Concerns Over AI Regulation and Privacy
As artificial intelligence gains traction and develops its capabilities, it’s crucial for Congress to step up and construct a comprehensive framework to address the related concerns. Recently, Pope Leo XIV, recognized as one of Time Magazine’s influential voices on AI, highlighted the importance of utilizing technology wisely to benefit the common good. Additionally, a Pew Research survey reveals that more than half of Americans feel that AI infringes on their privacy more than it assists them in protecting it.
Sadly, Congress has yet to approach AI regulation, especially regarding privacy issues, with the seriousness it demands. Many of the risks associated with AI stem not just from the technology itself but also from the absence of robust privacy protections. Without clear rules governing data collection, storage, and sharing, AI could easily turn into a tool for exploitation and surveillance. Hence, discussions about artificial intelligence ought to begin with private information protection.
Privacy is foundational for ethical AI. How can we safeguard our data? Who is responsible if data is mishandled by AI? What expectations should we have regarding privacy while engaging with search engines or AI systems? Can companies claim our queries are unique? Are they allowed to publish those queries? Have they monetized our data? And when exactly do law enforcement agencies need a warrant or a subpoena to access our information?
These pressing questions need to be addressed by Congress. If they can’t provide answers, then perhaps state governments may need to take the initiative. Meanwhile, surveillance capitalism and government oversight seem to be infringing on the rights of citizens. Companies like Palantir are even being asked to develop AI tools that integrate data across federal databases, making it all more accessible.
The expansion of surveillance under the Patriot Act has raised significant flags about privacy. Furthermore, laws restricting financial privacy have stripped away assurances about confidentiality in financial transactions. It’s concerning how data related to driving and identification is frequently monetized. To top it off, the government is acquiring data that would ordinarily require a warrant or subpoena, essentially bypassing the Fourth Amendment.
Interestingly, the original version of the Big Beautiful Bill proposed a 10-year suspension of state or local AI regulations, but the Senate wisely voted 99-1 to exclude this clause. This alteration influenced my decision to support the bill’s passage. The removal of regulatory exemptions related to AI offers a glimmer of hope for accountability.
Once liberty is compromised, it’s rarely reclaimed. While Congress might choose to maintain the current status regarding privacy, it really shouldn’t. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t state, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” Instead, it emphasizes that law enforcement must have probable cause and a warrant to search or seize private information. We ought to aim for a government that fits within constitutional boundaries.
The 2004 film iRobot introduced three laws intended to protect human interactions with AI-controlled robots:
- Robots must not harm humans or allow harm to occur through inaction.
- Robots are to obey human orders unless doing so contradicts the first law.
- Robots must protect their existence, unless that conflicts with the first or second law.
When it comes to commerce, privacy poses the essential question of data ownership. Resolving this issue allows us to tackle the challenges posed by AI. The first law of iRobot reiterates that humans shouldn’t be harmed. Yet, today we lack a foundational baseline for AI regulations. While we might need to establish further rules, the imperative is to articulate clear boundaries now.
Hollywood envisioned regulations in 2003 to safeguard humans from AI threats. But more than two decades later, Congress has not yet developed anything similar for real-world protection. It’s concerning that many lawmakers appear indifferent to the potential impacts approaching us. The lack of action is, in itself, a decision, and given how quickly AI evolves, reversing course could be challenging. If we don’t act soon, what we now understand as “privacy” could become obsolete.
