Expert opinions on Law

In human rights terms, there is no salient difference between real-time and post-remote biometric identification. Threats posed to rights and freedoms are not reduced just because authorities or companies have extra time to review footage.

When I was in justice, my ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his Panopticon. That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times. ...

I think people have the right to know if they’re getting a political phone call that is not the person on the line and it’s generated by AI.

Now that we recognize the danger of AI-enhanced mass surveillance, we can make the policy choices not to implement it.

The use of live facial recognition in our public spaces is an extraordinary expansion of state power that currently exists in a legal vacuum. We are not Luddites on these Benches; we recognise the utility of technology, but we must ensure that live f...

Prohibited practices shall include AI-enabled social scoring, indiscriminate biometric mass surveillance in public spaces without lawful authorization, and manipulative or deceptive AI systems that exploit vulnerabilities of individuals or groups.

Alignment can improve model behavior, and liability can discipline the organization, but neither creates the same pre-action deterrent that governs a human operator.

Existing legal principles, such as under tort and contract law, can be applied by our courts to assess and determine liability in appropriate cases. That being said, we share the concerns raised by the Member, and will continue to study this issue, i...

States should not be permitted to penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct involving their models.

America’s cutting-edge chips and advanced technology must never be used to power the AI systems that support China’s military and intelligence apparatuses, especially at the expense of American innovators. FDD Action endorses the AI OVERWATCH Act, be...

They would have to limit everything.

The advancement of AI technology has created new challenges and threats to our democracy. As this technology continues to evolve, we must counter these threats and regulate the improper use of AI in our elections.

A media environment with more false and deceptive information is not a good thing for our society, but it is not the government's job to fix it. [...] Let's trust the American people, not the government, to decide for themselves how AI should be used...

AI systems that pose a threat to people’s safety, rights or livelihoods are banned from use in the EU. These include cognitive behavioural manipulation, predictive policing, emotion recognition in the workplace and educational institutions, and socia...

Officers across England and Wales will spend less time behind desks and more time protecting their communities, as the government today launches PoliceAI – a new national centre dedicated to the responsible development, piloting and scaling of artifi...

Citizens' assemblies can play more than the role of getting feedback from ordinary citizens about what they think about these issues. Citizens are going to be exposed to this and are being exposed to it constantly, but they're also going to be hurt b...

By banning AI-generated or manipulated sexual deepfakes and AI-generated child sexual abuse material, we are sending a clear message that technological progress must always go hand in hand with the protection of our fundamental values.

A handful of bills introduced this year seek to categorically ban “deepfakes.” In other words, these bills would make it unlawful to create or share AI-generated content depicting someone saying or doing something that the person did not in reality s...

Export compliance cannot rely solely on documentation and trust-based declarations. It requires mechanisms that extend oversight beyond the point of sale.

Enacting the current draft of the Chip Security Act (CSA) would erode trust and endanger the Administration’s vision to diffuse U.S. AI technology. Specifically, burdensome rules on U.S. companies not required for foreign competitors risk incentivizi...

Legal personhood does not free an entity from the law, it subjects it to the law. An AI-operated company with legal personhood has identifiable assets, centralized legal relationships, the possibility of dissolution, and executable property. Without ...

This Constitution recognizes three categories of constitutional persons: Operators, Agents, and Affected Parties. Each has distinct rights and obligations that together form a governance ecosystem. The Operator deploys and configures; the Agent acts ...

No. Under current U.S. law, AI agents have no legal rights and no legal personhood. They are treated as tools or property. Any rights or obligations associated with the AI agent’s actions belong to the humans or legal entities that deploy them.

Thanks to copyright restrictions that criminalize modifying apps without permission, there is no legal way for either drivers or riders to build comparison-shopping dashboards that bid out the same worker or job to multiple apps and choose from the c...

I’m in league with Doctorow and EFF on some of these things, but also find myself thinking they go much too far in other ways. At root, their work and advocacy raise a profound question: should there be any general right to exclude on digital platfor...