I, Robot
Updated: 5 days ago
Concerning the constitutionality of the current level of Artificial Intelligence capabilities moving towards the latter end of what I call “The Second Roaring Twenties”. Specifically, in consideration of 4th amendment rights, the protection of civil liberties, the protection of consumers, the protection of intellectual property, generally the protection of Americans (If that wasn't an over-statement...) and you know the protection of basic human rights. I know, I know dare I say enforcement agency (singularity intentional *rimshot please).
So…what do you think and what should be the ethical standard and legal ramification of A.I. systems utilized in observation, monitoring, data mining, simulation for predictive analytics, threat detection, and behavior/context/sentimentality detection application programming interfaces with, but not limited to, the ulterior motive of monetary gain? Coincidentally or uncoincidentally to the detriment of what I think should be defined as a “data source” but what many might define as “the consumer”.
Implications of the above with further consideration in regards to the following:
The Wiretape act
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
What is deemed as illegal research/data collection within the scope of an application’s privacy statements/terms of service but circumvented through A.I. channels…
The ethicality of data sanitization/anonymization/disidentification which would be considered intellectual property collected by A.I. systems…
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) The collection of minor's data subsequently sanitized/anonymized/disidentified by A.I. systems…
Utilization of IP cameras and other surveillance equipment in what would be defined as (quote unquote) “public”/”private” to collect audio/visual data in what would be legally defined as a passive state or what would be legally defined as an active state. Violations to one's 4th amendment rights obviously implied deeming unconstitutional the correct adjective in many a legal statement.
Legality from purely a consumer protection standpoint:
Should one feel that disidentification/anonymization/sanitization of data in all states (at use/in storage/in transit) be held to a new standard due to technological advancements allowing the dissemination, sale, distribution, and reproduction without compensation to a “data source” at the speed of light for merely a free to use premium?(“the gold bug” the meta clause continues…)
The utilization of these technologies in law enforcement practices such as monitoring or surveillance both passive and active with or without warrant specifically when utilized as a deterrent or as evidence in any criminal proceeding…(pre-crime and judgement systems… see “Minority report” (2002, Spielberg) “Mercy” (2026, Bekmambetov) Science fiction is science fiction until science fact as they say…)
Criminal justice considerations: constitutionality infringement, civil liberties infringement, free will infringement…
It is my opinion, that what would be deemed as illegal data collection, data sharing (first and third party), monitoring/observation, data mining, simulation for predictive analytics and surveillance with artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms should be held just as unconstitutional and punished with the same severity as other stalking laws and cyber-crimes. Stalking as defined by the Federal Government. Hmmm... from a jurisprudential perspective it seems the new digital norm reinforces the concept. That argument escalates extremely quickly…
I feel a re-definition of intellectual property rights or what I have come to consider “digital assets” (“The Digital Assets Umbrella”) is necessary due to new technologies and data collection methods. Also, a re-examination of the ethicality and legality of the collection, utilization in research, and selling beyond nation-state boundaries of said assets to include but not limited to:
Facial recognition profiles
Search habits
Behavioral data
Minor’s information; see “Silver Bullet”
Spending habits (what you buy, how you buy, and where you buy); see “Buy Bye By3”
Financial data is protected; however, who was the enforcement agency..?
Advanced website analytics and other internet tracking methods; see “C is for Cookie
Simulation and predictive analytics
Tldr: The transformative document known as the Constitution of the United States needs to be more autobot than decepticon if that made any sense hahaha 😉.
Fin
Vintage Miscellaneous Errata circa 2021
Facebook vs. Duguid
Why would the supreme-court side with Facebook isn't that the opposite of what they are supposed to do? Ya know protect the people…
Another example that branches of our Government (*cough Judicial Branch) do not have the people's best interest in mind…
Directly goes against another government agencies legislative focus for the next decade, haha the Government tripped over its own d***, literally… https://www.fcc.gov/spoofed-robocalls.
How do you like your martini? #shaken/stirred <insert bond martini meme>
They obviously do not coordinate because the Supreme Court, being the highest court in this land, should be knowledgeable about all matters in order to make correct judgement.
It is their duty to update laws and regulations to account for new technologies in interpretation…
***Comments lost in arcanum left neither here nor there but under the pseudonym Lacklust3r through archaic methods of redundant anonymity...
“Shaken not Stirred…”
Why would the Supreme Court side with Facebook? This seems to be the opposite of their sworn duty as Judges of the highest court in this land, protect the people. This is another example of a branch of our government (Judicial) interpreting laws in ways that benefit corporations to the detriment of the citizens. We no longer live in a Democracy. This Government has been and is now a Corporatocracy. One in which the decisions are made without the entirety of the people, the Body Republic, that make up this Country no matter race, creed, religion, or socio-economic standing's best interest in mind. This also directly goes against another Government agency's current initiative to reduce robocalls. The Supreme Court obviously did not research into other agencies’ initiatives on robocalling before interpreting the term "automated text system". Even if they feel this is the correct interpretation it is their duty to update laws and regulations to account for new technologies so corporations cannot use loopholes to circumvent laws already in place based on technological differences. #shaken/stirred #fcc #robocalls #facebookwhatajoke #protectingconsumers
References
Combating spoofed robocalls with caller ID authentication | Federal Communications Commission. FCC.gov. (n.d.). https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication
Facebook, inc v. Duguid (2021) Supreme Court https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19- 511_p86b.pdf
_Aaron X.