9873 research outputs found
Sort by
Bridging the Global Divide in AI Regulation: A Proposal for a Contextual, Coherent, and Commensurable Framework
Get PDFAs debates on potential societal harm from artificial intelligence (AI) culminate in legislation and international norms, a global divide is emerging in both AI regulatory frameworks and international governance structures. In terms of local regulatory frameworks, the European Union (E.U.), Canada, and Brazil follow a “horizontal” or “lateral” approach that postulates the homogeneity of AI, seeks to identify common causes of harm, and demands uniform human interventions. In contrast, the United States (U.S.), the United Kingdom (U.K.), Israel, and Switzerland (and potentially China) have pursued a “context-specific” or “modular” approach, tailoring regulations to the specific use cases of AI systems. In terms of international governance structures, the United Nations is exploring a centralized AI governance framework to be overseen by a superlative body comparable to the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, the U.K. is spearheading, and the U.S. and several other countries have endorsed, a decentralized governance model, where AI safety institutes in each jurisdiction conduct evaluations of the safety of high-performance general-purpose models pursuant to interoperable standards. This paper argues for a context-specific approach alongside decentralized governance, to effectively address evolving risks in diverse mission-critical domains, while avoiding social costs associated with one- size-fits-all approaches. However, to enhance the systematicity and interoperability of international norms and accelerate global harmonization, this paper proposes an alternative contextual, coherent, and commensurable (3C) framework. To ensure contextuality, the framework (i) bifurcates the AI life cycle into two phases: learning and deployment for specific tasks, instead of defining foundation or general-purpose models; and (ii) categorizes these tasks based on their application and interaction with humans as follows: autonomous, discriminative (allocative, punitive, and cognitive), and generative AI. To ensure coherency, each category is assigned specific regulatory objectives replacing 2010s vintage “AI ethics.” To ensure commensurability, the framework promotes the adoption of international standards for measuring and mitigating risks
Is India the New China in U.S. Foreign Policy?
Get PDFAbstract: The University of Washington International Law Journal’s timely symposium explores the strains in the U.S.-China political and economic relationship. As China and the United States become estranged, or “decoupled,” this essay explores the United States’ relationship with India in light of this trend. The U.S.-India foreign relations are stronger today than they have been in India’s 75-year history as an independent nation.[1] To understand why this is the case, we have to examine both the U.S. and Indian foreign policy perspectives. The United States’ interest in India has grown in part due to the United States’ own changes in domestic policy and motivations to counter China. It is only in the more recently that India has been open to a stronger partnership with the United States due largely to political and economic changes in the country
Griffin Case Settled, Privacy Act and Section 7431 Relationship Isn’t
No full textThis article discusses cases concerning the unauthorized release of taxpayers’ confidential return information through theft or leaks, saying the cases illustrate the ambiguity of the interaction between the Privacy Act and section 7431 when it comes to the IRS’s duty to safeguard taxpayer information
SoK: Technical Implementation and Human Impact of Internet Privacy Regulations
No full textGrowing recognition of the potential for exploitation of personal data and of the shortcomings of prior privacy regimes has led to the passage of a multitude of new privacy regulations. Some of these laws—notably the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)—have been the focus of large bodies of research by the computer science community, while others have received less attention. In this work, we analyze a set of 24 privacy laws and data protection regulations drawn from around the world—both those that have frequently been studied by computer scientists and those that have not—and develop a taxonomy of rights granted and obligations imposed by these laws. We then leverage this taxonomy to systematize 270 technical research papers published in computer science venues that investigate the impact of these laws and explore how technical solutions can complement legal protections. Finally, we analyze the results in this space through an interdisciplinary lens and make recommendations for future work at the intersection of computer science and legal privacy
Imperial Collision: Future of China\u27s Relations with Russia
Get PDFAbstract: In April 2024, Biden Administration officials revealed that in the year 2023, about 90% of Russia’s microelectronics came from China, which Russia has used to make missiles, tanks, and aircraft. Nearly 70% of Russia’s approximately $900 million in machine tool imports in the last quarter of 2023 also came from China.[1] U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently stated at the G7 meeting that “[w]e see China sharing machine tools, semiconductors, [and] other dual-use items that have helped Russia rebuild the defense industrial base.”[2] This demonstrates how far China is willing to go in defiance of the sanctions on Russia, seemingly vindicating an increasingly popular view characterizing China’s relations with Russia as an alliance in the “New Cold War” (NCW) literature.[3] This essay aims to question this claim.
To its credit, the NCW provides a necessary correction to the naivete and wishful thinking of the 1990s during the globalization era—best exemplified by the Bill Clinton administration in the United States and the Gerhard Schröder chancellorship in Germany. However, learning the lessons takes more than a moment of intellectual reflection. Two years into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Europe is caught by two fears related to decoupling: one is China’s retaliatory measures[4] and the other is the possible second presidential term of Donald J. Trump in the United States.[5] Prompted by the urgency on the battlefields, the NCW offers reasons for unity between United States and Europe, in response to an emerging alliance between China and Russia. However, this essay argues that it jumps too quickly to claim a Russia-China alliance and, therefore, misses another aspect of Russia-China relations after the invasion of Ukraine: the imperial collision. This essay aims to provide a preliminary framework for examining the driving forces that work to divide and eventually undermine the Russia-China alignment.[6]
The essay starts in Part I by examining the anti-Western ideology shared by Presidents Putin and Xi Jinping. Despite their common objectives, shared values, and personal commitments, fundamental cracks in the ideology can still be detected – primarily due to the different approaches adopted by Russia and China. Part II examines the economic alignments between Russia and China following the invasion of Ukraine. The goal of this section is to contextualize the ideological cracks within three specific areas: trade, finance, and investment. While both Russia and China, on one hand, and NCW pundits, on the other, highlight the high level of economic complementation—either by celebrating or raising alarms—a closer look at the data reveals how ideological cracks translate into discontent and risks for both countries. Part III discusses the lack of institutions in the Russia-China relations that undermine stable and long-term cooperation. The essay will conclude with some remarks on the ramifications of the debates on decoupling or de-risking policy that this symposium is focused on