Ist auf meinem ersten Blick nicht schlecht aber unsere persönliche Daten (Gesichtserkennung) sind deswegen von der KI nicht geschützt. Dies kann mMn sogar massiv missbraucht werden.
»AI Act – Das KI-Gesetz ist endgültig beschlossen:
Die Regeln treten in 20 Tagen in Kraft. Besonders risikoreiche KI-Anwendungen sollen verboten werden, für Gesichtserkennung bleiben Ausnahmen.«
🧵 …werden deswegen Micrsoft Produkte wie Windows, diesbezüglich in der EU unbrauchbar sein und es wird deswegen indirekt Open-Source Produkte gefördert?
[ENG]
»New Windows AI feature records everything you’ve done on your PC.
Recall uses AI features "to take images of your active screen every few seconds."«
#EU#AI#AIAct#Copyright#TDM: "This policy brief further develops the ideas expressed in our previous policy brief on this topic in light of the copyright provisions of the AI Act. Article 53(1c) of the AI Act requires providers of general-purpose AI models to implement policies to comply with EU copyright law, particularly, with the machine-readable opt-outs from the text and data mining (TDM) exception. This new Open Future policy brief explores what such a compliance policy might look like in practice. It provides an overview of the technical standards and services that are available to implement rights holders’ opt-outs in a way that is effective, scalable, and able to meet the needs of both rights holders and AI model developers.
The brief argues that to achieve this goal, four different aspects of machine-readable opt-outs require further attention: the identifiers for works, the vocabulary for opt-outs, the infrastructure used to communicate and respect opt-outs, and the effect of an opt-out once it has been recorded. For each of these four areas, there is a need to build consensus and converge on solutions that work for all stakeholders."
👨💼: Hello this is the market surveillance authority for the #EU#AIAct, how can we help?
🤦♀️: Hi, I'd like to report an AI system. I just turned it on this morning and it's only gone and violated several of my fundamental rights.
👨💼: Sorry to hear that, how bad is the damage?
🤦♀️ : Pretty bad. There's smoke coming out of Article 7 and I can see it's infringed all down the side of Article 10. I'm not even going to look at Article 11 without my safety goggles.
What can we discover by reading the terms and conditions of #GenAI tools? What do users consent to? What are the regulatory responses in 🇪🇺 🇨🇳 🇺🇸?
Join our online event on May 23 at 16:30 UTC+2 to discover the #GenerativeAI Watch project! https://www.sciencespo.fr/ecole-droit/en/events/generative-ai-watch/
We will present a dataset of terms and conditions of major generative #AI services, some of the discoveries that we made when tracking their changes, and how the changing regulatory landscape could impact those terms. #AIAct#TermsSpotting
In den nächsten Monaten muss Deutschland festlegen, welche Behörde(n) die Aufsicht über KI-Systeme nach der KI-Verordnung übernehmen soll. Die Datenschutzkonferenz @dsk spricht sich dafür aus, dass die Datenschutzbehörden diese Rolle übernehmen.
#AI#EU#AIAct#Biometrics#Surveillance#MassSurveillance: "Throughout spring 2024, European Union (EU) lawmakers have been taking the final procedural steps to pass a largely disappointing new law, the EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act.
This law is expected to come into force in the summer, with one of the most hotly-contested parts of the law – the bans on unacceptably harmful uses of AI – slated to apply from the end of 2024 (six months and 20 days after the legal text is officially published).
The first draft of this Act, in 2021, proposed to ban some forms of public facial recognition, showing that lawmakers were already listening to the demands of our Reclaim Your Face campaign. Since then, the AI Act has continued to be a focus point for our fight to stop people being treated as walking barcodes in public spaces.
But after a gruelling three-year process, AI Act negotiations are coming to an underwhelming end, with numerous missed opportunities to protect people’s rights and freedoms or to uphold civic space.
One of the biggest problems we see is that the bans on different forms of biometric mass surveillance, or BMS, are full of holes. BMS is the term we’ve used as an umbrella for different methods of using people’s biometric data to surveil them in an untargeted or arbitrarily-targeted way – which have no place in a democratic society."
Der Pirat-o-mat ist online: Ab sofort kannst du deine Standpunkte mit 12 echten Abstimmungen im EU-Parlament vergleichen. Ein Archiv unserer Abstimmungsgrafiken liefern wir mit.
@echo_pbreyer
Ich kann gut verstehen, dass die Piraten den #AIAct (in der Form) abgelehnt haben, aber auch dass etwa die Grünen zugestimmt haben. Von der endgültigen Abstimmung hängt jetzt mein Wahlverhalten nicht wirklich ab, eher von dem Engagement in den Verhandlungen und da schneiden die Piraten natürlich gut ab. Das ist aber wiederum natürlich schlechter darstellbar...
Künstliche Intelligenz begegnet uns mittlerweile überall.
Doch wie verändert sie unsere demokratische Gesellschaft? Wir wollen KI für unseren gesellschaftlichen Fortschritt nutzen und den #AIAct konsequent umsetzen.
Vielen Dank für den Austausch und die spannenden Diskussionen auf unserer
Konferenz #GDK24!
