Government & Policy

UK watchdog warns against AI for emotional analysis, dubs ‘immature’ biometrics a bias risk • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 26, 2022Posted in biometric regulation, biometrics, emotion analysis AI, Government & Policy, ICONo Comments

The UK’s privacy watchdog has warned against use of so-called “emotion analysis” technologies for anything more serious than kids’ party games, saying there’s a discrimination risk attached to applying “immature” biometric tech that makes pseudoscientific claims about being able to recognize people’s emotions using AI to interpret biometric data inputs. Such AI systems ‘function’, if we can use the word, by claiming to be able to ‘read the tea leaves’ of one or more biometric signals, such as heart rate, eye movements, facial expression, skin moisture, gait tracking, vocal tone etc, and perform emotion detection or sentiment analysis to predict how the person is feeling — presumably after being trained on a bunch of visual data of faces frowning, faces smiling etc (but you can immediately see the problem with trying to assign individual facial expressions to absolute emotional states — because no two people, and often no two emotional states, are the same; hence hello pseudoscience!). The watchdog’s deputy commissioner, Stephen Bonner, appears to agree that this high tech nonsense must be stopped — saying today there’s no evidence that such technologies do actually work as claimed (or that they will ever work). “Developments in the biometrics and emotion AI market are immature. They may not work yet, or indeed ever,” he warned in a statement. “While there are opportunities present, the risks are currently greater. At the ICO, we are concerned that incorrect analysis of data could result in assumptions and judgements about a person that are inaccurate and lead to discrimination. “The only sustainable biometric deployments will be those that are fully functional, accountable and backed by science. As it stands, we are yet to see any emotion AI technology develop in a way that satisfies data protection requirements, and have more general questions about proportionality, fairness and transparency in this area.” In a blog post accompanying Bonner’s shot across the bows of dodgy biometrics, the Information Commission’s Office (ICO) said organizations should assess public risks before deploying such tech — with a further warning that those that fail to act responsibly could face an investigation. (So could also be risking a penalty.) “The ICO will continue to scrutinise the market, identifying stakeholders who are seeking to create or deploy these technologies, and explaining the importance of enhanced data privacy and compliance, whilst encouraging trust and confidence in how these systems work,” added Bonner. The watchdog has fuller biometrics guidance coming in the spring — which it said today will highlight the need for organizations to pay proper mind to data security — so Bonner’s warning offers a taster of more comprehensive steerage coming down the pipe in the next half year or so. “Organisations that do not act responsibly, posing risks to vulnerable people, or fail to meet ICO expectations will be investigated,” the watchdog added. Its blog post gives some examples of potentially concerning uses of biometrics — including AI tech being used to monitoring the physical health of workers via the use of wearable screening tools; or the use of visual and behavioural methods such as body position, speech, eyes and head movements to register students for exams. “Emotion analysis relies on collecting, storing and processing a range of personal data, including subconscious behavioural or emotional responses, and in some cases, special category data. This kind of data use is far more risky than traditional biometric technologies that are used to verify or identify a person,” it continued. “The inability of algorithms which are not sufficiently developed to detect emotional cues, means there’s a risk of systemic bias, inaccuracy and even discrimination.” It’s not the first time the ICO has had concerns over rising use of biometric tech. Last year the then information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, published an opinion expressing concerns about what she couched as the potentially “significant” impacts of inappropriate, reckless or excess use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology — warning it could lead to a ‘big brother’ style surveillance of the public. However that warning was targeting a more specific technology (LFR). And the ICO’s Bonner told the Guardian this is the first time the regulator has issued a blanket warning on the ineffectiveness of a whole new technology — arguing this is justified by the harm that could be caused if companies made meaningful decisions based on meaningless data, per the newspaper’s report. Where’s the biometrics regulation? The ICO may be feeling moved to make more substantial interventions in this area because UK lawmakers aren’t being proactive when it comes to biometrics regulation. An independent review of UK legislation in this area, published this summer, concluded the country urgently needs new laws to govern the use of biometric technologies — and called for the government to come forward with primary legislation. However the government does not appear to have paid much mind to such urging or these various regulatory warnings — with a planned data protection reform, which it presented earlier this year, eschewing action to boost algorithmic transparency across the public sector, for example, while — on biometrics specifically — it offered only soft-touch measures aimed at clarifying the rules on (specifically) police use of biometric data (taking about developing best practice standards and codes of conduct). So a far cry from the comprehensive framework called for by the Ada Lovelace research institute-commissioned independent law review. In any case, the data reform bill remains on pause after a summer of domestic political turmoil that has led to two changes of prime minister in quick succession. A legislative rethink was also announced earlier this month by the (still in post) secretary of state for digital issues, Michelle Donelan — who used a recent Conservative Party conference speech to take aim at the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), aka the framework that was transposed into UK law back in 2018. She said the government would be “replacing” the GDPR with a bespoke British data protection system — but gave precious little detail on what exactly will be put in place

Google hit with $113 million fine in India for anti-competitive practices with Play Store policies • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 25, 2022Posted in Android, Apps, Google, Google India, Government & Policy, indiaNo Comments

India’s antitrust watchdog has hit Google with $113 million fine for abusing the dominant position of its app store, the second such penalty on the Android-maker in just as many weeks in the key overseas market. The Competition Commission of India, which opened the investigation in late 2020, said mandating developers to use Google’s own billing system for paid apps and in-app purchases through Play Store “constitutes an imposition of unfair condition” and thus violates provisions of the nation’s Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The investigation also found: Google is found to be following discriminatory practices by not using GPBS for its own applications i.e., YouTube. This also amount to imposition of discriminatory conditions as well as pricing as YouTube is not paying the service fee as being imposed on other apps covered in the GPBS requirements. Thus, Google is found to be in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. Mandatory imposition of GPBS disturbs innovation incentives and the ability of both the payment processors as well as app developers to undertake technical development and innovate and thus, tantamount to limiting technical development in the market for in-app payment processing services. in violation of the provisions of the Act. Thus, Google is found to be in violation of the provisions of Section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. Mandatory imposition of GPBS by Google, also results in denial of market access for payment aggregators as well as app developers, in violation of the provisions of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. The practices followed by Google results in leveraging its dominance in market for licensable mobile OS and app stores for Android OS, to protect its position in the downstream markets, in violation of the provisions of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act. Different methodologies used by Google to integrate, its own UPI app vis-à-vis other rival UPI apps, with the Play Store results in violation of Sections 4(2)(a)(ii), 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(e) of the Act. India is Google’s largest market by users. The company has poured billions of dollars in the South Asian market over the past decade as it aggressively searched to find major untapped regions worldwide to supercharge its growth. The company reaches nearly all of India’s 600 million internet users. Android commands 97% of the local smartphone market. Google has pledged to invest $10 billion in India over the coming years. It has already invested up to $5.5 billion in the local telecom giants Jio Platforms and Airtel. On Thursday, the competition regulator fined Google $161.9 million for anti-competitive practices related to Android mobile devices and made a series of stringent redressal measures. The watchdog was investigating whether Google had assumed dominant position in five different markets: licensable OS for smartphones, app store, web search services, non-OS specific mobile web browsers and online video hosting platform in India. Google was dominant in all of those relevant markets, the regulator concluded. The antitrust watchdog said that device manufacturers should not be forced to install Google’s bouquet of apps and the search giant should not deny access to its Play Services APIs and monetary and other incentives to vendors. Amazon told the regulator that over half a dozen hardware vendors had indicated that they could not enter into a TV manufacturing relationship with the e-commerce group over fear of retaliation from Google. (More to follow)

Australia to toughen privacy laws with huge hike in penalties for breaches • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 24, 2022Posted in Australia, data breaches, Government & Policy, medibank breach, Optus breach, Privacy, privacy lawsNo Comments

Australia has confirmed an incoming legislative change will significant strengthen its online privacy laws following a spate of data breaches in recent weeks — such as the Optus telco breach last month. “Unfortunately, significant privacy breaches in recent weeks have shown existing safeguards are inadequate. It’s not enough for a penalty for a major data breach to be seen as the cost of doing business,” said its attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, in a statement at the weekend. “We need better laws to regulate how companies manage the huge amount of data they collect, and bigger penalties to incentivise better behaviour.” The changes will be made via an amendment to the country’s privacy laws, following a long process of consultation on reforms. Dreyfus said the Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022 will increase the maximum penalties that can be applied under the Privacy Act 1988 for serious or repeated privacy breaches from the current AUS $2.22 million (~$1.4M) penalty to whichever is the greater of: AUS $50 million (~$32M); 3x the value of any benefit obtained through the misuse of information; or 30% of a company’s adjusted turnover in the relevant period These amounts are substantially higher than an earlier draft of the reform last year (when penalties of AUS $10M or 10% of turnover were being considered). Major breaches such as at Optus — and another that followed hard on its heels, at the health insurer Medibank Private — appear to have concentrated lawmakers’ minds. The change of government, earlier this year, also means there’s a new broom at work. Additional changes trailed by Dreyfus include greater powers for the Australian information commissioner and a beefed up Notifiable Data Breaches scheme to provide the privacy watchdog with a more comprehensive view of what’s been compromised in a breach, also so it can assess the risk of harm to individuals. The information commissioner and the Australian Communications and Media Authority will also be furnished with greater information sharing powers to enable more regulatory joint-working. Both agencies opened investigations of Optus following last month’s breach. The privacy legislation amendment bill is slated to be presented to Australia’s parliament this week, per Reuters. The Attorney-General’s Department is also undertaking a comprehensive review of the Privacy Act that’s due to be completed this year, with recommendations expected for further reform, it said. “I look forward to support from across the Parliament for this Bill, which is an essential part of the Government’s agenda to ensure Australia’s privacy framework is able to respond to new challenges in the digital era. The Albanese Government is committed to protecting Australians’ personal information and to further strengthening privacy laws,” added Dreyfus.

Google says Indian competition regulator’s order ‘major setback’ for consumers and businesses • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 21, 2022Posted in Google, Google India, Government & Policy, indiaNo Comments

Google says the Indian competition regulator’s order is a “major setback for Indian consumers and businesses” and it is reviewing the decision to evaluate “next steps.” The Competition Commission of India fined Google $161.9 million on Thursday for anti-competitive practices related to Android mobile devices and ordered a number of redressal measures that could force Google to make fundamental changes to its business strategies. A Google told ZebethMedia in a statement that the regulator’s order also opens “serious security risks for Indians who trust Android’s security features,” and raises the “cost of mobile devices for Indians.” The company did not say what steps it may take, but industry analysts believe that Google will very likely challenge the order. The antitrust watchdog said in its statement Thursday that device manufacturers should not be forced to install Google’s bouquet of apps and the search giant should not deny access to its Play Services APIs and monetary and other incentives to vendors. India is Google’s largest market by users. Google’s Android operating system powers 97% of the country’s 600 million smartphones, according to research firm Counterpoint. Google in 2020 pledged to invest $10 billion in the South Asian market over the coming years. It has already financed up to $5.5 billion in the local telecom giants Jio Platforms and Airtel. The watchdog was investigating whether Google had assumed dominant position in five different markets: licensable OS for smartphones, app store, web search services, non-OS specific mobile web browsers and online video hosting platform in India. Google was dominant in all of those relevant markets, the regulator concluded.

India fines Google $162 million for anti-competitive practices on Android • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 20, 2022Posted in Google, Google India, Government & PolicyNo Comments

India’s antitrust watchdog fined Google $161.9 million on Thursday for anti-competitive practices related to Android mobile devices in “multiple markets” in a major setback for the search giant in the key overseas region. The Competition Commission of India, which began investigating Google several years ago after complaints from local firms, said in its order that Google requiring device manufacturers to pre-install its entire Google Mobile Suite and mandating prominent placement of those apps “amounts to imposition of unfair condition on the device manufacturers and thereby in contravention of the provisions of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act.” India is Google’s largest market by users. The company in 2020 pledged to invest $10 billion in the South Asian market over the coming years and has backed the local telecom giants Jio Platforms and Airtel. The order also found: Google has perpetuated its dominant position in the online search market resulting in denial of market access for competing search apps in contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. Google has leveraged its dominant position in the app store market for Android OS to protect its position in online general search in contravention of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act. Google has leveraged its dominant position in the app store market for Android OS to enter as well as protect its position in non-OS specific web browser market through Google Chrome App and thereby contravened the provisions of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act. Google has leveraged its dominant position in the app store market for Android OS to enter as well as protect its position in OVHPs market through YouTube and thereby contravened provisions of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act. Google, by making pre-installation of Google’s proprietary apps (particularly Google Play Store) conditional upon signing of AFA/ ACC for all Android devices manufactured/ distributed/ marketed by device manufacturers, has reduced the ability and incentive of device manufacturers to develop and sell devices operating on alternative versions of Android i.e., Android forks and thereby limited technical or scientific development to the prejudice of the consumers, in violation of the provisions of Section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. The watchdog said device manufacturers should not be forced to install Google’s bouquet of apps and the search giant should not deny access to its Play Services APIs and monetary and other incentives to vendors. (More to follow)

Survey finds 67% of European women in tech feel under-paid compared to men, half experience sexism • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 20, 2022Posted in Government & Policy, sexism, sexism in tech, StartupsNo Comments

Last month, on International Equal Pay Day, the International Labour (ILO) Organization revealed that on average, women globally are paid about 20 percent less than men. This pay gap is even bigger for Black and Hispanic women, where Black women were found to earn over 63% less than white men, and Hispanic or Latina women 57.3% less. In survey after survey, this blatant sexism is continually proved evident in the technology industry, and a new survey has provided yet another dismal glimpse into how women are treated. The survey found that over the last 12 months, almost 67 percent feel they are paid unfairly compared to their male counterparts. In 2019 46.4 percent of respondents thought themselves to be paid fairly, while in 2022 this figure fell to 33.1 percent. And half (49.5 percent) had experienced sexism in the workplace. It also found over 62 percent felt pressure to choose between career and family at least some of the time, and 70 percent feel they need to work harder to prove themselves to others because of their gender. Although 92 percent felt confident in their own ability to do their job, 70 percent said they have been made feel they need, , because of their gender, to work harder to prove themselves in their roles, a stark increase from the same survey in 2019 when that figure was 44 percent. Over 53 percent feel that their workplace is making an adequate effort to combat gender inequality, almost no change on that view in 2019. Not exactly good news, then. In 2019, just 44 percent of those surveyed said they felt pressure to prove their worth when compared with their male counterparts. Regarding the gender ratio in the technology industry, this appears to be going moving in reverse. Only 24 percent of respondents said the gender ratio in the industry was becoming more balanced in the last 12 months compared to 42 percent three years ago. Was this the effects of the pandemic on hiring, where diversity of teams in terms of hiring can often be hidden? Perhaps further surveys could delve into this. The survey, distributed via email to the Web Summit Women in Tech community, received 340 responses, so technically it is not what would normally constitute a scientific polling. That said, the majority (70.4 percent) were aged between 25 and 44, and over 78 percent of respondents were from Europe. The survey follows a report by European Women in VC, that saw all-female startups secure just 2 percent of all funding in 2021, down from 3 percent in 2020.

