Spatial Law and Policy 2011 Conference (January 12, 2011)

Tentative Agenda

Tysons Corner, Virginia

8:00-9:00 Registration and Coffee

9:00 – 9:30 Introduction

9:30– 10:30 Session 1: Intellectual Property
Kevin D. Pomfret, Executive Director, Centre for Spatial Law and Policy
Discussion of recent developments and relevant case law
in Intellectual Property related to collection, use and distribution of spatial data. Topics addressed will include (i) complexity of combining data sets with differing licensing terms; (ii) copyright issues associated with databases and maps; (iii) copyright and the Freedom of Information Act, and (iv) the movement towards “full and open” spatial data.

10:30-10:45 Break

10:45-11:45 Session 1 (continued): Intellectual Property
Melanie Holloway, Leading-Edge Law Group

Discussion of potential issues associated with growing availability of
“full and open data”.

12:00-1:1:15 Lunch
Anne Hale Miglarese, Booz Allen Hamilton

Key legal and policy considerations for the National Geospatial Advisory

Council

1:30 – 2:30 Session 2: Privacy
Kevin Pomfret, Executive Director
Discussion of relevant case law and recent developments related to location privacy, including: (i) proposed legislation and regulation in the U.S., (ii) Fourth Amendment issues associated with location privacy; and (iii) privacy issues associated with “crowd-sourcing”, the SmartGrid and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS).

2:30-3:30 Session 3 Use of Spatial Data in the Courtroom

Rick Crowsey, Crowsey Incorporated (invited)

Discussion of the issues associated with the growing use of spatial data in litigation and other legal disputes.

3:30 – 345 Break

3:45 – 4:45 Session 3: Data Quality/Liability Issues
Kevin Pomfret, Executive Director
Kevin Pomfret, Executive DirectorDiscussion of relevant case law and recent developments concerning potential liability claims, including: (i) tort claims; (ii) product liability and (iii) future issues associated with use of spatial technology for commercial purposes.

4:45 – 5:45 Session 3 (cont’d): Data Quality/Liability Issues
Michael Phelan, Law Offices of Michael G. Phelan, P.C.
Discussion of how a litigation attorney looks at issues of quality.

Registration $50. For more information, contact Kevin Pomfret at kevin@spatiallaw.com

Location Privacy - Why It Is Different!

Location privacy is increasingly becoming caught up in the larger discussion of internet privacy in the U.S. While not unexpected, it would be a mistake to include location privacy in the larger discussion without acknowledging some fundamental differences between location and other privacy concerns associated with the internet. For example:

• The concept of location privacy in a public setting is a new one. In the past we generally assumed that only two groups of people knew our location when we were in public: the people who saw us there and the people we told where we were going. In reality of course, the universe was much larger, as it included anyone that these people told. However, we often simply chose to ignore or forget this point. Today, we are coming to recognize that the potential size of the group that is "told" our location is the rest of the wired world. That may make many people uncomfortable - but does it rise to the level of an invasion of privacy from a legal standpoint? Also, those that argue that it is an invasion of privacy should be required to articulate exactly what constitutes the invasion of privacy and why: the collection of the data from the public place, the use of the data collected or the sharing of the data with third parties? Any attempt to regulate location privacy without a clear understanding of the differences between the three is likely to lead to legislation and regulation that is overly broad and result in unintended consequences.
• Location information is fundamentally different than other categories of information generally protected for privacy reasons, such as our credit card numbers, bank accounts or medical history. A person generally tries to protect against third parties obtaining the latter type of information unless they know exactly how it is going to be used. However, we give our location to strangers each time we go out into the public. An individual's location in public is also different from an individual's IP addresses or a record of the websites they have visited, as people don't generally disclose this information to others. As a result, it would be impractical - as well as inconsistent - to try and regulate location information in the same way as these other types of more personal information.
• Location data is just now being used to provide a growing number of critical governmental, societal and business services. The number and value of these services are increasing daily. Attempting to regulate the collection of location data without a full understanding of the technology and its vast potential could have a number of unintended consequences, including limiting the development of a number of critical governmental services. Such opportunity costs should be fully understood and explored before regulating location from a privacy standpoint. In addition, any such legislation should be narrowly tailored so as not to inhibit further growth of this important technology.

This is not to suggest that there are no privacy concerns associated with location. For example, there are legitimate concerns about protecting consumer’s location privacy against such threats as so-called “cyberstalking”. In addition, there are legitimate Fourth Amendment concerns associated with how the U.S. government collects location information, particularly over an extended period of time. However, experience suggests that trying to address such specific concerns in internet privacy legislation that already promises to be broad and far reaching will make things overly complicated and is unlikely to achieve the desired results. A better alternative would be to design specific legislation to address such concerns, such as making cyberstalking a crime.


Location is becoming an increasingly important and misunderstood component of our daily lives. As a result, it is not surprising that there are increased calls by politicians for the need to regulate the geolocation industry. However before attempting to address concerns over location privacy, it is critical to both fully understand the technology (and its benefits) and to identify which privacy concerns are legitimate. Attempting to regulate geolocation before doing so would be a mistake.

Spatial Law and Policy Update (November 16, 2010)

Made available by the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy

Privacy
Obama Administration Considering Privacy Agency
Stage Set for Showdown on Online Privacy
Department Reconsiders Publication of Payments
Whatch Where You Are Going
Plan To Tag New Babies Causes Outcry
European Commission Issues Proposal for Significant Changes to Privacy Policies
Location based services - privacy laws
Privacy Concerns Loom Large Over Location Based Services
FCC Probes Google's Street View Collection Practices
Watchdog Planned for Online Privacy

Spatial Data Infrastructure
White House Issues OMB-Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance

Law Enforcement/National Security
Texas Cellphone Tracking Opinion
Dazzling New Weapons Requires New Rules for War

Smart Grid
Smart Meters Draw Complaints of Innaccuracy

Crowdsourcing
Crowdsourcing Surveillance

Miscellaneous
GPS data used to fire employees for "loafing"
Workers' rights extend to Facebook Labor Says
ESRI Iphone App Helps Determining Medical Place History
Finding a lost family with Google Earth
Netezza settles over alleged software hack
Russians develop DUI camera
What Is Driving The Need for Real-Time Geodata and What Are the Implications

Spatial Law and Policy Update (November 13, 2010)

From the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy

Privacy
Police abandon plan to use GPS on dementia patients
4% of on-line Americans use location based services
Geo-Slavery: Location Awareness Gone Wrong?
Privacy Likely to Remain on Congress' Agenda
STD scare? Just take your phone to the loo!
Barton: Next Congress Will Focus on Online Privacy
EU wants stronger online privacy rules
Air Force warns against location-based app
Australian Mobile Telecommunications Assocation LBS Guidelines

Data Quality/Liability
Google Tool May Have Had Wrong Polling Place
Faulty GPS tells soldiers in Afghanistan they are in Africa

National Security/Law Enforcement
State v. Danney
Error in Nicaraguan/Costa Rican border results in improper incursion
Irish tax authorities using Google Earth
Trailer thief spotted on Google Street View?
The speed camera that doesn't just check your speed
NGA Looking at Amazon, Apple for Imagery Distribution Ideas

Spatial Data Infrastructure
White House Issues Policy for Controlled Unclassified Information
FGDC seeks comment on Geospatial Platform

International
Technology key to US-India relationship
Vietnam challenges Chinese on-line map border

Intelligent Transportation System
For Traffic, Real-Time Information is Too Late

Crowd-sourcing
Adding Cabbie Know-How to Online Mapping

Miscellaneous
Argentina requires GPS for mining sites
Commerce issues license to hyperspectral satellite
Four legal predictions for location-based services

Spatial Law and Policy Update (Oct 23,2010)

Spatial Law and Policy Update (from the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy)
Privacy
Tracking devices used in school badges
Facebook and Zynga face privacy lawsuit
Google ditches Street View wi-fi scanning

Law Enforcement/National Security
Pakistan Moves to Bar Unregistered Mapping Companies
Student reports GPS device on car
Bolster Law on Wiretapping
Fourth Amendment Implications in Using Remote Sensing in Criminal Law
DHS using social media to check on marriage fraud

Data Quality/Liability
A critique of OpenStreetMap
Who is liable for a driverless car accident?
Reported GPS failure in China results in loss of child

Intellectual Property Rights
Trap doors in cartography
Washington State court finds metadata subject to Public Records Law
Central Platte NRD appeals dismissal of GIS lawsuit

Community Remote Sensing
Egypt imposes SMS restrictions ahead of elections
OpenStreetMap poses challenge to TomTom and Nokia
Fighting Crime From Home

Smart Grid
CDT Details Smart Grid Privacy Recommendations

Spatial Data Infrastructures
Geospatial Act Proposed for Malaysia

Miscellaneous
Japan to ask Google to change name of disputed islands
name of disputed islands

Spatial Law and Policy Update (October 11, 2010)

Spatial Law and Policy Update (from the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy)

Privacy
City should track all taxis by GPS, inspector general says.
Intel, Microsoft, eBay support Rush' privacy bill while noting concerns
California law will guard privacy of tollway users
Washington Supreme Court finds metadata is subject to Public Records Law

Intellectual Property
Facebook receives patent on location

National Security
PG&E provides pipeline maps to fire departments
Creation of Intelligent System for Maritime Security
North Korea appears capable of jamming GPS receivers

Data Quality/Liability
GPS not helpful to monitor driver fatigue company claims
Industry standard for cell phone navigation proposed
Speed Camera Accuracy Concerns Grow
LaHood considers outright ban of cell phone use in cars

Intelligent Transportation System
Google switches gears with self-driving cars

Smart Grid
IBM and the City of Dubuque Join Forces to Build a Smarter Water Grid
Data Access and Privacy Issues Related to Smart Grid Technologies

When Will We Stop Blaming the Driver?

I have been associated with the geospatial technology since 1985. I believe in the technology and its vast potential. However, I have become increasingly disappointed with what appears to be growing trend - within the blogosphere at least - to instinctively blame a driver whenever he or she gets lost or injured using a satnav device. I first noticed this trend when a couple got stuck on a logging road in Oregon in wintertime. A number of blog posts suggested that the couple should have known that their GPS device was imperfect and brought a map along as back-up. I said at the time that expecting a consumer to bring a map because their GPS device might fail is like expecting me to throw my bike in the trunk of my car when I go for a drive because the car might break down. Consumers expect that products they purchase will work. (So do jurors!) Particularly when commercials repeatedly tell them they should buy the device because it will get them to where they want to go quicker, safer and cheaper.

The issue arose again this week as a man drowned in Spain reportedly because his satnav device mistakenly took him down a road at night that led into a lake and he was not able to stop quick enough. I have seen more than a few comments suggesting that the driver lacked "common sense". However, there is nothing in the reports that I read that suggested the driver lacked common sense in this instance. Moreover, who of us hasn't taken the wrong turn and driven for a while trying to figure out whether they made a mistake (or how to fix it)? In addition, I know that the reaction time of my parents, who are both in the early 70's, is slower than it used to be - particularly when a lake suddenly appears in the middle of the road!! My guess is that they are not alone.

I don't think it is fair to instinctively blame the driver in an accident due at least in part to an error or malfunction in a satnav device. More importantly, I also believe it is bad business. If a customer is injured due to an error in a satnav device, a better response - from both a legal and business standpoint - would be to try and understand what went wrong and identify ways to make the product better and safer. History has shown that the companies that take this approach are better off in the long run.