Mission and Values
Mission Melchionna PLLC’s mission is to provide outstanding legal services and tax advice. We focus on building a relationship with each client to truly understand their needs and...
About us Melchionna PLLC represents and assists North American and European business clients in achieving their goals with sound legal advice and innovative solutions to current...
Sometimes ago, Uber launched the first self- driving car pickups test in Pittsburgh, PA. The experiment has so far been without major incident and has been met with a lot of...
Sometimes ago, Uber launched the first self- driving car pickups test in Pittsburgh, PA. The experiment has so far been without major incident and has been met with a lot of enthusiasm. From a legal perspective, the test has brought up talks about liability, morality and impact of real time vehicles monitoring.
There is no doubt that AI has and will continue to have a widespread impact on human life by reducing cost, providing higher accuracy and efficiency and thereby increasing the overall safety. What has been often discussed is who will ultimately (or jointly) be held responsible in case of accidents, how can negligence be proven? This is the opportunity for countless software companies because R&D is generally outsourced. However, a small software glitch could render the software and the monitoring company jointly liable.
Another relevant legal issue is the standard for negligence that may change for self-driven cars if compared to manually driven ones. What could be the trial outcome if a human driven car could have made a better judgement call compared to a IA one? And the ever-pressing moral issue of who will be put at risk if there is a Catch 22 situation and the driver is incapacitated. The business and legal opportunities are here to be shaped.
Will your app work in the United States? A recent web spying tool company has been held accountable for violating US state and federal rules on wiretapping, when asked the obvious question as to why a company is being held accountable for the actions of one of its users.
The issue was that the Company was wiretapping private conversation in real time while they were still in transit and hence was deemed as interception in violation of federal and state wiretapping laws. The federal wiretapping act prohibits intentionally intercepting or attempting to intercept any wire, oral or electronic communication.
These companies were not intentionally intercepting anything, and a similar claim was rejected by another court but was held in violation in this instance. This ruling will have widespread consequences on the nature in which data is stored and used will companies may now have to procure third party consent for every communication monitor and intercept in real time.
The information provided here does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice but simply information for general purposes only and may not be the most up to date. Use of our website or any of its links or resources do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and the law firm. The views expressed at, or through, this site are those of the individual authors writing in their individual capacities only.
Subscribe for Melchionna PLLC newsletter