Twitter WhatsAppFacebook LinkedInEmailPrint

di Redazione

Pagine Esteri, 27 marzo 2024 – Non solo l’Unione Europea aumenta a dismisura le spese militari, ma i suoi dirigenti non perdono occasione per rivendicare decisioni che accelerano lo scontro bellico e sottraggono risorse alla spesa sociale. Negli ultimi mesi alcuni governi – ad esempio quelli della Spagna, della Danimarca, della Poloniae della Germania – hanno imposto incrementi record delle spese militari sfruttando il timore generato nelle opinioni pubbliche dall’invasione russa dell’Ucraina

Come se non bastasse, dopo la presidente della Commissione Europea Ursula von der Leyen, anche l’Alto Rappresentante per la politica estera e di sicurezza dell’Ue, il catalano Josep Borrell, chiede un ulteriore espansione del budget comunitario della difesa.
«Gli Stati membri dell’Ue stanno già spendendo molto di più per la difesa, con un aumento del 40% del bilancio della difesa negli ultimi dieci anni e un balzo di 50 miliardi di euro tra il 2022 e il 2023. Tuttavia, i 290 miliardi di euro di bilancio per la difesa dell’Ue nel 2023 rappresentano solo l’1,7% del nostro Pil secondo il parametro del 2% della Nato» ha scritto Borrell sul suo blog. E poi ha aggiunto: «Dobbiamo spendere di più ma anche meglio, e meglio significa insieme».

«Nel 2022, gli eserciti europei hanno investito 58 miliardi in nuove attrezzature. Per il quarto anno consecutivo, si è superato il parametro del 20% delle spese per la difesa. Tuttavia, solo il 18% di questi investimenti sono attualmente effettuati in modo collaborativo, molto al di sotto del parametro del 35% fissato dagli stessi Stati membri dell’Ue nel 2007. Dall’inizio della guerra di aggressione russa, il 78% delle attrezzature acquistate dagli eserciti dell’Ue proveniva da Paesi terzi. Siamo in ritardo anche negli investimenti in Ricerca e Sviluppo» ha evidenziato il capo della diplomazia europea, bacchettando implicitamente quei paesi che oppongono ancora resistenze a centralizzare la gestione dell’acquisto di armi.

Borrell ha ribadito quanto già spiegato nei giorni scorsi dalla vicepresidente della Commissione Europea, Margrethe Vestager: «La nostra spesa per la difesa è destinata a troppi sistemi d’arma, acquistati principalmente al di fuori dell’Unione europea. Ora che i bilanci della difesa di tutti gli Stati membri sono in forte aumento, dobbiamo iniziare a investire meglio, il che significa soprattutto investire insieme e investire in Europa».

Proprio per “spendere meglio” e cercare di ridurre le importazioni extra-europee, lo scorso 5 marzo la Commissione Europea ha presentato un nuovo progetto militare-industriale continentale. L’obiettivo è quello di promuovere la cooperazione tra le aziende del “settore difesa”, facilitando gli acquisti in comune di sistemi d’arma e tecnologie belliche.

I Ventisette paesi membri dell’Ue producono attualmente ben 17 modelli diversi di carri armati, 29 modelli di fregate, 20 modelli di caccia ecc. Inoltre negli ultimi anni è aumentata la dipendenza europea dalle armi prodotte dagli Stati Uniti: se nel 2021 l’Ue comprava da Washington sistemi bellici per 15,5 miliardi di dollari l’anno seguente la cifra è cresciuta fino a 28 miliardi, e nel 2023 la spesa è ulteriormente cresciuta.

Josep Borrell e Ursula von der Leyen

Il progetto della Commissione Europea si basa sostanzialmente su due programmi varati nel 2023, noti con gli acronimi EDIRPA e ASAP. Il primo promuove gli acquisti in comune; il secondo invece mira a incrementare la produzione di munizioni.

Per coordinare i progetti, è prevista la creazione di un organismo incaricato di gestire la collaborazione tra i paesi membri, denominato “Defense Industrial Readiness Board”.

La Commissione Europea si propone di incrementare il commercio intraeuropeo di armi fino a portarlo, entro il 2030, al 35% del valore complessivo del mercato continentale. Inoltre, sempre per quella data, si punta a far crescere gli appalti europei fino al 50% del totale.

Per ora i fondi messi a disposizione per sostenere l’apparato militare industriale europeo non sono ingentissimi: per ora sono stati messi a disposizione 1,5 miliardi di euro tra il 2025 e il 2027. Ma ulteriori finanziamenti potranno essere ottenuti sfruttando l’articolo 212 dei Trattati Europei, gli stanziamenti decisi dai singoli stati – che possono far ricorso a sussidi e sconti fiscali – e quelli del Fondo Europeo di Difesa. Per racimolare nuovi fondi, alcuni ambienti hanno proposto la creazione di Eurobond ad hoc, ma la proposta ha generato alcune perplessità.

Le spese militari stanno crescendo in tutto il mondo in maniera sfrenata. Nel 2022 le spese militari mondiali hanno raggiunto i 2240 miliardi di dollari, un livello mai raggiunto neppure ai tempi della Guerra Fredda. A guidare la classifica sono gli Stati Uniti, seguiti dalla Cina, dalla Russia, dall’India e dall’Arabia Saudita. Washington spende il 39% del totale mondiale, la NATOil 55%, l’UE il 12%, la Cina il 13%, la Russia il 4%.

Nel 2023 l’Italia ha speso circa 28 miliardi euro, con un aumento rispetto all’anno precedente in linea con la tendenza inaugurata a partire dal 2016. Pagine Esteri

Twitter WhatsAppFacebook LinkedInEmailPrint

L'articolo L’UE aumenta le spese militari, ma non basta: “spendere di più e meglio” proviene da Pagine Esteri.

Twitter WhatsAppFacebook LinkedInEmailPrint

di Eliana Riva –

Pagine Esteri, 27 marzo 2024. Il confronto armato tra Israele e Hezbollah, in Libano, subisce una nuova, pericolosa accelerazione. Martedì Israele ha colpito la zona più settentrionale del Libano dall’inizio della guerra. A 100 chilometri dal confine, nella città di Zaboud, nella zona orientale della Valle della Beqaa. L’esercito israeliano afferma di aver colpito un complesso militare contenente diverse piattaforme per il lancio dei droni.

Lo stesso giorno Hezbollah aveva attaccato la base aerea sul monte Meron, poco all’interno del confine israeliano. Si tratta di un presidio utilizzato dall’esercito per monitorare lo spazio aereo che, sempre secondo le forze armate, non ha subito danni significativi.

datawrapper.dwcdn.net/31sqX/2/!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r

I titoli di oggi: Xi accoglie gli imprenditori americani La Cina denuncia gli Usa all’OMC: “Sussidi discriminatori” Cina, condannati dirigenti sportivi accusati di corruzione Pakistan, ancora attacchi intorno ad asset cinesi Thailandia verso l’approvazione del matrimonio gay Malaysia, i figli di Mahatir confermano giro di indagini sul padre Il presidente cinese, Xi Jinping, ha ricevuto oggi dirigenti e accademici dagli ...

L'articolo In Cina e Asia – Xi accoglie gli imprenditori americani proviene da China Files.

Twitter WhatsAppFacebook LinkedInEmailPrint

di Redazione

Pagine Esteri, 26 marzo 2024 – Il 24 marzo il Tribunale Supremo Federale del Brasileha ordinato l’arresto dei tre presunti mandanti dell’omicidio di Marielle Franco, la consigliera comunale del PSOL (Partito Socialismo e Libertà) e attivista del movimento femminista assassinata il 14 marzo del 2018 a Rio de Janeiro.

A finire in manette sono stati l’ex capo della polizia di Rio de Janeiro Rivaldo Barbosa, l’ex consigliere della corte dei conti locale Domingos Brazão e il fratello di quest’ultimo, il deputato di União Brasil (il principale partito di centrodestra del paese) Chiquinho Brazão.

Secondo Alexandre de Moraes, il giudice del tribunale supremo federale incaricato del caso, sarebbero stati i due fratelli, legati alla criminalità organizzata, ad incaricare dei sicari di uccidere Marielle Franco e il suo autista Anderson Gomes. I due furono uccisi mentre la capofila del movimento contro il razzismo e per i diritti dei membri del collettivo lgbt tornava a casa dopo una manifestazione di sostegno ai diritti delle donne nere.

L’ex capo della polizia di Rio, invece, è accusato di aver intralciato e depistato le indagini che erano sotto la sua supervisione.
A svelare i nomi dei mandanti dell’omicidio politico è stato Ronnie Lessa, ex agente della polizia militare di Rio de Janeiro, in carcere dal 2019 perché ritenuto l’autore materiale del crimine insieme al commilitone Élcio Queiroz.

Il testimone di giustizia ha testimoniato che i fratelli Brazão avevano deciso di far eliminare Marielle Franco già nel settembre del 2017 perché la consigliera comunale anticapitalista rappresentava un ostacolo agli interessi economici della criminalità organizzata.

Secondo il Ministro della Giustizia brasiliano, Ricardo Lewandowski, gli arresti chiudono l’inchiesta, «anche se potrebbero ancora emergere nuovi elementi». In realtà alcuni elementi sono già emersi sul coinvolgimento, per ora non ancora provato, di alcuni esponenti della famiglia dell’ex presidente di estrema destra Jair Bolsonaro.

Comunque soddisfazione per gli arresti è stata espressa da Anielle Franco, sorella dell’esponente politica assassinata. «Oggi è stato fatto un grande passo avanti verso la verità» ha affermato l’attuale ministra per l’uguaglianza razziale del governo federale brasiliano. Pagine Esteri

Twitter WhatsAppFacebook LinkedInEmailPrint

L'articolo Brasile. Arrestati i presunti mandanti dell’omicidio di Marielle Franco proviene da Pagine Esteri.

Twitter WhatsAppFacebook LinkedInEmailPrint

di Redazione

Pagine Esteri, 26 marzo 2024 – Il 24 marzo il Tribunale Supremo Federale del Brasileha ordinato l’arresto dei tre presunti mandanti dell’omicidio di Marielle Franco, la consigliera comunale del PSOL (Partito Socialismo e Libertà) e attivista del movimento femminista assassinata il 14 marzo del 2018 a Rio de Janeiro.

A finire in manette sono stati l’ex capo della polizia di Rio de Janeiro Rivaldo Barbosa, l’ex consigliere della corte dei conti locale Domingos Brazão e il fratello di quest’ultimo, il deputato di União Brasil (il principale partito di centrodestra del paese) Chiquinho Brazão.

Secondo Alexandre de Moraes, il giudice del tribunale supremo federale incaricato del caso, sarebbero stati i due fratelli, legati alla criminalità organizzata, ad incaricare dei sicari di uccidere Marielle Franco e il suo autista Anderson Gomes. I due furono uccisi mentre la capofila del movimento contro il razzismo e per i diritti dei membri del collettivo lgbt tornava a casa dopo una manifestazione di sostegno ai diritti delle donne nere.

L’ex capo della polizia di Rio, invece, è accusato di aver intralciato e depistato le indagini che erano sotto la sua supervisione.
A svelare i nomi dei mandanti dell’omicidio politico è stato Ronnie Lessa, ex agente della polizia militare di Rio de Janeiro, in carcere dal 2019 perché ritenuto l’autore materiale del crimine insieme al commilitone Élcio Queiroz.

Il testimone di giustizia ha testimoniato che i fratelli Brazão avevano deciso di far eliminare Marielle Franco già nel settembre del 2017 perché la consigliera comunale anticapitalista rappresentava un ostacolo agli interessi economici della criminalità organizzata.

Secondo il Ministro della Giustizia brasiliano, Ricardo Lewandowski, gli arresti chiudono l’inchiesta, «anche se potrebbero ancora emergere nuovi elementi». In realtà alcuni elementi sono già emersi sul coinvolgimento, per ora non ancora provato, di alcuni esponenti della famiglia dell’ex presidente di estrema destra Jair Bolsonaro.

Comunque soddisfazione per gli arresti è stata espressa da Anielle Franco, sorella dell’esponente politica assassinata. «Oggi è stato fatto un grande passo avanti verso la verità» ha affermato l’attuale ministra per l’uguaglianza razziale del governo federale brasiliano. Pagine Esteri

Twitter WhatsAppFacebook LinkedInEmailPrint

L'articolo Brasile. Arrestati i presunti mandanti dell’omicidio di Marielle Franco proviene da Pagine Esteri.

As young people adopt immersive technologies like extended reality (XR) and virtual world applications, companies are expanding their presence in digital spaces, launching brand experiences, advertisements, and digital products. While virtual worlds may in some ways resemble traditional social media and gaming experiences, they may also collect more data and raise potential manipulation risks, particularly for vulnerable and impressionable young people.

This policy brief analyzes recent regulatory and self-regulatory actions and guidance related to youth privacy, safety, and advertising in immersive spaces, pulling out key lessons for organizations building experiences in virtual worlds.

Recent FTC Enforcement Actions and Guidance

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has shown a strong interest in using its consumer protection authority to bring enforcement actions against a wide range of digital companies for alleged “unfair and deceptive” practices, rule violations, and other unlawful conduct. The Commission has also issued several policy statements and guidance documents relevant to organizations building immersive technologies, touching on issues such as biometric data and advertising to children. It is clear the agency is thinking seriously about how its authority could apply in emerging sectors like AI, and organizations working on immersive technologies should take heed. Lessons from recent FTC privacy cases and guidance include:

• The FTC interprets the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)’s definition of “personal information” broadly, including data types that immersive technologies commonly collect, like eye tracking.
• Default settings are key in protecting children’s and teens’ privacy and safety.
• Immersive technologies’ unique capabilities may give organizations new ways to engage in manipulative design.
• Immersive application providers must comply with COPPA if their application is “directed to children” or if there is “actual knowledge” children are accessing it.
• Organizations should provide privacy policies and notices in a format appropriate for and consistent with the design elements of immersive experiences.
• Organizations should take additional steps to be transparent about advertising practices.

