Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

We know trademarks. With a team of more than 25 lawyers, including Professor J. Thomas McCarthy, world-renowned author of the well-respected McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, we are a one-stop practice for guarding valuable business assets.

Trademark

Band 1: Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright & Trade Secrets, California

Firm to Watch: Intellectual Property; Trade Marks, Copyright And Design

Firm to Watch: Intellectual Property: Trademarks: Non-Contentious

Silver: Firms: Enforcement and Litigation, California 

Bronze: Firms: Prosecution and Strategy, California

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Our M&A lawyers represent Fortune 500 companies, private equity firms, investment banks, and privately-held companies in their most high-profile and complex mergers and acquisitions.

Mergers + Acquisitions

M&A Lawyers & Capabilities

Ranked for M&A: Foreign Firms in Singapore

Ranked for Global Corporate/M&A 

Ranked in the “Elite” Category of Corporate/M&A – Nationwide

Ranked for Corporate/M&A – Northern California

Ranked Band 1 for California Corporate/M&A: Deals in Asia

Ranked in the “Highly Regarded” Category of New York Corporate/M&A

Ranked in the “Elite” Category of Corporate/M&A: International

Ranked Band 1 for Corporate/M&A in Japan

Ranked for Corporate/M&A: International in Singapore

Ranked for Corporate/M&A: Hong Kong-based (International Firms)

Ranked for Corporate/M&A: Mid-Market in Germany

Awarded Deal of the Year for Imerys Joint Venture with British Lithium

Two MoFo Japan Deals Shortlisted for M&A Deal of the Year (Premium)

Two MoFo China Deals Shortlisted M&A Deal of the Year (Premium and Midsize)

Five MoFo Lawyers Named to M&A Powerlist

Named a Leading Firm for M&A

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Lawrence W. Gallick

Social Links: Statehouse v. Smartphone

Federal Court Enjoins California Teen Privacy Law . . . Again

All Your Sale Are Belong to Us - Mitigating IP and Payments Risk in In-Game Economies (Part II – User-Generated Content and In-Game Payment Models)

A New California Digital Content Law Establishes New Requirements for Advertisers and Vendors

California’s Assembly Bill 587 Loses Key Provisions After Legal Challenge from X

LinkedIN

In September 2013, Socially Aware took a close look at the potential legal issues confronting users of Google Glass, the now instantly recognizable, compact head-mounted display mounted on a pair of specially designed eyeglass frames, which lets wearers access a variety of customized smartphone features.In the meantime, Google’s Glass Explorer Program has expanded steadily.  In October 2013, the company announced the ability for each Explorer to invite three friends to join and purchase a Glass, and officially rolled out its “Glassware” app review program.  With the expansion of the Glass Explorer Program, several of the issues we identified last fall have come into sharper focus, including one that could have a real impact on wearers’ daily lives.California Vehicle Code Section 27602On October 30, 2013, Cecilia Abadie was ticketed by a California police officer—not just for speeding, but for wearing her Google Glass while driving.  The officer who ticketed Abadie cited a provision of California’s Vehicle Code, VC Section 27602, for the Glass-related violation.  The relevant portion of the law states:(a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.Naturally, VC Section 27602 was written before the advent of Google Glass (and it hasn’t been amended since 2011).  The law carves out several exceptions for equipment “when installed in a vehicle,” including global positioning and mapping displays, rear-view cameras (“[a] visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver’s view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle”), and even television receivers that are disabled or unviewable while the vehicle is driven.Abadie decided to fight the ticket, and on January 16, 2014, she was found not guilty by the San Diego Traffic Court Commissioner.  You can read a copy of the ruling on Abadie’s Google+ profile.  The Commissioner’s decision relied on the fact that there was no proof that Abadie’s Glass was in operation while she was driving.  This highlights an interesting difference between, on the one hand, dashboard-mounted screens, and on the other hand, compact head-mounted displays that may or may not have a visible “on” indicator: it’s much easier to tell whether a dash-mounted screen is “operating” at any given time.In November 2013—notably, after Abadie was issued her ticket—Google reportedly updated its Glass FAQ to answer the question, “Can I use Glass while driving or bicycling?”:It depends on where you are and how you use it.As you probably know, most states have passed laws limiting the use of mobile devices while driving any motor vehicle, and most states post those rules on their department of motor vehicle websites.  Read up and follow the law!  Above all, even when you’re following the law, don’t hurt yourself or others by failing to pay attention to the road.  The same goes for bicycling:  whether or not any laws limit your use of Glass, always be careful.Safe Driving Apps on GlassThe question of whether driving while wearing Glass is legal is different from the question of whether it’s safe.  Many contend that Glass and similar devices simply add to an already long list of driver distractions.  But others argue that some Glass apps—particularly apps that are specifically designed to be used while driving—are not only safe, but actually a positive alternative to using dashboard navigation systems that force drivers to take their eyes off the road repeatedly (and certainly a better alternative to the somehow irresistible urge to take out one’s smartphone to check messages or hunt for traffic alerts).  To put it another way, there’s a difference between merely using Glass while driving, and using Glass for driving.For example, one sideloadable Glass app, DriveSafe, is designed specifically to make driving safer by using Glass’s built-in sensors to alert the driver when he or she appears to be nodding off.  The app, which is activated with the phrase, “OK Glass, keep me awake,” can even provide its wearer with directions to the nearest rest stop.  Another developer, INRIX, is exploring the possibility of porting its traffic app to Glass in order to enable drivers to receive real-time traffic alerts in their head-mounted displays and help them reroute their trips, all in a reportedly unobtrusive manner.  Query whether the prevalence of safety-specific Glass apps will see the advent of a “driving mode” for wearable head-mounted displays.There is at least one Glass app whose safety implications are tough to refute: developed by a firefighter in North Carolina, the app feeds critical emergency information, such as a fire’s location and type, directly to a firefighter’s line of vision while driving, potentially eliminating the need to reach for a radio, mobile phone, or other device to retrieve the same information.  And firefighters may not be the only civil servants seeking to take advantage of Glass; in early February 2014, the NYPD announced that it is testing Glass for potential use by its officers.  Although the specific uses being tested haven’t been announced, it is easy to see how police officers could benefit from wearable head-mounted displays while driving, for example, by viewing details about crimes in progress, getting help with identifying vehicles, or recording offenders on the road.The Future of Driving with GlassAlthough it may be too early to accurately gauge the dangers of driving while wearing head-mounted displays, lawmakers are trying to regulate their use, and are likely to continue to do so—particularly where existing statutes might not do the trick.  At least five states are already considering bills that would ban driving with Google Glass: Delaware, New Jersey, West Virginia, Illinois, and most recently, Wyoming, whose proposed bill lumps Glass together with “texting while driving”:No person shall operate a motor vehicle on a public street or highway while using a wearable computer with head mounted display, or while using a handheld electronic wireless communication device to write, send, or read a text-based communication.And even though Glass is currently available only to U.S. residents (the Device Specific Addendum of Google’s Glass Terms of Sale states, “You must be 18 years or older, a resident of the United States, and authorized by Google as part of the Glass Explorer program in order to purchase or use Glass Explorer Edition”), the UK government is already contemplating a ban on Glass for drivers.It will be particularly interesting to see how these new pieces of legislation address drivers who wear corrective lenses.  Originally, prescription lenses simply weren’t compatible with Glass (although that didn’t stop people from retrofitting earlier versions of the device with prescription lenses, including one man who was detained in January 2014 by federal agents after he wore his Glass to a movie theater and was suspected of trying to record the film using the device’s camera).  But in late January 2014, Google announced that it will be selling Glass frames that are designed to accommodate prescription lenses; and Vision Service Plan, the largest vision insurance provider in the United States, has announced that it will be offering subsidized frames and prescription lenses for Glass.  As head-mounted devices with prescription lenses become more prevalent, we are likely to see a larger population of users who simply can’t remove their head-mounted displays, particularly during vision-critical activities such as driving.The story here is not an uncommon one.  The law struggles to catch up with advanced technologies like Glass and their new perceived risks; meanwhile, governments continue to use old laws to address those new risks, even though the fit isn’t always perfect.  Keep your eyes on the road, and we’ll keep our eyes on further Google Glass legal developments.

