Archon Fung, Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government, Harvard Kennedy School, and Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law and Leadership, Harvard University, pose the question: “Could organizations use artificial intelligence language models such as ChatGPT to induce voters to behave in specific ways? Sen. Josh Hawley asked OpenAI CEO Sam Altman this question in a May 16, 2023, U.S. Senate hearing on artificial intelligence. Altman replied that he was indeed concerned that some people might use language models to manipulate, persuade and engage in one-on-one interactions with voters. Altman did not elaborate, but he might have had something like this scenario in mind. Imagine that soon, political technologists develop a machine called Clogger – a political campaign in a black box. Clogger relentlessly pursues just one objective: to maximize the chances that its candidate – the campaign that buys the services of Clogger Inc. – prevails in an election. While platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube use forms of AI to get users to spend more time on their sites, Clogger’s AI would have a different objective: to change people’s voting behavior.
The FBI is breaking into corporate computers to remove malicious code – smart cyber defense or government overreach?
Cybersecurity scholar Scott Shackelford discusses how the FBI has the authority right now to access privately owned computers without their owners’ knowledge or consent, and to delete software. It’s part of a government effort to contain the continuing attacks on corporate networks running Microsoft Exchange software, and it’s an unprecedented intrusion that’s raising legal questions about just how far the government can go.
This is part one of an article by Marc Solomon calling on readers to be alert and respond effectively to critical and ongoing challenges – BS Detection in a World of Fake News and Real Threats.
Privacy and security issues impact every aspect of our lives – home, work, travel, education, health and medical records – to name but a few. On a weekly basis Pete Weiss highlights articles and information that focus on the increasingly complex and wide ranging ways technology is used to compromise and diminish our privacy and security, often without our situational awareness. Four highlights from this week: 50 countries ranked by how they’re collecting biometric data and what they’re doing with it; Facebook Asks Supreme Court to Review Face Scan Decision; The United States House Has Approved a New Anti-Robocall Bill; and Do our algorithms have enough oversight?.
Alan Rothman suggests a new phrase for a growing subject matter area which he calls Fact-Check Tech. His article introduces to use a prototype TV news voice scanner and fact-checker called Voyc. The significance of this new technology will quickly become apparent to news consumers here in the U.S., and around the world, as we are increasingly confronted with endless charges of “fake news” and counter assertions of what is “real news.” The Voyc technology currently under development can assess the audio of live news media broadcasts to determine the veracity of statements made within seconds of being spoken.
Attorney Charles Holster discusses the ramifications of the June 22, 2018 Supreme Court decision, Carpenter v. United States that held a warrant is required before a wireless telephone service provider may be compelled by a governmental entity to turn over its customer’s “historical” Cell Site Location Information.
In a previous article here on LLRX, Gigi Sohn wrote about how the new Federal Communications Commission majority revoked the approval of nine companies to become Lifeline providers and how that would weaken the Lifeline program and widen the digital divide. Sohn follows up with a discussion of how the E-Rate program, which makes broadband services more affordable for America’s schools and libraries, is in the FCC majority’s crosshairs. And much like the case of Lifeline, Sohn argues the majority is using procedural steps and administrative tools to weaken the E-Rate program.
Lifeline is one of four FCC programs intended to ensure that all Americans have access to modern communications. This article by Gigi Sohn, who served as Counselor to the Chairman in the Office of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler until December 2016, elucidates how the new FCC majority fundamentally dislikes the Lifeline Program and will seek to weaken it by any means possible. She begins her discourse with a primer on the Lifeline program to allow researchers to educate themselves with the facts as the battle over dismantling this program evolves.
Spectrum Issues in the Courts, Congress, and Federal Agencies
By David Carney
The Tauzin Dingell Bill
By David Carney