Is this the solution?
UK’s autonomous vehicle legislation becomes law, paving the way for first driverless cars by 2026
… The U.K. has been eager to position itself at the forefront of the autonomous vehicle revolution, funding various AV projects and research programs around safety. The government has touted the potential safety benefits of self-driving cars in that they remove human error from roads, though it acknowledges that crashes will still happen, as evidenced by reports from the U.S., where self-driving cars have a firmer foothold. In fact, California has emerged as a hotbed for proposed AV regulation, too.
This is why liability is one of the core facets of the U.K.’s new regulation — who will bear responsibility in the event of a crash? The U.K. clarified this point in 2022 when it published a roadmap that stated that its new legislation will make corporations responsible for any mishaps, “meaning a human driver would not be liable for incidents related to driving while the vehicle is in control of driving.”
Each approved self-driving vehicle will have a corresponding “authorized self-driving entity,” which will typically be the manufacturer but could also be the software developer or insurance company. And this entity will be responsible for the vehicle when self-driving mode is activated.
But could it take over my blog?
https://www.bespacific.com/see-how-easily-ai-chatbots-can-be-taught-to-spew-disinformation/
See How Easily AI Chatbots Can Be Taught to Spew Disinformation
The New York Times [no paywall]: “Ahead of the U.S. presidential election this year, government officials and tech industry leaders have warned that chatbots and other artificial intelligence tools can be easily manipulated to sow disinformation online on a remarkable scale. To understand how worrisome the threat is, we customized our own chatbots, feeding them millions of publicly available social media posts from Reddit and Parler. The posts, which ranged from discussions of racial and gender equity to border policies, allowed the chatbots to develop a variety of liberal and conservative viewpoints…”
The same, but different.
https://pogowasright.org/minnesota-legislature-passes-consumer-data-privacy-act/
Minnesota Legislature Passes Consumer Data Privacy Act
David Stauss & Brad Hammer of Husch Blackwell write:
On May 19, the Minnesota legislature passed the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (HF 4757 / SF 4782). The bill, which is sponsored by Representative Steve Elkins, was passed as Article 5 of a larger omnibus bill. The bill next moves to Governor Tim Walz for consideration.
The Minnesota bill largely tracks the Washington Privacy Act model but with some significant and unique variations. For example, the bill creates a novel right to question the result of a profiling decision and have a controller provide additional information regarding that decision. It also contains privacy policy requirements that are intended to increase interoperability with other state consumer data privacy laws. Further, the bill contains provisions requiring controllers to maintain a data inventory and document and maintain a description of policies and procedures the controller has adopted to comply with the bill’s provisions. We discuss those requirements and provisions, along with others, in the below article.
As with prior bills, we have added the Minnesota bill to our chart providing a detailed comparison of laws enacted to date.
Read more at Byte Back.
In Alabama nobody will know you’re a dog.
https://pogowasright.org/alabama-enacts-genetic-privacy-bill/
Alabama Enacts Genetic Privacy Bill
Libbie Canter and Elizabeth Brim of Covington and Burling write:
On May 16, 2024, Alabama enacted a genetic privacy bill (HB 21), which regulates consumer-facing genetic testing companies. HB 21 continues the recent trend of states enacting genetic privacy legislation aimed at regulating direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) genetic testing companies, such as in Nebraska and Virginia, with more than 10 states now having similar laws on the books.
Scope of HB 21
HB 21 regulates “genetic testing companies’” practices involving “genetic data.” HB 21 defines a “genetic testing company” as “[a]ny person, other than a health care provider, that directly solicits a biological sample from a consumer for analysis in order to provide products or services to the consumer which include disclosure of information that may include, but is not limited to, the following:
The genetic link of the consumer to certain population groups based on ethnicity, geography, or anthropology;
The probable relationship of the consumer to other individuals based on matching DNA for purposes that include genealogical research; or
Recommendations to the consumer for managing wellness which are based on physical or metabolic traits, lifestyle tendencies, or disease predispositions that are associated with genetic markers present in the consumer’s DNA.”
Read more at Inside Privacy.
Worth noting…
https://www.bespacific.com/how-to-tell-if-a-conspiracy-theory-is-probably-false/
How to tell if a conspiracy theory is probably false
Via LLRX – How to tell if a conspiracy theory is probably false – Conspiracy theories abound. What should you believe − and how can you tell? H. Colleen Sinclair, a social psychologist who studies misleading narratives, identifies seven step you can take to vet a claim you’ve seen or heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment