s attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., have only underscored the need for such measures.

But the powerful systems also have become flash points for civil libertarians and activists, who say they represent a troubling intrusion on privacy, have been deployed with little public oversight and have potential for abuse or error. Some say laws are needed to protect the public."

Pearls Before Swine; GoComics.com, 12/20/15

GoComics.com; Stephan Pastis, Pearls Before Swine: [Never Read the Terms and Conditions]

Why Facebook Is Monitoring Your Private Videos; Huffington Post, 11/18/15

Huffington Post; Why Facebook Is Monitoring Your Private Videos:

"Parker Higgins, an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, explains how Facebook's hunt for copyrighted material is playing out in users' private posts."

Ashley Madison, a Dating Website, Says Hackers May Have Data on Millions; New York Times, 7/20/15

Dino Grandoni, New York Times; Ashley Madison, a Dating Website, Says Hackers May Have Data on Millions:

"Under American copyright law, Ashley Madison has the power to scrub away private user information leaked in the breach and posted to other websites. On Monday, the company said that it had been doing just that to protect the identities of those who have used Ashley Madison.

But that may be a race that it cannot win. Paul Ferguson, senior adviser for Trend Micro, a security software provider, said that information on Ashley Madison, deleted in one online forum, is beginning to bubble up in others.

“Once something is published on the Internet,” he said, “it’s there forever.”"

Online Test-Takers Feel Anti-Cheating Software’s Uneasy Glare; New York Times, 4/5/15

Natasha Singer, New York Times; Online Test-Takers Feel Anti-Cheating Software’s Uneasy Glare:

"In hopes of alleviating students’ concerns, Verificient recently posted a pledge on its blog saying that Proctortrack did not share students’ data with third parties; that it typically deleted students’ data after 30 to 60 days; and that students could remove the software from their computers once they had uploaded their test data.

But the company has not changed its privacy policy — which states that it may unilaterally amend its policies at any time and that it may disclose users’ personal information to third-party service providers or in the event of a company merger, sale or bankruptcy.

Students like Ms. Chao say they hope university administrators will consider the civil liberties implications of emergent tracking technologies, not just the expediency.

“They are trying to make recording students a regular part of online courses,” Ms. Chao said. “You don’t know what new norms are going to be established for what privacy is.”"

Open data's Achilles heel: re-identification; ZDNet, 9/3/14

Rob O'Neill, ZDNet; Open data's Achilles heel: re-identification:

'Governments around the globe are embracing the mantra of open data and talking up its productivity benefits, but none have so far made the re-identification of this mass of anonymised data illegal... The possibility of outlawing re-identification is now being discussed in New Zealand, with both the Privacy Commissioner, John Edwards, and a May report (pdf) from the New Zealand Data futures Forum suggesting legal protections against re-identification may be necessary.

Edwards told ZDNet he is trying to look towards the future and ensure that the value in government data can be safely extracted in ways that maintain public confidence.

“One of the methods might be a prohibition on re-identification. If we did that we would be world leaders," he said.

Similarly, the Data Futures Forum report said it is necessary to develop a "robust data-use ecosystem" and to get the rules around open data right. This should include a data council to act as guardians and advisers, and a broad review of legislation."

Open data: slow down Whitehall's approach has the subtlety of a smash-and-grab-raider and it must take its own advice on best practice; Guardian, 4/18/14

Editorial, Guardian; Open data: slow down Whitehall's approach has the subtlety of a smash-and-grab-raider and it must take its own advice on best practice:

"Open data is potentially of incalculable value. The capacity to merge and manipulate information from a range of public bodies is already delivering wider benefit that ranges from better policing to environmental protection. It will lead to sharper policy making, cheaper drugs and improved health strategies. More contentiously, it could also develop into a valuable revenue stream for government. Whitehall is understandably excited about the potential. But it is approaching the whole open data project with the subtlety of a smash-and-grab raider...

A year ago, the government's own review into open data was published. Its first call was for a National Data Strategy, open to audit, that would set out what data should be released and in what form. Other recommendations included a focus on security, releasing anonymised data only into "safe havens" and introducing tough penalties on end users that fail to safeguard it. This may be part of the best practice HMRC insists it is committed to observing, but external experts are sceptical. Whitehall needs to take its own advice. It needs a strategy, one that explains exactly what the criteria for release of data are, sets out security safeguards that withstand challenge and introduces tough penalties for any breach that demonstrate a genuine respect for privacy."

Online IP protection bill sparks outrage; Computer World, 9/29/10

Jaikumar Vijayan, Computer World; Online IP protection bill sparks outrage: Privacy groups, tech gurus call proposed legislation an attempt by the U.S to censor Internet content:

"Proposed federal legislation that would require domain registrars, Internet Service Providers and others to block access to Web sites that the U.S. contends contribute to copyright infringement has generated outrage among privacy advocates and prominent industry personalities."

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9188618/Online_IP_protection_bill_sparks_outrage

[Podcast & Transcript] Google's Goal: Digitize Every Book Ever Printed, PBS NewsHour

[Podcast & Transcript] PBS NewsHour; Google's Goal: Digitize Every Book Ever Printed:

"GARY REBACK: People no longer see any big difference between Google and Google's competitors. They're in it for money. And we need to depend on the competitive system to protect us.

SPENCER MICHELS: Does that go for Amazon and Microsoft as well?

GARY REBACK: It absolutely does. In this case, for example, Amazon was digitizing books long before Google was. Microsoft wanted to digitize books. Neither of them got the same deal that Google got -- got secretly, but, if they had, we would be -- all be better off because of it.

SPENCER MICHELS: Questions like those are being debated around the world. At Stanford, top librarians met recently to wrestle with how to adapt to the new online book resources and whether to cooperate with digitizations of their collections.

And bookstores like Berkeley's Pegasus, already in competition with discount booksellers, have to adapt as well. This store now sells digital books through its Web site. Besides the competition from online books, store owner Amy Thomas also worries about privacy of digital book buyers.

AMY THOMAS: They have a right to read without being -- having their reading records subpoenaed for whatever reason. They have a right to this privacy. And we will hope that Google will maintain, zealously maintain, defend those rights.

SPENCER MICHELS: Pam Samuelson is equally skeptical of Google's privacy policies. She puts her trust in libraries.

For its part, Google says it has been a huge advocate for user privacy. Antitrust concerns, copyright law, competition and privacy are all at issue in a flurry of lawsuits, friend-of-the-court briefs and interest from the Department of Justice. They will come to a head in February, when a federal judge holds a hearing on the Google case in New York."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec09/google_12-30.html

EFF Claims Google Book Search, Amazon Kindle Threaten Privacy; eWeek.com, 12/22/09

Chris Boulton, eWeek,com; EFF Claims Google Book Search, Amazon Kindle Threaten Privacy:

Privacy watchdogs at the Electronic Frontier Foundation claim that electronic reader technologies such as Google Book Search, Amazon.com's Kindle and Barnes & Noble's Nook threaten consumer privacy. Noting that e-readers collect a lot of information about their users' reading habits and locations and convey it to the companies that build or sell these technologies, the EFF has created a Buyer's Guide to E-Book Privacy to shed some light on what information existing e-readers collect and share.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Web-Services-Web-20-and-SOA/EFF-Claims-Google-Book-Search-Amazon-Kindle-Threaten-Privacy-661253/

Unsettled: Questions about the Google Book Search Settlement | Peer to Peer Review; Library Journal, 12/10/09

Barbara Fister, Library Journal; Unsettled: Questions about the Google Book Search Settlement Peer to Peer Review:

"The most striking change is that the agreement covers a much smaller universe of scanned books, only those published in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia or registered in the US copyright office. Jonathan Brand, author of the third update to the aptly-titled Guide to the Perplexed, estimates "perhaps as much as 50% of the titles in the research libraries partnering with Google are not in English; and most of these foreign language titles probably were published outside the U.S. and were not registered with the Copyright Office."

Other issues that remain problematic in this amended settlement were nicely summed up in a series of posts at the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Deep Links blog, all of them related to core library values...

At this point I am as ambivalent as ever about Google's extraordinary "moon shot." From the start, I was concerned, as Rory Litwin was, about the transformation of libraries' collections, developed over decades, into a monopolistic commercial venture, one that depends on lowering privacy barriers to function. I was hopeful, back then, that it might establish a new understanding of fair use that would be of benefit to other digitization projects. I didn't foresee the development of a registry that would enable unprecedented exploitation of books—the majority of published books—that linger in an uncertain copyright limbo.

I was then and still remain skeptical that GBS will transform the way most people tap into the knowledge found in books. For scholars who mine vast research libraries for obscure nuggets, it holds promise, and the limitations of poor scanning, inadequate metadata, and now the exclusion of most works in languages other than English are of serious concern. But for the undergraduates I serve, ones who find our academic library of 300,000 volumes intimidating, its sheer size is actually a drawback.

As Ranganathan said, the library is a living organism. I'll leave the Panglossian vision of the universal, final library to others and get back to tending my own garden."

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6711187.html

Digital divide over filesharing plans; Guardian, 11/20/09

Richard Wray, Guardian; Digital divide over filesharing plans:

"The government's planned crackdown on unlawful online filesharing has been attacked by privacy campaigners and internet service providers but welcomed by executives and artists in the music business.

Earlier today, the government published the digital economy bill, the result of more than a year's consultation and debate, which includes plans to send warnings letters to persistent unlawful file-sharers and paves the way for persistent illegal sharers to have their broadband cut off from 2011...

Some critics have already suggested that the wide definition of online copyright within the bill could leave the door open for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation to use the new legislation to prevent sites such as Google News from linking to his online content.

But music and film companies warmly welcomed the digital economy bill. Christine Payne, general secretary of Equity and chair of the Creative Coalition Campaign, said: "The government is doing the right thing by introducing legal measures aimed at tackling widespread online infringement of creative copyright, such as by peer-to-peer filesharing or other technologies that may emerge in the future."

"Our creative sector provides 1.8 million jobs in the UK and produces world-class content, enjoyed by millions around the world, but simply put, this cannot be sustained and more jobs will be lost if illegal filesharing persists."

Chris Marcich, president and managing director of the Motion Picture Association for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, added that Mandelson's decision to include powers in the bill to further change copyright law in future, were to be welcomed as "safeguards built in that will ensure the effectiveness of the legislation in the long-term"."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/20/filesharing-crackdown

Google Books Is Not a Library; Huffington Post, 10/13/09

Pamela Samuelson, Huffington Post; Google Books Is Not a Library:

"Sergey Brin published an op-ed in the New York Times last Friday likening the Google Book initiative to the famous ancient library of Alexandria. Brin suggested that Google Books would be "a library to last forever," unlike its Alexandrian counterpart that was ravaged by fire...

Unlike the Alexandria library or modern public libraries, the Google Book Search (GBS) initiative is a commercial venture that aims to monetize millions of out-of-print books, many of which are "orphans," that is, books whose rights holders cannot readily be found after a diligent search...

If Google Books was just a library, as Brin claims, library associations would not have submitted briefs expressing reservations about the GBS settlement to the federal judge who will be deciding whether to approve the deal. Libraries everywhere are terrified that Google will engage in price-gouging when setting prices for institutional subscriptions to GBS contents. Google is obliged to set prices in conjunction with a newly created Registry that will represent commercial publishers and authors. Prices for these subscriptions are to be set based on the number of books in the corpus, the services available, and prices of comparable products and services (of which there are none). Given that major research libraries today often pay in excess of $4 million a year for access to several thousand journals, they have good reason to be concerned that Google will eventually seek annual fees in excess of this for subscriptions to millions of GBS books. This is because Google will have a de facto monopoly on out-of-print books. The DOJ has raised concerns that price-setting terms of the GBS deal are anti-competitive.

Besides, Google can sell the GBS corpus to anyone without anyone's consent at any time once the settlement is approved...

Brin and Google's CEO Eric Schmidt have also been saying publicly that anyone can do what Google did--scanning millions of books to make a corpus of digitized books. They perceive Google to have just been bolder and more forward-looking than its rivals in this respect. But this claim is preposterous: By settling a lawsuit about whether scanning books to index them is copyright infringement or fair use, Google is putting at risk the next guy's fair use defense for doing the same...

Brin forgot to mention another significant difference between GBS and traditional libraries: their policies on patron privacy. The proposed settlement agreement contains numerous provisions that anticipate monitoring of uses of GBS content; so far, though, Google has been unwilling to make meaningful commitments to protect user privacy. Traditional libraries, by contrast, have been important guardians of patron privacy...

Anyone aspiring to create a modern equivalent of the Alexandrian library would not have designed it to transform research libraries into shopping malls, but that is just what Google will be doing if the GBS deal is approved as is."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-books-is-not-a-lib_b_317518.html