In one look.
- Regulation of artificial intelligence in the EU and the United States.
- The Supreme Court of the United States limits the possible enforcement actions of the Federal Trade Commission.
- US State Department closer to a cyber diplomacy office.
AI regulation in the EU and the US.
Cooley unpack the new AI of the European Commission bill, the first of its kind in the world, covering facial recognition, surveillance, policing, business applications, product safety and data security. The proposal is likely to affect the development, promotion and implementation by all global suppliers, distributors or users of technologies falling under “broadly defined AI approaches”, such as systems performing security tasks with a stand-alone component. or a customer-oriented AI. The law would set standards for human oversight, data protection, and user awareness, such as when the service predicts personal intentions, behaviors or attributes. An “ethics by design” directive would require “respect for ethical principles and human rights in the design of AI”.
The risk-based approach of the bill manifests itself in a “pyramid of requirements” in relation to the risk category of a technology: unacceptable, high, limited or minimal. Unacceptable uses include subliminal messaging, exploitation of protected groups, social scoring and most cases of “live remote biometric identification” in public by police. According to According to the Wall Street Journal, uses relating to “critical infrastructure, college admissions, and loan applications” fall into the high risk category. In general, another Wall Street Journal article said, companies should provide information on the function and accuracy of their facial recognition tools and accompanying reference sets.
The bill would create a European Artificial Intelligence Council and new member state regulators, who could impose fines of up to six percent of the company’s revenue. The Wall Street Journal comments on the high cost of compliance, including the cost of legal advice and compliance technology. Cooley notes that “there is a strong risk of stifling good innovation without sufficient benefit”, but “amendments are likely” as the bill passes through the legislature. The result is likely to pave the way for global AI regulation.
MIT Technology Review is more excited about a new note of the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) which adopts an algorithm bias. The blog specifies that the FTC’s “unfair or deceptive practices” provisions cover “the sale or use, for example, of racially biased algorithms.” While the FTC can’t touch government abuses, it can go after companies that claim to offer unbiased “facial recognition systems, predictive policing algorithms, or healthcare tools.” Technology Review considers that the memo indicates a revolution in US regulatory action and that the cloudiness of the EU measure invites years of legal battles by design.
The US Supreme Court cuts the wings of the FTC.
Speaking about the Federal Trade Commission, the United States Supreme Court voted unanimously yesterday that the law the FTC has used for some time does not give the Commission the power to recover money from businesses in the purpose of compensating consumers as the FTC judges. were defrauded, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The law under which the FTC brought such lawsuits is known as section 13 (b). “13 (b) as currently drafted does not grant the Commission the power to obtain equitable monetary relief,” Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer (appointed by Clinton) wrote for the Court. He also pointed out that the FTC could seek restitution under other provisions of the law. “If the Commission considers that this authority is too onerous or insufficient, it is, of course, free to ask Congress to grant it further remedial powers.”
The FTC responded with dismay and a clear sense of aggrieved merit. POLITICO big title Sums up the FTC’s reaction quite well: “‘The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the crooks,’ the FTC chief said after judges dismissed the agency’s powers.” But a 9-0 decision would seem to suggest the issue was not, for SCOTUS, a contentious one. The nine sitting judges were appointed by Presidents George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, and the decision seems unlikely to have been an ideological success.
US House approves new State Department cyber office.
A bill that would create a “cyber diplomacy office” in the State Department to promote cyber standards has authorized the House of Representatives, CyberScoop reports. If it is signed into law, the Cyber diplomacy law would create an Office for International Cyberspace Policy headed by a cyber ambassador.