Compiled by Athena Smith.
Compiled by Athena Smith.
Articles
The Law Can’t Keep Up With Flock’s AI Surveillance
Matthew Cavedon and Laura Bondank-Harmon described the apparatus of Flock’s artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled surveillance tools and other technologies, such as license readers, drones, and smart cameras, and noted that the Supreme Court has yet to determine whether many of these practices qualify as searches or seizures under the Fourth Amendment. The authors recommended policy changes—such as search warrants and ending qualified immunity—in combination with enforcement by the courts to protect civil liberties.
Without civil liberty protections, these methods may even be used against critics of AI surveillance. Flock’s chief executive Garrett Langley recently called the company’s opponents “terroristic.” Joint intelligence centers run by federal, state, and local law enforcement are monitoring social media accounts critical of AI-enhanced surveillance. After Rhode Island police officer Noel Pichardo criticized his department’s use of Flock cameras, “he was subjected to five internal affairs investigations in less than two years.” Policymakers should address the risks faced by citizens critical of AI surveillance.
How to Make an AI Deal With China: Trade Throttling for Pacing
Simon Goldstein and Peter N. Salib argued that because concerns about Chinese competition are common objections to pausing AI research, any plan to pace AI development must include a deal China may accept. Goldstein and Salib explained that to pace frontier AI development, the U.S. must trade its policy of limiting China through chip restrictions for a mutual agreement between the two countries to slow AI development.
We recognize that this suggestion will be met with significant resistance. Absent throttling, Chinese AI systems could quickly catch up to American capabilities, and could even take the lead. However, we think that accepting U.S.-China parity is likely the price of doing an AI safety deal. Neither country seems like it would be willing to accept the prospect of the other running away with the AI race.
Podcasts
Lawfare Daily: A Progress Report on the War on Terrorism with Peter Bergen: Daniel Byman sat down with Peter Bergen to discuss counterterrorism in the 25 years after 9/11 and the many mistakes the United States and al-Qaeda made, as well as some of their surprising successes. Bergen also draws upon past lessons to understand the war in Iran and how the U.S. could better respond to a future terrorist attack.
Scaling Laws: Hélène Landemore on Public Participation in AI Governance:
Kevin Frazier sat down with Hélène Landemore and examined who should decide the uses for AI. The pair discussed why decisions about AI’s purpose, limits, and governance should not be left solely to elected officials, technical experts, and the companies building the systems. Landemore explained key ideas such as the fundamentals of deliberative democracy, sortition, and citizens’ assemblies.
*Support *Lawfare
*Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Become a material supporter on Patreon. Sign up to receive *Lawfare
Send this story to anyone — or drop the embed into a blog post, Substack, Notion page. Every play sends rev-share back to Lawfare.
We’ve simplified responses to 👍 / 👎. Past comments are archived but no longer visible.