shutterstock_1702698381-300x199-1.jpg

Driving Under the Influence (of Google Glass)

Driving Under the Influence (of Google Glass)

In September 2013, Socially Aware took a close look at the potential legal issues confronting users of Google Glass, the now instantly recognizable, compact hea

The latest issue of our Socially Aware newsletter is now available. In this issue, we explore legal concerns raised by Google Glass; we provide an overview of the growing body of case law addressing ownership of business-related social media accounts; we take a look at two circuit court decisions addressing the interplay between social media usage and the First Amendment; we examine the trend toward collaborative consumption and associated legal issues; we discuss an important new decision regarding unilateral modifications to online terms of use; and we highlight an industry warning to website operators who collect data for purposes of online behavioral advertising.  For a free subscription to the newsletter, please email us at <a href="mailto:sociallyaware@mofo.com">sociallyaware@mofo.com</a>.

sa-150x150-1.jpg

Hot Off the Press – New Issue of the Socially Aware Newsletter

Hot Off the Press – New Issue of the Socially Aware Newsletter

The latest issue of our Socially Aware newsletter is now available here. In this issue, we explore legal concerns raised by Google Glass; we provide an overview

Sign offered by <a href="http://stopthecyborgs.org/">Stop the Cyborgs</a> to indicate a ‘no-Glass’ zone. This work is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en_US">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License</a>.What Is Google Glass?As most Socially Aware readers know, Google Glass (“Glass”) is a form of <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/04/GeordiLaForge.jpg/250px-GeordiLaForge.jpg">wearable technology</a> that gives its users hands-free access to a variety of smartphone features by attaching a highly compact <a href="http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/VR-gear1.htm">head-mounted display</a> system to a pair of specially designed eyeglass frames. The display system connects to a smartphone via Bluetooth. In its current form, Glass can pull information from the web, take photographs, record videos, send messages via email or SMS, notify its user about messages and upcoming events and provide navigation directions via GPS. An embellished demonstration of Glass’s features is available at Google’s Glass <a href="http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-it-feels/">web page</a>.Although Glass is in the testing stage as of the time of this writing and boasts only a modest set of features, the device has caused quite a stir in both the mainstream and social media spheres. Wearable technology, however, has been around for quite a while (for an extensive history of wearable computers, pay a visit to Paul Miller’s <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/26/2986317/google-project-glass-wearable-computers-disappoint-me">article</a> on The Verge) and, although controversial, many of the concerns raised by Google Glass are not entirely new. This post will explore some of the more common concerns raised about Glass in the context of evolving legal and social norms—all premised on the assumption that Glass eventually will ultimately become a widely used, mainstream product.Glass and PrivacyWhen the original Kodak cameras were released in the late 19th century, they caused a huge uproar among both lawmakers and consumers for their ability to do what they are designed to do: that is, <a href="http://continuum.wikia.com/wiki/Cellular_Memory_Review">take pictures</a>. This led to widespread bans on cameras at beaches, the Washington Monument and other locations. Samuel Warren and Justice Louis Brandeis aptly noted in an 1890 Harvard Law Review article:Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life; and numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that “what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops.” For years there has been a feeling that the law must afford some remedy for the unauthorized circulation of portraits of private persons[.]As Kodak cameras became more mainstream, society adapted by creating new laws, one of the most important of which was development of the “<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZC1.html">reasonable expectation of privacy</a>” doctrine, which purports to protect individuals from being photographed in certain places recognized as “zones of privacy”—a designation that does not typically extend to public places.Needless to say, Glass is made of more <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JknRYYrV5Vk">advanced technology</a> than the original Kodak cameras, and this new technology raises a whole new set of potential concerns. In particular, (1) taking a photograph with a traditional <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Box_Camera.jpg">camera</a> is typically more noticeable to subjects and onlookers alike than taking a photograph with a “wearable” device like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8lScHO2mM0">Glass</a>, and (2) the Bluetooth connection between Glass and its user’s smartphone allows the possibility of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSkhYHk6TQ">real-time facial