How can I launch a startup while on OPT? • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 19, 2022Posted in Column, Dear Sophie, EC Column, EC DEI, Government & Policy, H-1B visa, immigration law, Sophie Alcorn, Startups, STEM OPTNo Comments

Sophie Alcorn Contributor Sophie Alcorn is the founder of Alcorn Immigration Law in Silicon Valley and 2019 Global Law Experts Awards’ “Law Firm of the Year in California for Entrepreneur Immigration Services.” She connects people with the businesses and opportunities that expand their lives. More posts by this contributor Dear Sophie: How can I protect my H-1B and green card if I am laid off? Dear Sophie: Any tips for negotiating visa and green card sponsorship? Here’s another edition of “Dear Sophie,” the advice column that answers immigration-related questions about working at technology companies. “Your questions are vital to the spread of knowledge that allows people all over the world to rise above borders and pursue their dreams,” says Sophie Alcorn, a Silicon Valley immigration attorney. “Whether you’re in people ops, a founder or seeking a job in Silicon Valley, I would love to answer your questions in my next column.” ZebethMedia+ members receive access to weekly “Dear Sophie” columns; use promo code ALCORN to purchase a one- or two-year subscription for 50% off. Dear Sophie, I’m an international student in the U.S. in F-1 status. I will graduate with a bachelor’s degree in computer science this May and plan to apply for OPT. I want to launch a startup. Can I do that with OPT? What options would I have after OPT to continue growing my company? — Forward-Looking Founder Dear Forward-Looking, It’s so exciting to hear you’re planning ahead for your startup founder journey. Taking this route requires planning and forethought. Consult an immigration attorney for guidance as well as precautionary measures to mitigate risks and protect you along the way. Launching a startup on OPT As an F-1 student with OPT work authorization (work permit), you can get your company up and running and be self-employed as long as you’re putting your degree to work. You must also work full time and have all the proper business licenses that your state requires. You don’t have to wait until you get OPT to start setting up your company. Under immigration law, doing things like forming the legal entity for your company, pitching potential investors or negotiating contracts are not considered work, so you are allowed to do them without OPT work authorization. Image Credits: Joanna Buniak / Sophie Alcorn (opens in a new window) That way, once you’re on OPT, you will have a full 12 months to focus on operating your startup. F-1 students can apply for OPT up to 90 days before completing their degree, but no later than 60 days afterward. Take a look at this previous Dear Sophie column on OPT and contact your university’s DSO (designated school official) for more information. If you already know you want to maintain your startup in the U.S. and find investors here, then talk to a corporate attorney to determine how to structure the company. In general, U.S. investors want to deal with Delaware C corporations. Even though you incorporate in the state of Delaware, your startup can be based in Silicon Valley or anywhere in the U.S.

Biden’s new restrictions on exporting semiconductor tools hit China where it hurts • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 18, 2022Posted in China, EC Hardware, export laws, Government & Policy, Hardware, semiconductorsNo Comments

Chinese semiconductor manufacturers and their U.S. suppliers should have seen the Biden administration’s latest export restrictions coming. It’s possible they did. The question is whether they’re prepared. Years ago, the Trump administration sent the first shot across the bow, first cutting off Huawei from advanced chips and later successfully pressing the Dutch government to bar the sale of EUV lithography machines made by Netherlands-based ASML to leading Chinese semiconductor firm SMIC. The EUV ban kept SMIC and, by association, China, from getting a chance at producing leading-edge chips with smaller transistors. Smaller transistors make for faster, more energy-efficient chips, and there were concerns that EUV-made Chinese chips would have facilitated myriad military and surveillance applications, including hypersonic missiles and AI-powered video and cyber monitoring tools. Though SMIC said it could produce chips that were similar to some of its competitors’ second-best designs, the yields were reportedly atrocious. Without EUV, the process was unlikely to be profitable anytime soon. China is likely trying to develop its own version, but it’ll be a long road. Even if Chinese companies could get their hands on EUV and related technologies, whether through espionage or some other means, they still would have to duplicate ASML’s global supply chain of more than 5,000 suppliers, some of which are the only ones that have the expertise to make those specific parts.

Albany Amazon union vote fails • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 18, 2022Posted in Amazon, Government & Policy, union, unionizingNo Comments

The latest effort to unionize among Amazon warehouse workers fell short by a wide margin this morning. The National Labor Relations Board tallied results from last week’s vote, showing a significant win for the corporation’s anti-union push. Of the 949 eligible fulfillment center staff near Albany, New York, 643 votes were cast in total. The vote against won 406 to 206, with 31 challenges and four voided ballots. The challenged ballots are nowhere near the number required to close the gap. As ever, the final results need to be certified by the National Labor Relations Board, and if past is any prologue, a challenge seems likely from the union. The involved parties have five days to issue a formal challenge to the results. No doubt a decisive decision such as this will be seen as a major setback for unionization efforts that have been gaining momentum in the company for a number of years. This April, workers at a Staten Island fulfillment center voted in favor of Amazon’s first union. Overall, however, the results have been a mixed bag, including failures to unionize at another Staten Island location and one in Bessemer, Alabama, which was the initial flashpoint for the growing efforts. Meanwhile, workers across the U.S. recently won an hourly wage increase from $15.70 to $17 an hour, as the effects of inflation continue to be felt across the country.

Chinese chipmakers, U.S. suppliers caught in crosshairs of new export restrictions • ZebethMedia

By zebethcontrolPosted on October 17, 2022Posted in China, export laws, Government & Policy, Hardware, semiconductorsNo Comments

Over the last week and a half, the Chinese semiconductor industry’s circumstances have taken a sharp turn for the worse. The Biden administration announced on October 7 a sweeping set of export restrictions that prevent the export of certain chips and, more important, the sale of tools using certain technologies to Chinese chipmakers. The rules go well beyond those introduced during the Trump administration and are likely to keep Chinese companies several generations behind the leading edge. The goal of the new rules is to “protect our national security and prevent sensitive technologies with military applications from being acquired by the People’s Republic of China’s military, intelligence, and security services,” Alan Estevez, Undersecretary of Commerce for industry and security, said in a statement. Previously, semiconductor equipment manufacturers were prevented from supplying companies that sold to Huawei, which had the effect of cutting the device maker off from the most advanced chips. The Trump administration also barred the sale of EUV lithography tools that are required to make chips with features under 10 nanometers in size. Leading edge chips today are at least two generations more advanced than that. The new rules leverage the United States’ dominance of the semiconductor equipment market, using it as a choke point to prevent Chinese firms that supply the country’s military from advancing too rapidly. Specifically, the rules restrict companies using U.S. technology from selling to factories and R&D centers that focus on a handful of technologies, including so-called non-planar designs like FinFET and GAAFET at 14 to 16 nanometers, which have enabled increasingly denser transistor counts, DRAM memory made at the 18-nanometer node or smaller, and NAND flash memory with 128 layers or more. The export restrictions prevent sales to any Chinese facility by default. Foreign companies that operate factories in China, like Intel, TSMC, or SK Hynix, must apply to receive exemptions from the rules. Both Intel and SK Hynix have reportedly obtained exemptions, and other companies from the U.S. and its allies that have Chinese factories will probably receive waivers, too. Already, U.S. suppliers including KLA and Lam have halted deliveries and support for existing tools provided to Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., also known as YMTC, The Wall Street Journal reported. YMTC and 30 other companies were added to the “unverified list,” which doesn’t explicitly prevent U.S. companies from dealing with them, but it does heighten scrutiny of any deals and transactions. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, also known as SMIC, is also thought to be a key target of the new rules. Already, Apple has reportedly pulled out of plans to use YMTC’s memory chips in upcoming iPhones, despite having completed a lengthy certification process, according to Nikkei Asia. American executives at Chinese chipmakers may also fall in the crosshairs. The Wall Street Journal said that at least 43 senior executives might be barred from working at 16 publicly listed Chinese companies. The financial ramifications could be far-reaching, and not just for Chinese companies. Applied Materials, for example, cut its fourth-quarter sales projections by $400 million as a result of the new rules. Semiconductor makers and suppliers have long said that revenues from sales to Chinese firms help bankroll R&D efforts that help keep American companies on the leading edge. But critics have said that those sales risk American competitiveness by helping Chinese firms more quickly climb the ladder. Exemptions may temper the blow somewhat, and while the breadth of the new restrictions caught the industry by surprise, they continue the trend of using U.S. chip prowess as lever to control the rate of progress at Chinese semiconductor companies.