As the use of facial recognition continues its development around the world, governments have come in a little late to regulate the deployment of this and other technologies that use artificial intelligence (AI).
Over the past half year, there have been a few models rolled out to do this.
There is the incentivist model, which the authorities in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) are pursuing, as they invest in state owned-enterprises and for-profit technology companies to dominate the industry and gain strategic advantage.
The PRC uses AI technology to surveil its own citizens and even uses AI for the much-maligned social credit program it is developing.
On the other end of the spectrum is a more restrictionist model, which is pursued among some municipal governments in the US, curtailing the use of facial recognition technology in police investigations and municipal surveillance programs.
Many countries are somewhere between these two models.
There are many ethical issues that come with such emerging technology. While AI is terrific at speeding up processing, it cannot be trusted to be fair, let alone neutral, particularly in the criminal justice context.
Data sets that concern human behavior can be susceptible to bias. Machines cannot factor in racial or other human rights sensitivities. They could replicate human bias, including racism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination.
As an example, a 2017 Stanford University laboratory study developed AI to identify gay and lesbian people. Such technology could easily become a dangerous tool in the hands of state authorities in Brunei, Iran or the many others that legislate against gays and lesbians.
Facial recognition also erodes the right to privacy.
That is in part the reason why some municipalities in the US are putting a hold on the use of AI in criminal and administrative matters.
In May, San Francisco banned the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement and other departments. In June, the city council of Somerville, Massachusetts, followed suit when it voted 11-0 to ban the use of facial recognition technology. In July, Oakland, California, banned the use of facial recognition technologies by local government agencies, becoming the third city in the US to tackle the issue of facial surveillance head-on.
These cities are concerned about the ethics of AI and machine learning. In of the absence of state or federal guidance, cities are doing the brunt of the legislative work. A few countries and two regional organizations have gotten into the action.
While not binding, there have been in the past half year a plethora of ethical guidelines unveiled as they navigate the manner in which to best deal with AI without disrupting their respective national industrial policies.
It is not easy to balance data privacy, cybersecurity concerns and the desire to gain commercial strategic advantage in new technology industries.
There now appears to be a not just a competition among the countries who wish to dominate AI, but also among their would-be regulators.
Australia has its own draft code on ethics for AI. The UK government has a plan, too. Not to be outdone, in the middle of the Brexit debacles, the EU has its own code, released in April.
Even the country that is defending its social credit program, the PRC, has its own principles. The Beijing AI Principles, released by the Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence, an organization supported by the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology and the Beijing municipal government, offers 15-point principles that call for AI to be beneficial and responsible.
Developed in collaboration with Peking University, Tsinghua University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Automation and Institute of Computing Technology, these principles also include the support of China’s three big tech firms: Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) should not be counted out.
From the institution that gave the world the Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises comes the OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence. About 42 countries signed on to these policy guidelines so that AI systems are safe, fair and trustworthy.
While not legally binding, OECD principles in other policy areas have proved highly influential in setting international standards and helping governments to design national legislation. This could have good moral authority and provide the groundwork for customary international law in these areas.
It is no surprise that the World Economic Forum wants to develop its own policy guidelines, too.
If sovereign states cannot get the norms and rules right, Big Tech is there at the read to step in and self-regulate. Google’s AI for Social Good initiative is a case in point, but that tech behemoth has lost much credibility after it was fined for illegally tracking the YouTube preferences of minors and earning advertising revenue.
Neither fully transparent nor timely, Google had to shut down Google+ after a security bug dating back to 2015 allowed third-party developers to access user profile data.
Self-regulating organizations, comprised of Big Tech, could fill the vacuum where elected officials and international financial institutions have just entered with policy guidelines rather than legally enforceable standards.
Taiwan has a wonderful opportunity with its “Taiwan AI Action Plan” to not only develop smart technology, but to facilitate an ethical approach to AI development and deployment.
There is a wide-open legislative space between the incentivist and restrictionist models to demonstrate how to best regulate AI.
James Cooper is a professor of law at the California Western School of Law in San Diego and directs its international studies program.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS