Emerging technology regulations: a comprehensive, evergreen approach
Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD
Technology is advancing at the speed of light today more than ever. We have surpassed Moore’s law — computational power is doubling every six months rather than every two years — while regulations are, and have been, playing catchup.
The EU Artificial Intelligence Act just came into force in August 2024 and is already falling behind. It did not consider AI agents and is still wrestling with generative AI (GenAI) and foundation models. Article 28b was added to the act in June 2023 after the launch of ChatGPT at the end of 2022 and the flourishing of chatbot deployments. It was not on their radar when lawmakers initially drafted the act in April 2021.
As we move more into robotics and the use of virtual reality devices, a “new paradigm of AI architectures” will be developed, addressing the limitations of GenAI to create robots and virtual devices that can reason the world, unlike GenAI models. Maybe spending time drafting a new article on GenAI was not time well spent.
Furthermore, technology regulations are quite dichotomized. There are regulations on AI, like the EU AI Act; Web3, like Markets in Crypto-Assets; and the security of digital information, like the EU Cybersecurity Act and The Digital Operational Resilience Act.
This dichotomy is cumbersome for users and businesses to follow. Moreover, it does not align with how solutions and products are developed. Every solution integrates many technologies, while each technology component has separate regulations.
It might be time to reconsider the way we regulate technology.
A comprehensive approach
Tech companies have been pushing the boundaries with cutting-edge technologies, including Web3, AI, quantum computing and others yet to emerge. Other industries are following suit in the experimentation and implementation of these technologies.
Everything is digital, and every product integrates several technologies. Think of the Apple Vision Pro or Meta Quest. They have hardware, goggles, AI, biometric technology, cloud computing, cryptography, digital wallets and more, and they will soon be integrated with Web3 technology.
A comprehensive approach to regulation would be the most suitable approach for the following principal reasons.
A full-system solution
Most, if not all, solutions require the integration of several emerging technologies. If we have separate guidelines and regulations for each technology, how could we ensure the product/service is compliant? Where does one rule start and the other end?
Recent: Animoca Brands revenue climbs as AI cuts costs by 12%
Separate guidelines would probably introduce more complexity, errors and misinterpretations, which eventually might result in more harm than good. If the implementation of technologies is all-encompassing and comprehensive, the approach to regulating it should also be.
Different technologies support each other’s weaknesses
All technologies have strengths and weaknesses, and often, the strengths of one technology can support the shortcomings of the other.
For example, AI can support Web3 by enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of smart contract execution and blockchain security and monitoring. In contrast, blockchain technology can assist in manifesting “responsible AI,” as blockchain is everything that AI is not — transparent, traceable, trustworthy and tamper-free.
When AI supports Web3 and vice versa, we implement a comprehensive, safe, secure and trustworthy solution. Would these solutions be AI-compliant or Web3-compliant? With this solution, it would be challenging to dichotomize compliance. The solution should be compliant and adhere to all guidelines/policies. It would be best if these guidelines/policies encompass all technologies, including their integration.
A proactive approach
We need proactive regulation. Many of the regulation proposals, across all regions, seem to be reactions to changes we know about today and don’t go far enough in thinking about how to provide frameworks for what might come five or 10 years down the line.
If, for example, we already know that there will be a “new paradigm of AI architectures,” probably in the next five years, then why not start thinking today, not in 5 years, how to regulate it? Or better yet, find a regulatory framework that would apply no matter how technology evolves.
Think about responsible innovation. Responsible innovation, simplistically, means making new technologies work for society without causing more problems than they solve. In other words: “Do good, do no harm.”
Responsible innovation
Responsible innovation principles are designed to span all technologies, not just AI. These principles recognize that all technologies can have unintended consequences on users, bystanders and society, and that it is the responsibility of the companies and developers creating those technologies to identify and mitigate those risks.
Responsible innovation principles are overarching and international and apply to any technology that exists today and will evolve in the future. This could be the basis for technology regulation. Still, companies, regardless of regulation, should understand that innovating responsibly instills trust in users, which will translate to mainstream adoption.
Truth in Technology Act
The Securities Act of 1933, also known as the “truth in securities” law, was created to protect investors from fraud and misrepresentation and restore public confidence in the stock market as a response to the stock market crash of 1929.
At the core of the act lie honesty and transparency, the essential ingredients to instill public trust in the stock market, or in anything for that matter.
This act has withstood the test of time — an “evergreen” law. Securities trading and the financial industry have become more digital and more technological, but the core principles of this act still apply and will continue to.
Based on the principles of responsible innovation, we could design a “Truth in Technology Act,” which would instill public trust in technology, internationally, now and in the future. Fundamentally, we seek these products and services to be safe, secure, ethical, privacy-preserving, accurate, easy to understand, auditable, transparent and accountable. These values are international across regions, industries and technologies, and since technology knows no boundaries, neither should regulations.
Innovation may create value, but it may also extract or destroy it. Regulation helps limit the latter two types of innovation, while well-designed regulation may enable the first kind to survive and flourish. A global collaboration may find ways to incentivize innovation that creates value for the good of the global economy and society.
It might be time for a Truth in Technology Act — an international, comprehensive, evergreen regulation for the good of the citizens of the world.
Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Politics
Specialist teams and online investigators deployed across England and Wales to tackle ‘national emergency’ of violence against women and girls
Specialist investigation teams for rape and sexual offences are to be created across England and Wales as the home secretary declares violence against women and girls a “national emergency”.
Shabana Mahmood said the dedicated units will be in place across every force by 2029 as part of Labour’s violence against women and girls (VAWG) strategy due to be launched later this week.
The use of Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPOs), which had been trialled in several areas, will also be rolled out across England and Wales. They are designed to target abusers by imposing curfews, electronic tags and exclusion zones.
The orders cover all forms of domestic abuse, including economic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, stalking and ‘honour’-based abuse. Breaching the terms can carry a prison term of up to five years.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Govt ‘thinking again’ on abuse strategy
Nearly £2m will also be spent funding a network of officers to target offenders operating within the online space.
Teams will use covert and intelligence techniques to tackle violence against women and girls via apps and websites.
A similar undercover network funded by the Home Office to examine child sexual abuse has arrested over 1,700 perpetrators.
Abuse is ‘national emergency’
Ms Mahmood said in a statement: “This government has declared violence against women and girls a national emergency.
“For too long, these crimes have been considered a fact of life. That’s not good enough. We will halve it in a decade.
“Today, we announce a range of measures to bear down on abusers, stopping them in their tracks. Rapists, sex offenders and abusers will have nowhere to hide.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Angiolini Inquiry: Recommendations are ‘not difficult’
The target to halve violence against women and girls in a decade is a Labour manifesto pledge.
The government said the measures build on existing policy, including facial recognition technology to identify offenders, improving protections for stalking victims, making strangulation a criminal offence and establishing domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms.
Read more from Sky News:
Demands for violence and abuse reforms
Women still feel unsafe on streets
Minister ‘clarifies’ violence strategy
Labour has ‘failed women’
But the Conservatives said Labour had “failed women” and “broken its promises” by delaying the publication of the violence against women and girls strategy.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said that Labour “shrinks from uncomfortable truths, voting against tougher sentences and presiding over falling sex-offender convictions. At every turn, Labour has failed women”.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood will be on Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips on Sky News this morning from 8.30am.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published a crypto wallet and custody guide investor bulletin on Friday, outlining best practices and common risks of different forms of crypto storage for the investing public.
The SEC’s bulletin lists the benefits and risks of different methods of crypto custody, including self-custody versus allowing a third-party to hold digital assets on behalf of the investor.
If investors choose third-party custody, they should understand the custodian’s policies, including whether it “rehypothecates” the assets held in custody by lending them out or if the service provider is commingling client assets in a single pool instead of holding the crypto in segregated customer accounts.
Crypto wallet types were also outlined in the SEC guide, which broke down the pros and cons of hot wallets, which are connected to the internet, and offline storage in cold wallets.
Hot wallets carry the risk of hacking and other cybersecurity threats, according to the SEC, while cold wallets carry the risk of permanent loss if the offline storage fails, a storage device is stolen, or the private keys are compromised.
The SEC’s crypto custody guide highlights the sweeping regulatory change at the agency, which was hostile to digital assets and the crypto industry under former SEC Chairman Gary Gensler’s leadership.
Related: SEC sends warning letters to ETF issuers targeting untamed leverage
The crypto community celebrates the SEC guide as a transformational change in the agency
“The same agency that spent years trying to kill the industry is now teaching people how to use it,” Truth For the Commoner (TFTC) said in response to the SEC’s crypto custody guide.
The SEC is providing “huge value” to crypto investors by educating prospective crypto holders about custody and best practices, according to Jake Claver, the CEO of Digital Ascension Group, a company that provides services to family offices.
SEC regulators published the guide one day after SEC Chair Paul Atkins said that the legacy financial system is moving onchain.
On Thursday, the SEC gave the green light to the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC), a clearing and settlement company, to begin tokenizing financial assets, including equities, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and government debt securities.
Magazine: Unstablecoins: Depegging, bank runs and other risks loom
Greens leader Zack Polanski has rejected claims his party would push for open borders on immigration, telling Sky News it is “not a pragmatic” solution for a world in “turmoil”.
Mr Polanski distanced himself from his party’s “long-range vision” for open borders, saying it was not in his party’s manifesto and was an “attack line used by opponents” to question his credibility.
It came as Mr Polanski, who has overseen a spike in support in the polls to double figures, refused to apologise over controversial comments he made about care workers on BBC Question Time that were criticised across the political spectrum.
Mr Polanski was speaking to Sky News earlier this week while in Calais, where he joined volunteers and charities to witness how French police handle the arrival of migrants in the town that is used as a departure point for those wanting to make the journey to the UK.
He told Sky News he had made the journey to the French town – once home to the “Jungle” refugee camp before it was demolished in 2016 – to tackle “misinformation” about migration and to make the case for a “compassionate, fair and managed response” to the small boats crisis.
He said that “no manifesto ever said anything about open borders” and that the Greens had never stood at a general election advocating for them.
“Clearly when the world is in political turmoil and we have deep inequality, that is not a situation we can move to right now,” he said.
“That would also involve massive international agreements and cooperation. That clearly is not a pragmatic conversation to have right now. And very often the government try to push that attack line to make us look not pragmatic.”
The party’s manifesto last year did not mention open borders, but it did call for an end to the “hostile environment”, more safe and legal routes and for the Home Office to be abolished and replaced with a department of migration.
Asked why the policy of minimal restrictions on migration had been attributed to his party, Mr Polanski said open borders was part of a “long-range vision of what society could look like if there was a Green government and if we’d had a long time to fix some of the systemic problems”.
‘We should recognise the contribution migrants make’
Mr Polanski, who was elected Green Party leader in September and has been compared to Nigel Farage over his populist economic policies, said his position was one of a “fair and managed” migration system – although he did not specify whether that included a cap on numbers.
He acknowledged that there needed to be a “separate conversation” about economic migration but that he did not believe any person who boarded a small boat was in a “good situation”.
While Mr Polanski stressed that he believed asylum seekers should be able to work in Britain and pay taxes, he also said he believed in the need to train British workers in sectors such as care, where one in five are foreign nationals.
Asked what his proposals for a fair and managed migration system looked like, and whether he supported a cap on numbers, Mr Polanski said: “We have 100,000 vacancies in the National Health Service. One in five care workers in the care sector are foreign nationals.
Zack Polanski speaks to Sky News from a warehouse in Calais where charities and organisations provide migrants with essentials.
“Now, of course, that is both British workers and we should be training British workers, but we should recognise the contribution that migrants and people who come over here make.”
I’m not going to apologise’
Mr Polanski also responded to the criticism he attracted over his comments about care workers on Question Time last week, where he told the audience: “I don’t know about you, but I don’t particularly want to wipe someone’s bum” – before adding: “I’m very grateful for the people who do this work.”
His comments have been criticised by a number of Labour MPs, including Wes Streeting, the health secretary, who said: “Social care isn’t just ‘wiping someone’s bum’. It is a hard, rewarding, skilled professional job.
“This is immigration as exploitation.”
Read more:
The Greens leader who wants to be the Farage of the left
Will Farage racism allegations deter voters?
Asked whether he could understand why some care workers might feel he had talked down to them, the Greens leader replied: “I care deeply about care workers. When I made those comments, it’s important to give a full context. I said ‘I’m very grateful to people who do this important work’ and absolutely repeat that it’s vital work.”
“Of course, it is not part of the whole job, and I never pretended it was part of the whole job.”
Mr Polanski said he “totally” rejected the suggestion that he had denigrated the role of care workers in the eyes of the public and said his remarks were made in the context of a “hostile Question Time” where he had “three right-wing panellists shouting at me”.
Pressed on whether he wanted to apologise, he replied: “I’m not going to apologise for being really clear that I’m really grateful to the people who do this really vital work. And yes, we should be paying them properly, too.”
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024