recognition</a>.In part due to these concerns, on May 16, 2013, a bipartisan caucus of congressmen sent Google an <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/141962016/Congress-Inquires-About-Google-Glass">inquiry</a> regarding a variety of privacy matters. In response to that inquiry, Google <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/06/03/google-shivs-developers-by-nixing-glass-facial-recognition/">announced</a> on June 3, 2013, that it would not allow applications with facial recognition on Google Glass. (Naturally, hackers have thumbed their noses at Google’s announcement, reportedly building their own unauthorized software with facial recognition features.)Although banning facial recognition apps may address the second concern noted above, the first concern still stands because people being photographed by a Glass wearer, whether in a “zone of privacy” or in a public place in which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, simply might not even know it. A handful of establishments have responded by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/technology/personaltech/google-glass-picks-up-early-signal-keep-out.html?smid=pl-share">preemptively banning</a> the device from their premises. Seattle’s 5 Point Café was, perhaps, the first to issue such a ban, <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/03/seattle-bar-bans-google-glass-still-loves-beer-goggles/">announcing</a> via Facebook back in May 2013, “For the record, The 5 Point is the first Seattle business to ban in advance Google Glasses. And a** kickings will be encouraged for violators.” Colorado’s Press Play Bar followed with <a href="http://laughingsquid.com/sign-at-bar-reads-google-glass-is-banned-on-these-premises/">its own ban</a> in July 2013. And <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/guantanamo-google-glass_n_3787042.html">Guantanamo</a> has banned Google Glass.Only time will tell whether one-off bans on Glass and similar devices are akin to the overreactions—at least we now perceive them to be overreactions—that inspired bans on Kodak cameras in the late 19th century. And, perhaps preemptively, Glass already limits a user’s ability to take photos to cases in which the user either speaks an audible command or makes a visible swipe on the device’s tactile sensor, and limits video recordings to 10 seconds in length without a user holding onto the tactile sensor. Of course, developers have already created an <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/2/4292594/google-glass-winky-app-take-photo-with-eye-gesture">app</a> that lets users take pictures by simply winking. Glass’s entrance into the mainstream is poised to cause further disruption.Breaking the CasinoIn the 1960s, a group of UCLA and MIT graduate students created a “cigarette pack sized analog device” that increased the expected gain of playing roulette by 44%. The theory behind the device was to feed data concerning the motion of the roulette wheel and ball to a primitive computer that would predict the likely location of the ball’s drop. The premise of such a device was featured more recently in an <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0534719/">episode</a> of the popular television show <a href="http://www.cbs.com/shows/csi/">CSI</a>, in which (again) a pair of students created a device that would send video data from the casino back to an off-site computer run by one of the students, who would then relay the predictions back to the player on-site.The possibility of improving gamblers’ odds over the house’s odds goes further than just roulette. For instance, with the assistance of a computer, even average blackjack players could accomplish feats reserved for the most skilled card counters; this is why Nevada gaming regulators issued an <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/2009/02/casino-operators-issue-warning-over-iphone-card-counting-app/">alert</a> to casino operators in February 2009, warning them about the use of a then newly released simple card counter app. Wearable computers at the poker table can even be used to transmit hand information from one play to another, enabling collusion.Perhaps it’s only natural that casino operators are fearful of Google Glass. The Associated Press <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/nv-regulators-urge-ban-google-145001701.html">reported</a> on June 12, 2013, that the Nevada and New Jersey Gaming Commissions have urged casinos to ban gamblers from wearing Google Glass on their premises. Some casino operators, such as Caesar’s Palace, have <a href="http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/business/regulators-say-atlantic-city-casinos-can-ban-google-glasses-with/article_c8ffdec6-cd62-11e2-98b0-0019bb2963f4.html">already forbidden</a> their customers from wearing Glass while in their casinos, and Delaware has <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-07-12/delaware-casinos-ban-google-glass">banned</a> Glass from its own casinos. None of this is surprising, given casinos’ long history of taking strong measures to prevent players from gaining an edge over the house. And given the level of deference that state gaming commissions afford casinos in limiting the use of electronics on their premises, Glass is likely to be unwelcome at gambling houses for the foreseeable