Self-Regulatory Cases and Safe Harbor Guidance

Self-regulatory bodies also have an essential role in ensuring privacy and safety in child-directed applications and providing guidance to companies operating in the space. For example, organizations designated as COPPA Safe Harbors can guide companies toward compliant, developmentally appropriate, and privacy-protecting practices. Lessons from recent self-regulatory cases and Safe Harbor guidance include:

• Advertising disclosures in immersive environments should be designed to be as clear and conspicuous as possible and provided in an age-appropriate manner.
• Platforms that allow advertisements to children should ensure that developers, brands, and content creators have the necessary tools and guidance to clearly and conspicuously disclose the presence of advertising to children.
• Privacy by design and by default demonstrate to regulatory and self-regulatory bodies that an organization takes youth privacy seriously.
• Privacy and advertising practices for teens should take into account the unique considerations relevant to teen privacy and safety, compared to child and adult guidance.
• Organizations with a robust privacy culture that demonstrate good faith efforts to follow the law are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Remaining Areas of Uncertainty

Because immersive technologies are relatively new and evolve rapidly, much of the existing regulatory and self-regulatory guidance is pulled from other contexts. Therefore, questions remain about how regulations apply in immersive environments and how to operationalize best practices. These questions include:

• How age-appropriate design principles will best fit into an immersive technology context, such as how best to ensure strong default privacy settings for underage users; the best methods for clarity and transparency regarding data practices notices and advertising disclosures; and whether an immersive experience should require unique, additional safeguards.
• What novel data collection and analysis methods in the immersive technology space will require discerning data practices surrounding its safeguarding and use, such as what kinds of inferences are appropriate to make from body-based data or to what extent avatars not derived from a child’s data are considered personal information.
• How immersive technologyimpacts children and teens; more research is needed to understand whether certain kinds of experiences and privacy practices are harmful for children and teens, if there are unique risks to children’s privacy and mental health, and how organizations, parents, schools, and other stakeholders can address potential issues.

Download the Brief

fpf.org/blog/youth-privacy-in-…

Approvato l’AI Act dal Parlamento europeo, ora tocca agli Stati membri garantirne la corretta applicazione creando un’autorità nazionale per il governo dell’IA indipendente.

Insieme a Privacy Network, The Good Lobby, e molte altre organizzazioni italiane, abbiamo pubblicato un documento con le nostre raccomandazioni a politici e istituzioni che presto dovranno decidere quali caratteristiche dovrà avere l’autorità italiana.

Autorita-AI-Ita-2024-1Download

Di seguito riportiamo in sintesi le caratteristiche principali che l’autorità nazionale per l’intelligenza artificiale dovrà possedere, per essere in gradi di affrontare il compito che la attende:

Indipendenza e Autonomia Politica.

Questa Autorità dovrebbe, innanzitutto, essere indipendente e autonoma da influenze politiche e interessi economici. Per questo raccomandiamo che i componenti del collegio vengano nominati attraverso un percorso parlamentare trasparente e possibilmente partecipativo.

Multidisciplinarietà.

L’autorità dovrà disporre di personale competente ed esperto con una conoscenza approfondita e multidisciplinare dell’IA, dei dati e dell’informatica, dei diritti fondamentali, dei rischi per la salute e per la sicurezza ,delle norme e dei requisiti giuridici esistenti. Devono essere inclusi esperti in scienze sociali e umanistiche per assicurare un’analisi esaustiva degli impatti dell’IA sulla società.

Etica e Standardizzazione.

Con un’autorità indipendente per l’IA ci sarebbe maggiore chiarezza nella distribuzione delle competenze, facilitando e uniformando l’applicazione delle norme. Un ente ad-hoc potrebbe concentrarsi sulle implicazioni etiche e legali, fornendo linee guida e supporto alle organizzazioni che sviluppano e impiegano l’IA.

Trasparenza e Accesso alle Informazioni.

La nuova autorità indipendente per l’IA dovrebbe sfruttare il proprio mandato per offrire una supervisione trasparente e mettere cittadine e cittadini nelle condizioni di comprendere le applicazioni dell’IA, i dati coinvolti e le decisioni adottate. Per questo suggeriamo all’autorità di istituire un registro algoritmico nazionale.

Apertura.

In linea con i principi dell’open governmenti, è importante che l’autorità si doti anche di meccanismi di apertura nei confronti della società civile. Tavoli di lavoro, commissioni miste, protocolli di intesa, sono “strumenti” che possono facilitare il dialogo tra l’autorità e i soggetti che da anni si occupano del tema, rendendone l’operato più efficace.

Capacità Finanziaria.

Ci auguriamo che l’autorità sia fornita di risorse economiche e strumentali adatte: questo significa disporre di personale interno adeguato, formato e remunerato adeguatamente. Consigliamo anche di prevedere fondi per realizzare studi finalizzati ad aggiornare periodicamente la fotografia dello stato dell’arte dell’IA in Italia.

Rappresentatività del Collegio.

Le persone nominate nel board dell’autorità dovranno rappresentare il più ampio spettro sociale possibile, anche in termini di genere, etnia, background culturale e di rappresentazione generazionale.

Agilità Operativa.

L’autorità indipendente si troverà nelle condizioni di dover rispondere con immediatezza alle sfide poste dalle rapide innovazioni nel campo dell’IA. Per questo servono validi meccanismi di controllo per verificare che ciò avvenga in maniera etica e rispettosa dei diritti fondamentali.

Meccanismi di controllo.

L’Agenzia nominata dovrà essere in grado di implementare misure e linee guida a supporto di chi sviluppa o adotta sistemi di IA. Dovrà, inoltre, sviluppare meccanismi di controllo per intervenire quando non vengono rispettate. Questi meccanismi di controllo dovranno essere tanto reattivi quanto accurati, assicurando che le decisioni automatizzate siano prese con una piena consapevolezza di tutte implicazioni etiche e sociali.

The post Autorità nazionale per l’intelligenza artificiale: le nostre proposte appeared first on Hermes Center.

More than a few Meta employees showed up at FediForum earlier this week, doubling down on their commitment to open protocols and “being a good neighbor on the Fediverse”. While there were some demos and fruitful conversations, one public concern flew under the radar.

An eagle-eyed Threads user noticed that their status giving Pixelfed a positive mention was seemingly hidden from the tree of a public conversation. From there, coverage picked up across the network, and even made it back to Daniel Supernault, Pixelfed’s creator.

“Meta is free to do whatever they want on their platforms,” the developer mentioned, “and I hope this is a bug.”

For now, no one’s quite sure. Various people have tried to recreate the same situation with their Threads accounts, and their comments are still publicly available. We have yet to see a statement from the Threads team on the situation.

Bug or not, a vocal part of the network is apprehensive about Meta’s true intentions with the platform, ranging from pessimism on how much effort Threads is really putting in to the Fediverse, to accusations of hostile behavior. Dropping the ball like this can hurt user confidence, especially when building community goodwill is so crucial.

Prior History

Pixelfed has something of an established history with being at odds with Meta. Some of that points to Pixelfed’s form factor, which bears more than a passing resemblance to Instagram.
Left: my Pixelfed, Right: my Instagram
In the past, the project was warned by a Meta employee about using the same filter names and styles for images, citing a potential violation of Meta’s intellectual property. Pixelfed complied, and changed their image filters and styles in hopes of sidestepping the issue. It never came up again.

Pixelfed filters

Additionally, there have been situations in the past where both Twitter and Facebook have censored posts linking to open source Fediverse alternatives. Even if Threads is an effort to right wrongs of the past, these situations don’t reflect well on Threads or its parent company.

When is a bug just a bug?

For all we know right now, this is very likely an unfortunate bug. However, it’s important for the Threads team to nip this in the bud, if they really want to establish good vibes about their efforts.

FediPact is an Organized Effort to Block Meta’s ActivityPub Platform

wedistribute.org/2023/06/fedip…

On the other hand, it’s important to acknowledge that there’s a segment of the network that won’t be satisfied with an explanation, no matter how much evidence is presented. Some people will block Meta no matter what, and that’s their choice.

Regardless, we’ll keep you posted if we learn anything more.

The post Is Threads Hiding Mentions of Pixelfed? appeared first on We Distribute.

We Distribute

2024-03-22 00:56:49

Despite assurances that Threads wants to be good neighbors in the Fediverse, some think Meta might be pulling out some old tricks.

wedistribute.org/2024/03/is-th…

Is Threads Hiding Mentions of Pixelfed?

More than a few Meta employees showed up at FediForum earlier this week, doubling down on their commitment to open protocols and "being a good neighbor on the Fediverse". While there were some demos a

^{Sean Tilley (We Distribute)}

Report Offers Recommendations for Organizations Developing, Implementing, and Regulating Technologies

Today, the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) is releasing a new report explaining how safeguarding driver privacy and data protection will be critical to ensuring widespread acceptance of new safety technology in vehicles. This report comes as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is in the process of establishing new requirements for safety technology that vehicle manufacturers will soon integrate into vehicles of the future.

FPF’s report explores the privacy implications of vehicle safety systems – including Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and Driver Monitoring Systems (DMS) – and impairment detection technologies, which use automated technology to enhance vehicle safety. In addition to core recommendations for public and private entities developing and enforcing these technologies, the report includes insights from a survey completed with the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, which gauges individuals’ attitudes toward the use of Vehicle Safety Systems and explores how to prioritize privacy.

“Vehicle safety systems can save lives and reduce injuries–but only if people use them. Policy makers and auto manufacturers must consider the privacy and data protection implications for all drivers when incorporating new technology into vehicles to bolster driver trust and adoption.”
Adonne Washington, Policy Counsel of Data, Mobility, and Location

The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act requires NHTSA to establish a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard surrounding impaired driving technology. In response, the report identifies five core recommendations for organizations developing, implementing, and regulating these technologies:

• Regulators, technology developers, and technology deployers should ensure that privacy is a foundational principle for any Vehicle Safety System and should implement appropriate legal, policy, and technical safeguards when personal information is implicated, including measures that:
• Technology developers and technology deployers should de-identify data collected by Vehicle Safety Systems as appropriate.
• Impairment-detection systems should be accurate, should be tested for potential bias, and should not produce false-positive results more often for people from underrepresented, marginalized, and multimarginalized communities. Well-defined standards for consistent deployment and alignment across the industry may be beneficial.
• Driver acceptance should be promoted through transparency about Vehicle Safety Systems functions and operations, as well as the handling of personal data.
• Regulators, technology developers, and technology deployers should identify and mitigate, to the extent possible, potential future harms to drivers, especially to people from underrepresented, marginalized, and multimarginalized communities.

The survey results informed the recommendations. The key findings from the survey revealed that many individuals value advanced vehicle safety technologies but worry about the privacy risks, accuracy of the technology, cost, and data transfers to third parties. Additionally, individuals indicated that they generally trust carmakers’ data practices more than online companies and the government but worry about vehicle systems that collect information about occupant behaviors. Individuals want to incorporate these technologies for safety but need privacy and data protection practices like disclosure limits, encryption, on-car storage, and de-identification to trust these systems.

“Ensuring privacy protections in vehicles is necessary. Privacy protections can’t be considered at the end of the process when developing technology and shouldn’t be considered in a vacuum, but rather privacy should be continually considered in regard not only to every stage of the development pipeline but also to any unique risks for marginalized or multimarginalized individuals and communities.”
Adonne Washington, Policy Counsel of Data, Mobility, and Location

The report examines the strategies needed to protect consumer privacy when technologies, especially those to detect impairment, are included in vehicles. Washington underscored that policy leaders, regulators, and automakers should use the resources published to better understand drivers’ knowledge of data collection and safety systems in and around new and advanced vehicles.

FPF will also host a panel discussion and reception on the report. Learn more about the event here.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

fpf.org/blog/new-report-explor…

Authors: Beth Do, Maria Badillo, Randy Cantz, Jameson Spivack

“Neurorights,” a set of proposed rights that specifically protect mental freedom and privacy, have captured the interest of many governments, scholars, and advocates. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Latin America, where several countries are actively seeking to enshrine these rights in law, and some even in their Constitutions.

The rapid global proliferation of neurotechnology—devices that can access mental states by decoding and modulating neural activity—has generated a large amount of consumer neurodata (also known as neural, brain, or cerebral data; brain information; mental activity; etc.). As most existing privacy laws do not separately or explicitly regulate neurodata—even though such data is normally covered by the broad definitions of “personal data” in such legislation—several governments and international bodies have begun to develop specific legal protections for this type of personal data.

This analysis focuses on current legislative efforts in Chile, Mexico, and Brazil, which are indicative of how far the conversation in Latin America has progressed. Other jurisdictions, such as the United States, Israel, South Korea, and Europe, are also in the nascent stages of discussing protections for mental privacy. As neurotechnologies continue to evolve, industry and regulatory bodies alike should look to Latin America for developing trends and best practices.

1. What is neurotechnology?

Neurotechnology is an umbrella term for technologies that allow access to neurodata. Raw neurodata is collected from an individual’s central nervous system (the brain and spinal cord) and/or peripheral nervous system (the nerves outside the brain and spinal cord), including electrical activity between these systems. Neurotechnology includes both traditional techniques such as electroencephalography (EEG) testing and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, as well as new methods that can monitor or modulate brain activity.

Neurodata is valuable and uniquely sensitive as it can access a person’s emotions, biases, and memories. For example, EEGs can measure inattention, as brainwaves can indicate whether someone’s mind is focused or wandering. With sufficient data over a period of time, brainwave patterns may also even be more uniquely identifying than fingerprints.

2. What are neurorights?

“Neurorights” have been formulated to encompass mental privacy, integrity, and liberty. They are not yet widely recognized at the national level or codified in an international human rights framework, and there is disagreement about their usefulness as a conceptual framework. Some prefer using other terms such as “mental privacy” or “cognitive liberty;” others question the necessity of introducing new rights, or if current legal frameworks are sufficient or could be strengthened to account for them. Neurorights can be simplified into five fundamental rights:

• Mental Privacy: Personal neurodata should be private, and should not be stored or sold without consent.
• Personal Identity: Neurotechnology should not alter “mental integrity,” or an individual’s sense of self.
• Free Will: Individuals should retain decision-making control, without unknown manipulation via neurotechnology.
• Fair Access to Mental Augmentation: Cognitive enhancement neurotechnology should be accessible to everyone.
• Protection from Bias: Neurotechnology algorithms should not discriminate.

3. The emergence of neurorights

Advances in neurotechnology, partly funded by large research programs such as the US-based Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, have spurred global interest in establishing legal safeguards for the brain and neurodata. In 2019, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developed the first international standards to respond to neurotechnology’s ethical, legal, and social challenges. The OECD’s Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology provides guiding principles to prioritize safety, inclusivity, collaboration, and trust in neurotechnology. In 2022, the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee issued a report on the ethical issues of neurotechnology and advocated for a comprehensive governance framework.

On a regional level, the Inter-American Juridical Committee of the Organization of American States (OAS) issued a Declaration on neuroscience and neurotechnologies and human rights in 2021. Two years later, the OAS followed up with a set of Principles to align international standards to national frameworks. In the same year, the Ibero-American Network of Data Protection Authorities (RIPD), the main forum for Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking data protection regulators, declared support for the OAS Declaration and Principles and announced the establishment of a working group on neurodata.

Perhaps the most consequential call for action was the 2022 Neurorights Model Law, drafted by the Latin American and Caribbean Parliament (Parlatino), a regional organization that promotes regional integration through legislative harmonization. The model law provides both structure and foundational concepts to regulate neurotechnology, including establishing an independent oversight authority and providing redress mechanisms.

Transnational stakeholders such as the OAS and Parlatino have played large roles in establishing Latin America as a leading player in the neurorights discussion. However, legislative initiatives at the domestic level may prove more influential, as their impact continues to reverberate in Latin America and beyond.

4. Chile: The first country to protect “mental integrity” in its Constitution

As a pioneer in the neuroprivacy movement, Chile was the first country to amend its Constitution to protect “mental integrity” and neurodata in 2021. Specifically, the provision states that “the law shall regulate the requirements, conditions, and restrictions for [neurodata], and shall especially protect brain activity, as well as the information derived from it.” Furthermore, scientific and technological developments are to be conducted with “respect for […] physical and mental integrity.”

Led by Senator Guido Girardi Lavín and several other legislators, the amendment centered on the individual identity as an intrinsic value of human evolution and referred to physical and psychic integrity as its main elements. The legislators asserted that any technological development affecting mental integrity, as a fundamental right, should be authorized by law. Simultaneously, the same legislators introduced Bill 13.828-19, which aimed to further regulate neurotechnology by requiring consent to use neurotechnology and establishing penalties for noncompliance.

In 2023, only two years after the country’s Constitution was amended, Chile’s Supreme Court became the first court to rule on aneuroprivacy case. The plaintiff, Senator Girardi, alleged that his brain data was insufficiently protected by the US-based Emotiv’s “Insight” device, a headband that records detailed information about the brain’s electrical activity. The Court ultimately found thatEmotiv violated Sen. Girardi’s constitutional rights to physical and psychological integrity as well as the right to privacy, setting aside Emotiv’s arguments that the harms were hypothetical. Citing both Chilean domestic law and international human rights law, the Court focused on the fact that Emotiv retained Sen. Girardi’s data for research purposes, even in anonymized form, without obtaining prior consent for this specific purpose. In addition to setting a precedent for neuroprivacy litigation, this case reflects the neurorights movement’s influence beyond the policy sphere.

5. Mexico: Proposed constitutional amendment for neuroprivacy rights

As of March 2024, there are two pending neuroprivacy bills that seek to amend Mexico’s Constitution. The first bill, proposed by Deputy María Eugenia Hernández Pérez, would include the right toindividual identity, as well as physical and psychological integrity. The Chilean constitutional amendment’s influence is noticeable throughout the Mexican bill, including language requiring the State to respect mental privacy and integrity. Moreover, the proposal has the same wording as Chile’s constitutional amendment and similarly spotlights the value of individual identity.

The proposal centers on human identity and its relation to technology, and not solely privacy and data protection, which are already recognized as two separate fundamental rights under Article 16 of Mexico’s Constitution. It includes broad legal safeguards to ensure the confidentiality of neurodata collection, informed consent before access, clear limits on neurotechnologies, and anti-discrimination measures. Moreover, the bill notes that while some local laws protect human rights and neurodata in the context of medical and scientific uses, there is a lack of regulation for non-medical uses.

The second Mexican bill, spearheaded by Senator Alejandra Lagunes Soto Ruiz, would amend Article 73 of the Constitution to provide congressional authorization to pass federal legislation related to artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and neurorights. Under this authority, Congress could safeguard mental privacy, cognitive autonomy, informed consent for the use of brain data, identity and self-expression, non-discrimination, and equal access to technology.

