Another one I’m not going to like. Do we all agree on what must be
censored? Define bias.
White House
proposal would have FCC and FTC police alleged social media
censorship
A draft executive order from the White House could
put the Federal Communications Commission in charge of shaping how
Facebook, Twitter and other large tech companies curate what appears
on their websites, according to multiple people familiar with the
matter.
The
draft order, a summary of which was obtained by CNN, calls for the
FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law
protects
social media websites when
they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms.
Although still in its early stages and subject to change, the Trump
administration's draft order also calls for the Federal Trade
Commission to take those new policies into account when it
investigates or files lawsuits against misbehaving companies.
Politico first
reported the
existence of the draft.
If put into
effect, the order would reflect a significant escalation by President
Trump in his frequent attacks against social media companies over an
alleged but unproven systemic bias against conservatives by
technology platforms. And it could lead to a significant
reinterpretation of a law that, its authors have insisted, was meant
to give tech companies broad freedom to handle content as they see
fit.
… The
Trump administration's proposal seeks to significantly narrow the
protections afforded to companies under Section
230 of
the Communications Decency Act, a part of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996. Under the current law, internet companies are not liable
for most of the content that their users or other third parties post
on their platforms. Tech platforms also qualify for broad legal
immunity when they take down objectionable content, at least when
they are acting "in good faith."
(Related?)
Would this redefine a “Clear and present danger” test?
White
House questions tech giants on ways to predict shootings from social
media
Top officials
in the Trump administration expressed interest in tools that might
anticipate mass shootings or predict attackers by scanning social
media posts, photos and videos during a meeting Friday with tech
giants including Facebook, Google and Twitter.
… In
response, though, tech leaders expressed doubt that such technology
is feasible, while raising concerns about the privacy risks that such
a system might create for all users, two of the sources said.
Coming soon to your neighborhood.
Ring, the smart doorbell home security system
Amazon bought for over $1 billion last year, is involved in some
fairly unnerving arrangements with local law enforcement agencies.
Wouldn’t you like to know if the cops in your town are among them?
That’s precisely what Shreyas Gandlur, an
incoming senior studying electrical engineering at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign put together, using Amazon’s own
demands for narrative control over the law enforcement agencies it
works with to help build an interactive map:
… Where ring is concerned, FFTF’s map only
includes about 50 cities, a far cry from the “more than 225"
police departments reported by Gizmodo late last month. (Ring has
declined to share the exact figure.) Finding the rest was, in a
sense, trivial.
“Ring pre-writes almost all of the messages
shared by police across social media, and attempts to legally
obligate police to give the company final say on all statements about
its products,” my colleague Dell Cameron wrote, a detail Gandlur
seized on.
“I added a bunch of agencies I found by
literally searching ‘excited to join neighbors by ring’ on
Twitter and searching similar phrases on Google,” Gandlur said.
“Nothing too complicated and it’s pretty funny that Ring
controlling the content of police press releases came to my aid since
basically every agency releases the same statement.” If Ring hoped
to obfuscate which towns were using for surveillance purposes, it
clearly failed.
AI and the GDPR
The Right
to Human Intervention: Law, Ethics and Artificial Intelligence
Τhe paper analyses the new right of human
intervention in use of information technology, automatization
processes and advanced algorithms in individual decisionmaking
activities. Art. 22 of the new General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) provides that the
data subject has the right not to be subject to a fully automated
decision on matters of legal importance to her interests,
hence the data subject has a right to human intervention in this kind
of decisions.
[From
the Conclusion
As may be clarified, human intervention does not
always lessen the danger of discrimination and that technology can
prevent bias, proposing not only privacy, but also fairness by
design. This can be achieved through the application of the
principle of justice when it comes to algorithms, which will prevent
discrimination. We not only need human intervention, but also
algorithmic neutrality, or 'correct' policy-directed algorithms, as
with human intervention, unfair factors may inappropriately affect
decisions.
How AI thinks.
Causal deep
learning teaches AI to ask why
Most AI runs on
pattern recognition, but as any high school student will tell you,
correlation is not causation. Researchers are now looking at ways to
help AI fathom this deeper level.
