Amazon exploiting tech to wring every last ounce of productivity from its workforce, Clearview AI harvesting our facial features from social media and public surveillance footage, school proctoring software invading our children's rooms, Facebook's whole "accused of contributing to genocide" thing — the same machine learning/AI and automation technologies that have brought us the wonders of the modern world have also wrought upon us the horrors of the modern world. And, by golly, the Biden Administration isn't going to stand for it. 

On Tuesday, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released its long-awaited Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (BoR). The document will, "help guide the design, development, and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) and other automated systems so that they protect the rights of the American public," per a White House press release.

As such, the BoR will advocate for five principles: Safe and Effective Systems, Algorithmic Discrimination Protections, Data Privacy, Notice and Explanation, and Human Alternatives, Consideration, and Fallback. "Simply put, systems should work, they shouldn't discriminate, they shouldn't use data indiscriminately," BoR co-writer Suresh Venkatasubramanian, wrote in a tweet thread Tuesday. "They should be visible and easy to understand, and they shouldn't eliminate human interlocutors."

"There were thousands of edits and comments that made the document strong, rich, and detailed," Venkatasubramanian continued. "The AI Bill of Rights reflects, as befits the title, a consensus, broad, and deep American vision of how to govern the automated technologies that impact our lives." 

“Automated technologies are driving remarkable innovations and shaping important decisions that impact people’s rights, opportunities, and access. The Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights is for everyone who interacts daily with these powerful technologies — and every person whose life has been altered by unaccountable algorithms,” said Office of Science and Technology Policy Deputy Director for Science and Society Dr. Alondra Nelson. “The practices laid out in the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights aren’t just aspirational; they are achievable and urgently necessary to build technologies and a society that works for all of us.”

The Administration has spent more than a year developing the BoR to its current state, including extensive public outreach through panel discussions, public listening sessions, and meetings with everyone from workers and activists to CEOs and entrepreneurs. In addition to the bill itself, the OSTP has also released a companion work, From Principles to Practice, which details concrete steps for both government and NGO entities, public and private companies alike, take to ensure they are operating within the scope and spirit of the document. 

"Effectively implementing these processes require the cooperation of and collaboration among industry, civil society, researchers, policymakers, technologists, and the public," the BoR reads. Lol, no, of course there aren't any actual enforcement mechanisms.

The White House is set to unveil rules that would further restrict access to advanced computing technology in China that could be used by its military, according to The New York Times. The new measures, which may be announced this week, reportedly aim to reduce Beijing's ability to produce advanced weapons and surveillance systems. 

The new rules would build on restrictions that block companies from selling US-developed technologies to smartphone manufacturer Huawei, first introduced by the Trump administration in 2019. President Biden is expected to apply such restrictions to additional Chinese firms, government research labs and other entities, insiders told the NYT. Companies around the world would then be prohibited from selling any American-made tech to the targeted organizations.

Last month, Reuters reported that the White House could try to curb sales of advanced US-made tools to China's semiconductor industry. It may also limit exports of American microchips to advanced Chinese supercomputing and data centers. The measures could hit not only government, but academic institutions and internet companies like Alibaba and Tencent. 

While the US has the most performance in the Top500 supercomputer list, China leads in the number of systems. The new US curbs, if enacted, would be the largest effort to combat China's ability to build supercomputers and data centers. 

While most supercomputing uses are benign, some have malign purposes like weapons development or surveillance. In one instance, a supercomputer built with Intel and NVIDIA chips was used to surveille minority Uyghurs in the nation. Last month, NVIDIA revealed in an SEC filing that the US government was restricting sales of computer chips used for supercomputers and AI to both Russia and China. 

When was the last time you've read an amicus brief? If you're not involved in the legal profession, chances are you may have never actually spent precious time reading one. This amicus brief (PDF) could change that. It was submitted by The Onion, which describes itself in the brief as "the world’s leading news publication" with "4.3 trillion" readers that maintains "a towering standard of excellence to which the rest of the industry aspires." In addition to running a highly successful news publication, The Onion said it "owns and operates the majority of the world’s transoceanic shipping lanes, stands on the nation’s leading edge on matters of deforestation and strip mining, and proudly conducts tests on millions of animals daily." Oh, and its motto is "Tu stultus es." That's "you are dumb" in Latin. 

The Onion, of course, is the popular parody website that once named Kim Jong-un as the sexiest man alive. Its team has filed a very real amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of Anthony Novak, who was arrested and jailed for four days after briefly running a Facebook page parodying the police department of Parma, Ohio back in 2016.

According to The Washington Times, Novak had suggested that the cops were racist and lacked compassion in about half a dozen posts within 12 hours that the page was up. Parma's police department claimed back then that people were confusing its posts with real information from law enforcement. Novak filed a civil suit against the officers that arrested him and the city of Parma, arguing that his constitutional rights were violated. After a federal appeals ruled that the officers were protected by what's known as "qualified immunity" for law enforcement, he took the battle to the Supreme Court. 

