Developers of artificial intelligence-based video interviewing systems promote their technology as one that helps human resource professionals on-board new talent faster, less expensively, and with greater insight compared to traditional human-only interviewing techniques. They also contend that their systems can avoid some of the potential implicit biases that may appear before, during, and after interviews,
In WeRide Corp. v. Huang et al., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting a motion for a preliminary injunction and expedited source code discovery. In doing so, the court concluded that plaintiff’s source code for Level 4 highly autonomous vehicles (HAVs) was a protected trade secret
In WeRide Corp. v. Huang et al., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting a motion for a preliminary injunction and expedited source code discovery. In doing so, the court concluded that plaintiff’s source code for Level 4 highly autonomous vehicles (HAVs) was a protected trade secret
In WeRide Corp. v. Huang et al., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting a motion for a preliminary injunction and expedited source code discovery. In doing so, the court concluded that plaintiff’s source code for Level 4 highly autonomous vehicles (HAVs) was a protected trade secret
For nearly as long as computers have existed, litigators have used software-generated machine output to buttress their cases, and courts have had to manage a host of machine-related evidentiary issues, including deciding whether a machine’s output, or testimony based on the output, could fairly be admitted as evidence and to what extent.
Today, as litigants
For nearly as long as computers have existed, litigators have used software-generated machine output to buttress their cases, and courts have had to manage a host of machine-related evidentiary issues, including deciding whether a machine’s output, or testimony based on the output, could fairly be admitted as evidence and to what extent.
Today, as litigants
In Part I, new proposed federal and state laws governing the collection, storage, and use of face (biometric) data in connection with facial recognition technology were described. If enacted, those new laws would join Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), California’s Consumer Data Privacy Act (CCPA), and Texas’ “biometric identifier” regulations in the governance of
In Part I, new proposed federal and state laws governing the collection, storage, and use of face (biometric) data in connection with facial recognition technology were described. If enacted, those new laws would join Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), California’s Consumer Data Privacy Act (CCPA), and Texas’ “biometric identifier” regulations in the governance of
Companies developing artificial intelligence-based products and services have been on the lookout for laws and regulations aimed at their technology. In the case of facial recognition, new federal and state laws seem closer than ever. Examples include Washington State’s recent data privacy and facial recognition bill (SB 5376; recent action on March 6,