I worry that eventually robots will make all the rules.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/robotic-rulemaking/
Robotic rulemaking
… Rulemaking by federal agencies is a very text-intensive process, both in terms of writing the rules themselves, which express not only the law but also the agencies’ rationales for their regulatory choices, as well as public comments which arrive almost exclusively in the form of text. How might generative AI intersect with rulemaking? In this essay, we work through some use cases for generative AI in the rulemaking process, for better and for worse, both for the public and federal agencies.
(Related) Even if the AI is better at war than the admirals?
https://gcaptain.com/us-navy-admiral-says-ai-warships-must-obey/
US Navy Admiral Says AI Warships ‘Must Obey’
This week marked significant AI-related announcements for the US Navy at the annual Sea Air Space conference. Top Admiral and CNO, Mike Gilday, announced increased investments in Artificial Intelligence software and autonomous warships. Meanwhile, Marine Corps General Karston Heckl mentioned that their Warfighting Lab is exploring the integration of AI or autonomy “everywhere”.
Military jargon such as “force multiplier” and “game-changing technology” was abundant, but Vice Admiral Scott Conn’s insistence that AI “must obey” stood out as the most powerful statement.
During a session moderated by Defense News journalist Megan Eckstein, Vice Admiral Conn, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, explained how the US Navy is using technology to simultaneously engage multiple fleets and achieve various objectives. He highlighted that AI is transforming not only warfighting but also addressing long-standing, mundane issues faced by commanders.
Interesting. Chasing down a surveillance satellite in order to surveil it.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/06/true-anomaly-wants-to-train-space-warfighters-with-spy-satellites/
True Anomaly wants to train space warfighters with spy satellites
… Colorado-based True Anomaly was founded last year by a quartet of ex-Space Force members. The company’s set out to supply the Pentagon with defensive tech to protect American assets in space, and to conduct recon on enemy spacecraft. The startup has developed a technology stack that includes training software and “autonomous orbital pursuit vehicles” that will be able to collect video and other data on objects in space.
Interesting despite the Forrest Gump title.
Article: Data Is What Data Does: Regulating Use, Harm, and Risk Instead of Sensitive Data
Daniel J. Solove has posted a draft of a new article and welcomes feedback,
Abstract:
Heightened protection for sensitive data is becoming quite trendy in privacy laws around the world. Originating in European Union (EU) data protection law and included in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), sensitive data singles out certain categories of personal data for extra protection. Commonly recognized special categories of sensitive data include racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, health, sexual orientation and sex life, biometric data, and genetic data.
Although heightened protection for sensitive data appropriately recognizes that not all situations involving personal data should be protected uniformly, the sensitive data approach is a dead end. The sensitive data categories are arbitrary and lack any coherent theory for identifying them. The borderlines of many categories are so blurry that they are useless. Moreover, it is easy to use non-sensitive data as a proxy for certain types of sensitive data.
Personal data is akin to a grand tapestry, with different types of data interwoven to a degree that makes it impossible to separate out the strands. With Big Data and powerful machine learning algorithms, most non-sensitive data can give rise to inferences about sensitive data. In many privacy laws, data that can give rise to inferences about sensitive data is also protected as sensitive data. Arguably, then, nearly all personal data can be sensitive, and the sensitive data categories can swallow up everything. As a result, most organizations are currently processing a vast amount of data in violation of the laws.
This Article argues that the problems with the sensitive data approach make it unworkable and counterproductive — as well as expose a deeper flaw at the root of many privacy laws. These laws make a fundamental conceptual mistake — they embrace the idea that the nature of personal data is a sufficiently useful focal point for the law. But nothing meaningful for regulation can be determined solely by looking at the data itself. Data is what data does. Personal data is harmful when its use causes harm or creates a risk of harm. It is not harmful if it is not used in a way to cause harm or risk of harm.
To be effective, privacy law must focus on use, harm, and risk rather than on the nature of personal data. The implications of this point extend far beyond sensitive data provisions. In many elements of privacy laws, protections should be based on the use of personal data and proportionate to the harm and risk involved with those uses.
Solove, Daniel J., Data Is What Data Does: Regulating Use, Harm, and Risk Instead of Sensitive Data (January 11, 2023). 118 Northwestern University Law Review (Forthcoming), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4322198 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4322198
You can download the article for free at the SSRN link above.
