Mark Rasch

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has created new challenges that significantly disrupts established legal principles. One facet of AI, with a large potential for abuse, is its seamless capability to replicate a person’s likeness using AI generators, leading to the proliferation of deepfakes.

2023 saw cybersecurity and privacy law arrive at a crossroads, especially with regard to the regulatory landscape.

In earlier posts, we discussed how to legally respond to AI-generated fake nudes and some developments in the area of AI-generated pornography. Congress has jumped into the fray, with Rochester, New York congressman Joe Morelle and Deb Ross of North Carolina reintroducing the “Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act,” H. R. 3106; the bill was reintroduced last week.

In the 1973 baseball movie “Bang the Drum Slowly,” the players for the New York Mets—um, Mammoths—spend their off time playing a card game with fans called “TEGWAR,” which stands for “The Exciting Game Without Any Rules.” The Federal Trade Commission recently warned against a new form of TEGWAR

But as we start delegating LLMs and LAMs the authority to act on our behalf (our personal avatars), we create a true privacy nightmare. LAMs require data from multiple sources, access to multiple platforms and integration with disparate databases and systems to work effectively. Ai built into wearable devices can, for example, capture images of every place you are, everything you do and everything you interact with. That's great if you are not Marilu Henner (kids, Google it) and don't have hyperthymesia (adults, Google it). If you want to be able to walk into a room, know the names of all of the people in the room and your previous interactions with them (“Dave! Haven't seen you since Idaho. How are Kenny and Jessica?”) or worse, know everything posted online about them, then LLM's are for you! But the point of LAM and LLMs are not just to find information, but to assimilate it. Resistance is…. You get it.

California court refuses to dismiss computer crime charges against an entity that analyzed

We can, and should do a much better job at security. Hackers target all participants in funds transfer frauds — consumers, banks, funds recipients, etc. — to find a soft spot. But Congress decided who was required to compensate for fraudulent consumer transactions, and banks should never require their customers to waive their rights as a condition precedent for the bank doing its job. And that's just common sense.

In the seminal Fourth Amendment/Privacy case of Katz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a person had a privacy interest in the

The potential end of Chevron deference poses significant challenges for the FTC's authority to regulate data privacy and security. The FTC's historical reliance on broad interpretations of its mandate under Section 5 of the FTC Act may come under increased judicial scrutiny. Without Chevron deference, courts may be less willing to defer to the FTC's expertise, leading to more frequent and successful challenges to the agency's jurisdiction. While the FTC has been a pivotal player in advancing data privacy and security standards, the evolving legal landscape underscores the need for clearer statutory guidance. As the debate over Chevron deference continues, stakeholders in the data privacy and security realm must closely monitor developments and adapt to the changing regulatory environment.

The Sixth Circuit’s January 2, 2025, decision in Ohio Telecom Association et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al. may reshape the future of the Internet, delivering a significant blow to the concept of net neutrality and altering the regulatory landscape for businesses that rely on online connectivity. In Ohio Telecom