U.S. federal policymakers continued to focus on artificial intelligence (“AI”) and the Internet of Things (“IoT”) in the fourth quarter of 2019, including by introducing substantive bills that would regulate the use of such technology and by supporting bills aimed at further study of how such technology may impact different sectors. In our fourth AI & IoT Quarterly Legislative Update, we detail the notable legislative events from this quarter on AI, IoT, cybersecurity as it relates to AI and IoT, and connected and autonomous vehicles (“CAVs”). Continue Reading
This month, situated among foldable tablet computers and flying taxis, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, unveiled at the Consumer Electronics Show (“CES”) the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”) long-anticipated fourth round of automated vehicles guidance, “AV 4.0.” Formally entitled, “Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle Technologies,” AV 4.0 is less regulatory guidance and more regulatory aggregator. The document lists in great detail the various Administration efforts—across 38 federal departments and agencies—geared toward promoting, supporting, and providing accountability for users and communities with respect to autonomous mobility. Continue Reading
The World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) recently announced a public consultation process on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy. As part of the consultation process, WIPO concurrently published and has requested feedback on a wide-ranging draft IP Policy and AI Issues Paper that is intended to help define the most pressing AI-related questions likely to face IP policy makers in the areas of patents, copyright, and data.
The Issues Paper follows other recent WIPO activity pertaining to AI-related IP issues. In January 2019 WIPO issued a publication that surveyed the landscape of AI innovation since the field first developed in the 1950s, and in September 2019 WIPO held a Conversation on IP and AI.
Recognizing the significance and potential implications of the intersection of AI and intellectual property, two of the leading patent offices have now requested public comment. As discussed in a previous blog, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a “Request for Comments on Patenting Artificial Intelligence Inventions” on August 27, 2019. The USPTO subsequently issued a “Request for Comments on Intellectual Property Protection for Artificial Intelligence Innovation” on October 30, 2019, in which it seeks comments on the copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property rights issues that may be impacted by AI. Continue Reading
On January 7, 2019, pursuant to President Donald Trump’s Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released a draft Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications, including ten principles for agencies to consider when deciding whether and how to regulate AI. The White House announced a 60 day public comment period following the release of the Guidance, after which the White House will issue a final memorandum and instruct agencies to submit implementation plans. Comments should be submitted to the White House via Regulations.gov Docket ID OMB_FRDOC_0001-0261.
5G wireless technology has captured the attention of Congress. At least 30 5G-related bills have been introduced in the House and Senate this Congress, signaling widespread interest by lawmakers in 5G. Several of these bills, addressing a range of issues including national security concerns, the promotion of U.S. leadership in international 5G standards-setting bodies, and the deployment of domestic 5G infrastructure, have passed through committee with strong bipartisan support. Continue Reading
The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) has issued and is consulting on draft guidance about explaining decisions made by AI. The ICO prepared the guidance with The Alan Turing Institute, which is the UK’s national institute for data science and artificial intelligence. Among other things, the guidance sets out key principles to follow and steps to take when explaining AI-assisted decisions — including in relation to different types of AI algorithms — and the policies and procedures that organizations should consider putting in place.
The draft guidance builds upon the ICO’s previous work in this area, including its AI Auditing Framework, June 2019 Project ExplAIN interim report, and September 2017 paper ‘Big data, artificial intelligence, machine learning and data protection’. (Previous blog posts that track this issue are available here.) Elements of the new draft guidance touch on points that go beyond narrow GDPR requirements, such as AI ethics (see, in particular, the recommendation to provide explanations of the fairness or societal impacts of AI systems). Other sections of the guidance are quite technical; for example, the ICO provides its own analysis of the possible uses and interpretability of eleven specific types of AI algorithms.
Organizations that develop, test or deploy AI decision-making systems should review the draft guidance and consider responding to the consultation. The consultation is open until January 24, 2020. A final version is expected to be published later next year.
On December 3, 2019, the EU’s new Commissioner for the Internal Market, Thierry Breton, suggested a change of approach to the proposed e-Privacy Regulation may be necessary. At a meeting of the Telecoms Council, Breton indicated that the Commission would likely develop a new proposal, following the Council’s rejection of a compromise text on November 27.
Last month, NIST released its Draft NISTIR 8269, A Taxonomy and Terminology of Adversarial Machine Learning.
The taxonomy is intended to assist researchers and practitioners in developing a common lexicon around Adversarial Machine Learning, with the goal of setting standards and best practices for managing the security of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) systems against attackers. Continue Reading
With all the current excitement around emerging high-tech autonomous vehicles and internet of things (IoT) devices, it may surprise some observers that around 20 years ago the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), at Congress’s direction, was already taking some important steps with respect to these technologies. Most notably, the FCC set aside the 5.9 GHz band, which is a swath of highly-valued mid-band spectrum, for vehicle related communications and transportation safety features. At that time, the FCC pursued Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) as the standard to develop critical safety services, but over time, similar technologies outside of the 5.9 GHz band have developed. More recently, a number of manufacturers and developers have been focused on a new technology called Cellular Vehicle to Everything (C-V2X), which proponents argue should be the standard going forward.
The FCC has decided to weigh in on the issues in the 5.9 GHz band in a draft notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to be voted on at its December 12 Commission Open Meeting. The 5.9 GHz band has been a political issue subject to disagreements among the FCC, Department of Transportation, and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, regarding the best path forward, which technologies should be pursued, and whether there is enough spectrum that can safely be shared among different use cases. Continue Reading
On November 15, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 18-956. The two questions presented before the Court are (1) whether “copyright protection extends to a software interface,” and (2) whether, as the jury found, that Google’s “use of a software interface in the context of a creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.” Continue Reading