Both bills acknowledge that neuroprivacy is an emerging concept and focus on how neurotechnology could jeopardize fundamental rights. Although these bills approach the issue from different viewpoints, they both seek to protect personal data and build citizen trust. Additionally, in November 2023 the Mexican Data Protection Authority published a Digital Human Rights Charter that recognizes the five fundamental neurorights.

6. Brazil: Proposed constitutional amendment and neuroprivacy rights in privacy law

Several neuroprivacy initiatives have gained traction in Brazil. Bill 29/2023, introduced by Senator Randolph Frederich Rodrigues Alves in June 2023, seeks to amend the Brazilian Constitution to include protections for mental integrity and algorithmic transparency. In particular, the proposal highlights that recognizing “mental integrity” is essential to expand the “legal and normative understanding of human dignity in this new digital context” that protects both personal data and the “psychic and physical integrity of human beings.” The proposal was presented to the Senate in June 2023 and is pending until a Rapporteur is appointed to review the bill. 1 Of note, the Brazilian Constitution was amended in February 2022 to include a right to the protection of personal data, distinct from the right to privacy.

Separately, Bill 522/2022, introduced by Deputy Carlos Henrique Gaguim in March 2022, would amend Brazil’s General Data Protection Law (LGPD) to regulate neurodataas a category of sensitive data. The bill would add a new section to regulate the processing of neurodata, emphasizing that therequest for consent must “clearly and prominently indicate the possible physical, cognitive and emotional effects” of processing neurodata. Currently, Article 5 of the LGPD establishes racial and ethnic origin; religious, political, and philosophical affiliations; health, sexual and life data; and genetic and biometric data as categories of sensitive data. However, the proposal highlights the need to include neurodata as a distinct category of sensitive data, not to be confused or associated with biometric data. The bill was approved by the Health Commission Rapporteur in October 2023 and awaits further consideration.

The neurorights discussion has also made its way into Brazil’s Federal Civil Code. In December 2023, the Sub-Committee on Digital Law of the Commission of Jurists, who are responsible for reviewing the Civil Code, submitted a report that seeks to recognize neuroprivacyunder the LGPD. Independently, in December 2023, Río Grande do Sul, Brazil’s fifth-largest state by population, amended its Constitution to include neurorights, specifying mental integrity as a constitutional principle.

7. Other regional initiatives

Similar legislative efforts are underway in the region, with some variations:

• Costa Rica proposed amending the country’s data protection law to include a definition of biometric data which, in contrast to Brazil’s proposal, categorizes neurodata as biometric data.
• Colombia is considering updating its data protection law to include a section specific to the processing of data through AI and neurotechnologies. The proposal sets out specific obligations for accessing and processing neurodata.
• Argentina has two pending bills: Bill 2446/23 proposed the creation of a bicameral committee to develop a neurorights framework. Separately, another bill would amend the Federal Code of Civil Procedure to allow neurotechnologies that infer mental activity as admissible evidence.
• Uruguay’s Parliament reported that elected officials have met with their Chilean counterparts to discuss neurorights. In February 2024, Deputy Rodrigo Goñi indicated that Parliament is considering regulating neurotechnologies and providing safeguards for brain integrity and neurodata.

As neurotechnology continues to advance, it raises key questions about how the data involved should be regulated. Latin America is at the forefront of that conversation and has paved the way in recognizing neuroprivacy, from Chile’s Constitution, to Mexico and Brazil’s pending legislation. Regional frameworks, such as the OAS Declaration and Principles, illustrate that neurorights are coalescing on the international level as well. The groundswell of legislative proposals and domestic laws demonstrates that the fight for neuroprivacy is here to stay—and for now, at least, Latin America is the place to watch.

1 According to the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies Internal Rules, Art. 56, committee bills and other proposals will be examined by a Rapporteur who must issue an opinion.

fpf.org/blog/privacy-and-the-r…

FediForum is a wonderful unconference intended for builders, designers, and thinkers to come together and have discussions about the Fediverse.

wedistribute.org/2024/03/fedif…

Don’t Forget: FediForum is Coming Soon!
FediForum is the Fediverse’s recurring unconference where developers, community members, designers, and thinkers come together to share their ideas!

We’re trying something new this year: we’re live-blogging the event from on the page. It’s largely an experiment, but it’s an effort to provide deeper insight into the various events happening throughout the day. Keep an eye on the updates below!

When does it start?

FediForum starts at 8am Pacific Daylight Time, on Tuesday, March 19th, and again at the same time on Wednesday, March 20th.

What is the schedule?

A tentative schedule can be found on the site here. We’re going to do our best to cover the presentations, discussions, and demos as they come up.

Where can the readers hang out?

Regardless of whether you’re attending the conference, or just checking out updates from this page, you’re welcome to come hang out in our Matrix Space, under our Off-Topic Island channel.

The post Our Live Coverage of FediForum March 2024! appeared first on We Distribute.