Joe Jones

The Massachusetts Attorney General recently published an Advisory warning businesses “that existing state laws and regulations apply” to #artificialintelligence and algorithmic decision-making systems in the same way as they apply to other laws. It also provides guidance on how Massachusetts consumer protection laws, data security laws and antidiscrimination laws apply to #AI systems. Eric Gold discusses the details and implications here: https://lnkd.in/geKZPAy3

51

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce has released policy recommendations that advocate for transparency in #artificialintelligence (AI) and emphasize the need for vigilant monitoring of risks associated with advanced #AI models. The NTIA Report on Dual-Use Foundation Models with Widely Available Model Weights advises the federal government to establish new mechanisms to detect potential risks while advising against the immediate limitation of access to open-weight models in major #AIsystems. “The Biden-Harris Administration is pulling every lever to maximize the promise of AI while minimizing its risks,” Gina Raimondo, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, said. “Today’s report provides a roadmap for responsible AI innovation and American leadership by embracing openness and recommending how the U.S. government can prepare for and adapt to potential challenges ahead.” “The openness of the largest and most powerful AI systems will affect competition, innovation, and risks in these revolutionary tools,” said Alan Davidson, assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and NTIA administrator. “NTIA’s report recognizes the importance of open AI systems and calls for more active monitoring of risks from the wide availability of model weights for the largest AI models. Government has a key role to play in supporting AI development while building capacity to understand and address new risks.” https://lnkd.in/g3BMVZm5

1

Interesting report on rising number of Data Subject Access Requests and all the ways that complicates your privacy compliance regime. #privacy #compliance #GRC #corpgov #GDPR https://lnkd.in/eG7dC4di

10

1 Comment

An interesting opportunity to submit papers to the OCC on #AI and banking--which will likely inform future guidance, policy, supervision and enforcement approaches and priorities ... » Addressing potential bias and the #disparate #impacts from the use of AI and #machine #learning (ML) in lending. » The regulatory landscape of AI/ML. » The impacts of #algorithmic #underwriting and #appraising. » Use of AI to understand #consumer financial behavior and decision-making, and the implications of the use of AI in these settings. » Addressing the potential risks that AI poses to #financial #stability. » Use of AI/ML for #fraud detection, prevention, and operational enhancement processes. » The risks of AI/ML in perpetrating fraud, algorithmic #bias, and misinformation. » Developing trustworthy AI and alignment frameworks. https://lnkd.in/ePaMJJKQ

8

The recent #CFPB report on state consumer #privacy laws and consumer financial data is an important read for anyone interested in the development of state privacy laws. From my perspective, post-election, the report offers a straightforward argument to state policymakers in their ongoing development of privacy legislation: stop exempting financial institutions. As the CFPB explains, existing federal laws protecting consumer financial data (the GLBA and FCRA) do not fully prevent the sharing of such data with third parties (among other things). State laws are becoming better equipped at offering robust protections to consumers; but by exempting GLBA and FCRA covered entities, consumers providing data to financial institutions will not reap the same benefits. As the CFPB explains, state privacy laws are generally not inconsistent with existing federal consumer financial data protection laws. What the CFPB doesn't say is that federal law in the privacy space is now unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, so it's up to states to extend protections to consumer financial data . Expect movement in this space on the state level, with this CFPB report existing as an important exhibit during that process. https://lnkd.in/e6XnvWwu

13

1 Comment

In a new Future of Privacy Forum blog post, Jameson Spivack explores the emerging legislative frameworks for governing synthetic content, the relevant policy questions animating discussions about these governance approaches, and how these discussions might evolve over the next year. Give it a read and let us know what you think! Report on synthetic content: https://lnkd.in/gSNAJ8Zi Blog post: https://lnkd.in/gHJr7iyN

12

2 Comments

Should intellectual property practitioners have a Hippocratic Oath? Should there be an equivalent of a standard of care for IP? Yes, and yes. In Intellectual Property (IP), especially patents, the conversation of quality and portfolio strength often centers around ensuring patents are valid, enforceable, and commercially valuable. Yet, despite the many tools and strategies available, a significant portion of patents provide little to no real market value. Why? IP with no value starts with a "bad idea" problem. The value of intellectual property (IP) is tied directly to the commercial relevance or economic potential of the underlying asset (e.g., a product, technology, or service) or the activity it enables (e.g., manufacturing processes, software applications, or business methods). If the underlying asset or activity generates significant revenue, provides a competitive edge, or enhances operational efficiency, the associated IP increases in value as a function of the asset or activity. If the idea has no commercial value, the IP instrument protecting it has zero value. I am not aware of a single professional who enters into IP who is not committed to generating a superior outcome for their employer or client. If they exist, please grab them, shake them by their shoulders, and let them know there is a better way. Any Hippocratic Oath for IP would include: 1. a commitment to innovation 2. a commitment to understanding the nature of the innovation AND an assessment of the ECONOMIC value of the innovation 3. personally owning the responsibility for the identification, curation, and appropriate protection of the innovation With patents, quality is mute without an accurate claim directed to the core economic value of the underlying asset. For me, the claim chart is my Weapon of Mass Accountability. If I do not know the tech or cannot assess the economic value of the innovation I am working on, I have failed point 2. If I cannot chart an asset, I have failed on point 3. If I fail on either of 2 or 3, I have failed in living up to point 1. In a way, this is the starting point for my "standard of care." What goes into your Hippocratic Oath of IP? What informs your standard of care? #intellectualproperty #innovationmanagement

60

32 Comments

"Practitioners have looked forward to iterations of the USPTO's subject matter eligibly guidance to add clarity and expedite prosecution. After a decade of such guidance, it is clear that the USPTO's example-based approach has failed. The chosen examples do not clarify the murky principles and distinctions that the words of the guidance set forth. Moreover, the USPTO's reasoning regarding these examples is contradictory, muddled, opaque, and ultimately not helpful. The greatest evidence for this is how different examiners apply the guidance in dramatically different ways. Again, the fault lies with the Federal Circuit's incoherent parade of patent eligibility horribles masquerading as judicial decisions. But instead of acknowledging that the emperor is stark raving naked, the USPTO once again tries to pretend otherwise." https://lnkd.in/ev2th7yg

9

Please see the article we prepared on the Mallinckrodt decision, a must read for those in the IP and pharma space.