Despite writing the brief in the same voice its publication uses, and despite filling it with outlandish claims and hilarious quips, The Onion made a very real argument defending the use of parody and explaining how it works:

"Put simply, for parody to work, it has to plausibly mimic the original. The Sixth Circuit’s decision in this case would condition the First Amendment’s protection for parody upon a requirement that parodists explicitly say, up-front, that their work is nothing more than an elaborate fiction. But that would strip parody of the very thing that makes it function.

The Onion cannot stand idly by in the face of a ruling that threatens to disembowel a form of rhetoric that has existed for millennia, that is particularly potent in the realm of political debate, and that, purely incidentally, forms the basis of The Onion’s writers’ paychecks."

As Bloomberg notes, Supreme Court Justices have yet to decide whether to hear the case.

As of today, a data-sharing pact between the US and the UK is in effect, five years after it was first floated. The two sides claim that the Data Access Agreement, which was authorized by the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act in the US, will help law enforcement to combat serious crimes in both countries. The Department of Justice called the initiative the first of its kind, adding that it would enable investigators "to gain better access to vital data" to fight serious crimes in a manner that's "consistent with privacy and civil liberties standards."

Under the agreement, authorities in one country can request data from ISPs in the other country, as long as it's related to preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting serious crimes including terrorism, transnational organized crime and child exploitation. US officials can't submit data requests targeting people in the UK and vice-versa — presumably the requests can either be used to assist domestic investigations or investigations into foreign nationals. Authorities also need to adhere to certain requirements, limitations and conditions when they access and use data.

The UK Home Office's Investigatory Powers Unit will oversee the Data Access Agreement in the UK, while the DOJ's Office of International Affairs (OIA) will handle matters in the US. The OIA has put together a CLOUD team that will review and certify orders on behalf of federal, state, local and territorial authorities. It will directly submit orders to ISPs in the UK and ensure data is transferred to authorities who requested it.

Privacy advocates have blasted the initiative and the CLOUD Act. In 2018, just after the bill was introduced, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said it "creates a dangerous precedent for other countries who may want to access information stored outside their own borders, including data stored in the United States." Fight for the Future argued that it would threaten user privacy.

The US is looking to forge pacts with other countries under the CLOUD Act. It signed a deal with Australia last December and entered negotiations with Canada earlier this year.

New York is following California's lead by mandating that all new cars, pickups and SUVs sold in the state must be either EVs or plug-in hybrids, Governor Kathy Hochul announced. To reach that goal, 35 percent of new cars must be zero-emission by 2026 and 60 percent by 2030. New school buses must also be zero emissions by 2035. A public hearing will be held before the rules are put into place.

Hochul ordered the state's environmental agency to create similar standards to those adopted by California that phases out all fossil-fuel-only car sales by 2035. Those rules went into last month and were designed to reduce passenger vehicle pollution 25 percent by 2037, with 9.5 fewer internal-combustion engine (ICE) only vehicles sold by 2035.

“We had to wait for California to take a step because there’s some federal requirements that California had to go first — that’s the only time we’re letting them go first,” the governor said in a press conference yesterday.

The state is following California's actions for a reason. The Clean Air Act permits California to set its own pollution rules, but other states aren't allowed to do that. However, they can follow California once it acts — so California must pave the way for any emissions rules implemented by individual states.

The governor also unveiled a $10 million Drive Clean Rebate Program. That gives residents a $2,000 rebate toward the purchase of over 60 EVs and plug-in hybrids that's on top of the $7,500 federal tax rebate. The state has spent $92 million on the program to date. The state also announced the installation of its 100th fast charger as part of the EVolve charging network. 

"With sustained state and federal investments, our actions are incentivizing New Yorkers, local governments, and businesses to make the transition to electric vehicles," Hochul said.

A critical element of the transition to electric vehicles is ensuring that the charging infrastructure is up to scratch. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law earmarked $5 billion in funding over five years to help states install chargers along highways, and that process just took an important step forward. The Department of Transportation has approved EV charging plans for all 50 states, as well as Washington DC and Puerto Rico. The proposals cover 75,000 miles of highways, as Reuters notes. 

As a result of the DOT rubberstamping the plans, the Biden administration has unlocked over $1.5 billion in funding for states' EV charger projects. The funds will cover up to 80 percent of EV charger installation costs, with states and private entities covering the remainder. Earlier this month, the DOT said it approved plans from 35 states, but approvals were required for all of them before it could start offering the funding.

It's not clear how many chargers the funding will support, but Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said earlier this year that states will need to meet certain standards. The states should be installing DC Fast Chargers, the DOT said, and stations will need at least four ports. EV chargers should also be available every 50 miles on interstate highways. They should be within a mile of highways too.

Private companies, such as Tesla and GM, are building out their own charging networks. But having public infrastructure at specific intervals on interstate highways is important too.

For what it's worth, the rapid expansion of EV chargers with the help of public funding lies in sharp contrast with broadband deployment under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Last month, it emerged that the Commerce Department had been unable to allocate any portion of the $42.5 billion earmarked by the legislation for bolstering broadband infrastructure and narrowing the digital divide, since it didn't have adequate maps from the Federal Communications Commission by that time.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has formed a new office designed to help marginalized communities deal with the extra burdens of pollution and climate change, Reuters has reported. The Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights will be staffed by 200 EPA employees located in the agency's Washington head office and 10 regional bureaus. 

