Mobile Apps for Kids: Current Privacy Disclosures Are Disappointing

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Mobile Apps for Kids: Current Privacy Disclosures Are Disappointing 2+2 February 2012 | Federal Trade Commission Mobile Apps for Kids: Current Privacy Disclosures are Dis appointing This report is available on the internet at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2012/02/120216mobile_apps_kids.pdf. The online version of this report contains live hyperlinks. Mobile Apps for Kids: Current Privacy Disclosures are Dis appointing Contents FTC Staff Report......................................................................................................... 1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 1 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 3 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 4 I. Range of Apps Offered .............................................................................. 5 II. Data Collection and Sharing Practices ....................................................... 10 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 17 Endnotes .............................................................................................................. 18 Appendix .................................................................................................................. A1 Mobile Apps for Kids: Current Privacy Disclosures are Dis appointing FTC Staff Report Overview1 The market for mobile applications has experienced explosive growth over the past three and a half years. When Apple’s iTunes App Store and Google’s Android Market first launched in 2008, smartphone users could choose from about 600 apps.2 Today, there are more than 500,000 apps in the Apple App store3 and 380,000 apps in the Android Market,4 which consumers can access from a variety of mobile devices, including smartphones and tablets. Consumers have downloaded these apps more than 28 billion times,5 and young children and teens are increasingly embracing smartphone technology for entertainment and educational purposes.6 As consumers increasingly rely on their mobile devices for multiple activities, the quantity and diversity of mobile apps continue to expand. This rapidly growing market provides enormous opportunities and benefits for app users of all ages, but raises questions about users’ privacy, especially when the users are children and teens. Mobile apps can capture a broad range of user information from the device automatically – including the user’s precise geolocation, phone number, list of contacts, call logs, unique device identifiers, and other information stored on the mobile device – and can share this data with a large number of possible recipients. These capabilities can provide beneficial services to consumers – for example, access to maps and directions, and the ability to play interactive games with other users – but they also can be used by apps to collect detailed personal information in a manner parents cannot detect. Protecting children’s privacy is one of the Commission’s top priorities. In order to better understand and evaluate the emerging app market and the products and services it offers to children, Federal Trade Commission staff designed and conducted a survey of the apps offered for children in the two largest U.S. app stores, the Android Market and the Apple App store. Staff focused in particular on the types of apps offered to children; the age range of the intended audience; the disclosures provided to users about the apps’ data collection and sharing practices; the availability of interactive features, such as connecting with social media; and the app store ratings and parental controls offered for these systems. This report highlights the lack of information available to parents prior to downloading mobile apps for their children, and calls on industry to provide greater transparency about their data practices.7 1 Mobile Apps for Kids: Current Privacy Disclosures are Dis appointing Staff searched the app stores using the word “kids,” and examined hundreds of pages promoting apps, which ranged from alphabet and word games, math and number games, and memory games to books and stories, flash cards, and puzzles. Most of the apps’ descriptions specifically indicated that the apps were intended for use by children, and some promoted use by children of certain ages, stating, for example, “teach young children, ages 2 to 5.” Prices ranged from free to $9.99, but most apps were $0.99 or less, and free apps were overwhelmingly the most frequently downloaded. While staff encountered a diverse pool of apps for kids created by hundreds of different developers, staff found little, if any, information in the app marketplaces about the data collection and sharing practices of these apps. Staff found almost no relevant language regarding app data collection or sharing on the Apple app promotion pages,8 and minimal information (beyond the general “permission” statements required on the Android operating system9) on just three of the Android promotion pages. In most instances, staff was unable to determine from the promotion pages whether the apps collected any data at all, let alone the type of data collected, the purpose of the collection, and who collected or obtained access to the data. As part of its mission to protect children, the Commission vigorously enforces the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) and the FTC’s implementing Rule, which require operators of online services (including interactive mobile apps) directed to children under age 13 to provide notice and obtain parental consent before collecting items of “personal information” from children.10 Since collecting the data for this survey, the FTC settled its first COPPA enforcement action against a mobile app developer11 and issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the Commission’s COPPA Rule.12 Those initiatives, along with this report, are a warning call to industry that it must do more to provide parents with easily accessible, basic information about the mobile apps that their children use. Most of the apps in the study appear to be intended for children’s use, and many may, in fact, be “directed to children” within the meaning of COPPA.13 This survey focused on the disclosures provided to users regarding their data practices; it did not test whether the selected apps actually collected, used, or disclosed personal information from children. Over the next six months, staff will conduct an additional review to determine whether there are COPPA violations and whether enforcement is appropriate.14 Staff also will evaluate whether the industry is moving forward to address the disclosure issues raised in this report. 2 Mobile Apps for Kids: Current Privacy Disclosures are Dis appointing Recommendations FTC staff believes that all members of the kids app ecosystem – the app stores, developers, and third parties providing services within the apps – should play an active role in providing key information to parents who download apps. The mobile app marketplace is growing at a tremendous speed, and many consumer protections, including privacy and privacy disclosures, have not kept pace with this development. Parents need easy access to basic information so they can make informed decisions about the apps they allow their children to use.15 App developers should provide this information through simple and short disclosures or icons that are easy to find and understand on the small screen of a mobile device. Parents should be able to learn what information an app collects, how the information will be used, and with whom the information will be shared.16 App developers also should alert parents if the app connects with any social media, or allows targeted advertising to occur through the app. Third parties that collect user information through apps also should disclose their privacy practices, whether through a link on the app promotion page, the developers’ disclosures, or another easily accessible method. The app stores also should do more to help parents and kids. The two major app stores provide the basic architecture for communicating information about the kids apps they offer, such as pricing and category information. However, the app stores should provide a more consistent way for developers to display information regarding their app’s data collection practices and interactive features. For example, app stores could provide a designated space for developers to disclose this information. The app stores also could provide standardized icons to signal features, such as a connection with social media services. Although the app store developer agreements require developers to disclose the information their apps collect, the app stores do not appear to enforce these requirements.17 This lack of enforcement provides little incentive to app developers to provide such disclosures and leaves parents without the information they need. As gatekeepers of the app marketplace, the app stores should do more. This recommendation applies not just to Apple and Google, but also to other companies that provide a marketplace for kids mobile apps. Additional work is needed to identify the best means and place for conveying data practices in plain language and in easily accessible ways on the small screens of mobile devices. Staff encourages industry members, privacy groups, academics, and others to develop and test new ways to provide information to parents –
Recommended publications
  • Vumber Gives You Throw-Away Phone Numbers for Dating, Work
    Tech Gadgets Mobile Enterprise GreenTech CrunchBase TechCrunch TV The Crunchies More Search What's Hot: Android Apple Facebook Google Groupon Microsoft Twitter Zynga Classics Subscribe: Got a tip? Building a startup? Tell us NOW TWEET THIS AUTHENTIC? Google Teams Up With Facebook Has Been Refining KEEN ON... Twitter And SayNow To Bring Their Troll-Slaying Comment Exposed: Apple's Terrible Sin Tweeting-By-Phone To Egypt System For Months; Finally in China » » Ready To Roll? » Err, Call Me: Vumber Gives You Throw-Away Phone Numbers For Dating, Work Jason Kincaid Tweet Most Popular 14 minutes ago View Comments Now Commented Facebook By now you’ve probably heard of Google Voice, a service that lets you take Exposed: Apple’s Terrible Sin in one phone number and configure it to ring all of your phones — work, China (TCTV) mobile, home, whatever — with plenty of settings to manage your inbound and outbound calls. But what if you wanted the opposite: a service that lets Should You Really Be A Startup you spawn a multitude of phone numbers to be used and discarded at your Entrepreneur? leisure? That’s where Vumber comes in. When The Drones Come Marching In The service has actually been around for four years, but it was originally 4chan Founder Unleashes Canvas marketed exclusively toward people on dating sites. The use case is On The World obvious: instead of handing out your real phone number to strangers, Instructure Launches To Root Vumber lets you spin up a new phone number, which you then redirect to Blackboard Out Of Universities your real phone.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sharing Economy: Disrupting the Business and Legal Landscape
    THE SHARING ECONOMY: DISRUPTING THE BUSINESS AND LEGAL LANDSCAPE Panel 402 NAPABA Annual Conference Saturday, November 5, 2016 9:15 a.m. 1. Program Description Tech companies are revolutionizing the economy by creating marketplaces that connect individuals who “share” their services with consumers who want those services. This “sharing economy” is changing the way Americans rent housing (Airbnb), commute (Lyft, Uber), and contract for personal services (Thumbtack, Taskrabbit). For every billion-dollar unicorn, there are hundreds more startups hoping to become the “next big thing,” and APAs play a prominent role in this tech boom. As sharing economy companies disrupt traditional businesses, however, they face increasing regulatory and litigation challenges. Should on-demand workers be classified as independent contractors or employees? Should older regulations (e.g., rental laws, taxi ordinances) be applied to new technologies? What consumer and privacy protections can users expect with individuals offering their own services? Join us for a lively panel discussion with in-house counsel and law firm attorneys from the tech sector. 2. Panelists Albert Giang Shareholder, Caldwell Leslie & Proctor, PC Albert Giang is a Shareholder at the litigation boutique Caldwell Leslie & Proctor. His practice focuses on technology companies and startups, from advising clients on cutting-edge regulatory issues to defending them in class actions and complex commercial disputes. He is the rare litigator with in-house counsel experience: he has served two secondments with the in-house legal department at Lyft, the groundbreaking peer-to-peer ridesharing company, where he advised on a broad range of regulatory, compliance, and litigation issues. Albert also specializes in appellate litigation, having represented clients in numerous cases in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and California appellate courts.
    [Show full text]
  • US Mainstream Media Index May 2021.Pdf
    Mainstream Media Top Investors/Donors/Owners Ownership Type Medium Reach # estimated monthly (ranked by audience size) for ranking purposes 1 Wikipedia Google was the biggest funder in 2020 Non Profit Digital Only In July 2020, there were 1,700,000,000 along with Wojcicki Foundation 5B visitors to Wikipedia. (YouTube) Foundation while the largest BBC reports, via donor to its endowment is Arcadia, a Wikipedia, that the site charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and had on average in 2020, Peter Baldwin. Other major donors 1.7 billion unique visitors include Google.org, Amazon, Musk every month. SimilarWeb Foundation, George Soros, Craig reports over 5B monthly Newmark, Facebook and the late Jim visits for April 2021. Pacha. Wikipedia spends $55M/year on salaries and programs with a total of $112M in expenses in 2020 while all content is user-generated (free). 2 FOX Rupert Murdoch has a controlling Publicly Traded TV/digital site 2.6M in Jan. 2021. 3.6 833,000,000 interest in News Corp. million households – Average weekday prime Rupert Murdoch Executive Chairman, time news audience in News Corp, son Lachlan K. Murdoch, Co- 2020. Website visits in Chairman, News Corp, Executive Dec. 2020: FOX 332M. Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Fox Source: Adweek and Corporation, Executive Chairman, NOVA Press Gazette. However, Entertainment Group. Fox News is owned unique monthly views by the Fox Corporation, which is owned in are 113M in Dec. 2020. part by the Murdoch Family (39% share). It’s also important to point out that the same person with Fox News ownership, Rupert Murdoch, owns News Corp with the same 39% share, and News Corp owns the New York Post, HarperCollins, and the Wall Street Journal.
    [Show full text]
  • Apple Inc. in 2010
    9-710-467 REV: MARCH 21, 2011 DAVID B. YOFFIE R E N E E K I M Apple Inc. in 2010 On April 4, 2010, Apple Inc. launched its eagerly anticipated iPad amid great hype. The multimedia computer tablet was the third major innovation that Apple had released over the last decade. CEO Steve Jobs had argued that the iPad was another revolutionary product that could emulate the smashing success of the iPod and the iPhone. Expectations ran high. Even The Economist displayed the release of the iPad on its magazine cover with Jobs illustrated as a biblical figure, noting that, “The enthusiasm of the Apple faithful may be overdone, but Mr. Jobs’s record suggests that when he blesses a market, it takes off.”1 The company started off as “Apple Computer,” best known for its Macintosh personal computers (PCs) in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Despite a strong brand, rapid growth, and high profits in the late 1980s, Apple almost went bankrupt in 1996. Then Jobs went to work, transforming “Apple Computer” into “Apple Inc.” with innovative non-PC products starting in the early 2000’s. In fact, by 2010, the company viewed itself as a “mobile device company.”2 In the 2009 fiscal year, sales related to the iPhone and the iPod represented nearly 60% of Apple’s total sales of $43 billion.3 Even in the midst of a severe economic recession, revenues and net income both soared (see Exhibits 1a through 1c). Meanwhile, Apple’s stock was making history of its own. The share price had risen more than 15- fold since 2003 (See Exhibit 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Platform Barriers to Entry and the Limits of Data Portability
    Michigan Technology Law Review Article 3 2021 Taking It With You: Platform Barriers to Entry and the Limits of Data Portability Gabriel Nicholas New York University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mtlr Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Consumer Protection Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Gabriel Nicholas, Taking It With You: Platform Barriers to Entry and the Limits of Data Portability, 27 MICH. TECH. L. REV. 263 (2021). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mtlr/vol27/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Technology Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TAKING IT WITH YOU: PLATFORM BARRIERS TO ENTRY AND THE LIMITS OF DATA PORTABILITY Gabriel Nicholas* Abstract Policymakers are faced with a vexing problem: how to increase competition in a tech sector dominated by a few giants. One answer proposed and adopted by regulators in the United States and abroad is to require large platforms to allow consumers to move their data from one platform to another, an approach known as data portability. Facebook, Google, Apple, and other major tech companies have enthusiastically supported data portability through their own technical and political initiatives. Today, data portability has taken hold as one of the go-to solutions to address the tech industry’s competition concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • Bad Blood : Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup / John Carreyrou
    THIS IS A BORZOI BOOK PUBLISHED BY ALFRED A. KNOPF Copyright © 2018 by John Carreyrou All rights reserved. Published in the United States by Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Penguin Random House LLC, New York, and distributed in Canada by Random House of Canada, a division of Penguin Random House Canada Limited, Toronto. www.aaknopf.com Knopf, Borzoi Books, and the colophon are registered trademarks of Penguin Random House LLC. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Carreyrou, John, author. Title: Bad blood : secrets and lies in a Silicon Valley startup / John Carreyrou. Description: First Edition. | New York : Knopf, 2018. Identifiers: LCCN 2018000263 | ISBN 9781524731656 (hardback) | ISBN 9781524731663 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Theranos (Firm)—History. | Hematologic equipment industry—United States. | Fraud—United States. | BISAC: BUSINESS & ECONOMICS / Entrepreneurship. | BUSINESS & ECONOMICS / Finance. | TECHNOLOGY & ENGINEERING / Biomedical. Classification: LCC HD9995.H423 U627 2018 | DDC 338.7/681761—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018000263 Ebook ISBN 9781524731663 Cover design by Tyler Comrie v5.2_r1 ep Contents Cover Title Page Copyright Dedication Author’s Note Prologue 1. A Purposeful Life 2. The Gluebot 3. Apple Envy 4. Goodbye East Paly 5. The Childhood Neighbor 6. Sunny 7. Dr. J 8. The miniLab 9. The Wellness Play 10. “Who Is LTC Shoemaker?” 11. Lighting a Fuisz 12. Ian Gibbons 13. Chiat\Day 14. Going Live 15. Unicorn 16. The Grandson 17. Fame 18. The Hippocratic Oath 19. The Tip 20. The Ambush 21. Trade Secrets 22. La Mattanza 23. Damage Control 24. The Empress Has No Clothes Epilogue Acknowledgments Notes About the Author For Molly, Sebastian, Jack, and Francesca Author’s Note This book is based on hundreds of interviews with more than 150 people, including more than sixty former Theranos employees.
    [Show full text]
  • This Article Is About the Wireless Tablet Computer by Apple Inc. for the Retail Point-Of-Sale Device, See Fujitsu Ipad
    iPad From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from IPAD) This article is about the wireless tablet computer by Apple Inc. For the retail point-of-sale device, see Fujitsu iPAD. iPad An iPad showing its home screen Developer Apple Inc. Manufacturer Foxconn (on contract)[1] Type Tablet media player/PC Release date Wi-Fi model (U.S.): April 3, 2010[2][3] Wi-Fi + 3G Model (U.S.): April 30, 2010[4] Both Models (Nine more countries):May 28, 2010[5] Units sold 7.5 million (as of 30 September 2010)[6][7] Operating iOS 4.2.1 [8] Released November 22, 2010; system 2 days ago Power Internal rechargeable non-removable 25 W·h (90 kJ) lithium-polymer battery [9] CPU 1 GHz Apple A4 [9] [10] Storage Flash memory capacity 16GB, 32GB, or 64GB models only[9] Memory 256 MB DRAM built into Apple A4 package (top package of PoP contains two 128 MB dies)[11] Display 1024 × 768 px (aspect ratio 4:3), 9.7 in (25 cm) diagonal, appr. 45 in2 (290 cm2), 132 PPI, XGA, LED-backlit IPS LCD [9] Graphics PowerVR SGX 535 GPU[12] Input Multi-touch touch screen, headset controls, proximity and ambient lightsensors, 3- axis accelerometer,magnetometer Camera None Connectivity Wi-Fi ( 802.11 a /b/g/n) Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR Wi-Fi + 3G model also includes:UMTS / HSDPA (Tri band–850, 1900, 2100 MHz) GSM / EDGE (Quad band–850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz) Online services iTunes Store, App Store, MobileMe,iBookstore, Safari Dimensions 9.58 in (243 mm) (h) 7.47 in (190 mm) (w) .5 in (13 mm) (d) Weight Wi-Fi model: 1.5 lb (680 g) Wi-Fi + 3G model: 1.6 lb (730 g)[9] Related articles iPhone, iPod touch (Comparison) Website www.apple.com/ipad The iPad is a tablet computer designed and developed by Apple.
    [Show full text]
  • A COUNTERFACTUAL ANALYSIS of GOOGLE and FACEBOOK PRIVACY INCIDENTS Ira S
    PRIVACY BY DESIGN: A COUNTERFACTUAL ANALYSIS OF GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK PRIVACY INCIDENTS Ira S. Rubinstein † & Nathaniel Good †† ABSTRACT Regulators here and abroad have embraced “privacy by design” as a critical element of their ongoing revision of current privacy laws. The underlying idea is to “build in” privacy— in the form of Fair Information Practices or (“FIPs”)—when creating software products and services. But FIPs are not self-executing. Rather, privacy by design requires the translation of FIPs into engineering and usability principles and practices. The best way to ensure that software includes the broad goals of privacy as described in the FIPs and any related corporate privacy guidelines is by including them in the definition of software “requirements.” And a main component of making a specification or requirement for software design is to make it concrete, specific, and preferably associated with a metric. Equally important is developing software interfaces and other visual elements that are focused around end-user goals, needs, wants, and constraints. This Article offers the first comprehensive analysis of engineering and usability principles specifically relevant to privacy. Based on a review of the technical literature, it derives a small number of relevant principles and illustrates them by reference to ten recent privacy incidents involving Google and Facebook. Part I of this Article analyzes the prerequisites for undertaking a counterfactual analysis of these ten incidents. Part II presents a general review of the design principles relevant to privacy. Part III turns to ten case studies of Google and Facebook privacy incidents, relying on the principles identified in Part II to discover what went wrong and what the two companies might have done differently to avoid privacy violations and consumer harms.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Media and the Press Lili Levi
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 90 Article 9 Number 5 Social Networks and the Law 6-1-2012 Social Media and the Press Lili Levi Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lili Levi, Social Media and the Press, 90 N.C. L. Rev. 1531 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol90/iss5/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE PRESS* LILI LEVI'* The Internet and social media are transforming news as we knew it, yet the precise consequences of these changes are not yet clear. Journalists now rely on Twitter, crowdsourcingis available through social media, facts and stories are googled, traditional print newspapers have websites and reporter blogs, "open newsrooms" invite community participation in the editorial process itself, video from citizen journalists is commonly used in mainstream media storytelling, bloggers consider themselves journalists, and media consolidation marries entities like AOL and the Huffington Post. In turn, changes in the news-access practices of readers are increasingly influencing the length, breadth, and subjects of reporting, whether online or in print. While recognizing the reality of the many positive changes facilitated by social media-including the potential for an Internet-mediated renaissance of public engagement with news-this Article explores some particularchallenges posed for the democraticpress by the new reality of social media.
