NEW YORK — The nation’s finance authority has pledged to ensure that businesses comply with the Regulators law when utilizing artificial intelligence in light of rising concerns over increasingly capable AI systems like ChatGPT.

Automated systems and algorithms already heavily influence credit scores, loan conditions, bank account fees, and other monetary factors. Human resources, real estate, and working conditions are all impacted by AI.

According to Electronic Privacy Information Centre Senior Counsel Ben Winters Regulators, the federal agencies’ joint statement on enforcement released last month was a good starting step.

However, “there’s this narrative that AI is entirely unregulated, which is not really true,” he argued. “What they’re arguing is, ‘Just because you utilise AI to make a judgement, it doesn’t mean you’re exempt from responsibility for the repercussions of that decision. This is how we feel about it. “We are watching.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued fines to financial institutions in the past year for using new technology and flawed algorithms, leading to improper foreclosures, repossessions, and lost payments of homes, cars, and government benefits payments.

These enforcement proceedings are used as instances of how there will be no “AI exemptions” to consumer protection, according to regulators.

Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Rohit Chopra stated that the organization is “continuing to identify potentially illegal activity” and has “already started some work to continue to muscle up internally when it comes to bringing on board data scientists, technologists, and others to make sure we can confront these challenges.”

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) joins the Federal Trade Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Justice, and others in claiming they are allocating resources and personnel to target emerging technologies and expose their potentially detrimental effects on consumers.

Chopra emphasized the importance of organizations understanding the decision-making process of their AI systems before implementing them. “In other cases, we are looking at how the use of all this data complies with our fair lending laws and Regulators.”

Financial institutions are required to report reasons for negative credit decisions by law, per the Fair Credit Regulators Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, for instance. Decisions about housing and work are also subject to these rules. Regulators have warned against using AI systems whose decision-making processes are too complex to explain.

Chopra speculated, “I think there was a sense that, ‘Oh, let’s just give it to the robots and there will be no more discrimination,'” I think what we’ve learned is that that’s not the case. The data itself may contain inherent biases.

Regulators have warned against using AI systems whose decision-making processes are too complex to explain.

Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Charlotte Burrows has pledged enforcement action against artificial intelligence (AI) Regulators recruiting technology that discriminates against people with disabilities and so-called “bossware” that illegally monitors employees.

Burrows also discussed the potential for algorithms to dictate illegal working conditions and hours to people.

She then added, “You need a break if you have a disability or perhaps you’re pregnant.” The algorithm only sometimes accounts for that kind of modification. Those are the sorts of things we’re taking a careful look at… The underlying message here is that laws still apply, and we have resources to enforce them; I don’t want anyone to misunderstand that just because technology is changing.

At a conference earlier this month, OpenAI’s top lawyer advocated for an industry-led approach to regulation.

OpenAI’s general counsel, Jason Kwon, recently spoke at a technology summit in Washington, DC, held by software industry group BSA. Industry standards and a consensus on them would be a good place to start. More debate is warranted about whether these should be mandated and how often they should be revised.

At a conference earlier this month, OpenAI’s top lawyer advocated for an industry-led approach to regulation.

The CEO of OpenAI, the company responsible for creating ChatGPT, Sam Altman, recently stated that government action “will be critical to mitigate the risks of increasingly powerful” AI systems and advocated for establishing a U.S. or global body to license and regulate the technology.

Altman and other tech CEOs were invited to the White House this month to confront tough questions about the consequences of these tools, even though there is no indication that Congress would draught sweeping new AI legislation like European politicians are doing.

As they have in the past with new consumer financial products and technologies, the agencies could do more to study and publish information on the relevant AI markets, how the industry is working, who the biggest players are, and how the information collected is being used, according to Winters of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre.

He said that “Buy Now, Pay Later” businesses had been dealt with effectively by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “The AI ecosystem has a great deal of undiscovered territory. Putting that knowledge out there would help.

SOURCE – (AP)

BEIJING, China – The Chinese government defended its restriction on using components from US memory chipmaker Micron Technology Inc. in some computer systems on Wednesday after Washington raised concern, escalating tensions over technology and security.

The security examination of Micron products was “conducted in accordance with the law,” according to Mao Ning, a foreign ministry official.

On Sunday, the Chinese Cyberspace Administration stated that Micron goods pose unspecified security threats but provided no further details. It barred them from using computers that handled sensitive data.

This came after the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands barred China’s access to advanced processor chip technology on security grounds, at a time when the governing Communist Party is threatening to attack Taiwan and is becoming more belligerent towards its Asian neighbors.

“China’s cybersecurity review does not target any specific countries or regions,” Mao explained. “We do not exclude technologies and products from any country.”

Supply disruptions and missed sales revenue have harmed businesses on both sides.

Washington and its allies’ restrictions on access to chips and methods for making them deter China’s ambitions to create its semiconductor sector. Potential sales to Chinese smartphone makers, chip foundries, and other clients have cost US vendors billions.

The Chinese government defended its restriction on using components from US memory chipmaker Micron Technology Inc.

Mao said the US had put security limitations on over 1,200 Chinese enterprises “without any factual basis.” She accused Washington of exploiting national security to “unreasonably suppress Chinese companies.”

“This is economic coercion, and it is unacceptable,” Mao declared.

According to State Department spokeswoman Matthew Miller, the US administration is “engaging directly” with Beijing to “make our view clear” on the Micron embargo.

“We have very serious concerns,” Miller added. He stated of China, “This action appears inconsistent with the PRC’s assertions that it is open for business and committed to a transparent regulatory framework.”

According to Micron’s chief financial officer, Mark Murphy, the company would work with the Chinese authorities to assess the ban’s impact.

“We remain unclear as to what security concerns exist,” Murphy said during a JP Morgan technology industry conference call. “We have received no customer complaints about the security of our products.”

According to Murphy, Micron expects to lose sales similar to a single-digit percentage of total revenue, but the exact figure will depend on which customers and products are affected.

The Chinese government defended its restriction on using components from US memory chipmaker Micron Technology Inc.

Foreign Minister Qin Gang urged his Dutch counterpart on Tuesday for access to chipmaking technology that has been restricted for security reasons.

China requires a machine that uses ultraviolet light to etch minuscule circuits on next-generation chips and is only available from one Dutch manufacturer, ASML Holding NV. Without it, the ruling party’s aspirations to build semiconductors for cellphones, artificial intelligence, and other cutting-edge applications will be hampered.

“China has serious concerns about this,” Qin said. “We should work together to jointly protect the normal trade order between us” and “keep global industrial and supply chains stable.”

Wopke Hoekstra, the Dutch minister, stated that he “shared our national security concerns” but provided no indication that his government’s position had altered.

SOURCE – (AP)

LONDON, England – The European Union smacked Meta with a record $1.3 billion privacy punishment on Monday and ordered it to stop sending customers’ personal information across the Atlantic by October, the latest salvo in a decade-long case started by concerns about US cyber snooping.

The 1.2 billion euro penalty is the largest since the EU’s rigorous data privacy law was enacted five years ago, exceeding Amazon’s 746 million euro charge for data protection infringement in 2021.

Meta, which had earlier warned that services for its European consumers could be cut off, has vowed to appeal and ask courts to halt the judgment immediately.

According to the business, “there is no immediate disruption to Facebook in Europe.” The decision pertains to user data such as names, email and IP addresses, messages, viewing history, geolocation data, and other information used by Meta and other internet behemoths such as Google for targeted online advertising.

“This decision is flawed, unjustified, and sets a dangerous precedent for the countless other companies transferring data between the EU and the U.S.,” said Meta’s president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, and chief legal officer Jennifer Newstead, in a statement.

It’s the latest twist in a legal saga that began in 2013 when Austrian lawyer and privacy activist Max Schrems filed a complaint about Facebook’s handling of his data in the aftermath of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations about electronic surveillance by US security agencies. This includes the revelation that Facebook gave agencies access to Europeans’ data.

The issue has highlighted the differences between Europe’s stringent approach to data protection and the more loose framework in the United States, which lacks federal privacy legislation. With a succession of legislation requiring them to police their platforms more closely and protect users’ personal information, the EU has been a global leader in limiting Big Tech’s power.

The EU’s top court threw down the Privacy Shield deal, which covered EU-US data transfers, in 2020, saying it didn’t do enough to shield people from the US government’s electronic probing. The judgment on Monday found that legal stock contracts, another instrument for governing data transfers, were also unconstitutional.

Last year, Brussels and Washington agreed on a revised Privacy Shield that Meta might utilize, but the agreement is awaiting a decision from European officials on whether it effectively safeguards data privacy.

EU authorities have reviewed the pact, and the bloc’s lawmakers this month urged for revisions, claiming that the safeguards are insufficient Meta.

The fine was imposed by Ireland’s Data Protection Commission, which serves as Meta’s principal privacy regulator in the EU’s 27-nation bloc, due to the Silicon Valley tech giant’s European headquarters being in Dublin.

The Irish watchdog said it gave Meta five months to stop sending European user data to the US and six months to bring its data operations into compliance “by ceasing the unlawful processing, including storage, in the US” of personal data transferred in violation of the EU’s privacy rules.

In other words, Meta must remove all that data, which may be a greater concern than the punishment, according to Johnny Ryan, a senior fellow at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, a nonprofit rights organization focused on digital and data issues.

“This order to delete data is causing Meta a lot of grief,” Ryan explained. “It is very difficult to see how it will be able to comply with that order” if the business is required to scrub data for hundreds of millions of European Union users dating back ten years.

If a new transatlantic privacy agreement takes effect before the deadlines, “our services can continue as they do today without any disruption or impact on users,” according to Meta.

Schrems projected that Meta would have “no real chance” of having the verdict overturned. And according to him, a new privacy treaty may not be the last of Meta’s problems because it is likely to be overturned by the EU’s top court.

“Meta intends to rely on the new agreement for transfers in the future, but this is unlikely to be a long-term solution,” Schrems said. “Unless and until U.S. surveillance laws are changed, Meta will most likely have to keep EU data in the EU.”

Schrems suggested a “federated” social network in which European data is kept in Meta’s European data centers “unless users, for example, chat with a U.S. friend.”

In its most recent earnings report, Meta cautioned that if there is no legal basis for data transfers, it will be compelled to stop supplying its products and services in Europe, “which would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.”

If the transfers are eventually halted, the social media business may undergo a costly and difficult overhaul of its processes. According to its website, Meta has a fleet of 21 data centers. However, 17 of them are in the United States. Denmark, Ireland, and Sweden are the other three European countries. Another is located in Singapore.

Other social media behemoths are under scrutiny for their data practices. TikTok has attempted to assuage Western concerns about the Chinese-owned short video-sharing app’s potential cybersecurity hazards by announcing a $1.5 billion proposal to store user data in the United States on Oracle servers.

SOURCE – (AP)