Sunday, July 26, 2020


Someone must have created a procedure/checklist to follow to avoid things like ‘forgetting to redact.’ Is there no management supervision here?
White House Tells EPIC to Delete COVID-19 Records, EPIC Declines
I usually post items from EPIC.org over on PogoWasRight.org, but this one gets posted as a government breach on this site, too.
In an unusual development, the White House directed EPIC this week to delete a set of records that EPIC recently obtained from the Office of Science & Technology Policy—a request which EPIC declined. On Tuesday, EPIC published hundreds of records about the White House’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and proposals to use location data for public health surveillance (1, 2, 3, 4). Hours later, a White House attorney sent EPIC a letter “order[ing]” EPIC “to immediately cease using and disclosing” one set of records and to “destroy all electronics copies.” The letter stated that OSTP had “inadvertently and erroneously” provided EPIC with an unredacted copy of the records. Although EPIC voluntarily decided to redact personal contact information contained in the documents, EPIC informed the OSTP that it would still make the records available to the public. Under the Freedom of Information Act, a federal agency is not entitled to “claw back” a record that it discloses to a requester. EPIC has filed numerous FOIA requests concerning the federal government’s COVID-19 response and has compiled a resource page about privacy and the pandemic.




It’s good to see that Yasmin is keeping up.
Privacy Shield Invalidated




Can we agree on ethics?
A Comparative Assessment and Synthesis of Twenty Ethics Codes on AI and Big Data
Up to date, more than 80 codes exist for handling ethical risks of artificial intelligence and big data. In this paper, we analyse where those codes converge and where they differ. Based on an in-depth analysis of 20 guidelines, we identify three procedural action types (1. control and document, 2. inform, 3. assign responsibility) as well as four clusters of ethical values whose promotion or protection is supported by the procedural activities. We achieve a synthesis of previous approaches with a framework of seven principles, combining the four principles of biomedical ethics with three distinct procedural principles: control, transparency and accountability.




Cute title.
AI Report: Humanity Is Doomed. Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money!
AI systems are powerful technologies being built and implemented by private corporations motivated by profit, not altruism. Change makers, such as attorneys and law students, must therefore be educated on the benefits, detriments, and pitfalls of the rapid spread, and often secret implementation of this technology. The implementation is secret because private corporations place proprietary AI systems inside of black boxes to conceal what is inside. If they did not, the popular myth that AI systems are unbiased machines crunching inherently objective data would be revealed as a falsehood. Algorithms created to run AI systems reflect the inherent human categorization process and can, in some respects, become a lazy way to interact with the world because the systems attempt to outsource the unparalleled cognitive skills of a human being into a machine. AI systems can also be extremely dangerous because human categorization processes can be flawed by bias (explicit or implicit), racism, and sexism.




Another AI perspective.
John Allen and Darrell West discuss artificial intelligence on The Lawfare Podcast
Darrell West and John Allen recently spoke about their new Brookings book “Turning Point: Policymaking in the Era of Artificial Intelligence with Benjamin Wittes on The Lawfare Podcast. Darrell West is a senior fellow in the Center for Technology Innovation and the vice president and director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. John Allen is the president of Brookings and a retired U.S. Marine Corps four-star general. In this podcast episode, West and Allen describes what AI is, how it is being deployed, why people are anxious about it, and what we can do to move forward. You can download or listen to the episode in the podcast player below.




If I write the AI you use to create (whatever) can I claim the copyright?
Technical Elements of Machine Learning for Intellectual Property Law
Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have transformed our lives in profound ways. Indeed, AI has not only enabled machines to see (e.g., face recognition), hear (e.g., music retrieval), speak (e.g., speech synthesis), and read (e.g., text processing), but also, so it seems, given machines the ability to think (e.g., board game-playing) and create (e.g., artwork generation). This chapter introduces the key technical elements of machine learning (ML), which is a rapidly growing sub-field in AI and drives many of the aforementioned applications. The goal is to elucidate the ways human efforts are involved in the development of ML solutions, so as to facilitate legal discussions on intellectual property issues.




Robot crimes.
CIVIL LIABILITY AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY AUTONOMOUS INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS?
The article has as its object of analysis the inquiries related to civil liability in cases where the damage is caused by systems equipped with artificial intelligence. With this intent, the study analyzes the possibility of considering the autonomous system responsible for the damage, as well as what are the essential requirements for the analysis of civil liability in these cases. In addition, the article proposes to understand how the exclusions of civil liability in the described situation work, in addition to making a consideration regarding the Bills of Law nº 5.051/2019 and nº 5.691/2019, in progress in the National Congress, which deal with the principles for the use of autonomous intelligence, as well as the incentives of the development of new technologies in the Brazilian territory. The study intends to emphasize that the rules of responsibility need to find a balance between protecting citizens from possible damage arising from activities carried out by an artificial intelligence system and allowing technological innovation. The methodology used was qualitative, with bibliographic and documentary research, as well as data collection in international organizations, published on the internet.




Interesting. Regulation ain’t easy...
Regulating technology
Technology was a small industry until very recently. It was exciting and interesting, and it was on lots of magazine covers, but it wasn‘t actually an important part of most people’s lives. When Bill Gates was on every magazine cover, Microsoft was a small company that sold accounting tools to big companies. When Netscape kicked off the consumer internet in 1994, there were only 100m or so PCs on earth, and most of them were in offices. Today 4bn people have a smartphone - three quarters of all the adults on earth. In most developed countries, 90% of the adult population is online.
The trouble is, when tech becomes the world, all of tech’s problems matter much more, because they become so much bigger and touch so many more people; and in parallel all of the problems that society had already are expressed in this new thing, and are amplified and changed by it, and channeled in new ways. When you connect all of society, you connect all of society’s problems as well. You connect all the bad people, and more importantly you connect all of our own worst instincts. And then, of course, all of these combine and feed off each other, and generate new externalities. The internet had hate speech in 1990, but it didn’t affect elections, and it didn’t involve foreign intelligence agencies.




No comments: