Copy of Media Library (14)

SIIA’s Letter of Concern: Constitutional Issues and Pragmatic Alternatives Regarding HB 184 on AI Oversight

by Policy
The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) has expressed constitutional concerns regarding the current draft of HB 184 in a letter. However, SIIA argue that the bill, as currently drafted, could impose unnecessary burdens on both government agencies and the private sector. The requirement for annual assessments of AI systems by the New Mexico General Services Department is criticized as imposing needless costs, with assessments unlikely to significantly change within a year, potentially causing confusion rather than clarity. The transparency requirements for vendors, mandating the disclosure of sensitive information, are deemed risky and possibly in violation of statutory requirements. SIIA acknowledges the importance of overseeing AI systems but suggests importing language from SB 130, a study bill, as a more efficient and less risky alternative to achieve the same goals. And advocates against passing such a substantive bill in a short budget session with limited stakeholder input.
Full Letter Here
Copy of Media Library (13)

SIIA’s Expert Testimony on AI before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts

by Policy

Chris Mohr, President of the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), addressed the House Committee on the Judiciary regarding  Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Intellectual Property on February 2, 2024.

Mohr emphasizes the need for AI accountability, governance, and respect for Intellectual Property Rights.

Mohr highlights the potential risks of AI misuse, urging Congress to consider existing federal and state laws before introducing new legislation. Mohr emphasizes the preemptive nature of Section 301 of the Copyright Act and advocates against broadening copyright protection.

Mohr discusses existing legal remedies, such as state rights of publicity and common law privacy torts, as effective tools for protecting individuals. SIIA encourages targeted legislation to address specific privacy concerns related to AI, emphasizing collaboration for balanced solutions without overly broad measures.

Watch Chris Mohr’s testimony HERE

Full Testimony Here
Copy of Media Library (12)

Chair Duncan and Rep. Joyce Exercise Oversight on U.S. Trade Ambassador for Reneging on Digital Trade Principles

by Policy
Washington, D.C. — House Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee Chair Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and Representative John Joyce (R-PA) along with 48 colleagues issued a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Tai, Chair Khan of the Federal Trade Commission, and Assistant Attorney General Kantor expressing concern and disappointment in Tai’s decision to abandon support for proposed World Trade Organization (WTO) digital trade principles.

“The Biden administration’s senseless about-face on bipartisan digital trade policies is another example of Joe Biden putting American interests last and allowing China to thrive,” said Congressman Jeff Duncan. “Despite disapproval from the National Security Council and without so much as a notice to the State Department, US Trade Representative Tai placed American jobs in jeopardy and bolstered authoritarian regimes.”

“We must ensure that the U.S. remains a global leader in digital trade and that American businesses continue to grow our economy, develop new technologies, and shepherd innovation,” said Congressman Joyce. “The Biden Administration’s decision to abandon these proposed trade policies gravely threatens businesses and consumers, and opens the door for foreign actors, like the Chinese Communist Party, to gain a competitive advantage. It’s time for Ambassador Tai to answer the questions posed in this letter and get back to work on behalf of the American people.”

Key Letter Excerpt:

“The decision to step back from negotiations not only undermines the competitive edge of U.S. companies and small businesses but also relinquishes leadership to strategic competitors who remain actively engaged in ongoing digital trade discussions. Authoritarian states like China aim to wield control over the internet and its informational access, while stringent regulators in the European Union limit the free enterprise of U.S. firms. The decision also establishes a troubling precedent that could extend well beyond digital trade priorities, impacting the enforcement of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and potentially paving the way for the USTR to backtrack on advancing American trade interests in other domains.”

Background: Digital Trade transformed how Americans do business with the world by increasing choices for consumers, opportunities for American companies, and exponential growth for the US economy. This growth ensures America remains the global leader in creating digital products on online platforms and exporting digital services.

