Welcome to the CAVEAT Weekly Newsletter, where we break down some of the major developments and happenings occurring worldwide when discussing cybersecurity, privacy, digital surveillance, and technology policy.
At 1,850 words, this briefing is about an 8-minute read.
At a Glance.
- US, UK, and EU sign the first international AI treaty.
- DOJ and states start their next Google antitrust trial.
US, UK, and EU set to sign first international AI treaty.
The News.
Last week, the European Union (EU), United States (US), and United Kingdom (UK) each announced that they would be signing the first legally binding international Artificial Intelligence (AI) treaty. This treaty, also known as the AI Convention, was created by the Council of Europe and aims to address the risks AI could pose while promoting responsible global innovation. More specifically, the AI Convention will focus more on protecting the human rights of people impacted by AI systems. Additionally, this treaty aims to set out a legal framework that will cover the entire life cycle of AI systems.
Some of the key treaty aspects include that AI systems must:
- Protect personal data
- Emphasize non-discrimination
- Promote human dignity
- Ensure safe AI development
With this announcement, Britain’s Justice Minister, Shabana Mahmood, stated that “this convention is a major step to ensuring that these new technologies can be harnessed without eroding our oldest values, like human rights and the rule of law.”
Aside from the UK, US, and EU, other notable signatories include Iceland, Norway, San Marino, Israel, Georgia, Andorra, and the Republic of Moldova.
The Knowledge.
With this AI Convention, the Council of Europe, a human rights organization, has established the first instance of a major international AI treaty. When originally designed and adopted in May, the Council of Europe stated that they wanted this convention to “fill any legal gaps that may result from rapid technological advances.” As new technologies have emerged and advanced rapidly over the past few years, governments worldwide have passed various acts to attempt to manage and control these innovations. However, this has resulted in a series of patchwork legislation that have varied greatly from country to country and are at best inconsistent from one another. With this new move, countries have, for the first time, come together to ratify a legally binding treaty that aims to create the world’s first global AI framework.
For nations that sign the treaty, both public and private authorities will need to comply with the treaty provisions, which would involve assessing AI’s impacts on human rights, and democracy, and disclosing these findings to the public. Notably, citizens will also be allowed to challenge any decision made by AI systems and will be able to lodge complaints with authorities. Lastly, AI users must also be given notice when they are dealing with an AI platform and not another human.
The Impact.
While this treaty has only just been signed, this development has the potential to impact legislation for each signatory country. However, before anything is changed, nations must assess if their existing AI laws meet the standards outlined in this treaty and identify any potential gaps. Once this analysis has been completed and laws are updated to comply with this new treaty, citizens across these countries should expect their AI-related rights to reflect those outlined in the AI Convention.
For AI developers, while the legal impacts of this treaty will take some time to be updated, organizations should assess their existing gaps compared to the treaty’s requirements to ensure that they comply with these new regulations. Given the worldwide governmental emphasis on AI, developers should expect this initial treaty to act as a launching point for future international initiatives that could involve establishing more regulations, increasing governmental oversight, and establishing more end-user securities.
DOJ begins its next antitrust trial against Google.
The News.
On Monday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) along with several states began their next antitrust trial against Google as each party made their opening statements to a federal judge. This trial involves deciding whether or not Google currently holds a monopoly over online advertising technology. US District Judge Leonie Brikema will oversee the case in Alexandria, Virginia.
In their opening statements, the DOJ and states argued that Google has created, bought, and maintained a monopoly over the technologies that match online publishers to advertisers. Government officials claim that with this software dominance, Google has been able to control both sides of the buying and selling sides of associated transactions, which has subsequently allowed Google to keep as much as thirty-six cents on the dollar when brokering sales. Additionally, regulators also allege that Google also has control over the ad exchange market, which matches the buying side of the advertisements to the selling side.
In response to these various allegations, Google has argued that these regulators' views are based on an outdated view of the internet. In Google’s opening statement, Karen Dunn, Google’s lawyer, compared the government’s case to a “time capsule with a Blackberry, an iPod, and a Blockbuster video card.” Dunn continued in her opening statement warning that hostile actions against Google are not going to improve the market for smaller businesses but rather allow other technology companies, like Microsoft or Amazon, to take over Google’s current role.
The Knowledge.