16

2 Comments

State Data Privacy Laws: To date, 17 states have adopted comprehensive data privacy laws – most recently Maryland. And Vermont’s legislature just passed a data privacy law that would become one of the strongest data privacy laws in the country if signed into law by the Vermont Governor. It contains a private right of action for violating an individual’s privacy rights. To date, most states have not adopted a private right of action because of concerns it would open up the floodgates to litigation and bankrupt businesses. This is similar to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and class actions brought under this statute have exploded over the last several years. In 2023, hundreds of BIPA cases were filed in both federal and state court because of the potential for extremely large class action settlements and verdicts. Indeed, in 2020, Google settled a BIPA case for $650 million and the first BIPA case to go to trial resulted in a jury verdict of $228 million for truck drivers in 2023. That case recently settled for $75 million. New York City has also enacted a biometric law that allows for a private right of action. Even the California Consumer Privacy Act, believed to be the strongest comprehensive data privacy law, only provides a private right of action for data breaches. The United States has taken a patchwork approach to data privacy with the potential of each state creating a different set of rules similar to the 50 different data breach laws that currently exist. This has resulted from the lack of one comprehensive federal law that governs privacy and preempts state law. The costs of America’s patchwork approach of different and sometimes conflicting state privacy laws will only continue to rise. Numerous studies have estimated that the potential financial impact of complying with 50 different state laws could surpass $1 trillion over a decade and small business will likely shoulder a minimum of $200 million. A federal data privacy law such as American Privacy Rights Act would cost significantly less for businesses and bring needed consistency across all states. Additionally, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is increasingly investigating data privacy practices and imposing civil penalties against organizations for failing to take reasonable steps to protect personal information. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including unfair practices involving the collection, use, disclosure, processing, and protection of consumers’ personal information. In those cases, the FTC has taken the position that inadequate data security practices may constitute unfair and deceptive practices under the FTC Act. Compliance with privacy and cybersecurity laws and regulations have become a priority for state and federal regulators so organizations should closely follow the developments in these areas.  #data #privacy #cybersecurity

53

1 Comment

#Digitaltrade lacks global regulations, exposing the challenge of regulatory fragmentation. Unresolved issues among #WTO members highlight the need to establish global digital regulations suitable for the 21st century, writes Deborah Elms. https://buff.ly/44bT4p2

22

1 Comment

A reminder re the scope of the GTN and how to read all technology ECCNs on the CCL (i.e., with a "required" limiter) is at: https://lnkd.in/eARCb_hZ

47

3 Comments

Interesting read. #patentprosecution #USPTO #techlawyer

6

USPTO guidance a ‘good reminder’ of best AI practices https://lnkd.in/enK8v6pF Practitioners say the USPTO’s latest guidance has some helpful clarifications and is a good reminder of the importance of checking AI outputs Insight from Elizabeth H. Cohen (ArentFox Schiff) and Jonathan Thielbar (Loeb & Loeb LLP). #uspto #ai #artificialintelleigence

4

#NEW: FPF filed two comments with the Office of the New York State Attorney General to inform forthcoming rulemaking for the implementation of the New York Child Data Protection Act (NYCDPA) and the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act. FPF’s comments seek to ensure that New York’s online protections for youth can protect and empower minors while supporting interoperability with existing state and federal privacy frameworks. Some of our recommendations include:  ➡️ Mitigating privacy, technical, and practical implementation concerns with “age flags” by further consulting with stakeholders and establishing baseline criteria for qualifying signals. FPF offers technical and policy considerations the OAG should consider in furthering this emerging technology ➡️ When exploring appropriate methods for providing verifiable parental consent, the OAG should consider the known problems, concerns, and friction points already existing with the existing verifiable parental consent framework under COPPA. ➡️ Where appropriate, align core privacy concepts with the developing state comprehensive privacy landscape including the definition of “personal information” and opportunities for data sharing for research Read the full comments in a new blog by Senior Counsel for U.S. Legislation Bailey Sanchez and Policy Fellow for Youth & Education Privacy Daniel Hales: https://lnkd.in/g-H2N5fz

11

1 Comment

Old Dominion is settling a lawsuit alleging violations of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, claiming it unlawfully captured and retained fingerprint data from timeclocks. Truckers have won two similar lawsuits in the past, with another pending. More details below. https://lnkd.in/gzqmjKtS

1

In an article examining the regulatory landscape of artificial intelligence in Massachusetts by The Associated Press, Elizabeth Mahoney, Vice President of Policy & Government Affairs at the High Tech Council, emphasizes the importance of clarity in state law regarding #artificialintelligence usage. Citing potential confusion over the application of state and federal rules for AI, she states that "having ground rules is important, and protecting consumers and protecting data is a key component of that.” Read the article to learn more: https://lnkd.in/eTnRWbgW

2