Lina Khan sta facendo cose egregie alla FTC. È osteggiata non solo dalla lobby delle big tech, come è ovvio, ma anche dai molti giuristi antitrust americani fedeli all’impostazione neo-liberale. Buona domenica M
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 at 13:02, Daniela Tafani <daniela.taf...@unipi.it> wrote: > Buongiorno, Maurizio. > > > Grazie dell'analisi. > > > Prevedibilmente, è ben più vituperata Lina Khan. > > > Ne ha scritto ieri Cory Doctorow, con un appello finale a sostenerla, > evitando il cinismo da quattro soldi: > > Why they're smearing Lina Khan > > My god, they sure *hate* Lina Khan. This once-in-a-generation, > groundbreaking, brilliant legal scholar and fighter for the public > interest, the slayer of Reaganomics, has attracted more vitriol, mockery, > and dismissal than any of her predecessors in living memory. > > She sure must be doing something right, huh? > > A quick refresher. In 2017, Khan – then a law student – published *Amazon's > Antitrust Paradox* in the *Yale Law Journal*. It was a brilliant, > blistering analysis showing how the Reagan-era theory of antitrust (which > celebrates monopolies as "efficient") had failed on its own terms, using > Amazon as Exhibit A of the ways in which post-Reagan antitrust had left > Americans vulnerable to corporate abuse: > > https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox > > The paper sent seismic shocks through both legal and economic circles, and > goosed the neo-Brandeisian movement (sneeringly dismissed as "hipster > antitrust"). This movement is a rebuke to Reaganomics, with its celebration > of monopolies, trickle-down, offshoring, corporate dark money, > revolving-door regulatory capture, and companies that are simultaneously > too big to fail and too big to jail. > > This movement has many proponents, of course – not just Khan – but Khan's > careful scholarship, combined with her encyclopedic knowledge of the > long-dormant statutory powers that federal agencies had to make change, and > a strategy for reviving those powers to protect Americans from corporate > predators made her a powerful, inspirational figure. > > When Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, he surprised everyone > by appointing Khan to the FTC. It wasn't just that she had such a radical > vision – it was also that she lacked the usual corporate law experience > that such an appointee would normally require (experience that would ensure > that the FTC was helmed by people whose default view of the world is that > it should be structured and regulated by powerful, wealthy people in > corporate boardrooms). > > Even more surprising was that Khan was made *chair* of the FTC, something > that was only possible because a few Republican Senators broke with their > party to support her candidacy: > > > https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00233.htm > > These Republicans saw in Khan an ally in their fight against "woke" Big > Tech. For these senators, the problem wasn't that tech had got too big and > powerful – it was that there were a few limited instances in which tech > leaders failed to wield that power in the ways they preferred. > > The Republican project is a matter of getting turkeys to vote for > Christmas by doing a lot of culture war bullshit, cruelly abusing > disfavored sexual and racial minorities. This wins support from > low-information voters who'll vote against their class interests and > support more monopolies, more tax cuts for the rich, and more cuts to the > services they rely on. > > But while tech leaders are 100% committed to the project of permanent > oligarchic takeover of every sphere of American life, they are less > full-throated in their support for hateful, cruel discrimination against > disfavored minorities (in this regard, tech leaders resemble the corporate > wing of the Democrats, which is where we get the "Silicon Valley is a > Democratic Party stronghold" narrative). > > This failure to unquestioningly and unstintingly back culture war bullshit > put tech leaders in the GOP's crosshairs. Some GOP politicians actually > believe in the culture war bullshit, and are grossly offended that tech is > "woke." Others are smart enough not to get high on their own supply, but > worry that any tech obstruction in the bullshit culture wars will make it > harder to get sufficient turkey votes for a big fat Christmas surprise. > > Biden's ceding of antitrust policy to the left wing of the party, combined > with disaffected GOP senators viewing Khan as their enemy's enemy, led to > Khan's historic appointment as FTC Chair. In that position, she was joined > by a slate of Biden trustbusters, including Jonathan Kanter at the DoJ > Antitrust Division, Tim Wu at the White House, and other important, skilled > and principled fighters like Alvaro Bedoya (FTC), Rebecca Slaughter (FTC), > Rohit Chopra (CFPB), and many others. > > Crucially, these new appointees weren't just principled, they were *good > at their jobs*. In 2021, Tim Wu wrote an executive order for Biden that > laid out 72 concrete ways in which the administration could act – with no > further Congressional authorization – to blunt corporate power and insulate > the American people from oligarchs' abusive and extractive practices: > > https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/13/post-bork-era/#manne-down > > Since then, the antitrust arm of the Biden administration have been *fuckin' > ninjas*, Getting Shit Done in ways large and small, working – for the > first time since Reagan – to protect Americans from predatory businesses: > > https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff > > This is in marked contrast to the corporate Dems' champions in the > administration. People like Pete Buttigieg are heralded as competent > technocrats, "realists" who are too principled to peddle hopium to the > base, writing checks they can't cash. All this is cover for a King Log > performance, in which Buttigieg's far-reaching regulatory authority sits > unused on a shelf while a million Americans are stranded over Christmas and > whole towns are endangered by greedy, reckless rail barons straight out of > the Gilded Age: > > https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge > > The contrast between the Biden trustbusters and their counterparts from > the corporate wing is stark. While the corporate wing insists that every > pitch is outside of the zone, Khan and her allies are swinging for the > stands. They're trying to make life better for you and me, by declaring > commercial surveillance to be an unfair business practice and thus illegal: > > > https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/12/regulatory-uncapture/#conscious-uncoupling > > And by declaring noncompete "agreements" that shackle good workers to > shitty jobs to be illegal: > > https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/02/its-the-economy-stupid/#neofeudal > > And naturally, this has *really* pissed off all the right people: > America's billionaires and their cheerleaders in the press, government, and > the hive of scum and villainy that is the Big Law/thinktank > industrial-complex. > > Take the *WSJ*: since Khan took office, they have published *67 vicious > editorials* attacking her and her policies. Khan is living rent-free in > Rupert Murdoch's head. Not only that, he's given her the presidential > suite! You *love* to see it. > > These attacks are worth reading, if only to see how flimsy and frivolous > they are. One major subgenre is that Khan shouldn't be bringing any action > against Amazon, because her groundbreaking scholarship about the company > means she has a conflict of interest. Holy *moly* is this a stupid thing > to say. The idea that the chair of an expert agency should recuse herself > *because > she is an expert* is what the physicists call *not even wrong.* > > But these attacks are even more laughable due to who they're coming from: > people who have the most outrageous conflicts of interest imaginable, and > who were conspicuously silent for years as the FTC's revolving door > admitted the a bestiary of swamp-creatures so conflicted it's a wonder they > managed to dress themselves in the morning. > > Writing in *The American Prospect*, David Dayen runs the numbers: > > Since the late 1990s, 31 out of 41 top FTC officials worked directly for a > company that has business before the agency, with 26 of them related to the > technology industry. > > > https://prospect.org/economy/2023-06-23-attacks-lina-khans-ethics-reveal-projection/ > > Take Christine Wilson, a GOP-appointed FTC Commissioner who quit the > agency in a huff because Khan wanted to do things for the American people, > and not their self-appointed oligarchic princelings. Wilson wrote an angry > break-up letter to Khan that the *WSJ* published, presaging their > concierge service for Samuel Alito: > > > https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-im-resigning-from-the-ftc-commissioner-ftc-lina-khan-regulation-rule-violation-antitrust-339f115d > > For Wilson to question Khan's ethics took galactic-scale chutzpah. Wilson, > after all, is a commissioner who took cash money from Bristol-Myers Squibb, > then voted to approve their merger with Celgene: > > > https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4365601-Wilson-Christine-Smith-final278.html > > Or take Wilson's GOP FTC predecessor Josh Wright, whose incestuous > relationship with the companies he oversaw at the Commission are so > intimate he's practically got a Habsburg jaw. Wright went from Google to > the US government and back again *four times*. He also lobbied the FTC on > behalf of Qualcomm (a major donor to Wright's employer, George Mason’s > Antonin Scalia Law School) after working "personally and substantially" > while serving at the FTC. > > George Mason's Scalia center practically *owns* the revolving door, > counting *fourteen* FTC officials among its affliates: > > > https://campaignforaccountability.org/ttp-investigation-big-techs-backdoor-to-the-ftc/ > > Since the 1990s, 31 out of 41 top FTC officials – both GOP appointed and > appointees backed by corporate Dems – "worked directly for a company that > has business before the agency": > > https://www.citizen.org/article/ftc-big-tech-revolving-door-problem-report/ > > The *majority* of FTC and DoJ antitrust lawyers who served between > 2014-21 left government service and went straight to work for a Big Law > firm, serving the companies they'd regulated just a few months before: > > > https://therevolvingdoorproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/The-Revolving-Door-In-Federal-Antitrust-Enforcement.pdf > > Take Deborah Feinstein, formerly the head of the FTC's Bureau of > Competition, now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where she's represented > General Electric, NBCUniversal, Unilever, and Pepsi and a whole medicine > chest's worth of pharma giants before her former subordinates at the FTC. > Michael Moiseyev who was assistant manager of FTC Competition is now in > charge of mergers at Weil Gotshal & Manges, working for Microsoft, Meta, > and Eli Lilly. > > There's a whole bunch more, but Dayen reserves special notice for Andrew > Smith, Trump's FTC Consumer Protection boss. Before he was put on the > public payroll, Smith represented *120 clients* that had business before > the Commission, including "nearly every major bank in America, drug > industry lobbyist PhRMA, Uber, Equifax, Amazon, Facebook, Verizon, and a > variety of payday lenders": > > > https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/andrew_smith_foia_appeal_response_11_30.pdf > > Before Khan, in other words, the FTC was a "conflict-of-interest assembly > line, moving through corporate lawyers and industry hangers-on without > resistance for decades." > > Khan is the first FTC head with no conflicts. This leaves her opponents in > the sweaty, desperate position of inventing conflicts out of thin air. > > For these corporate lickspittles, Khan's "conflict" is that she has a *point > of view*. Specifically, she thinks that the FTC should do its job. > > This makes grifters like Jim Jordan furious. Yesterday, Jordan grilled > Khan in a hearing where he accused her of violating an ethics official's > advice that she should recuse herself from Big Tech cases. This is a > talking point that was created and promoted by *Bloomberg*: > > > https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-16/ftc-rejected-ethics-advice-for-khan-recusal-on-meta-case > > That ethics official, Lorielle Pankey, did *not*, in fact, make this > recommendation. It's simply untrue (she *did* say that Khan presiding > over cases that she has made public statements about could be used as ammo > against her, but did *not* say that it violated any ethical standard). > > But there's more to this story. Pankey herself has a *gigantic* conflict > of interest in this case, including a stock portfolio with $15,001 and > $50,000 in Meta stock (Meta is another company that has whined in print and > in its briefs that it is a poor defenseless lamb being picked on by big, > mean ole Lina Khan): > > > https://www.wsj.com/articles/ethics-official-owned-meta-stock-while-recommending-ftc-chair-recuse-herself-from-meta-case-8582a83b > > Jordan called his hearing on the back of this fake scandal, and then > proceeded to show his whole damned ass, even as his GOP colleagues got into > a substantive and even informative dialog with Khan: > > > https://prospect.org/power/2023-07-14-jim-jordan-misfires-attacks-lina-khan/ > > Mostly what came out of that hearing was news about how Khan is doing her > job, working on behalf of the American people. For example, she confirmed > that she's investigating OpenAI for nonconsensually harvesting a mountain > of Americans' personal information: > > https://www.ft.com/content/8ce04d67-069b-4c9d-91bf-11649f5adc74 > > Other Republicans, including confirmed swamp creatures like Matt Gaetz, > ended up agreeing with Khan that Amazon Ring is a privacy dumpster-fire. > Nobodies like Rep TomM assie gave Khan an opening to discuss how her agency > is protecting mom-and-pop grocers from giant, price-gouging, > greedflation-drunk national chains. Jeff Van Drew gave her a chance to talk > about the FTC's war on robocalls. Lance Gooden let her talk about her fight > against horse doping. > > But Khan's opponents did manage to repeat a lot of the smears against her, > and not just the bogus conflict-of-interest story. They also accused her of > being 0-4 in her actions to block mergers, ignoring the *huge* number of > mergers that have been called off or not initiated *because* M&A > professionals now understand they can no longer expect these mergers to be > waved through. Indeed, just last night I spoke with a friend who owns a > medium-sized tech company that Meta tried to buy out, only to withdraw from > the deal because their lawyers told them it would get challenged at the > FTC, with an uncertain outcome. > > These talking points got picked up by people commenting on Judge > Jacqueline Scott Corley's ruling against the FTC in the > Microsoft-Activision merger. The FTC was seeking an injunction against the > merger, and Corley turned them down flat. The ruling was objectively *very > bad*. Start with the fact that Corley's son is a Microsoft employee who > stands reap massive gains in his stock options if the merger goes through. > > But beyond this (real, non-imaginary, not manufactured conflict of > interest), Corley's judgment and her remarks in court were *inexcusably* > bad, as Matt Stoller writes: > > https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/judge-rules-for-microsoft-mergers > > In her ruling, Corley explained that she didn't think Microsoft would > abuse the market dominance they'd gain by merging their giant videogame > platform and studio with one of its largest competitors. Why not? Because > Microsoft's execs pinky-swore that they wouldn't abuse that power. > > Corely's deference to Microsoft's corporate priorities goes deeper than > trusting its execs, though. In denying the FTC's motion, she stated that it > would be unfair to put the merger on hold in order to have a full > investigation into its competition implications because Microsoft and > Activision had set a deadline of July 18 to conclude things, and Microsoft > would have to pay a penalty if that deadline passed. > > This is surreal: a judge ruled that a corporation's radical, massive > merger shouldn't be subject to full investigation because that corporation > itself set an arbitrary deadline to conclude the deal before such an > investigation could be concluded. That's pretty convenient for future > mega-mergers – just set a short deadline and Judge Corely will tell > regulators that the merger can't be investigated because the deadline is > looming. > > And this is all about the future. As Stoller writes, Microsoft isn't > exactly subtle about why it wants this merger. Its own execs said that the > reason they were spending "dump trucks" of money buying games studios was > to "spend Sony out of business." > > Now, maybe you hate Sony. Maybe you hate Activision. There's plenty of > good reason to hate both – they're run by creeps who do shitty things to > gamers and to their employees. But if you think that *Microsoft* will be > better once it eliminates its competition, then you have the attention span > of a goldfish on Adderall. > > Microsoft made *exactly* the same promises it made on Activision when it > bought out another games studio, Zenimax – and it broke every one of those > promises. > > Microsoft has a long, long, *long* history of being a brutal, abusive > monopolist. It is a *convicted* monopolist. And its bad conduct didn't > end with the browser wars. You remember how the lockdown turned all our > homes into rent-free branch offices for our employers? Microsoft seized on > that moment to offer our bosses keystroke-and-click level surveillance of > our use of our own computers in our own homes, via its Office365 bossware > product: > > https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/25/the-peoples-amazon/#clippys-revenge > > If you think a company that gave your boss a tool to spy on their > employees and rank them by "productivity" as a prelude to firing them or > cutting their pay is going to treat gamers or game makers well once they > have "spent the competition out of business," you're a credulous sucker and > you are gonna be *so* disappointed. > > The enshittification play is obvious: use investor cash to make things > temporarily nice for customers and suppliers, lock both of them in – in > this case, it's with a subscription-based service similar to Netflix's – > and then claw all that value back until all that's left is a big pile of > shit. > > The Microsoft case is about the future. Judge Corely doesn't take the > future seriously: as she said during the trial, "All of this is for a > shooter videogame." The reason Corely greenlit this merger isn't because it > won't be harmful – it's because she doesn't think those harms matter. > > But it does, and not just because games are an art form that generate > billions of dollars, employ a vast workforce, and bring pleasure to > millions. It also matters because this is yet another one of the Reaganomic > precedents that tacitly endorses monopolies as efficient forces for good. > As Stoller writes, Corley's ruling means that "deal bankers are sharpening > pencils and saying ‘Great, the government lost! We can get mergers through > everywhere else.’ Basically, if you like your high medical prices, you > should be cheering on Microsoft’s win today." > > Ronald Reagan's antitrust has colonized our brains so thoroughly that > commentators were surprised when, immediately after the ruling, the FTC > filed an appeal. *Don't they know they've lost?* the commentators said: > > > https://gizmodo.com/ftc-files-appeal-of-microsoft-activision-deal-ruling-1850640159 > > They echoed the smug words of insufferable Activision boss Mike Ybarra: > "Your tax dollars at work." > > https://twitter.com/Qwik/status/1679277251337277440 > > But *of course* Khan is appealing. The only reason that's surprising is > that Khan is working for us, the American people, not the giant > corporations the FTC is supposed to be defending us from. Sure, I get that > this is a major change! But she needs our backing, not our cheap cynicism. > > The business lobby and their pathetic Renfields have hoarded all the nice > things and they don't want us to have any. Khan and her trustbuster > colleagues want the opposite. There is no measure so small that the > corporate world won't have a conniption over it. Take click to cancel, the > FTC's perfectly reasonable proposal that if you sign up for a recurring > payment subscription with a single click, you should be able to cancel it > with a single click. > > The tooth-gnashing and garment-rending and scenery-chewing over this is > *wild*. America's biggest companies have wheeled out their biggest guns, > claiming that if they make it too easy to unsubscribe, they will lose > money. In other words, they are *currently* making money not because > people want their products, but because it's too hard to stop paying for > them! > > https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/12/ftc_cancel_subscriptions/ > > We shouldn't have to tolerate this sleaze. And if we back Khan and her > team, they'll protect us from these scams. Don't let them convince you to > give up hope. This is the start of the fight, not the end. We're trying to > reverse 40 years' worth of Reagonmics here. It won't happen overnight. > There will be setbacks. But keep your eyes on the prize – this is the most > exciting moment for countering corporate power and giving it back to the > people in my lifetime. We owe it to ourselves, our kids and our planet to > fight one. > > > > https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/14/making-good-trouble/#the-peoples-champion > > Buon fine settimana, > > Daniela > ------------------------------ > *Da:* Maurizio Borghi <maurizio.bor...@unito.it> > *Inviato:* sabato 15 luglio 2023 12:37 > *A:* Daniela Tafani > *Cc:* nexa@server-nexa.polito.it > *Oggetto:* Re: [nexa] The FTC is investigating whether ChatGPT harms > consumers > > Si può leggere qui il documento della FTC: > > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/67a7081c-c770-4f05-a39e-9d02117e50e8.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4 > > L'indagine ha per oggetto la possibilità che i prodotti che incorporano > Large Language Models configurino pratiche sleali o ingannevoli in > relazione a 1) privacy e data security e 2) danni ai consumatori, inclusi > danni reputazionali (diffamazione, ecc.). Si compone di 49 "interrogazioni" > e 17 richieste di documentazione, inclusa ad esempio la richiesta di > documenti interni come linee guida o “dizionari” (sic) che spieghino che > cosa intende OpenAI per: a) "freely and openly available data", b) > "reinforcement learning from human feedback" e c) "hallucination" o > "hallucinate". > > Tra i molti aspetti interessanti dell'indagine, c'è il fatto che la FTC > sembri considerare OpenAI direttamente responsabile per i danni > eventualmente provocati da un prodotto (significativamente chiamato > "product" e non "service") che permette a terze parti, cioè agli > utilizzatori, di generare affermazioni false o diffamatorie a loro > insaputa. E ciò a dispetto degli "avvertimenti" riguardo alle c.d. > allucinazioni ecc. > > Nella sua impostazione generale, l'investigazione mi sembra inoltre > sgomberare il campo dalla distinzione tra "input" e "output" su cui si basa > molta della narrativa AI-innocentista, ovvero l'argomento secondo cui > l’utilizzo di training data è comunque lecito, indipendentemente dal tipo > di dato e dalle modalità di utilizzo, mentre è solo a livello dell’output > che può sorgere qualche responsabilità – eventualmente da “condividere” con > l’utilizzatore di turno. Nell’impostazione della FTC, invece, la pratica > commerciale che presiede al prodotto in questione va considerata nel suo > insieme,e in relazione agli effetti complessivamente provocati sul > consumatore. > > Infine, alcune alcune delle interrogazioni (ad es. la n. 22) riguardano in > maniera dettagliata la raccolta e il trattamento di dati personali, con la > richiesta di specificare le modalità impiegate da Open AI per escludere > l’impiego di informazioni personali come training data. Qui la FTC da’ > chiaramente per acquisito che il trattamento di dati personali come > training data senza consenso sia illegale. Forse una riprova del fatto che > i tanto vituperati rilievi del Garante italiano non erano così infondati? > > Un saluto cordiale, > > _______________ > *Maurizio Borghi* > Università di Torino > https://www.dg.unito.it/persone/maurizio.borghi > Co-Director Nexa Center for Internet & Society <https://nexa.polito.it/> > > > Il giorno gio 13 lug 2023 alle ore 17:40 Daniela Tafani < > daniela.taf...@unipi.it> ha scritto: > >> The FTC is investigating whether ChatGPT harms consumers >> The agency’s demand for OpenAI’s documents about AI risks mark the >> company’s greatest U.S. regulatory threat to date >> By Cat Zakrzewski >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/cat-zakrzewski/?itid=ai_top_zakrzewskic> >> Updated July 13, 2023 at 10:44 a.m. EDT|Published July 13, 2023 at 6:00 >> a.m. EDT >> The Federal Trade Commission has opened an expansive investigation into >> OpenAI, probing whether the maker of the popular ChatGPT bot has run afoul >> of consumer protection laws by putting personal reputations and data at >> risk. >> >> The agency this week sent the San Francisco company a 20-page demand for >> records about how it addresses risks related to its AI models, according to >> a document reviewed by The Washington Post >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/67a7081c-c770-4f05-a39e-9d02117e50e8.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4>. >> The salvo represents the most potent regulatory threat to date to OpenAI’s >> business in the United States, as the company goes on a global charm >> offensive >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/09/sam-altman-openai-chatgpt/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4> >> to shape the future of artificial intelligence policy. >> >> Analysts have called OpenAI’s ChatGPT the fastest-growing consumer app in >> history, and its early success set off an arms race among Silicon Valley >> companies >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/the-ai-arms-race-is-on/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5> >> to roll out competing chatbots. The company’s chief executive, Sam Altman, >> has emerged as an influential figure in the debate over AI regulation, >> testifying on Capitol Hill >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/16/sam-altman-open-ai-congress-hearing/?itid=ap_catzakrzewski&itid=lk_inline_manual_5>, >> dining with lawmakers and meeting with President Biden >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/04/white-house-ai-ceos-meeting/?itid=ap_catzakrzewski&itid=lk_inline_manual_5> >> and Vice President Harris. >> >> Big Tech was moving cautiously on AI. Then came ChatGPT. >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/01/27/chatgpt-google-meta/?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_6> >> >> But now the company faces a new test in Washington, where the FTC has issued >> multiple warnings >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/25/artificial-intelligence-bias-eeoc/?itid=ap_catzakrzewski&itid=lk_inline_manual_7> >> that existing consumer protection laws apply to AI, even as the >> administration and Congress struggle to outline new regulations. >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/17/congress-regulating-ai-schumer/?itid=ap_catzakrzewski&itid=lk_inline_manual_7> >> Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has predicted >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/21/ai-regulation-us-senate-chuck-schumer/?itid=lk_inline_manual_7> >> that new AI legislation is months away. >> >> The FTC’s demands of OpenAI are the first indication of how it intends to >> enforce those warnings*. *If the FTC finds that a company violates >> consumer protection laws, it can levy fines or put a business under a consent >> decree >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/12/mudge-twitter-ftc-consent-decrees/?itid=lk_inline_manual_10>, >> which can dictate how the company handles data. The FTC has emerged as the >> federal government’s top Silicon Valley cop, bringing large fines against >> Meta >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/07/12/ftc-votes-approve-billion-settlement-with-facebook-privacy-probe/?itid=lk_inline_manual_10>, >> Amazon >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/31/amazon-alexa-ring-ftc-lawsuit-settlement/?itid=lk_inline_manual_10>and >> Twitter >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/25/twitter-fine-ftc/?itid=lk_inline_manual_10>for >> alleged violations of consumer protection laws. >> >> The FTC called on OpenAI to provide detailed descriptions of all >> complaints it had received of its products making “false, misleading, >> disparaging or harmful” statements about people. The FTC is investigating >> whether the company engaged in unfair or deceptive practices that resulted >> in “reputational harm” to consumers, according to the document. >> >> The FTC also asked the company to provide records related to a security >> incident that the company disclosed in March when a bug in its systems >> allowed some users to see payment-related information, as well as some >> data from other users’ chat history. The FTC is probing whether the >> company’s data security practices violate consumer protection laws. OpenAI >> said in a blog post <https://openai.com/blog/march-20-chatgpt-outage>that >> the number of users whose data was revealed to someone else was “extremely >> low.” >> >> OpenAI and the FTC did not immediately respond to requests for comment >> sent on Thursday morning. >> >> News of the probe comes as FTC Chair Lina Khan is likely to face a >> combative hearing >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/12/tech-giants-racking-up-wins-antitrust-battles/?itid=ap_cristianolima&itid=lk_inline_manual_16> >> Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee, where Republican lawmakers >> are expected to analyze her enforcement record and accuse her of mismanaging >> >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/09/musk-ftc-house-republicans-twitter/?itid=lk_inline_manual_16>the >> agency. Khan’s ambitious plans to rein in Silicon Valley have suffered key >> losses in court. On Tuesday, a federal judge rejected the FTC’s attempt >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/11/microsoft-activision-ftc-decision/?itid=ap_catzakrzewski&itid=lk_inline_manual_16>to >> block Microsoft’s $69 billion deal to buy the video game company Activision. >> >> The agency has repeatedly warned that action is coming on AI, in speeches, >> blog posts >> <https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/02/keep-your-ai-claims-check>, >> op-eds and news conferences. In a speech at Harvard Law School >> <https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Remarks-to-JOLT-4-1-2023.pdf> >> in April, Samuel Levine, the director of the agency’s Bureau of Consumer >> Protection, said the agency was prepared to be “nimble” in getting ahead of >> emerging threats. >> >> “The FTC welcomes innovation, but being innovative is not a license to be >> reckless,” Levine said. “We are prepared to use all our tools, including >> enforcement, to challenge harmful practices in this area.” >> >> The FTC also has issued several colorful blog posts about its approach to >> regulating AI, at times invoking popular science fiction movies to warn the >> industry against running afoul of the law. The agency has warned >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/25/artificial-intelligence-bias-eeoc/?itid=lk_inline_manual_22> >> against AI scams, using generative AI to manipulate potential customers and >> falsely exaggerating the capabilities of AI products. Khan also >> participated in a news conference with Biden administration officials in >> April about the risk of AI discrimination. >> >> “There is no AI exemption to the laws on the books,” Khan said at that >> event. >> >> The FTC’s push faced swift pushback from the tech industry. Adam >> Kovacevich, the founder and CEO of the industry coalition Chamber of >> Commerce, said it’s clear that the FTC has oversight of data security and >> misrepresentation. But he said it’s unclear if the agency has the authority >> to “police defamation or the contents of ChatGPT’s results.” >> >> "AI is making headlines right now, and the FTC is continuing to put >> flashy cases over securing results,” he said. >> >> Among the information the FTC is seeking from Open AI is any research, >> testing or surveys that assess how well consumers understand “the accuracy >> or reliability of outputs” generated by its AI tools. The agency made >> extensive demands about records related to ways OpenAI’s products could >> generate disparaging statements, asking the company to provide records of >> the complaints people send about its chatbot making false statements. >> >> The agency’s focus on such fabrications comes after numerous high-profile >> reports of the chatbot producing incorrect information that could damage >> people’s reputations. Mark Walters, a radio talk show host in Georgia sued >> OpenAI for defamation, alleging the chabot made up legal claims against >> him. The lawsuit >> <https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/walters-openai-complaint-gwinnett-county.pdf>alleges >> that ChatGPT falsely claimed that Walters, the host of “Armed American >> Radio,” was accused of defrauding and embezzling funds from the Second >> Amendment Foundation. The response was provided in response to a question >> about a lawsuit about the foundation that Walters is not a party to, >> according to the complaint. >> >> ChatGPT also said that a lawyer had made sexually suggestive comments and >> attempted to touch a student on a class trip to Alaska, citing an article >> that it said had appeared in The Washington Post. But no such article >> existed, the class trip never happened and the lawyer said he was never >> accused of harassing a student, The Post reported previously >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/05/chatgpt-lies/?itid=lk_inline_manual_33> >> . >> >> The FTC in its request also asked the company to provide extensive >> details about its products and the way it advertises them. It also demanded >> details about the policies and procedures that OpenAI takes before it >> releases any new product to the public, including a list of times that >> OpenAI held back a large language model because of safety risks. >> >> The agency also demanded a detailed description of the data that OpenAI >> uses to train its products, which mimic humanlike speech by ingesting text, >> mostly scraped from Wikipedia, Scribd and other sites across the open web. >> The agency also asked OpenAI to describe how it refines its models to >> address their tendency to “hallucinate,” making up answers >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/30/ai-chatbots-chatgpt-bard-trustworthy/?itid=lk_inline_manual_36>when >> the models don’t know the answer to a question. >> >> OpenAI also has to turn over details about how many people were affected >> by the March security incident and information about all the steps it took >> to respond. >> >> The FTC’s records request, which is called a Civil Investigative Demand, >> primarily focuses on potential consumer protection abuses, but it also asks >> OpenAI to provide some details about how it licenses its models to other >> companies. >> >> Europe moves ahead on AI regulation, challenging tech giants’ power >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/14/eu-parliament-approves-ai-act/?itid=ap_catzakrzewski&itid=lk_interstitial_manual_41> >> >> The United States has trailed other governments in drafting AI >> legislation and regulating the privacy risks associated with the >> technology. Countries within the European Union have taken steps to limit >> U.S. companies’ chatbots under the bloc’s privacy law, the General Data >> Protection Regulation. Italy temporarily blocked >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/31/italy-ban-chatgpt-artificial-intelligence-privacy/?itid=lk_inline_manual_42> >> ChatGPT from operating there due to data privacy concerns, and Google >> had to postpone the launch of its chatbot Bard after receiving requests for >> privacy assessments from the Irish Data Protection Commission. The European >> Union is also expected to pass AI legislation by the end of the year. >> >> There is a flurry of activity in Washington to catch up. On Tuesday, >> Schumer hosted an all-senator briefing with officials from the Pentagon and >> intelligence community to discuss the national security risks of artificial >> intelligence, as he works with a bipartisan group of senators to craft new >> AI legislation. Schumer told reporters after the session that it’s going to >> be “very hard” to regulate AI, as lawmakers try to balance the need for >> innovation with ensuring there are proper safeguards on the technology. >> >> On Wednesday, Vice President Harris hosted a group of consumer protection >> advocates and civil liberties leaders at the White House for a discussion >> on the safety and security risks of AI. >> >> “It is a false choice to suggest that we either can advance innovation or >> we protect consumers,” Harris said. “We can do both.” >> >> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/13/ftc-openai-chatgpt-sam-altman-lina-khan/ >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa@server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> > > > -- > _______________ > *Maurizio Borghi* > Università di Torino > https://www.dg.unito.it/persone/maurizio.borghi > Co-Director Nexa Center for Internet & Society <https://nexa.polito.it/> > > My Webex room: https://unito.webex.com/meet/maurizio.borghi > -- _______________ *Maurizio Borghi* Università di Torino https://www.dg.unito.it/persone/maurizio.borghi Co-Director Nexa Center for Internet & Society <https://nexa.polito.it/> My Webex room: https://unito.webex.com/meet/maurizio.borghi
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
