In this blog, we understand the importance of Privacy in our digital age. That’s why we’ve decided to showcase some exceptional independent bloggers dedicated to Privacy and online security. We believe their work is worth sharing with our privacy-conscious readers, and we are not receiving any payment or incentives for recommending these bloggers. So, without further ado, let’s dive into the world of these privacy champions.
Restore Privacy: The Privacy Guardian
Restore Privacy (https://restoreprivacy.com) is a trusted resource for anyone concerned about online Privacy and security. The blog covers a wide range of topics, including VPNs, secure messaging apps, and privacy tools. With in-depth reviews, how-to guides, and well-researched articles, Restore Privacy empowers readers to protect their online presence and take control of their digital footprint.
The CyberGhost VPN Blog (https://www.cyberghostvpn.com) offers a wealth of information on internet security, online Privacy, and digital freedom. With a focus on VPNs, cybersecurity tips, and data protection, this blog is essential for anyone looking to safeguard their online activities. Stay informed and up-to-date on the latest developments in internet privacy with CyberGhost VPN Blog.
Geekflare (https://geekflare.com) is an invaluable resource for privacy enthusiasts seeking to stay informed about the latest technologies and best practices in online security. The blog covers a wide range of topics, from website performance and security to cloud computing and DevOps. Geekflare’s commitment to making the digital world safer makes it a must-read for anyone who values online Privacy.
We hope you enjoy exploring these exceptional independent Privacy and online security blogs. These bloggers bring expertise, dedication, and valuable insights to their respective fields. By supporting and sharing their work, we can help create a more privacy-conscious and security-aware online community. Happy reading!
In the words of David Kelner, the current time is often described as the “fourth industrial revolution” because of the fast pace of technology progression and its penetration in all spheres of human activities. The extent of this change in technology is significant, and multiple opportunities are linked to its’ furtherance and the emergence of superior technology-capable devices like supercomputers. Numerous industries and businesses already recognize the importance of innovative solutions and are continuously assessing and developing more unique technology products to integrate them into their business operational optima.
AI is hardware or software that possesses behavioral patterns which appear intelligent
Generally, innovations are regarded as enhancements to the prosperity of human societies. However, artificial intelligence (“AI”) represents an entirely new environment as a subset of the rising technology, which is not free from resulting some effects that can disrupt the norms and peace of life. Academic studies in the field of AI suggest that it is not impossible but somewhat tricky to have a universally adopted definition for AI. Nevertheless, one aspect widely understood is that it is a system designed to perform human-like functions based on perceivable data without relying on significant human involvement or intervention.
In other words, one could say that AI is hardware or software that possesses behavioral patterns which appear intelligent. The AI’s power is that a machine can perform complicated activities that demand a complex decision-making process and involves thousands of data sets and variables. Using the experience acquired in past situations, AI makes decisions optimizing based on predictions. That is a process generally referred to as machine learning, which presupposes that AI can learn through training. Some examples include the instant access of data from a source on a portable electronic device. The use of a network of surveillance cameras to find a fugitive running through crowded places is a good example portrayed by Hollywood. Popular imagination fueled by these works of fiction has influenced how the public perceives the prowess of AI and its capabilities and use for covert operations.
However, the use of AI in a legal backdrop and other contexts might also trigger debates about the use and access of confidential data and the extent to which AI can be applied. Information has become a powerful tool in taking control of consumers’ lives and the operation of business organizations. As AI is closely tied to accessing data, a reasonable concern from the notable feature of AI is personal information extraction. The apprehension is more severe because AI can collect and analyze personal information without the data owners’ consent or knowledge. This power of AI reduces and even removes the individual’s ability to protect personal data. For example, business organizations can manipulate consumers into buying their products and/or using their services using the personal information they collect to understand preferences and determine consumers’ cognitive limitations. Without any boundaries or limitations to what and how much data can these businesses collect is precisely one big concern that privacy advocates call for and the issue has sparked ongoing debates in the big tech circles. It goes against the more recent U.S. Supreme Court cases overturning previous decisions that had denied U.S. persons their constitutionally protected privacy information. These latest decisions involve a similar pattern of facts, where individuals’ personal data was acquired by third parties, including common carriers and plausibly other digital platforms that provide essential services.
Another unique feature of AI is that it can identify patterns that individuals cannot detect themselves. This pattern recognition feature makes it difficult to distinguish between what is public and what is private. As a result, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed in the United States Constitution is prone to abuse. For instance, AI’s pattern recognition feature can put citizens under public surveillance, and they may no longer enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy. Because of this, citizens can be forced to provide information to the government.
