Expert opinions on Privacy

Require Location Verification for Advanced AI Chips: The Department of Commerce must work to ensure America’s most advanced AI chips are not diverted to unauthorized regions and end up in the hands of our adversaries—especially those fueling military...

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...

The NO FAKES Act advances both of those goals. By protecting individuals from the unauthorized use of their voices, images, and likenesses, the bill helps ensure that Americans retain meaningful control over their identities and creative contribution...

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...

To give full effect to the right to erasure under applicable data protection law, the government shall interpret such right as extending to AI systems trained on personal data. Where an AI system has been trained using data that was unlawfully obtain...

Restricting access to training data, whether through mandatory compensation, expanded opt-out rights, or onerous compliance requirements, can have the effect of restricting AI development itself.

The Commission has adopted guidelines setting out measures that it considers that providers of online platforms accessible to minors should take to ensure such a high level of privacy, safety and security of minors online. These measures include, amo...

Competition, innovation, and speech options will be limited as a result of these moves.

The military has no interest in using AI to conduct mass surveillance of Americans (which is illegal) nor do we want to use AI to develop autonomous weapons that operate without human involvement.

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.

Child protection is a stress test for the development of AI. In the case of social media, it failed.

Children have given us a clear diagnosis of the problem. They aren't asking us to block AI innovation, but it shouldn't be a case of cleaning up the mess after harm has happened either.

No company should deploy an AI system accessible to children without child-specific safety testing and independent oversight.

It is impossible to design an objective or neutral risk profiling algorithm. Data about people is never objective. When governments use past social data to predict who is going to commit a crime such as fraud, they inevitably target individuals who b...

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...

Biometric surveillance poses an urgent threat to our fundamental rights. Facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technologies have been used by authoritarian regimes around the world to target journalists, protestors, and marginalized com...

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. ...