AI and digital technologies have been unleashed upon us, with an unprecedented zeal and recklessness, and a reckoning is long overdue.
The Meta and YouTube $6 million addiction verdict this week is an important milestone. I’m not an expert on the addiction issue, so I won’t opine on the merits of the case. Instead, I want to point out how the case affects the bigger picture of accountability for technology and AI.
Watch Daniel Solove and Omer Tene (Goodwin) discuss the latest developments in privacy and AI law.
This year, in Chatrie v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether geofence warrants are valid under the Fourth Amendment. The geofence warrant at issue in the case was one that allowed the government to obtain account data from Google of hundreds of millions of users. It’s the equivalent to a digital dragnet, which I’ve long argued contravenes the core purpose of the Fourth Amendment. The Framers of the Constitution hated dragnet searches . . . actually, to be more precise, HATED them.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t find geofence warrants to be invalid, then it’s hard to imagine much left of the already-desiccated Fourth Amendment. But Chatrie is just the tip of the iceberg. Regular warrants under the Fourth Amendment—those that are properly circumscribed based on particularized suspicion—are also not strong enough for our times.
We’re witnessing an unprecedented rise of authoritarianism in the United States. I’ve long argued that warrants are an effective way to protect privacy and also balance interests in law enforcement. But now I don’t think warrants are enough to provide the kind of protection against government power that is necessary.
Watch Daniel Solove’s discussion with Amelia Vance (Public Interest Privacy Center) on the latest developments in children’s privacy.
This year’s Superbowl was a showcase for how out of touch tech companies are when it comes to privacy and AI. Several ads demonstrated that tech companies are obtuse about the dystopia they’re creating.
Hopefully, public reaction will get through to policymakers that the tone deafness of tech companies reveals a deeper disconnect between the future they seek to bring about and the future most in society want. Tech companies aren’t going to take us to the promised land; they’ll take us to hell instead unless policymakers take bold steps to ensure they don’t.
Watch Daniel Solove’s discussion with Melanie Ensign (Discernible) on how privacy professionals can boost their profession past its current impasse to new heights.
The following is an excerpt from my book ON PRIVACY AND TECHNOLOGY where I summarize my thinking on privacy consent:
New technologies pose significant challenges to people’s ability to consent to the collection, use, and disclosure of their personal data. Under most privacy laws, consent makes permissible a wide array of data collection and processing. Websites, devices, and software continually attempt to induce people to consent (or pretend that people have consented) to data practices that are risky, troublesome, and unexpected.
To be meaningful, consent must not be unduly manipulated or coerced. And consent must be informed: people must be able to weigh the costs and benefits of consenting. Unfortunately, most privacy consent falls far short of these goals. In fact, privacy consent could almost be called a complete fiction.
Here’s a bizarre dystopian Superbowl commercial where AIexa+ tries to kill Chris Hemsworth many different ways, then offers him a massage. And this is to try to convince folks that AI is good? I thought it was a promo for a Black Mirror episode.
<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/ha92_hfK9Po?si=ka8ErdwxqU_evaIs” title=”YouTube video player” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share” referrerpolicy=”strict-origin-when-cross-origin” allowfullscreen></iframe>
It’s gratifying to see a Chronicle of Higher Education editor recall a piece I wrote there 15 years ago — though I wish the remembrance was for less ominous reason. He concludes: “It appears that the moment he warned us about has arrived.”
My Chronicle of Higher Ed piece is based on my article, “I’ve Got Nothing to Hide” and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy (free download).
I also wrote a book about the topic, NOTHING TO HIDE: THE FALSE TRADEOFF BETWEEN PRIVACY AND SECURITY – I posted the entire book free online on SSRN.
Watch Daniel Solove’s discussion with Adam Greene (Davis Wright Tremaine) about the latest developments in HIPAA and Health Privacy.