Artificial intelligence is among the most-used technology today. The evolution of technology has consequences beyond science and economics. On the one hand, AI networked economies can establish market dominance. The economy is rapidly becoming digitized because it facilitates business growth at a greater speed and improved accuracy. Altogether, AI is a technology that is still on the upward trajectory that will likely affect the current regulatory landscape. Inevitably, AI also presents some serious risks and challenges to social norms and legal standards. These apprehensions concern things like civil liberty, freedom of expression, and the right to privacy. In sum, there is still much to be done to establish robust regulatory and ethical standards for the use of AI in various environments for the overall benefit of society.
[3] Congressional Research Service, Artificial Intelligence and National Security, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS (Aug. 26, 2020), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R45178.pdf.
Consumers pay attention to new products for the first time based on their look and feel. After all, beautiful and thoughtful design appeals to the human intellect and is equally compelling to the human eye.
Creativity in design appeals to any product observer. A common theme between the several definitions of design is that all of them address the appearance of objects. Orit Afori remarked that the nature of designs pertains to the “external appearance of articles.” Because of the emphasis on a product’s appearance as the object of design, the design is a creation that is similar to artistic works in general, the boundary lines of which are difficult to draw. Nonetheless, the design is inherently different from pure imaginary work of art because it is also shaped by features arising out of function, technology, and fashion. Products may also be in the form of industrial design or ornamental design to be manufactured, bringing their registration and substantive requirements closer to the patent paradigm. Patent law is relevant to the design because of cases where aesthetic and utilitarian qualities blend, thereby resulting in an innovative technological idea for the function of the subject product.
In simpler words, unique and creative design is at the heart of new product development and business success. Design is an integral part of several industries, not merely limited to fashion apparel and footwear. Consumers do not solely focus on functionality, but also the aesthetics of the products. Consumers pay attention to new products for the first time based on its look and feel. After all, beautiful and thoughtful design appeals to the human intellect and is equally compelling to the human eye. That is an ascendant marketability notch in the global market of this day and age. As Fromer remarked, from Apple’s iPhone to Christian Louboutin footwear to Eames furniture, the design currently holds an increasingly important role in today’s culture and economy. The laws protecting design are just as compelling for different reasons. The design is only one of the different types of intellectual property protection that was conceived to promote creativity, innovation, and fair competition in the Intellectual Property domain.
Several high-profile lawsuits suggest not only the existence but a stark rise of claims principally instigated and instituted because of infringement by design emulators. For instance, Puma filed a lawsuit against Forever 21, asserting design patent, trademark, and copyright infringement. According to Puma, Forever 21 replicated the same features of three footwear designs that it designed in collaboration with the singer, Rihanna, although one of the designs it claims is different. IP law offers intersecting forms for the protection of a design’s nonfunctional factors. The different types of design protection may generate complementary or cumulative economic effects. That is because each kind of protection can accord the claimant varying substantive rights with individually distinct remedies. Consequently, a viable legal strategy by disputing parties has been to protect design through patent, trademark, and copyright laws, cumulatively as well as substitutes.
The software industry is another good example in the current global market, which is often a subject of both utility patents as well as copyright protection in design infringement cases. Christopher Carani, a prominent IP lawyer, pointed out that the statutory functionality and claim construction functionality are discrete principles aimed at different objectives that have to be clearly defined for an effective and reliable design patent system. In a patent prosecution of a multicomponent product, Carani proposes evaluating the claim by assessing “whether the overall appearance is dictated by its function, not the functionality of individual elements of the claimed design.” He suggests that a prosecuting party should base its claim covering maximum grounds of functionality to hit a better chance at overcoming statutory functionality challenge. Concerning the construction of contention based on functionality, it is unnecessary to refer to the ornamental design approach because it is not sufficient to form a single identifiable element by itself in a claim. The remedy here is to provide explicit authority that design patents do not protect functional attributes, purposes, or characteristics of an article of manufacture. Instead, they only protect the overall appearance of the claimed design depicted in the drawings.
To illustrate the design functionality element within the realm of IP law, Apple Inc.v. Samsung Electronics. Co., Ltd. is a landmark case where Apple claimed the design patent infringement of its creation by Samsung. In this case, the issue presented before the court was whether a design patent infringement applies only to a specific component of a product. As such, damages for transgression should be limited to the portion of the infringer’s profit attributed to that component. The U.S. Supreme Court explicated in its unanimous opinion stating that patents cover both the end-product as well as an element of that product sold to a consumer. The apex court also removed any ambiguity by saying that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made a mistake in interpreting that phrase too narrowly in only referring to the end-product.
In the United States, the most common lawsuits involving functionality disputes emerge under trademark law, especially relating to claims of trade dress involving product shapes. Courts have regarded trade dress functionality as crucial for channeling certain types of innovation in the trademark regime as well as into the utility patent regime, where rights are of relatively short duration. Indeed, courts have been invoking trade dress functionality in several recent trade dress cases, although scholars continue to debate the parameters of functionality in the trademark landscape. In more recent Federal Circuit cases, courts have been considering the design as a whole in assessing functionality. Just as importantly, freedom in the competition is encouraged to design products that use the same utilitarian features, provided that they do not look substantially the same as the patented design.
This post is reflective writing based on Maheshwari’s article published in the New York Times. Out of personal interest, I had expressed my take on the subject back in February 2017, and shared it with some acquaintances during that time. After some thoughts, I decided to find it a permanent hanger here.
The continued growth in the “big data” technological market sets a fast pace of competition in the consumer electronics market. This article sheds light on data privacy’s principal issue, specifically highlighting the consequence of consumer data collection by a TV manufacturer without its users’ consent or a proper disclosure. The author uses external sources and research data showing the level of consumers’ repulse to the unwarranted spoofing by Smart TVs, specifically the conduct of these practices by Vizio, a Smart TV manufacturer, appear to be deceptive and unfair. The article urges an important sense of caution to other competing consumer electronic manufacturers while serving a public good by informing the consumer society of its choices in electronic products and services.
As the article explains, personal data collected from consumer electronic devices such as TV sets or other portable devices have opened a new privacy law paradigm. Due to the usual reliance on internet connectivity between consumer electronic devices and peripherals, a connected Smart TV can easily access detailed information of its users, including the time of day such devices are used and its users’ behavioral interests. Such information allows the TV manufacturers to observe and analyze consumers’ activity, which can translate into further business revenue opportunities by either targeting specific ads of interest to its consumers or selling such data to others. Vizio, which engages in a similar data collection business, makes revenue from several data collection platforms employed by it, including “audience measurement.” Moreover, Vizio also sold such unauthorized private data collected to undisclosed business entities, claiming its data partners. Besides being an unfair business practice, one would argue that it could present a profound legal issue. Assuming that there are specific consumer protection regulations like the Electronic Communication Privacy Act and Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act – both relating to the collection and disclosure of electronic communication, it is reasonable to assume that Vizio and other similar smart TV manufacturers should be held accountable for their actions within the legal framework of these legislations.
As the second-largest TV brand in North America, Vizio has a major presence within this region’s consumer electronics market. With such a large consumer base, Vizio would have reached a broad spectrum of its consumers’ private data. Ms. Maheshwari astutely points out the pecuniary gains by Vizio on compromising or at least using its consumers’ valuable information collected from them without their knowledge. According to the author, during Vizio’s IPO launch in 2015, Vizio stated that it “collected 100 billion anonymized viewing data points each day” from its TVs. Some informed consumers took it to social media, which possibly sparked consumer resentment as a response to Vizio’s business practice, eventually costing it the loss of its IPO prospects from investors that year.
A few very interesting assertions and conclusions came out from FTC’s lawsuit from the unabridged experience of Vizio’s dramatic court litigation and settlement. First, FTC affirmed that it warns companies to equip themselves with the knowledgeable boundaries they conduct business within the consumer electronics market. Second, they defined the “sensitive information” category as something that includes “individualized TV viewing activity” by consumers. And third, “consumers be given a choice to opt into sharing sensitive data” rather than opt-out choice.
The FTC has accentuated data privacy issues in consumer electronics, which are almost becoming more common in the growing technology-driven consumer market. The “Internet of Things” raised new hopes for business enterprises and consumers alike to achieve what may have been almost unimaginable only a few years ago. However, drawing fine lines between what’s fair and ethical in the consumer electronics business and what’s not is more relevant than ever before. All in all, the developmental stride in the connectivity of ever-increasing electronics to internet intelligence offers benefits. Nonetheless, it also brings into the limelight the importance of ethical business practices in collecting and using consumers’ private data.
Art, Design, and Privacy 