This trial marks the second major US antitrust trial in which Google has been involved with this year. The previous trial was centered around determining if Google maintained a monopoly over the search engine market. In this lawsuit, the prosecution argued that Google maintained an illegal monopoly over this market by paying billions of dollars each year to companies, like Apple, to ensure that Google’s search engine was the default search engine for consumers when buying new products, like smartphones. This trial concluded last month when the judge found that Google had violated antitrust law by creating and maintaining an illegal search engine monopoly. That previous case now awaits a second trial which will determine what potential penalties will be imposed on the company. While it is unclear when this follow-up trial will be conducted, some have speculated that the trial could result in Google being forced to dissolve its default search engine exclusivity deals.
However, while the results from the August trial remain unclear if found guilty in this new trial, the impacts could be more straightforward. Peter Cohan, a professor of management practice at Babson College, highlighted how if found guilty of maintaining an illegal monopoly “divestitures are definitely a possible remedy” for the technology company. These divestitures could dramatically impact how advertisements are bought and sold online as well as significantly impact Google’s annual revenue as its advertising business makes the company billions of dollars yearly.
Aside from these two lawsuits, Google is also facing international pressure. Last week, UK competition regulators accused the company of abusing its dominance in the digital advertising market as well as giving preference to its services. Additionally, EU antitrust regulators are also applying pressure on Google after the EU’s top court backed a 2.4 billion Euro antitrust fine that the company was attempting to appeal. This fine emerged after EU regulators claimed that Google was favoring the company’s own shopping search results in a discriminatory manner.
The Impact.
Given both the domestic and international pressures facing Google over the company’s alleged monopolistic behaviors, it is likely that there will be significant ramifications coming that could impact both the company’s profitability and offerings. While it is unclear how these cases will impact the company now, the results could involve the company being forced to dissolve significant portions of its business and dissolve existing contracts that uphold its dominance in various markets.
For end users, the results of these cases could have wide-sweeping impacts on how they engage with services or are exposed to advertisements. If Google we forced to divest or dissolve existing agreements, that could result in new offerings or providers becoming staples across these industries and could result in a more competitive and innovative environment. Nonetheless, while it will take time for these cases to have any tangible impacts on existing markets, these cases will theoretically result in more equitable and healthy markets for consumers.
Highlighting Key Conversations.
In this week’s Caveat Podcast, our team sat down with Shane Fry, the Chief Technology Officer at RunSafe Security to discuss the SpaceCraft Cybersecurity Act. In this conversation, we discussed the key challenges associated with this act as well as the steps that need to be taken to secure key devices and systems from cyber exploitation. For context, the SpaceCraft Cybersecurity Act was introduced in July and would require the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) to secure cybersecurity protection plans from manufacturers looking to apply to build NASA spacecraft. This bill was created after reports emerged that malicious cyber actors had been launching numerous attacks against NASA and its spacecrafts.
Like what you read and curious about the conversation? Head over to the Caveat Podcast for the full scoop and additional compelling insights. Our Caveat Podcast is a weekly show where we discuss topics related to surveillance, digital privacy, cybersecurity law, and policy. Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to caveat@thecyberwire.com. Hope to hear from you.
Other Noteworthy Stories.
South Korea AI summit looking to create blueprint for using AI in the military.
What: During the Seoul AI international summit, nations are looking to establish a “blueprint” that will outline how to responsibly use AI in the military.
Why: This week, over ninety governments met during a two-day summit in Seoul, South Korea to discuss AI’s role in military matters. During this conference, South Korean Kim Yong-hyun stated that “as AI is applied to the military domain, the military’s operational capabilities are dramatically improved.” However, Kim continued stating that this involvement is “like a double-edged sword, as it can cause damage from abuse.” South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul supported these statements stating that the summit’s conversations would cover areas related to legal reviews ensuring compliance with international law as well as mechanisms to prevent autonomous weapons from making life-and-death decisions without appropriate human oversights.
This summit marks the second time a convention like this was held regarding AI with the previous summit being held last year in The Hague. That conference resulted in nations endorsing a “call to action” without any legally binding commitments.
US proposes reporting mandates for AI developers and cloud providers.
What: The Bureau of Industry and Security has proposed a new rule that will require cloud providers and AI developers to allow federal agencies to evaluate their technology’s safety and defense capabilities.
Why: On Monday, the Bureau proposed its new rule that would mandate “frontier” AI models and computing clusters to provide detailed reports about their developmental activities and cybersecurity measures. Additionally, this rule would also request developers share their red teaming results. This proposed rule comes after a pilot survey was conducted with AI developers earlier this year.
With this announcement, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo stated that “this proposed rule would help us keep pace with new developments in AI technology to bolster our national defense and safeguard our national security.”