“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:
Post a Comment