By Jessy Nations
Sometime during the past decade or so we started taking the idea of making robots a part of our everyday lives more seriously. Naturally, we went from joking about making machines serve us by doing our menial chores, to teaching them to kill. Once our base needs for violence and subservience were satisfied, we quickly began adapting this technology for the highest, noblest, and most human of all endeavors: bothering our neighbors. Meanwhile, our local legislatures are trying to rein these nuisances in and we have to work with seemingly outdated common law theories until they’re finished.
I’m talking, of course, about small flying robots known as drones. What was once the pinnacle of modern robotics – despite being a glorified RC helicopter with a camera – is now available from the corner 711 for $30. (No seriously. I’ve almost bought one out of curiosity.)
Snapchat’s Ghost logo
By Mackenzie Olson
Snapchat is an app that allows users to send one another “snaps”, which are pictures that disappear after a few seconds. Users can also add a “filter” to their pictures to alter or enhance it. However, Snapchat filters are quite unlike those of other apps. Sure, many iPhone photos instantly become more attractive—or at least more “like”-able—under the effects of the photo sharing app Instagram’s many popular filter options. (If in doubt, opt for the Valencia filter. It’s nearly foolproof.) Snapchat filters, however, can turn a user into a surreal version of him or herself. Ever wondered what you might look like as a dog? A zombie? Or with your best friend’s (or the Starbucks lady’s) face? Snapchat offers all of these options, among others, and they are virtually risk-free.
By Samuel Daheim
On Tuesday, November 10th, the Third Circuit vacated a district court’s dismissal of freestanding privacy claims against Google Inc. (Google) under California law. Plaintiffs alleged that Google’s actions constituted a breach of privacy, under both California Tort law and the California State constitution, when it deceitfully bypassed internet privacy settings in order to track internet usage. The Third Circuit rejected the district court’s ruling that the alleged intrusive practices of the company did not amount to an “egregious breach of social norms” – the standard under the California constitution. Continue reading