Karl Herchenroeder

Microsoft won’t sell facial recognition technology to U.S. police departments until a national law is in place, President Brad Smith said Thursday, following the lead of IBM and Amazon. IBM “no longer offers general purpose IBM facial recognition or analysis software,” CEO Arvind Krishna wrote Congress Monday, “outlining detailed policy proposals to advance racial equality.” Amazon implemented a “one-year moratorium on police use of Amazon’s facial recognition technology” Wednesday, though it will continue allowing use from organizations like Thorn, the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Marinus Analytics. “We hope this one-year moratorium might give Congress enough time to implement appropriate rules, and we stand ready to help if requested,” Amazon said. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., welcomed a “pause” on police use of the technology: “What Amazon should really do is a complete about-face and get out of the business of dangerous surveillance altogether.” It took two years, but the American Civil Liberties Union is “glad the company is finally recognizing the dangers face recognition poses to Black and Brown communities and civil rights more broadly,” said ACLU Northern California Technology and Civil Liberties Director Nicole Ozer. The group's Civil Liberties Attorney Matt Cagle urged Microsoft to halt “its current efforts to advance legislation that would legitimize and expand the police use of facial recognition in multiple states.” Electronic Frontier Foundation Policy Analyst Matthew Guariglia called Microsoft’s decision a good step, saying it “must permanently end its sale of this dangerous technology to police departments.”

At least four Supreme Court justices questioned why Booking.com can’t trademark its domain as companies do with toll-free phone numbers, in oral argument Monday. Four other justices raised concerns about enabling monopoly power by granting such trademarks, which might preclude rivals like ebooking.com from using "booking" in marketing materials.

The threat of large fines in European and California privacy law focused the tech industry’s attention on compliance, FTC Chairman Joe Simons said Friday. His remarks to the American Bar Association came the day after U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly approved the agency’s $5 billion privacy settlement with Facebook (see 1912050061).

The Patent and Trademark Office’s decision to hear an inter partes review challenge isn’t reviewable on appeal, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Monday, siding with PTO. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor dissented in Thryv v. Click-to-Call (18-916). Click-to-Call argued that courts should be able to review circumstances involving time limits for certain patent reviews. The case pertains to 35 U.S.C. §315(b). “Allowing §315(b) appeals would waste resources" spent on resolving patentability and would leave “bad patents enforceable,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. Gorsuch said the decision “carries us another step down the road of ceding core judicial powers to agency officials and leaving the disposition of private rights and liberties to bureaucratic mercy.” The court let the agency override one of the America Invents Act’s “express limits on agency authority,” Click-to-Call attorney Daniel Geyser emailed. “It’s now a question for Congress to restore the judiciary’s traditional role in reviewing agency action and saying what the law is.”

The FTC created an agency-wide pandemic response team and a pandemic-specific plan to address evolving COVID-19 issues, according to documents we obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Chairman Joe Simons declined to share the plan's annex with Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., calling it “nonpublic” in a March 13 letter to the Senate Commerce Committee ranking member. Federal guidance on COVID-19 hasn’t "always kept up with the most pressing concerns expressed by FTC staff,” Simons wrote. He recommended a “timely and consolidated” source or site for federal agencies to plan for and “adapt to quickly changing circumstances.”

The Trump administration’s reported plan to create a COVID-19 data surveillance program with healthcare and tech companies lacks transparency, Democratic lawmakers wrote the White House Friday. They noted the industry's “checkered history” protecting patient and user privacy. Some stakeholders also raised concerns.

The U.S. is shifting toward privacy by design and building safeguards into products from the outset rather than into disclosure statements consumers don’t read, FTC Office of Policy Planning Senior Economic and Technology Adviser Liad Wagman told the Technology Policy Institute Tuesday. He noted he was speaking only for himself, which the commission reiterated after his appearance.

The U.S. should rethink antitrust policies, experts said at an Information Technology and Innovation Foundation webinar Thursday. China is giving its companies an advantage, said Berkeley Research Group Chairman David Teece. St. Mary’s University London Senior Lecturer in Law Aurelien Portuese recommended antitrust enforcers shift to qualitative analysis to account for big tech’s free-services model.

Facebook and Google aren’t sharing location data with the government for tracking COVID-19, the companies said Thursday after reports of such industry consultation. Ed Markey, D-Mass., raised privacy concerns and other senators criticized the tech industry’s response to online misinformation.

Industry groups contend OMB is prioritizing innovation and the groups suggested voluntary standards for artificial intelligence regulation. The Center for Democracy & Technology criticized the AI draft guidance for lack of concrete suggestions. OMB guidance "aims to support a U.S. approach to free-market capitalism, federalism, and good regulatory practices,” said the request for comment. The draft memorandum provides guidance to agencies for developing regulatory and nonregulatory approaches for sectors and “consider ways to reduce barriers to the development and adoption of AI technologies.” Comments were due Friday and are posted here. The guidance provides a “strong foundation for federal agencies to craft regulations while maintaining the regulatory flexibility that companies need to innovate,” the Computer & Communications Industry Association said. CCIA recommended any new regulations be “technology-neutral, and apply to outcomes rather than prescribing specific technical practices.” The Information Technology Industry Council applauded the agency’s “emphasis on using a risk-based approach to AI regulation” and guidance that federal agencies consider AI applications individually rather than applying horizontal regulation. ITI supports the draft memo’s “emphasis on using voluntary standards as an alternative to new regulation.” BSA|The Software Alliance agreed with the guidance that “the goal of AI governance should be to promote innovation and enhance public trust.” Nonregulatory policy approaches, like sector-specific frameworks and voluntary consensus standards, “can play a critically important role” in promoting AI applications, BSA said. CDT approves of the agency’s common sense approach but said it “offers little guidance beyond our understanding of the basic tenets of sound policymaking and good administrative processes.” CDT sought concrete steps agencies should take in regulating and said “agencies should consider and clarify existing legal and policy approaches first.” ACT|The App Association supports voluntary consensus standards for AI application. It recommended the U.S. ensure such standards promote a balanced approach to standard-essential patent licensing, saying a number of owners of fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms SEPs are abusing their unique positions (see 2002140026).