Sunday, July 19, 2020


I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you!” (Again)
New Report Shows That Most Companies Are Still Not Prepared for CCPA
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is fully in force as of July 1, but a new study from data privacy management firm Ethyca shows that more than half of organizations are still not prepared for it. This is a very late point in the game to get started, as CCPA enforcement actions can apply to violations that date all the way back to the beginning of the year.




When is it HAL’s fault?
AI Crimes: A Classification
Intelligent and machine learning systems have infiltrated cyber-physical systems and smart cities with technologies such as internet of things, image processing, robotics, speech recognition, self-driving, and predictive maintenance. To gain user trust, such systems must be transparent and explainable. Regulations are required to control crimes associated with these technologies. Such regulations and legislations depend on the severity of the artificial intelligence (AI) crimes subject to these regulations, and on whether humans and/or intelligent systems are responsible for committing such crimes, and therefore can benefit from a classification tree of AI crimes. The aim of this paper to review prior work in ethics for AI, and classify AI crimes by producing a classification tree to assist in AI crime investigation and regulation.




Fortunately, my goofing off at home is ignored. Except by my wife.
Work-at-home AI surveillance is a move in the wrong direction
While we have all been focused on facial recognition as the poster child for AI ethics, another concerning form of AI has quietly emerged and rapidly advanced during COVID-19: AI-enabled employee surveillance at home. Though we are justifiably worried about being watched while out in public, we are now increasingly being observed in our homes.
With the onset of COVID-19 and many people working remotely, some employers have turned to “productivity management” software to keep track of what employees are doing while they work from home. These systems have purportedly seen a sharp increase in adoption since the pandemic began.
A rising tide of employer worry appears to be lifting all the ships. InterGuard, a leader in employee monitoring software claims three to four times growth in the company’s customer base since COVID-19’s spread in the U.S. Similarly, Hubstaff and Time Doctor claim interest has tripled. Teramind said 40% percent of its current customers have added more user licenses to their plans. Another firm, aptly named Sneek, said sign-ups surged tenfold at the onset of the pandemic.
The software from these firms operates by tracking activities, whether it is time spent on the phone, the number of emails read and sent, or even the amount of time in front of the computer as determined by screen shot captures, webcam access, and number of keystrokes. Some algorithmically produce a productivity score for each employee that is shared with management.




Perspective. Are companies taking advantage of governments lack of understanding of IT OR are governments unable to explain what they need/want? What do contracts allow? Perhaps governments should outsource and pay for completed services only?
Companies Made Millions Building Unemployment Websites That Didn’t Work
In 2010, California hired the consulting firm Deloitte to overhaul the state website people use to apply for unemployment benefits. Things didn’t go well: Later that year, technical errors led to the halting of payments for some 300,000 people, according to the Los Angeles Times. And, the paper reported that, at $110 million, the final cost of the system was almost double the initial estimate.
Deloitte isn’t alone in its tumultuous history with benefits systems. IBM, another major player in the government IT industry, was awarded a $1.3 billion, 10-year contract to modernize Indiana’s welfare system in 2006. The state canceled the contract just three years later after complaints of erroneous benefits denials and other problems. Indiana and IBM sued each other over the dispute; the case has not yet been resolved.
Yet in 2010, IBM signed a $110 million deal with Pennsylvania to modernize its unemployment benefits system. The contract expired in 2013, ran millions over budget, and was never completed, according to a 2017 audit conducted by Pennsylvania auditor general Eugene DePasquale. In 2017, the state took legal action against IBM for breach of contract. That litigation is ongoing.



No comments: