Re: Can AI be trusthworthy

Thanks for sharing. The bottom line perhaps is can humans, or anything be
trustworthy? Especially when most of the tricks we do play upon ourselves -
in the sense that I have never seen a model of infallibility in the human
realm

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:30 AM ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:

> An excerpt from the EU EDRI watchdog organizations.
>
> EDRi-gram
>
> fortnightly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
>
> EDRi-gram 18.11, 10 June 2020
> Read online: https://edri.org/edri-gram/18-11/
>
> =======================================================================
> Contents
> =======================================================================
>
> 1. Can the EU make AI “trustworthy”? No – but they can make it just
> 2. COVID-Tech: the sinister consequences of immunity passports
> 3. UK: Stop social media monitoring by local authorities
> 4. Cryptocurrency scammers flood Facebook users with manipulative ads
> 5. SHARE’s campaign bears fruit: Google appoints Serbian representatives
> 6. Recommended Action
> 7. Recommended Reading
> 8. Agenda
> 9. About
>
> =======================================================================
> 1. Can the EU make AI “trustworthy”? No – but they can make it just
> =======================================================================
>
> Today, 4 June 2020, European Digital Rights (EDRi) submitted its answer
> to the European Commission’s consultation on the AI White Paper. On top
> of our response, in our additional paper we outline recommendations to
> the European Commission for a fundamental rights- based AI regulation.
> You can find our consultation response, recommendations paper, and
> answering guide for the public here.
>
> How to ensure a “trustworthy AI” has been highly debated since the
> European Commission launched its White Paper on AI in February this
> year. Policymakers and industry have hosted numerous conversations about
> “innovation”, “Europe becoming a leader in AI”, and promoting a “Fair
> AI”.
>
> Yet, a “fair” or “trustworthy” artificial intelligence seems a far way
> off. As governments, institutions and industry swiftly move to
> incorporate AI into their systems and decision-making processes - grave
> concerns remain as to how these changes will impact people, democracy
> and society as a whole.
>
> EDRi’s response outlines the main risks AI poses for people, communities
> and society, and outlines  recommendations for an improved, truly
> ‘human-centric’ legislative proposal on AI. We argue that the EU must
> reinforce the protections already embedded in the General Data
> Protection Regulation (GDPR), outline clear legal limits for AI by
> focusing on impermissible use, and foreground principles of collective
> impact, democratic oversight, accountability, and fundamental rights.
> Here’s a summary of our main points.
>
> Put people before industrial policy
>
> A ‘human centric’ approach to AI requires that considerations of safety,
> equality, privacy, and fundamental rights are the primary factors
> underpinning decisions as to whether to promote or invest in AI.
>
> However, the European Commission’s White Paper proposal takes as a point
> of a departure the inherent economic benefits of promoting AI,
> particularly in the public sector. Promoting AI in the public sector as
> a whole, without requiring scientific evidence to justify the need or
> the purpose of such applications in some potentially harmful situations,
> is likely to have the most direct consequences on everyday peoples’
> lives, particularly on marginalised groups.
>
> Despite wide ranging applications that could advance our societies (such
> as some uses in the field of health), we have also seen the vast
> negative impacts of automated systems at play at the border, in
> predictive policing systems which exacerbate overpolicing of racialised
> communities, in ‘fraud detection’ systems which target poor, working
> class and migrant areas, and countless more examples. All such examples
> highlight the potentially devastating consequences AI systems can have
> in the public sector, contesting the case for ‘promoting the uptake of
> AI.’ These examples highlight the need for AI regulation to be rooted in
> a human-centric approach.
>
> "The development of artificial intelligence technology offers huge
> potential opportunities for improving our economies and societies, but
> also extreme risks. Poorly-designed and governed AI will exacerbate
> power imbalances and inequality, increase discrimination, invade privacy
> and undermine a whole host of other rights. EU legislation must ensure
> that cannot happen. Nobody's rights should be sacrificed on the altar of
> innovation." said Chris Jones, Statewatch.
>
> Address collective harms of AI
>
> The vast potential scale and impact AI systems challenges existing
> conceptions of harm. Whilst in many ways we can view the challenges
> posed by AI as fundamental rights issues, often the harms perpetrated
> are much broader, disadvantaging communities, economy, democracy and
> entire societies. From the impending threat of mass surveillance as a a
> result of biometric processing in publicly-accessible spaces, to the use
> of automated systems or ‘upload filters’ to moderate content on social
> media, to severe disruptions to the democratic process, we see the
> impact goes far beyond the level of the individual. One specificity of
> regulating AI is the need to address societal-level harms.
>
> Prevent harms by focusing on impermissible use
>
> Just as the problems with AI are collective and structural, so must be
> the solutions. The European Commission’s White Paper outlines some
> safeguards to address ‘high-risk’ AI, such as training data to correct
> for bias and ensuring human oversight. Whilst these safeguards are
> crucial, they will not address the irreparable harms which will result
> from a number of uses of AI.
>
> “The EU must move beyond technical fixes for the complex problems posed
> by AI. Instead, the upcoming AI regulation must determine the legal
> limits, impermissible uses or ‘red-lines’ for AI applications. This is a
> necessary step for a people-centered, fundamental rights-based AI” says
> Sarah Chander, Senior Policy Adviser, EDRi.
>
> The EDRi network lists some of the impermissible uses of AI:
>
> - indiscriminate biometric surveillance and biometric capture and
> processing in public spaces [1]
> - use of AI to solely determine access to or delivery of essential
> public services (such as social security, policing, migration control)
> - uses of AI which purport to identify, analyse and assess emotion,
> mood, behaviour, and sensitive identity traits (such as race,
> disability) in the delivery of essential services
> - predictive policing
> - autonomous lethal weapons and other uses which identify targets for
> lethal force (such as law and immigration enforcement)
>
> "The EU must ensure that states and companies meet their obligations and
> responsibilities to respect and promote human rights in the context of
> automated decision-making systems. EU institutions and national
> policymakers must explicitly recognise that there are legal limits to
> the use and impact of automation. No safeguard or remedy would make
> indiscriminate biometric surveillance or predictive policing acceptable,
> justified or compatible with human rights" said Fanny Hidvegi, Europe
> Policy Manager at Access Now.
>
> Require democratic oversight for AI in the public sphere
>
> The rapidly increasing deployment of AI systems presents a major
> governance issue. Due to the (designed) opacity of the systems, the
> complete lack of transparency from governments when such systems are
> deployed for use in public, essential functions, and the systematic lack
> of democratic oversight and engagement – AI is furthering the ‘power
> asymmetry between those who develop and employ AI technologies, and
> those who interact with and are subject to them [2].
>
> As a result, decisions impacting public services will be more opaque,
> increasingly privately owned, and even less subject to democratic
> oversight. It is vital that the EU’s regulatory proposal on AI addresses
> this – implementing mandatory measures of democratic oversight for the
> procurement and deployment of AI in the public sector and essential
> services. More, the EU must explore methods of direct public engagement
> on AI systems. In this regard, authorities should be required to
> specifically consult marginalised groups likely to be disproportionately
> impacted by automated systems.
>
> Implement the strongest possible fundamental rights protections
>
> Regulation on AI must reinforce, rather than replace, the protections
> already embedded in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The
> European Commission has the opportunity to complement these protections
> with safeguards for AI. To put people first and provide the strongest
> possible protections, all systems should complete mandatory human rights
> impact assessments. This assessment should evaluate the collective,
> societal, institutional and governance implications the system poses,
> and outline adequate steps to mitigate this.
>
> "The deployment of such systems for predictive purposes comes with high
> risks on human rights violations. Introducing ethical guidelines &
> standards for the design and deployment of these tools is welcome, but
> not enough. Instead, we need the European Union and Member States to
> ensure compliance with the applicable regulatory frameworks, and draw
> clear legal limits to ensure AI is always compatible with fundamental
> rights." says Eleftherios Chelioudakis from Homo Digitalis.
>
> EDRi’s position calls for fundamental rights to be prioritised in the
> regulatory proposal for all AI systems, not only those categorised as
> ‘high-risk’. We argue AI regulation should avoid creating loop-holes or
> exemptions based on sector, size of enterprise, or whether or not the
> system is deployed in the public sector.
>
> "It is crucial for the EU to recognize that the adoption of AI
> applications is not inevitable. The design, development and deployment
> of systems must be tested against human rights standards in order to
> establish their appropriate and acceptable use. Red lines are thus an
> important piece of the AI governance puzzle. Recognizing impermissible
> use at the outset is particularly important because of the
> disproportionate, unequal and sometimes irreversible ways in which
> automated decision making systems impact societies." said Vidushi Marda,
> Senior Programme Officer, at ARTICLE 19
>
> The rapid uptake of AI will fundamentally change our society. From a
> human rights’ perspective, AI systems have the ability to exacerbate
> surveillance and intrusion into our personal lives, fundamentally alter
> the delivery of public and essential services, vastly undermine vital
> data protection legislation, and disrupt the democratic process.
>
> For some, AI will mean reinforced, deeper harms as such systems feed and
> embed existing processes of marginalisation. For all, the route to
> remedies, accountability, and justice will be ever-more unclear, as this
> power asymmetry further shifts to private actors, and public goods and
> services will be not only automated, but privately owned.
>
> There is no “trustworthy AI” without clear red-lines for impermissable
> use, democratic oversight, and a truly fundamental rights-based approach
> to AI regulation. The European Union’s upcoming legislative proposal on
> artificial intelligence (AI) is a major opportunity change this; to
> protect people and democracy from the escalating economic, political and
> social issues posed by AI.
>
> Footnotes:
>
> [1] EDRi (2020). ‘Ban Biometric Mass Surveillance: A set of fundamental
> rights demands for the European Commission and Member States’
>
> https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Paper-Ban-Biometric-Mass-Surveillance.pdf
>
>
> [2] Council of Europe  (2019). ‘Responsibility and AI  DGI(2019)05
> Rapporteur: Karen Yeung
> https://rm.coe.int/responsability-and-ai-en/168097d9c5
>
> Read more:
>
> EDRi Consultation Response: European Commission Consultation on the
> White Paper on Artificial Intelligence
> https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/AI_EDRiConsultationResponse.pdf
>
> EDRI Recommendations for a Fundamental-rights based Artificial
> Intelligence Regulation: Addressing collective harms, democratic
> oversight and impermissable use
> https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/AI_EDRiRecommendations.pdf
>
> Access Now Consultation Response: European Commission Consultation on
> the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence
> https://www.accessnow.org/EU-white-paper-consultation
>
> Bits of Freedom (2020). ‘Facial recognition: A convenient and efficient
> solution, looking for a problem?’
>
> https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2020/01/29/facial-recognition-a-convenient-and-efficient-solution-looking-for-a-problem/
>
>
> EDRi (2020). ‘Ban Biometric Mass Surveillance: A set of fundamental
> rights demands for the European Commission and Member States’
>
> https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Paper-Ban-Biometric-Mass-Surveillance.pdf
>
>
> Privacy International and Article 19 (2018). ‘Privacy and Freedom of
> Expression in the Age of Artificial Intelligence’
>
> https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Privacy-and-Freedom-of-Expression-In-the-Age-of-Artificial-Intelligence-1.pdf
>
>
> =======================================================================
> 2. COVID-Tech: the sinister consequences of immunity passports
>
>
> Milton Ponson
> GSM: +297 747 8280
> PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
> Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
> Project Paradigm: Bringing the ICT tools for sustainable development to
> all stakeholders worldwide through collaborative research on applied
> mathematics, advanced modeling, software and standards development
>