[ad_1]
When it is European The Union Commission its regulatory proposal about artificial intelligence last month, the U.S. political community celebrated. Their praise was at least based on truth: the world’s most powerful democratic states have not regulated AI and other emerging technologies enough, and the document was a breakthrough. Mostly, though proposal and in response to this, democracies emphasize the confusing rhetoric about AI.
Over the past decade, the stated high-level goals on AI regulation have often been at odds with the specifics of regulatory proposals, and what final states should look like is not well articulated. Coherent and significant progress in the development of internationally attractive democratic AI regulation, although it may vary from country to country, is beginning to resolve many contradictions and subtle characterizations of discourse.
The EU Commission has taken its proposal as a reference for AI regulations. Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager he said upon release, “we believe this is urgent. We are the first on this planet to suggest this legal framework. “Thierry Breton, another commissioner, he said the proposals “seek to strengthen Europe’s position from the laboratory to the market as a global center of AI excellence, that AI will respect our values and standards in Europe and harness AI’s potential for industrial use.”
This is certainly better than many national governments, especially the US, for companies, government agencies, and other organizations that are stuck on the rules of the road. AI is already widely used despite its minimal oversight and responsibilities in the EU surveillance in Athens or buses operate In Malaga, Spain.
But just because they put EU regulation as a “leader” the first it only masks many of the issues in the proposal. This rhetorical leap is one of the first challenges facing AI’s democratic strategy.
Among many The “peculiarities” of the 108-page proposal are particularly affected by his approach to regulating facial recognition. “The use of AI systems in real-time“ real-time biometric identification of individuals with the aim of enforcing the law in publicly accessible spaces, ”he says,“ is particularly accessible to the rights and freedoms of concerned people, ”can affect private lives,“ create a sense of constant care ” “to prevent the exercise of the freedom of indirect assembly and other fundamental rights.” At first glance, these words may indicate a link to the alignment worries of a lot entrepreneurs and technology ethics facial recognition can cause serious harm to marginalized communities and mass surveillance.
The commission then says, “The use of these systems should be banned for law enforcement purposes.” However, it would allow exceptions to be “accurately listed and narrowly defined in three situations.” That’s where the slots come into play.
Exceptions include “the search for potential victims of crime, including missing children; certain threats to the life or physical safety of individuals or terrorist attacks; and the detection, location, identification or prosecution of perpetrators or suspects in criminal offenses.” This language, for all those who describe the scenario as “narrowly defined,” provides a variety of justifications for extending the recognition of the face of law enforcement as desired. Allowing the use of “identifying” the perpetrators or suspects of criminal offenses, for example, would allow discriminatory and racist uses of many algorithms to recognize the face that activists have long warned about.
EU Privacy Guard, European Data Protection Supervisor, he jumped quickly about this. “A more rigorous view is needed that remote biometric identification, which can help AI in unprecedented developments, poses a very high risk of democratic and undemocratic access to the private lives of individuals,” the EDPS read. Sarah Chander from the non-profit European Digital Rights organization describe A proposal to the Verge to “protect fundamental rights.” Others have pointed out that these exceptions reflect U.S. law that reduces the use of facial recognition on the skin, but actually has a wide range of carvings.
[ad_2]
Source link
