📜 White House issues Executive Order setting new standards for AI regulation 🌐
President Biden has taken a stride in ensuring that America takes the forefront in harnessing the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) while also addressing its challenges.
Update on EU's AI Act: EU policymakers Have Proposed Stricter Regulations for High-Risk AI Systems
EU policymakers are planning to have changes to the AI Act, aimed at regulating Artificial Intelligence in a risk-based approach. The core of this legislation is to ensure the safety and protection of fundamental rights when it comes to high-risk AI systems.
In the original proposal, certain AI solutions were automatically categorized as high-risk, but recent discussions introduced exemption conditions to allow AI developers to avoid this classification. However, the European Parliament’s legal office expressed concerns that this approach might lead to legal uncertainty and not align with the AI Act’s objectives.
🔍 Face search company Clearview AI overturns UK privacy fine
Clearview AI, a company specializing in facial recognition technology, has successfully overturned a £7.5 million privacy fine imposed by the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (#ICO). The company’s innovative technology empowers clients to search a vast database of images collected from the internet for matches to specific faces, providing valuable links to where these matching images appear online.
🌐 Shaping AI Liability Rules: EDPS's Vision for Equitable Protection in Europe
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) has issued own-initiative Opinion on two critical proposals regarding AI liability. These proposals are integral to the European Commission’s broader plan to support the responsible deployment of artificial intelligence in Europe.
🌐🔒 EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework: 0:1 for the DPF
In a recent legal case (T‑553/23 R) before the EU General Court, French citizen Philippe Latombe challenged the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, seeking an injunction to halt its implementation. He argued that the United States does not ensure an adequate level of data protection. However, the Court’s decision offers important insights for data privacy and legal considerations.