Unfortunately, Ambassador Tai and the Biden Administration’s October decision to cast aside longstanding and bipartisan digital trade principles serves to increase economic and national security risks—while encouraging authoritarian states to take the lead in writing the digital trade playbook.

Quotes:

Amb. Robert C. O’Brien (ret.), 27th National Security Advisor of the United States — “The USTR decision to not support the WTO’s digital trade principles will harm America’s tech competitiveness and our national security. With China moving every day to undermine the edge U.S. companies have, we need Washington to stand up and support the digital trade that is good for our economy and protects our technology.”

John Murphy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President and Head of International — “American companies of all sizes and sectors are reaching customers overseas through digital trade. Already, more than two million American jobs depend on digital trade, which is turbocharging growth in American industries such as semiconductors, biopharma, medtech, financial services, and autos — even agriculture. Not only will USTR’s decision to withdraw support for digital trade undermine U.S. global leadership, it will deal a blow to the American workers whose livelihoods depend on selling American-made goods and services around the world.”

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform — “Americans for Tax Reform applauds House Republicans for leading the charge against the Biden administration’s reckless capitulation to foreign regulators. Since stepping foot in the Oval Office, President Biden has encouraged unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and elsewhere to treat American companies like piggy banks to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year. Katherine Tai’s abandonment of longstanding digital trade principles is the latest step in Biden’s quest to fill foreign coffers at the expense of American companies. The free-market community is in broad alignment on this issue, with 30 groups signing onto a letter organized by ATR in opposition to Biden’s dangerous agenda. This important letter organized by Reps. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) and John Joyce (R-Pa.) shows that House Republicans will continue to fight against the Biden administration’s efforts to undermine America’s competitive edge on the world stage.”

David Williams, President of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance — “TPA applauds Rep. Duncan for leading this initiative and ensuring that American companies can succeed internationally. In today’s increasingly digital world, this means protecting U.S. companies from unfair restrictions imposed by foreign governments. A retreat of U.S. leadership, such as the USTR withdrawing support from the WTO’s digital trade principles, will inevitably lead to the proliferation of protectionism and authoritarian policies.”

Scott Talbott, Executive Vice President at Electronic Transactions Association — “Digital commerce is global.  So much so that even the smallest of US merchants can instantly accept payments for their merchandise from around the world.  It is crucial the US continue to be a leader in digital trade.  We encourage all parties to work together to strengthen digital trade and allow for competitive markets to flourish.”

Bryan Riley, Director of the National Taxpayers Union Free Trade Initiative — “National Taxpayers Union strongly supports the joint letter led by Reps. Jeff. Duncan (R-SC) and John Joyce (R-PA) highlighting the importance of digital trade to the American economy. We echo their disappointment at the Biden administration’s retreat from support for strong digital trade rules. This retreat should not be allowed to serve as a precedent for U.S. digital trade policy moving forward.”

Dr. Edward Longe, Director of the Center for Technology and Innovation, The James Madison Institute — “Digital innovation is one of our country’s greatest superpowers. Because of this, our innovators are constantly under threat from envious nations around the world. USTR and the Biden administration need to have their backs, not walk away from the negotiating table and force Americans to fend for themselves.”

Martin Skroejer, Senior Director for Technology Competition Polity at SIIA — “USTR’s recent decision to abandon digital trade talks at the WTO was deeply misguided. Congress and the Administration have plenty of room to explore ways to regulate in response to challenges posed by the digital transformation without undermining U.S. economic and national security interests. The decision is having a direct impact on the information economy and has negatively impacted our closest allies and emboldened China. We applaud the efforts of Rep. Duncan and other Members of Congress to draw attention to this matter and seek transparency from the Administration.”

Christine Bliss, President of the Coalition of Services Industries —“The U.S. retrenchment on digital trade principles at the WTO is deeply troubling and undermines U.S. leadership in the digital economy and the ability of businesses and their workers to compete in the global marketplace. I commend Reps. Joyce, Duncan, and their colleagues for addressing the Biden administration’s failure to adequately consult and inform Congress and the interagency, and for seeking clarity on the unilateral decision to reverse support for long held U.S. digital policy positions in the WTO JSI e-commerce negotiations.”

Jonathan Small, President of Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs — “The Biden administration’s abandonment of American tech companies before the WTO mirrors his administration’s hostility to free market principles. While we hope the President changes course, one thing is clear: under Biden, American leadership is in retreat.”

Tom Schatz, President of Citizens Against Government Waste — “We applaud the efforts by Rep. Duncan to hold U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai accountable for abandoning U.S. digital trade policy at the World Trade Organization.  Congress should demand that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative reverse course and support the longstanding policy of protecting digital trade. Without these protections, U.S. companies could be forced to disclose source code for software applications, threatening intellectual property rights, pay taxes to and maintain data in other countries, which would place American jobs at risk.”

Steve DelBianco, President & CEO of NetChoice — “The USTR’s decision to pull out of e-commerce negotiations on free cross-border data flows, data localization and source code review abandons all the American businesses, innovators and workers that benefit from digital trade. It also encourages authoritarian states like China to take the lead in writing the digital trade playbook. American leadership is needed in digital trade to ensure freedom-loving nations and innovators are the leaders on global technology development. It is critical that the Biden Administration makes digital trade a priority to protect U.S. national security and economic growth.”

The letter was co-signed by Reps. Steel (CA), Fleischmann (TN), Fitzpatrick (PA), Latta (OH), Van Duyne (TX), Crenshaw (TX), Moore (UT), Pfluger (TX), Dunn (FL), Obernolte (CA), Pence (IN), Bucshon (IN), Mike Kelly (PA), Armstrong (ND), Balderson (OH), Dusty Johnson (SD), Guthrie (KY), Babin (TX), Steube (FL), Harshbarger (TN), Cline (VA), Carter (TX), Hudson (NC), Allen (GA), Bilirakis (FL), Curtis (UT), Walberg (MI), Timmons (SC), Miller-Meeks (IA), Fulcher (ID), Issa (CA), Fry (SC), Adrian Smith (NE), Weber (TX), Estes (KS), Hern (OK), Griffith (VA), Cammack (FL), Hinson (IA), Wittman (VA), Palmer (AL), Turner (OH), Norman (SC), Arrington (TX), Scott (GA), Carey (OH), Nunn (IA), and Waltz (FL).

The letter was supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Competitive Enterprise Institute, NetChoice, Electronic Transactions Association, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Coalition of Services Industries, TechNet, and Software and Information Industry Association.

Letter to Biden Admin on WTO Digital Trade Principles
Copy of Media Library (5)

Identifying Risk of AI Used In Law Enforcement and Immigration

by Policy

Written by: Suher Adi

Similarly on the law enforcement and immigration use cases outlined in the draft comment, there should be more tailored guidelines on what is considered under these uses. In the law enforcement context, the language is broad and far-reaching describing a wide variety of potential government actions. It is not clear what is and is not included, and there is a good chance that this language will be interpreted to cover a number of otherwise low-risk AI applications. This would impede effective and responsible adoption of AI systems for critical governmental purposes, without meaningfully adding to the protection of individuals’ rights and privileges. Additionally, it  goes beyond the intended scope of the AI Executive Order, which focuses on the use of AI in “areas where AI can enhance law enforcement efficiency and accuracy, consistent with protections for privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties.”

The immigration use case outlines the use of facial recognition technology and surveillance technology more broadly. Due to its  broad language, seemingly mundane uses, such as facial matching, would unnecessarily be flagged as “rights-impacting AI.” Facial matching–which we read to mean authentication and/or verification using facial recognition technology–presents significantly less risk than do other uses of facial recognition technology, or than  many of the other uses contained in this category. Because of this, it would be helpful if this set of use cases was further delineated in accordance with a risk-based assessment.

