News and Research articles on Public interestKlinger & Hacker highlight the risk of “public interest AI” simply becoming a marketing label, despite its potential, due to the inherent misalignment between for-profit goals and public interest aspirations.
The Brazilian Social Security Management Office's AI system reduces the waiting list but increases automatic refusals, harming beneficiaries and increasing inequality in the delivery of public services to the poorest and elderly people.
Is the current regulatory focus on AI misguided? AI-based services are produced in agile production environments that are decades in the making and concentrated in the hands of a few companies. This article illustrates how AI is only the latest output of these production environments, gives an overview of the socio-technical as well as political-economic concerns these environments raise, and argues why they may be a better target for policy and regulatory interventions.
This article explores some conditions and possibilities for public contestability in AI governance; a critical attribute of governance arrangements designed to align AI deployment with the public interest.
Rohde cautions that the economic structure that AI is currently being developed within is unfortunately at odds with the public interest. At the same time, she also believes that intelligent algorithms and digitalisation can in essence contribute to environmental and climate protection in tangible ways.
In this interview Meyer describes her thinking in the role of a funder and enabler of public interest technology, around how they could decide if a project is in the public interest or constitutes a public good, and various interactions between such projects/products and the market, including the importance of free and open source solutions.
Why it does not make sense to move faster when heading the wrong way.
As the debate on public interest AI is still a young and emerging one, we see this special issue as a way to help establish this field and its community by bringing together interdisciplinary positions and approaches.
The principle of proportionality not only addresses the conflict among competing interests under Article 15(1)(h) GDPR but also shapes the justifications for public interest restrictions on the right of access to AI decision-making information.
By analysing data governance models and inherent properties of data, we point towards public data commons as the model securing European values and increasing sharing.
Net neutrality consultations that tap into networked publics rest on a thin version of participation that maintains existing inequality.
This paper is part of Australian internet policy, a special issue of Internet Policy Review guest-edited by Angela Daly and Julian Thomas. Part I: The Data Retention Act In April 2015, the Australian government passed the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act, which requires Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and telecommunications providers to store information about their subscribers’ online activity for a period of two years. The data retention rules apply to metadata – loosely defined as information that is not the 'content' of a communication. Generally, service providers must keep identifying information about their subscribers, including billing …