"The establishment of a new office dedicated to advancing environmental justice and civil rights at EPA will ensure the lived experiences of underserved communities are central to our decision-making while supporting community-driven solutions," said US Vice President Kamala Harris.

One of the primary jobs of the new office will be to oversea the distribution of $3 billion in environmental justice grants created by the passage the of Inflation Reduction Act, as part of a $60 billion investment in environmental justice. It'll also check that other EPA programs hew to President Biden's Justice40 initiative designed to ensure that 40 percent of certain government investments flow to disadvantaged communities. Finally, it'll help communities access grants, enforce civil rights laws and resolve environmental conflicts.

The new office was launched at an event in Warren County, North Carolina, the site of 1982 protests over toxic waste dumping in the region. The resulting civil disobedience actions and arrests failed to stop the 22-acre dump, but gave birth to the modern environmental justice movement. The 40th anniversary of the protests was commemorated by participants last week. 

Florida is calling on the US' highest court to settle the dispute over social media speech regulation. The Washington Postnotes the state's attorney general has petitioned the Supreme Court to determine whether or not states are violating First Amendment free speech rights by requiring that social media platforms host speech they would otherwise block, and whether they can require explanations when platforms remove posts.

In making its case, Florida argued that the court needed to address contradictory rulings. While a 5th Circuit of Appeals court upheld a Texas law allowing users to sue social networks for alleged censorship, an 11th Circuit of Appeals court ruled that Florida was violating the First Amendment with key parts of a law preventing internet firms from banning politicians.

The backers of the Florida and Texas laws have argued that the measures are necessary to combat alleged censorship of conservative views on platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Legislators have contended that social networks are common carriers, like phone providers, and thus are required to carry all speech that isn't otherwise illegal. The companies, meanwhile, believe laws like these are unconstitutional and would force them to host hate speech, hostile governments' propaganda and spam. They say the constitutional amendment is meant to protect against government censorship, and that private outlets have the right to decide what they host.

It's not clear how the Supreme Court will rule. While conservative judges dominate the legislative body, the court granted an emergency request that put the Texas law on hold before it was upheld in the 5th Circuit last week. The higher court hasn't yet issued a definitive ruling on the matter, and a decision in favor of Florida could also help more liberal-leaning states with their own proposed bills requiring greater transparency for hate speech and threats.

Iran has blocked access to Instagram and WhatsApp as its government attempts to subdue protests that began last week following the death of a woman at the hands of local authorities. As of Wednesday, demonstrations across the country had been ongoing for four consecutive days. The protests began over the weekend after 22-year-old Mahsa Amini died in the custody of Iran’s morality police on September 16th. She was arrested for allegedly violating the country’s strict dress code for women.

According to internet watchdog NetBlocks (via Reuters), the Iranian government has gradually restricted web access across much of the country in recent days. The blackout began in Tehran and other parts of Iran when protests first broke out on Friday. On the evening of September 19th, the government extended restrictions to parts of the western Kurdistan province. As of Wednesday, accessing WhatsApp and Instagram through any of the country’s major internet providers was impossible. According to NetBlocks, the current restrictions are the most severe since 2019, when Iran shut down all internet access in response to fuel protests.

Meta did not immediately respond to Engadget’s request for comment. NetBlocks suggests the disruptions are likely to significantly limit the ability of the Iranian people to communicate freely. In theory, Iran’s government may believe that restricting internet access will reduce the likelihood of protestors organizing and allow it to better control the narrative of Amini's death. 

TikTok is adding new rules for accounts belonging to politicians, government officials and political parties ahead of the midterm elections. The company says it will require these accounts to go through a “mandatory” verification process, and will restrict them from accessing advertising and other revenue generating features.

Up until now, verification for politicians and other officials was entirely optional. But that’s now changing, at least in the United States, as TikTok gears up for the midterm elections this fall. In a blog post, the company says the update is meant to help it enforce its rules, which bar political advertising of any kind, more consistently.

By verifying their accounts, TikTok will be able to block politicians and political parties from accessing the platform’s advertising tools or other revenue generating features like tipping. Accounts will also be barred from payouts from the company’s creator fund, and from in-app shopping features.

TikTok says it also plans to add further restrictions that will prevent politicians and political parties from using the platform to solicit campaign contributions or other donations, even on outside websites. That policy, which will take effect “in the coming weeks,” will bar videos that direct viewers to third-party fundraising sites. It also means that politicians will not be allowed to post videos asking for donations.

The new policies are the latest piece of TikTok’s strategy to prepare for the midterm elections. The company already began rolling out an in-app Elections Center to highlight voting resources and details about local races. But enforcing its ban on political ads has proved to be challenging for TikTok, which has had to contend with undisclosed branded content from creators. The new rules don’t address that issue specifically, but the added restrictions for campaigns and politicians will make it more difficult for candidates and other officials to evade its rules.