Apple and the (unrequired) Safety by Design

An individual is ultimately ? responsible for the use of a technology. This is, in a few words, the conclusion of a ? decision issued by the 6th Appelate District of the California Court of Appeal.

The merit of the controversy was a legal action taken by the victims of a car accident against Apple accused – said the plaintiff – of infringing a duty of care in the designing FaceTime so that it didn’t stop working when users drive a car, thus distracting the driver a causing the accident.

In rejecting the claim, the Court ? found that not preventing the use of FaceTime while driving neither is matter of duty of care does nor constitute a proximate cause of injuries suffered in a car crash. Continue reading “Apple and the (unrequired) Safety by Design”

An Australian Bill makes mandatory for IT companies to crack users’ encrypted messages

The Australian Parliament recently passed the ? Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 that might have a disruptive effect on the whole IT business, by forcing companies into designing unsecure hardware and software and weakening users’ confidence. Continue reading “An Australian Bill makes mandatory for IT companies to crack users’ encrypted messages”

A contribution to the analysis of the legal status of cryptocurrencies

Summary
This paper advocates that cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum don’t challenge the current legal system, since they fit comfortably enough into the immaterial asset legal definition. As such, while a blockchain-based cryptocurrency can’t be considered as legal tender or electronic money, it can be exchanged on a contractual basis as it happens with every other kind of good. Continue reading “A contribution to the analysis of the legal status of cryptocurrencies”

On the EU, the EC, AI and Robotics

The European Commission is pouring a lot of money on the development of the so called “AI” (whatever that means) and rumors talk about 1,5 billions if Euros by the end of the 2020.

That’s rather funny, indeed, because the Commission doesn’t seems to have a clear understanding of what the hell this “AI” stuff is actually made of. As neither the Parliament nor the “experts” actually know something about it. Continue reading “On the EU, the EC, AI and Robotics”