Google's Fight Against Distracted Driving Laws Might Not Be A Bad Thing For The Inevitable, Glorious Transhumanist Future

from the I-was-absolutely-not-watching-porn,-officer dept

We've talked for years about how while distracted driving laws may be well-intentioned, they often present a new variety of problems. Requiring that touch screens are locked while the car is in motion, for example, ignores the fact that other people might be in the passenger seat and interested in using the technology. Banning some behaviors can also cause people to try to hide the fact they're doing them, which has the potential to be more dangerous. While there's absolutely no doubt that distracted driving is a serious, significant problem (especially texting behind the wheel), the regulatory fixes proposed can often bring up a laundry list of unintentional new issues a politician with a fleeting understand of tech (and a limited imagination) might not be sensitive to.

Efforts to ban Google Glass while driving are similarly complicated. Reuters this week reported that Google lobbyists have been busy trying to shut down distracted laws in a handful of states, including Illinois, Delaware, and Missouri. The laws, also being proposed in New York, Maryland and West Virginia (among others), would in many cases ban outright the use of wearable computing devices. While there's no mistaking that Google's lobbying efforts are about protecting revenues first and foremost, there does seem to be a salient point being made in the midst of the discussion:

"While Glass is currently in the hands of a small group of Explorers," the company said, "we find that when people try it for themselves they better understand the underlying principle that it's not meant to distract but rather connect people more with the world around them."

In my mind, Google Glass is effectively just a heads up display. It's an early, clunky plastic version of what's to come, but it's just a HUD. As any military pilot (or hey, the terminator) could probably attest, there could very well be useful functionality embedded in such devices that provides the driver with additional information that could actually make them safer or a better driver. Blind spot monitoring and improved-view HUD cameras, traffic congestion warnings in the corner of your eye, subtle alerts about dangerous upcoming road conditions (think a crowd-sourced Waze or some variant with a HUD) -- are they all bad? They're all to be banned?

That's not to say Glass and future variations of the concept won't be abused; people who aren't bright will certainly try to watch YouTube videos while driving eighty miles an hour on the Long Island Expressway. But people are either dumb, or they aren't. Your fellow highway dwellers are either entirely awful at operating motor vehicles -- or they aren't. If they're simply bad at it, a bevy of new regulations or rules won't protect them (or you) from them being distracted by pretty much everything -- including chickens, a dropped cigarette, signs, loud noises, other people, farts, or their own thoughts.

Enforcement also seems like a tricky proposition here. As Glass naturally evolves and other companies jump on board, it's going to move from an obvious piece of wearable plastic computing, to contacts, eyeglasses or implants that aren't really distinguishable from normal human features. How does a police officer prove you were using this technology for distracting purposes, versus using it to help drive? They don't: as with current texting rules they just doltishly ban you from doing everything on a phone, even if you're just updating GPS settings. How would law enforcement confirm what you're doing on your retina's HUD without violating your privacy? I'd imagine they won't.

Not to make a habit of siding with lobbyists too often, but it seems like outright bans on what is effectively heads up displays is a bridge too far. I'm not sure tech-challenged DC can effectively and intelligently navigate the transhumanist concerns of tomorrow when they're not even capable of understanding the simple technology issues of today. That said, I'm all for other, more ingenious ways of getting nitwits off the road if anybody has some.

Filed Under: delaware, distracted driving, google glass, illinois, missouri
Companies: google

Vandals Win First Round Of Ridiculous Lawsuit Variety Filed Against Them; Issue Mocking Video

from the third-rate-punk-band,-huh? dept

We've written a couple times about the absolutely ridiculous lawsuit that publishing giant Reed Elsevier filed against the punk band The Vandals. At issue was the fact that, years ago, the band put out an album, in which its logo was designed to parody the logo of Daily Variety, the Hollywood trade rag published by Reed Elsevier.

Way back when the album was first coming out, Variety had sent a cease and desist letter, and rather than fighting it (with a very strong fair use/parody claim) The Vandals caved and agreed not to use the image. However, the image can still be found online -- but not on sites controlled by the band. So Reed Elsevier and Variety are suing the band for somehow not magically stopping these other sites from using the image.

I had thought that once the ridiculousness of this became public, Reed Elsevier would quickly back down, but instead it dug in. Even more ridiculous is that it sued in Delaware, knowing that this would make life more difficult for the band, which is based in LA. Making things even more interesting is that the band's bassist, Joe Escalante, is also a former entertainment industry lawyer, though not a litigator. But, not one to back down from a fight, he decided to represent the band, went about learning the basics of litigation, and even got himself admitted to practice in Delaware.

Escalante emailed us to let us know that all of this has paid off so far, as the band has won the first round of the legal fight, and got the suit tossed out in Delaware and sent to California where it should have been filed in the first place. The short and sweet court order makes it clear that the judge finds it distasteful that Reed appears to have purposely filed the lawsuit across the country from the band to make life difficult for the band. You can see the full order below, but the key point is in the footnote, where the court notes that it certainly could have jurisdiction on the case, but given the circumstances, it feels that it is not appropriate, clearly suggesting that it recognizes the use of the court in Delaware was mainly to inconvenience the band:

The court recognizes that it could, if it were so inclined, choose to exercise jurisdiction over this matter and permit this case to proceed here in Delaware, given that a settlement agreement between the parties contains a clause that names Delaware as the forum for litigating disputes arising from the agreement. That settlement does not bind this court, however, and given the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, the court has decided in its discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction. First, all relevant conduct and activities appear to have taken place in California, where the defendants reside and operate. Similarly, it appears that the Central District of California would be a far more convenient forum for trial, since the court's reading of the complaint and other documents in the record is that the vast majority of documents and witnesses pertaining to this case are in California. Furthermore, the consent judgment that underlies the plaintiffs' complaint was entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and states that that court retains jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing the consent judgment and related permanent injunction. It would be far better for that court to determine whether the conduct in question falls within the scope of the consent judgment and permanent injunction. Finally, given the defendants' apparently limited financial resources and the significant costs associated with litigating in Delaware, the court finds that the defendants would be unfairly prejudiced if they were forced to litigate in this district.

In response to this ruling the band has been mocking Variety and its lawyers relentlessly. The link above goes to a pretty incendiary blog post which, frankly, might also open the band up to defamation charges, but that would really only be digging Reed Elsevier deeper into a truly pointless legal battle. Separately, the band has used our favorite movie creation tool, Xtranormal to create this rather hilarious (and probably NSFW) video of a "fictitious meeting" between Variety's outside lawyer on this case and Variety's editor. It made me laugh:

Filed Under: california, daily variety, delaware, jurisdiction, logo, the vandals, trademark, variety
Companies: reed elsevier