There are many ways we can tackle the use of AI in law enforcement and immigration contexts. First, we must disambiguate between law enforcement and surveillance-related risk assessments. While law enforcement has a well understood meaning, “surveillance-related risk assessments” could apply to anything from law enforcement to FDA inspections. The scope of surveillance-related risk assessments is not clear and could be interpreted in different ways. In addition, there should also be clarification about the use of “the conduct of cyber intrusions”.

Second, the focus should be on those law enforcement purposes that have a direct impact on individuals’ rights, like litigation. Additionally, there must be a limit on recourse mechanisms, such as notification to negatively affected individuals and opt-out rights. These recourse limits are particularly important when it would jeopardize important government ends, including the need to maintain confidentiality in ongoing  investigations. Importantly, recourse limits are not required by either existing law or the Constitution. Clarifying these uses and assessments ensures that the use of AI for law enforcement and immigration does not infringe on people’s rights, and that appropriate measures are included to mitigate potential harms in the future.

Copy of Media Library (11)

IN THE NEWS: We Must Protect Kids Online, But Bills Currently Before Congress Fail to Meet the Needs of the American Public

by Policy

Pulled from Real Clear Policy

By Chris Mohr

January 30, 2024

Congress has made it clear that protecting children online is a priority for 2024. And while scheduling blockbuster hearings, hosting panels, and litigating in the press can help draw  attention to a pervasive issue that demands a resolution, many of the proposed legislative solutions fail to actually keep kids safe online.

Bills like STOP CSAM, KOSA, EARN It, etc., while valiant in their intentions, miss the bigger picture. Kids are safest from exploitation when online platforms are not forced to collect their personally identifiable information and other data. Requiring every online platform kids could access – whether social media sites, news publications, or online stores – to take inventory of birth dates, drivers licenses, etc. puts our kids’ (and adults) most private information in the hands of just about anyone who hosts a website on the internet, raising the risks of all too common data breaches and identity theft.

Legislation like this also has the very real potential to backfire. Allowing the government to subjectively restrict access to news media and other information, or limit free speech online,  raises significant constitutional and civil liberty issues.

However, just because the bills currently in front of federal – and some state – legislators are problematic does not negate the opportunity or potential for real solutions that marry the protection of data with the safety of kids navigating an increasingly online world. Before any piece of online safety legislation moves forward, policymakers should consider the following criteria as core guidelines.

First and foremost, companies should minimize the collection, use, and retention of children’s data. Only collecting and using the necessary information instead of forced collection of sensitive information will lead to more privacy protections not less. Data minimization is especially important for processing children’s data because children are generally more trusting and less aware of the risks related to sharing personal information.

Second, any piece of online safety legislation should require companies to maintain robust security safeguards for users, including children, that are appropriate to the level of sensitivity of the personal information collected, used, or shared. Security safeguards are a fundamental principle of privacy protection. The safeguards should incorporate protections against such risks as loss, or unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure of data. It should also include precautions against the deliberate abuse or misuse of information, and facilitate the detection of any violation of the security system.

Third, easy-to-use and easy-to-access tools that empower users to customize privacy protections and exercise rights over their own data should become industry standard. Instead of putting bureaucrats in charge of deciding what content families can and cannot access, companies should provide tools and be transparent about their privacy practices providing users concise, prominent, accessible privacy policies that use clear and plain language.

Fourth, it is also critical that policymakers recognize the need to help educate children and parents about safe online practices. Just as we teach children to look both ways before crossing the street, we also need to teach them to think about managing personal information they choose to share or not share online. Funding for digital citizenship programs and other educational opportunities for families, educators, and the general public could go a long way in supporting a holistic approach towards protecting the privacy of America’s children.

To accomplish all of these goals, policymakers can adopt strong rules, such as a federal preemptive comprehensive privacy law, to make sure platforms remain accountable to strong rules protecting all children across the United States.

We can create a more attainable reality where kids can indeed stay both safe and connected online, it just takes the right legislative solution.

Chris Mohr is President of SIIA