Tag: internet

Mitt Romney’s AI Bill Seeks to Ban Anonymous Cloud Access, Raising Privacy Concerns

A new Senate bill, the Preserving American Dominance in AI Act of 2024 (S.5616), has reignited debate over its provisions, particularly its push to impose “know-your-customer” (KYC) rules on cloud service providers and data centers. Critics warn that these measures could lead to sweeping surveillance practices and unprecedented invasions of privacy under the guise of regulating artificial intelligence.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

KYC regulations require businesses to verify the identities of their users, and when applied to digital platforms, they could significantly impact privacy by linking individuals’ online activities to their real-world identities, effectively eliminating anonymity and enabling intrusive surveillance.

Keep reading

Privacy in Pieces: States Scramble to Protect Data as Congress Dithers

As Congress struggles to catch up to the European Union’s comprehensive data privacy regulations, some US states have begun to forge their own robust legislation to increase user protection. But this system only protects the data of some Americans, leaving more than half the country without guaranteed data protection or privacy rights.

And it may take years before a national solution is created, if at all.

The EU took its first step towards providing sweeping privacy protection years ago, with the creation of the region’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The GDPR, which took effect in 2018 and gives individuals ownership over their personal information and the right to control who can use it, is often marked as the first major, multinational step towards comprehensive data protection and privacy.

Traditionally, the EU’s approach to data privacy stems from a human rights standpoint and has its roots in World War II, when the Nazi party collected personal data to commit numerous atrocities and, later, when the East German secret police, the Stasi, carried out invasive state surveillance.

After the war ended, the right to privacy was enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and later in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, becoming the ideological foundation on which data privacy laws have been built in the EU today.

Across the Atlantic, the US Constitution does not explicitly provide a right to privacy.

Rather than enacting a comprehensive federal law, the US federal government has taken a reactive approach, passing legislation only after issues arise in a few specific business sectors, which has resulted in a series of data protection laws addressing specific types of data. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) have protected medical and financial data respectively since the 1990s.

“The US is very much an innovation, capital-first society,” said Jodi Daniels, founder and CEO of privacy consultancy firm Red Clover Advisors. “And they do want to protect the people, but it has to all get balanced.”

But in recent years, some lawmakers have begun to push back against this system by introducing comprehensive data privacy bills, like the bipartisan American Privacy Rights Act (APRA).

Introduced in April by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), APRA is like GDPR in that it is not limited to specific business sectors and aims to minimize the amount and types of data companies can collect, give consumers control over their information, and allow them to opt out of targeted advertising.

While the legislation didn’t get very far, stalling in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, it’s the furthest any comprehensive privacy bill has gone in Congress yet. To become law, however, it would have to be reintroduced next year when Republicans control both chambers. 

Some lawmakers, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), contend that APRA is more concerned with “controlling the internet” than creating a balance between innovation and privacy protection, and argue that the current right to private action present in the act, which allows individuals to pursue legal action if their privacy is violated, will give overwhelming power to trial lawyers.

Keep reading

UN General Assembly to Adopt Controversial Cybercrime Treaty, Ignoring Privacy and Free Speech Concerns

The United Nations General Assembly will this week adopt the UN Cybercrime Treaty, with the US expected to be among the countries that support the controversial document.

Opponents will then have to hope that various UN member-states would eventually opt not to sign and ratify the treaty, which has variously been described as “flawed” and all the way to being “a threat to free speech and privacy” and a tool for “transnational oppression.”

Among those opponents are human rights and media organizations, as well as tech companies, while doubts have been expressed even by the UN High Commissioner for human rights, among others.

Yet governments and law enforcement agencies are among the Cybercrime Treaty’s supporters since it opens up the possibility of more effective cross-border cooperation and evidence (including personal data) gathering and sharing.

But, the final text that is about to be adopted, in many parts falls short of what are considered international human rights standards, allowing UN members who sign the document to then choose whether to build a number of these standards into their own implementation.

Keep reading

Ghosted by ChatGPT: How I was First Defamed and then Deleted by AI

It is not every day that you achieve the status of “he-who-must-not-be-named.” But that curious distinction has been bestowed upon me by OpenAI’s ChatGPT, according to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other publications.

For more than a year, people who tried to research my name online using ChatGPT were met with an immediate error warning.

It turns out that I am among a small group of individuals who have been effectively disappeared by the AI system. How we came to this Voldemortian status is a chilling tale about not just the rapidly expanding role of artificial intelligence, but the power of companies like OpenAI.

Joining me in this dubious distinction are Harvard Professor Jonathan Zittrain, CNBC anchor David Faber, Australian mayor Brian Hood, English professor David Mayer, and a few others.

The common thread appears to be the false stories generated about us all by ChatGPT in the past. The company appears to have corrected the problem not by erasing the error but erasing the individuals in question.

Thus far, the ghosting is limited to ChatGPT sites, but the controversy highlights a novel political and legal question in the brave new world of AI.

My path toward cyber-erasure began with a bizarre and entirely fabricated account by ChatGPT. As I wrote at the time, ChatGPT falsely reported that there had been a claim of sexual harassment against me (which there never was) based on something that supposedly happened on a 2018 trip with law students to Alaska (which never occurred), while I was on the faculty of Georgetown Law (where I have never taught).

In support of its false and defamatory claim, ChatGPT cited a Washington Post article that had never been written and quoted from a statement that had never been issued by the newspaper. The Washington Post investigated the false story and discovered that another AI program, “Microsoft’s Bing, which is powered by GPT-4, repeated the false claim about Turley.”

Although some of those defamed in this manner chose to sue these companies for defamatory AI reports, I did not. I assumed that the company, which has never reached out to me, would correct the problem.

And it did, in a manner of speaking — apparently by digitally erasing me, at least to some extent. In some algorithmic universe, the logic is simple: there is no false story if there is no discussion of the individual.

As with Voldemort, even death is no guarantee of closure. Professor Mayer was a respected Emeritus Professor of Drama and Honorary Research Professor at the University of Manchester, who passed away last year. And ChatGPT reportedly will still not utter his name.

Before his death, his name was used by a Chechen rebel on a terror watch list. The result was a snowballing association of the professor, who found himself facing travel and communication restrictions.

Hood, the Australian mayor, was so frustrated with a false AI-generated narrative that he had been arrested for bribery that he took legal action against OpenAI. That may have contributed to his own erasure.

Keep reading

Five Eyes Urges Broader Censorship Under “Protect the Children” Campaign

A network facilitating spy agencies’ intelligence-sharing between the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, known as Five Eyes, has its sights set on encryption, and proceeding from that, also online anonymity.

Even more online censorship would also not be a bad idea – these are some of the highlights from the first public-facing paper the organizations behind this group have published.

We obtained a copy of the paper for you here.

And Five Eyes is not above promoting its ultimate and much more far-reaching goals by using the good old “think of the children” – the paper’s title is, Young People and Violent Extremism: A Call for Collective Action.

Both it and an accompanying press release choose to consider online encryption as merely a tool used by criminals. At the same time, the paper is ignoring the fact that the entire internet ecosystem, from communications to banking and everything in between, requires strong encryption both for privacy, and security.

But, Five Eyes focuses only on communications, which they vaguely refer to as online environments, and ones that can allow sex offenders access to children, they also mention extremists, and equally vaguely, “other” malign actors.

Keep reading

X’s Linda Yaccarino Backs Kids’ “Safety” Bill as Digital ID Privacy Fears Grow

As the legislative session nears its conclusion, X CEO Linda Yaccarino has announced her role in revising the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a move seemingly intended to sway hesitant Republican leaders in the House. But skeptics warn that the bill’s approach to protecting children online—through measures likely to lead to age verification—could come at the cost of privacy and online anonymity, leading to the broader adoption of digital ID systems.

Under KOSA, tech platforms would face a “duty of care” to prevent harm to minors, targeting features like infinite scroll and photo filters. While Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) lauded the updates for “safeguarding free speech online and ensuring it is not used to stifle expression,” privacy advocates argue the bill’s underlying mechanisms remain problematic. They warn that fulfilling KOSA’s requirements could necessitate platforms to verify users’ ages, potentially by tying online activity to government-issued IDs—a move that threatens to erode online anonymity and jeopardize free expression.

While the bill itself does not mandate age verification, it requires a “duty of care” towards content shown to minors that could cause platforms to introduce age verification to avoid liability. Despite the updated text of the bill, it still contains a controversial provision that will likely ultimately pave the way for online age verification (by requiring the Secretary of Commerce, FTC, and FCC to study “options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level”).

X owner Elon Musk has recently criticized Australia for trying to implement a similar bill so it’s unclear why Musk and Yaccarino aren’t aligned on the issue.

Keep reading

World Leaders Sign New Censorship Declaration at UN Event While Secretary-General António Guterres Pushed for Increased Online Censorship

A new UN-driven censorship declaration has been signed by a number of world leaders during an event in Portugal – the Cascais Declaration at the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) Global Forum.

We obtained a copy of the final declaration for you here.

The gathering was addressed by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who once again reiterated his commitment to censoring online speech, bringing up the usual set of “arguments” in favor of moving in this direction.

During the address, Guterres spoke about “unchecked digital platforms and AI” and accused them of allowing “hate speech to proliferate like never before” – and did not miss the opportunity to mention “misinformation and deepfakes” in the same context.

Guterres wants Big Tech, advertisers, and media – that is, along with some governments and organizations like the UN, among the most egregious offenders when it comes to online censorship – to double down.

“Taking responsibility for their role” in spreading hate speech, deepfakes, etc., was how he phrased it.

Guterres also again pushed a UN initiative that critics say introduces algorithmic censorship and demonetization under the stated “anti-misinformation and hate speech” scope – the UN’s Global Principles for Information Integrity.

According to Guterres, these recommendations allow for “a more humane information ecosystem.”

Keep reading

Push to Pass KOSA Spurs Fears Over Privacy and Free Speech

Attorneys general from 32 jurisdictions — including 31 states and the District of Columbia — have signed an open letter urging Congress to pass the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) before the looming conclusion of the current session early next year. This legislation, although primarily aimed at protecting minors from digital harms, introduces significant implications for online privacy and freedom of speech through proposed mechanisms for age verification and potential censorship.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

KOSA itself doesn’t mandate direct implementation of online age verification but tasks the Secretary of Commerce, along with the FTC and FCC, with exploring “options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level.” This move toward digital identification could fundamentally alter the landscape of internet privacy, linking social media accounts and other online activities directly to real-world identities.

Keep reading

G20’s Online Speech Clampdown Calls Set To Ignite Free Speech Fears

G20 leaders convened in Rio de Janeiro have called for enhanced responsibility and transparency from digital platforms to tackle the growing challenges of “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “hate speech,” and others on their long list of supposed online “harms.”

The summit’s final declaration highlighted the transformative role of digital platforms in global communication but noted the adverse effects of digital content’s rapid spread. It called for increased accountability from platforms to manage speech, which should raise eyebrows among free speech advocates who’ve heard all this before.

We obtained a copy of the declaration for you here.

During the summit, the leaders highlighted the transformative impact of digital platforms in communication and information dissemination across the globe. However, they also alleged negative ramifications of unchecked digital spaces, where “harmful” content can proliferate at an unprecedented pace and scale.

Keep reading

UN’s Latest Climate Agenda Sparks Alarms Over Online Censorship

The United Nations (UN) is engaging in yet another effort that can easily slip into a tool for “bolstering” online censorship.

Earlier in the week the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change was launched during a G20 Summit.

This adds to a convoluted list of various UN-driven treaties, initiatives, and goals – and here the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has found a partner in Brazil’s authorities.

Those behind the document say it’s there to help combat climate change disinformation and take aim at social media in particular. If UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay is to be believed, this type of “disinformation” is “running rampant” on the internet.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who addressed the summit, also contributed to building the dramatic and alarmist narrative around both issues – climate, and “disinformation” – when he, in a social media post, complained about “coordinated disinformation campaigns impeding global progress on climate change.”

So far, the countries that have joined include Chile, Denmark, France, Morocco, Sweden, and the UK. They will collectively contribute to the UN raising $10–$15 million to fund “research and awareness campaigns” but also advocacy groups, and what’s referred to as communication strategies to help achieve the initiative’s goals.

While clearly treating the climate change theories as scientific fact, Azoulay stopped just short of referring to that as an existential threat – but did call it an “existential challenge.”

The UN official wants to see more than governments, scientists, etc., on board: the role of journalists is also highlighted here – in a rather strange way. Instead of reporting the news, journalists are envisaged as a kind of advocates themselves, “a critical link between science and society,” said Azoulay.

Keep reading