> (c) put in place a policy to respect Union copyright law in particular to identify and respect, including through state of the art technologies, the reservations of rights expressed pursuant to Article 4(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/790;
Article 4(3) of the above says:
> expressly reserved by their rightholders in an appropriate manner, such as machine-readable means in the case of content made publicly available online.
#AI#GenerativeAI#EU#AIAct#Copyright#AITraining#IP#FairUse: "Scarcely a day goes by without news of exciting breakthroughs in the world of AI. In the face of disruptive waves of technological change and mounting uncertainty, the law cannot help but take on an “experimental” character, with lawmakers and lawyers often caught on the back foot, struggling to keep up with the sweeping winds of change. But whatever the next steps may be, one thing is certain: litigation surrounding generative AI marks an important crossroads, and whichever path we choose is likely to shape the future of the technology. The rising litigation around generative AI is not targeting image by image or specific excerpts of infringing texts produced by AI models. Rather, the whole technique behind the system is hanging in the balance.
Another key takeaway that merits attention relates to the fragmentary landscape of copyright that seems to be unfolding in the wake of the rapid advances in AI technology. Although the emerging European legal framework offers strict rules yet solid ground for AI technology to flourish on the continent, it’s worth wondering what will happen if the “Brussels effect” fails to reach the shores the other side of the Atlantic and the use of copyrighted works for training purposes is found to be transformative fair use in common law jurisdictions, while a relevant portion of these works are opted-out of AI models on European soil. That would mark a yawning gap between two copyright regimes, opening a new chapter in this old tale and potentially disadvantaging would-be European generative AI providers." https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/04/08/the-stubborn-memory-of-generative-ai-overfitting-fair-use-and-the-ai-act/
#EU#AI#AIAct#RuleOfLaw: "The unaccountable and opaque use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially by public authorities, can undermine civic space and the rule of law. In the European Union, we have already witnessed AI-driven technologies being used to surveil activists, assess whether airline passengers pose a terrorism risk or appoint judges to court cases. The fundamental rights framework as well as rule of law standards require that robust safeguards are in place to protect people and our societies from the negative impacts of AI.
For this reason, the European Centre for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL), Liberties and the European Civic Forum (ECF) closely monitored and contributed to the discussions on the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), first proposed in 2021. From the beginning, we advocated for strong protections for fundamental rights and civic space and called on European policymakers to ensure that the AI Act is fully coherent with rule of law standards.
The European Parliament approved the AI Act on 13 March 2024, thus marking the end of a three-year-long legislative process. Yet to come are guidelines and delegated acts to clarify the often vague requirements. In this article, we take stock of the extent to which fundamental rights, civic space and the rule of law will be safeguarded and provide an analysis of key AI Act provisions." https://ecnl.org/news/packed-loopholes-why-ai-act-fails-protect-civic-space-and-rule-law
Both the UK’s Competition & Markets Authority, and the European Commission’s Competition DG are looking for very senior “digital” experts for seniormanagement roles. Unfortunately I think it’s a mistake to combine the two, as very few people have experience of both. The EU position is less of an issue as it involves managing a small-ish team of subject specialists, and has now closed for applications, although I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s reopened a second time (here’s more on the EU approach). But the CMA role has “an expected team size of up to 200 colleagues” 🫣
My experience of the UK civil service is that seniority (and even vaguely half-reasonable salaries) only comes with managing very large groups of people. This is a disaster for highly technical subject areas. I had junior colleagues with PhDs at the same level as new graduates, on salaries that barely enabled them to live in London with their parents 😱
Tech firms are much better at separating out expert and managerial roles, while paying both appropriately. This is something governments are going to have to learn to do if they want to regulate the digital world effectively 🧐 (To be fair, the CMA has employed a number of digital experts already.)
Less useful in my experience are technical advisory boards. I was on the UK Information Commissioner’s Office’s for years, but it achieved little. It’s hard to tell how effectively the Technical Advisory Panel under the 🇬🇧 Investigatory Powers Act is working due to its secrecy/spookiness/need for top secret clearance, although I did participate in a useful one-day workshop it ran (they even published a summary of our discussions).
I also have broader thoughts from my time as a civil servant on making better use of academic expertise!
#EU#AI#AIAct#AIRegulation#HumanRights: "For the last three years, AlgorithmWatch has worked in coalition with a broad range of digital, human rights and social justice groups to demand that artificial intelligence (AI) works for people, prioritizing the protection of fundamental human rights. We have put forward our collective vision for an approach where “human-centric” is not just a buzzword, where people on the move are treated with dignity, and where lawmakers are bold enough to draw red lines against unacceptable uses of AI systems.
Following a gruelling negotiation process, EU institutions are expected to conclusively adopt the final AI Act in April 2024. But while they celebrate, we take a much more critical stance, highlighting the many missed opportunities to make sure that our rights to privacy, equality, non-discrimination, the presumption of innocence and many other rights and freedoms are protected when it comes to AI. Here’s our round-up of how the final law fares against our collective demands." https://algorithmwatch.org/en/ai-act-fails-to-set-gold-standard-for-human-rights