Month: July 2023

EPIC released the following statement in response to the White House’s announcement that it had reached a non-binding agreement with AI companies to govern artificial intelligence:

“While EPIC appreciates the Biden Administration’s use of its authorities to place safeguards on the use of artificial intelligence, we both agree that voluntary commitments are not enough when it comes to Big Tech. Congress and federal regulators must put meaningful, enforceable guardrails in place to ensure the use of AI is fair, transparent, and protects individuals’ privacy and civil rights.”
– Caitriona Fitzgerald, Deputy Director, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)

EPIC sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer today opposing the STOP CSAM Act, which has also been filed as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). EPIC flagged two significant concerns with the STOP CSAM Act. First, the STOP CSAM Act endangers strong encryption by allowing a company’s use of end-to-end and other encryption services to be a basis of liability and/or evidence of fault in cases involving CSAM. Second, the amendment raises significant privacy and speech concerns by requiring providers scan for certain online conduct and then report those who engage in such conduct to police. Such a scanning and reporting regime will disproportionately impact teenagers—particularly LGBT youth—who share sexually explicit photos of themselves at significantly high rates.

EPIC asked the Senate to reject this proposal, either as a standalone bill or an amendment to the NDAA.

Calli Schroeder, global privacy counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), said the bill has some good elements, but there are places it needs improvement, specifically with some of the other exemptions.

“The list of exemptions is long—exemptions for air carriers, exemptions for employment records, exemptions for information held by higher education or the state, and exemptions for customer data of public utilities (which includes common carriers/telecommunications companies).”

Read the full article here.

In contrast, supporters such as Caitriona Fitzgerald, deputy director at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), see the Task Force as a positive step, saying, “The FCC could certainly be more aggressive. They haven’t been very active in using their consumer privacy authorities and even where they’ve taken initial action in the past, follow through hasn’t really been there.”

Read the full article here.

While body cameras could be a critical tool for holding officers accountable, it’s also important for the department to create stringent policy governing how the footage is used, says John Davisson, an attorney at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

“Deploying body cameras on Capitol Police officers poses the same privacy and surveillance risks as it does with any other law enforcement agency,” he told FedScoop in an email. “The jurisdiction of the Capitol Police extends well beyond the Capitol grounds into surrounding neighborhoods, so it’s not just Hill staff and visitors whose privacy is at stake. If the Capitol Police are intent on deploying body cameras, the agency at least needs to establish and enforce strict limits on the collection, use, and retention of the recordings.”

Read the full article here.