A Privacy issue, more than a Terminator issue.

The Five Most Worrying Trends in Artificial Intelligence Right Now

… On Thursday, the AI Now Institute, which is affiliated with New York University and is home to top AI researchers with Google and Microsoft, released a report detailing, essentially, the state of AI in 2018, and the raft of disconcerting trends unfolding in the field. What we broadly define as AI—machine learning, automated systems, etc.—is currently being developed faster than our regulatory system is prepared to handle, the report says. And it threatens to consolidate power in the tech companies and oppressive governments that deploy AI while rendering just about everyone else more vulnerable to its biases, capacities for surveillance, and myriad dysfunctions.

… But it also conveys a the succinct assessment of the key problem areas in AI as they stand in 2018. As detailed by AI Now, they are:

1. The accountability gap between those who build the AI systems (and profit off of them) and those who stand to be impacted by the systems (you and me) is growing.
2. AI is being used to amplify surveillance, often in horrifying ways.
3. The government is embracing autonomous decision software in the name of cost-savings, but these systems are often a disaster for the disadvantaged.
4. AI testing “in the wild” is rampant already.
5. Technological fixes to biased or problematic AI systems are proving inadequate.

The world must look different from the Ninth Circuit.

In Facebook Case, Ninth Circuit Ignores Privacy Risks of Visits to Healthcare Websites- EPIC

The good folks at EPIC.org write:

In a surprisingly brief opinion, the Ninth Circuit has upheld a decision to dismiss a privacy suit against Facebook concerning the collection of sensitive medical data. In Smith v. Facebook, users alleged that the company tracked their visits to healthcare websites, in violation of the websites’ explicit privacy policies. In a little less than five pages, the Ninth Circuit decided that Facebook was not bound by the promises made not to disclose users’ data to Facebook because Facebook has a provision, buried deep in its own policy, that allows Facebook to secretly collect such data. The court actually wrote that searches for medical information are not sensitive because the “data show only that Plaintiffs searched and viewed publicly available health information…” EPIC filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that “consent is not an acid rinse that dissolves common sense.” In 2011 Facebook settled charges with the FTC that it routinely changed the privacy settings of users to obtain sensitive personal data. The consent order resulted from detailed complaints brought by EPIC and several other consumer organizations

I hate to say it, but I do understand the court’s reasoning, at least in part. Just visiting a site about a health issue is not the same thing as going to a doctor’s office for a consultation on a disorder or diagnosis. But we also know that sometimes, these situations create significant problems when advertising relating to a sensitive issue then shows up on a shared browser. For example, if a teen browses for information on transgender issues, and then their parents later have ads pop up while they’re using the browser, the collection and use of data from public sites can cause privacy issues and concerns.

So yes, the court’s siding with Facebook is very troubling because it’s ignoring what we have learned — that buried provisions in Facebook’s terms of service are generally not read by consumers who click through “I consent.” For the court to say that hey, it’s in there and consumers consented to have their data collected by Facebook, even though they are on a web site that promises NOT to share their data with Facebook, well…. the Ninth Circuit has set consumer privacy back. As EPIC noted in their amicus brief (p. 6):

Users could point to explicit statements on the medical websites they visited which said their personal data would not be disclosed to others. Yet, Facebook pointed to language, buried deep in its privacy policy, which said that it nonetheless could collect the data, and the lower court sided with Facebook. In such a world, how can users possibly make sense of privacy statements

Although the plaintiffs didn’t prevail, do read EPIC’s amicus brief in this case as it provides a helpful discussion of the concerns.

Helpful for us non-lawyers.

https://www.insideprivacy.com/data-security/data-breaches/standing-issues-in-data-breach-litigation-an-overview/

Standing Issues in Data Breach Litigation: An Overview