future.Safety While DrivingIn February 2013, <a href="http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/">Sergey Brin</a>, Google co-founder and Glass developer, commented during a segment of TED Talks that one of Project Glass’s goals was to change how people interact with their smartphones. According to Brin, the goal is to “free your hands” and “free your eyes” by limiting the need to look down at a phone screen. One Glass feature that best embodies this goal is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZdkIVS53Uw">turn-by-turn navigation</a>.In its current iteration, Glass’s turn-by-turn navigation is relatively simple, capable only of providing pop-up notifications of upcoming turns. In the future, Glass may be capable of <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/26/2986317/google-project-glass-wearable-computers-disappoint-me">layering</a> information over a user’s peripheral vision, and even augmenting that information with information from the web. Yet, even in light of the device’s relatively simple set of current navigational features, the possibility of using Glass while driving has caused plenty of stir.Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris, psychology professors at the University of Illinois and Union College, respectively, explored the potential safety concerns arising from using Glass while driving in a May 24, 2013 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/google-glass-may-be-hands-free-but-not-brain-free.html?_r=1&">New York Times op-ed piece</a>. Simons and Chabris argue that people are fundamentally incapable of looking away from where they’re headed for more than a couple of seconds without losing their bearings. Drivers “intuitively grasp” this limitation by only glancing at the car radio or speedometer briefly before returning their eyes to the road. (Meanwhile, other distractions have been shown to be far more dangerous; the op-ed cites a study that demonstrated that drivers who texted with their mobile devices looked away from the road for as long as 4.6 seconds during a given six-second period, more than sufficient time to cause a major accident.)Glass tries to circumvent this limitation by only displaying turn-by-turn information at relevant times, that is, just before turns that are coming up, as demonstrated in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZdkIVS53Uw">this video</a>. Still, Simons and Chabris believe that it will be a challenge to find the right balance of information that can be safely displayed directly in drivers’ fields of vision.Safety concerns like these are the motivation behind West Virginia State Rep. Howell’s <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/25/tech/innovation/google-glass-driving">proposed legislation</a> that would amend driving laws to prohibit “using a wearable computer with head mounted display” while driving. Delaware’s lawmakers have introduced <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/google-glass-wearable-computers-pose-driving-hazard-article-1.1397898">similar legislation</a>. And according to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/31/google-glass-drivers">some</a> reports, the UK <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport">Department for Transport</a> is considering its own ban on using Google Glass while driving.It is unclear whether a blanket legal ban on head-mounted displays is the best approach to maximize safety. Arguably, Glass may strike the right balance by providing drivers with the same information they would typically retrieve by glancing down at a GPS system—without making drivers look away from the road. Head-mounted systems like Glass could be also used as a sort of “warning system” that alerts drivers that they are, say, approaching the speed limit, again without having to look down at separate speedometers. On the other hand, any guidelines for when and how head-mounted displays like Glass can be used on the road would probably need to be both granular and flexible to accommodate what will undoubtedly be a rapidly evolving technology.The FutureCan you envision the first time someone uses Glass to surreptitiously record a feature film at the local multiplex? According to Fast Company, a VP at the <a href="http://www.natoonline.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">National Association of Theatre Owners</a> has imagined just such a situation and says that his group anticipates working with its hundreds of members to develop Glass usage policies for their theaters. Can you picture the first time someone uses Glass to record a concert whose producer or venue enforces a strict “no videotaping” policy, or to secretly photograph sensitive documents containing trade secrets? Or the first time someone is wearing Glass while committing a crime? How will workplaces handle Glass, whether worn by visitors or used by their own employees on or off the job?Countless situations are going to be influenced by Google Glass and similar wearable technologies. And given the range of issues that have already arisen in beta, these technologies’ impact on laws and social norms is bound to be more than just a matter of where you can or can’t wear your Glass.

google-glass-ban4-225x300-1.png

Peering Into the Future: Google Glass and the Law

Peering Into the Future: Google Glass and the Law