    [Show full text]
  • Task Force on Taxation of the Digital Economy
    MINISTERE DE L’ECONOMIE MINISTERE DU REDRESSEMENT ET DES FINANCES PRODUCTIF Task Force on Taxation of the Digital Economy Report to the Minister for the Economy and Finance, the Minister for Industrial Recovery, the Minister Delegate for the Budget and the Minister Delegate for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Innovation and the Digital Economy by PIERRE COLLIN NICOLAS COLIN Conseiller d’État Inspecteur des finances – JANUARY 2013 – "We're working on a Web service1 to get rid of tax lawyers, but it's not working yet." — Jeff BEZOS, CEO of Amazon.com, Inc., 20062 “I am very proud of the structure that we set up. We did it based on the incentives that the governments offered us to operate.” — Eric SCHMIDT, executive chairman of Google Inc., 20123 1 “A Web service is a software system designed to support interoperable machine-to-machine interaction over a network” (Wikipedia). A software framework or a Web platform brings together several Web services that external developers can access through application programming interfaces (API). http://fr.wikipedia.org/ 2 Quoted by China MARTENS, “Bezos offers a look at 'hidden Amazon'”, Computer World, 27 September 2006. http://www.computerworld.com/ 3 Quoted by La Nouvelle République, “Le patron de Google "très fier" de son système d'"optimisation" fiscal”, 15 December 2012. http://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The digital revolution has taken place. It has given rise to a digital economy that challenges our concept of value creation. The digital economy is actually based on
    [Show full text]
  • Will Artificial Intelligence Eat the Law? the Rise of Hybrid Social-Ordering Systems
    WILL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE EAT THE LAW? THE RISE OF HYBRID SOCIAL-ORDERING SYSTEMS Tim Wu * Software has partially or fully displaced many former human activities, such as catching speeders or flying airplanes, and proven it- self able to surpass humans in certain contests, like Chess and Go. What are the prospects for the displacement of human courts as the centerpiece of legal decisionmaking? Based on the case study of hate speech control on major tech platforms, particularly on Twitter and Facebook, this Essay suggests displacement of human courts remains a distant prospect, but suggests that hybrid machine–human systems are the predictable future of legal adjudication, and that there lies some hope in that combination, if done well. INTRODUCTION Many of the developments that go under the banner of artificial intelligence that matter to the legal system are not so much new means of breaking the law but of bypassing it as a means of enforcing rules and resolving disputes.1 Hence a major challenge that courts and the legal system will face over the next few decades is not only the normal chal- lenge posed by hard cases but also the more existential challenge of supersession.2 Here are a few examples. The control of forbidden speech in major fora, if once the domain of law and courts, has been moving to algo- rithmic judgment in the first instance.3 Speeding is widely detected and punished by software.4 Much enforcement of the intellectual property * Julius Silver Professor of Law & Technology, Columbia Law School. My thanks to Vince Blasi, Ryan Doerfler, Noah Feldman, Sarah Knuckey, David Pozen, Olivier Sylvain, and participants in the Columbia faculty workshop series.
    [Show full text]
  • Will Artificial Intelligence Eat the Law? the Rise of Hybrid Social-Ordering Systems, 119 COLUM
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2019 Will Artificial Intelligence Eat the Law? The Rise of Hybrid Social- Ordering Systems Tim Wu Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Communications Law Commons, Computer Law Commons, Courts Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Labor and Employment Law Commons, Marketing Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Tim Wu, Will Artificial Intelligence Eat the Law? The Rise of Hybrid Social-Ordering Systems, 119 COLUM. L. REV. 2001 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2598 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WILL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE EAT THE LAW? THE RISE OF HYBRID SOCIAL-ORDERING SYSTEMS Tim Wu * Software has partially or fully displaced many former human activities, such as catching speeders or flying airplanes, and proven it- self able to surpass humans in certain contests, like Chess and Go. What are the prospects for the displacement of human courts as the centerpiece of legal decisionmaking? Based on the case study of hate speech control on major tech platforms, particularly on Twitter and Facebook, this Essay suggests displacement of human courts remains a distant prospect, but suggests that hybrid machine–human systems are the predictable future of legal adjudication, and that there lies some hope in that combination, if done well.
    [Show full text]