What did I consent to?
Article: Murky Consent: An Approach to the Fictions of Consent in Privacy Law
On SSRN, this article by Daniel J. Solove:
Abstract
Consent plays a profound role in nearly all privacy laws. As Professor Heidi Hurd aptly said, consent works “moral magic” – it transforms things that would be illegal and immoral into lawful and legitimate activities. Regarding privacy, consent authorizes and legitimizes a wide range of data collection and processing.
There are generally two approaches to consent in privacy law. In the United States, the notice-and-choice approach predominates, where organizations post a notice of their privacy practices and then people are deemed to have consented if they continue to do business with the organization or fail to opt out. In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) uses the express consent approach, where people must voluntarily and affirmatively consent.
Both approaches fail. The evidence of actual consent is non-existent under the notice-and-choice approach. Individuals are often pressured or manipulated, undermining the validity of their consent. The express consent approach also suffers from these problems – people are ill-equipped to make decisions about their privacy, and even experts cannot fully understand what algorithms will do with personal data. Express consent also is highly impractical; it inundates individuals with consent requests from thousands of organizations. Express consent cannot scale.
In this Article, I contend that in most circumstances, privacy consent is fictitious. Privacy law should take a new approach to consent that I call “murky consent.” Traditionally, consent has been binary – an on/off switch – but murky consent exists in the shadowy middle ground between full consent and no consent. Murky consent embraces the fact that consent in privacy is largely a set of fictions and is at best highly dubious.
Abandoning consent entirely in most situations involving privacy would involve the government making most decisions regarding personal data. But this approach would be problematic, as it would involve extensive government control and micromanaging, and it would curtail people’s autonomy. The law should allow space for people’s autonomy over their decisions, even when those decisions are deeply flawed. The law should thus strive to reach a middle ground, providing a sandbox for free play but with strong guardrails to protect against harms.
Because it conceptualizes consent as mostly fictional, murky consent recognizes its lack of legitimacy. To return to Hurd’s analogy, murky consent is consent without magic. Instead of providing extensive legitimacy and power, murky consent should authorize only a very restricted and weak license to use data. This would allow for a degree of individual autonomy but with powerful guardrails to limit exploitative and harmful behavior by the organizations collecting and using personal data. In the Article, I propose some key guardrails to use with murky consent.
Solove, Daniel J., Murky Consent: An Approach to the Fictions of Consent in Privacy Law (January 22, 2023). 104 Boston University Law Review (Forthcoming), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4333743 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4333743
Download the article for free at the SSRN link above.
...Because it can.
Why does ChatGPT make things up? Australian mayor prepares first defamation lawsuit over its content
ChatGPT has caught the world's attention with its ability to instantly generate human-sounding text, jokes and poems, and even pass university exams.
Another of the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot's characteristics, however, is its tendency to make things up entirely - and it could get OpenAI, the company behind it, in legal trouble.
A regional Australian mayor said this week he may sue OpenAI if it does not correct ChatGPT's false claims that he served time in prison for bribery. If he follows through, it would likely be the first defamation lawsuit against the service, which was launched in November last year.
Does that include access to the hardware required to use it?
https://www.bespacific.com/the-socio-economic-argument-for-the-human-right-to-internet-access/
The Socio-Economic Argument for the Human Right to Internet Access
The Socio-Economic Argument for the Human Right to Internet Access, Politics Philosophy & Economics (2023). DOI: 10.1177/1470594X231167597
PHSY.org: “People around the globe are so dependent on the internet to exercise socioeconomic human rights such as education, health care, work, and housing that online access must now be considered a basic human right, a new study reveals. Particularly in developing countries, internet access can make the difference between people receiving an education, staying healthy, finding a home, and securing employment—or not. Even if people have offline opportunities, such as accessing social security schemes or finding housing, they are at a comparative disadvantage to those with Internet access. Publishing his findings today in Politics, Philosophy & Economics, Dr. Merten Reglitz, Lecturer in Global Ethics at the University of Birmingham, calls for a standalone human right to internet access—based on it being a practical necessity for a range of socioeconomic human rights.”
No comments:
Post a Comment