Author: Judy Wang, Communications Intern, FPF

The Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) hosted two engaging events honoring 2023’s must-read privacy scholarship at the 14th Annual Privacy Papers for Policymakers ceremonies.

On Tuesday, February 27, FPF hosted a Capitol Hill event featuring an opening keynote by U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) as well as facilitated discussions with the winning authors: Mislav Balunovic, Emily Black, Albert Fox Cahn, Brenda Leong, Hideyuki Matsumi, Claire McKay Bowen, Joshua Snoke, Daniel Solove, and Robin Staab. Experts from academia, industry, and government moderated these policy discussions, including Michael Akinwumi, Didier Barjon, Miranda Bogen, Edgar Rivas, and Alicia Solow-Niederman.

On Friday, March 1, FPF honored winners of internationally focused papers in a virtual conversation hosted by FPF Global Policy Manager Bianca-Ioana Marcu, with FPF CEO Jules Polonetsky providing opening remarks. Watch the virtual event here.

For the in-person event on Capitol Hill, Jordan Francis, FPF’s Elise Berkower Fellow, provided welcome remarks and emceed the night, thanking Alan Raul, FPF Board President, and Debra Berlyn, FPF Board Treasurer, for being present. Mr. Francis noted he was excited to present leading privacy research relevant to Congress, federal agencies, and international data protection authorities (DPAs).

In his keynote, Senator Welch celebrated the importance of privacy and the pioneering work done by this year’s winners. He emphasized that privacy is a right that should be protected constitutionally and that researchers studying digital platforms are essential for understanding evolving technologies and their impacts on our privacy. He also told the authors that their scholarship is consistent with the pioneering work of Justice Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren, stating that “the fundamental respect that they had then underlies the work that you do for American citizens today.” He concluded his remarks by highlighting the need for an agency devoted to protecting privacy and that the work done by the authors is providing that foundation.

Following Senator Welch’s keynote address, the event shifted to discussions between the winning authors and expert discussants. The 2023 PPPM Digest includes summaries of the papers and more information about the authors.

Professor Emily Black (Barnard College, Columbia University) kicked off the first discussion of the night with Michael Akinwumi (Chief Responsible AI Officer at the National Fair Housing Alliance) by talking about her paper, Less Discriminatory Algorithms, co-written with Logan Koepke (Upturn), Pauline Kim (Washington University School of Law), Solon Barocas (Microsoft Research), and Mingwei Hsu (Upturn). Their paper analyzes how entities that use algorithmic systems in traditional civil rights domains like housing, employment, and credit should have a duty to search for and implement less discriminatory algorithms (LDAs). During her conversation, Professor Black discussed model multiplicity and argued that businesses should have an onus to proactively search for less discriminatory alternatives. They also discussed the reframing of the industry approach, what regulatory guidance could look like, and how this aligns with President Biden’s “Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.”

Next, Claire McKay Bowen (Urban Institute) and Joshua Snoke (RAND Corporation) discussed their paper, Do No Harm Guide: Applying Equity Awareness in Data Privacy Methods, with Miranda Bogen (Director, AI Governance Lab at the Center for Democracy & Technology). Their paper uses interviews with experts on privacy-preserving methods and data sharing to highlight equity-focused work in statistical data privacy. Their conversation explored questions such as “What are privacy utility trade-offs?”, “What do we mean by data representation?” and highlighted real-world examples of equity issues surrounding data access, such as informing prospective transgender students about campus demographics versus protecting current transgender students at law schools. They also touched on aspirational workflows, including tools and recommendations. Attendees asked questions regarding data cooperatives, census data, and more.

Brenda Leong (Luminos.Law) and Albert Fox Cahn (Surveillance Technology Oversight Project) discussed their paper AI Audits: Who, When, How…Or Even If?with Edgar Rivas (Senior Policy Advisor for U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper (D-CO)). Co-written with Evan Selinger (Rochester Institute of Technology), their paper explains why AI audits are often regarded as essential tools within an overall responsible governance system while also discussing why some civil rights experts are skeptical that audits can fully address all AI system risks. During the conversation, Ms. Leong stated that AI audits need to be developed and analyzed because they will be included in governance and legislation. Mr. Cahn raised important questions, such as whether we have the accountability necessary for AI audits already being deployed and whether audit elements voluntarily provided in the private sector can translate to public compliance. The co-authors also discussed New York City’s 2023 audit law (used as a case study in their paper), commenting that the law’s standards and broad application potentially open the door for discussion of key issues, including those relating to discriminatory models.

During the next panel, Professor Daniel Solove (George Washington University Law School) discussed his paper Data Is What Data Does: Regulating Based on Harm and Risk Instead of Sensitive Datawith Didier Barjon (Legislative Assistant for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY)). His paper argues that heightened protection for sensitive data does not work because the sensitive data categories are vague and lack a coherent theory for identifying them. In their discussion, Professor Solove noted that we can still infer sensitive information through non-sensitive data, making it difficult to know which combinations can become sensitive data and which don’t. He then stated that to be effective, privacy law must focus on harm and risk rather than the nature of personal data: “Categories are not proxies—[we] need to do the hard work of figuring out the harm and risk around data.”

Professor Solove and Mr. Barjon were then joined on stage by Hideyuki Matsumi (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) to discuss Professor Solove’s and Mr. Matsumi’s co-authored paper, The Prediction Society: Algorithms and the Problems of Forecasting the Future. Their paper raises concerns about the rise of algorithmic predictions and how they not only forecast the future but also have the power to create and control it. Mr. Barjon asked the authors about the “self-fulfilling prophecy” problem discussed in the paper, and Mr. Matsumi explained that this refers to the idea that people perform better if there’s a higher expectation to do so and vice versa. Therefore, even if an algorithmic prediction is inaccurate, individuals susceptible to or prone to believe the prediction will be impacted, and the prediction will be made true, leading to what the authors called a “doom cycle.” The authors advocated for a risk-based approach to predictions and stated that we should analyze and think deeply about predictions rather than ban them altogether.

In the evening’s final presentation, Robin Staab and Mislav Balunovic (ETH Zurich SRI Lab) discussed their paper, Beyond Memorization: Violating Privacy Via Inference with Large Language Models, with Professor Alicia Solow-Niederman(George Washington University Law School). Their paper, co-written with Mark Vero and Professor Martin Vechev (ETH Zurich SRI Lab), examined the capabilities of pre-trained large language models (LLMs) to infer personal attributes of a person from text on the internet and raised concerns about the ineffectiveness of protecting user privacy from LLM interferences. Professor Solow-Niederman asked the authors about the provider intervention suggested in the paper that could potentially align models to be privacy-protected. The authors noted that there are limitations to what providers can do and that there is a tradeoff between having better inferences across all areas or having limited inferences but better privacy. They also stated that we need to be aware that alignment is not the solution and that the way to move forward is for users to be aware that such inferences can happen and have the tools to write text from which inferences cannot be made.

As panel discussions ended, FPF SVP for Policy John Verdi closed the event by thanking the audience, winning authors, judges, discussants, the FPF Events team, and FPF’s Jordan Francis for making the event happen.

Thank you to Senator Peter Welch and Honorary Co-Hosts Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO-1) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), Co-Chairs of the Congressional Privacy Caucus. We would also like to thank our winning authors, expert discussants, those who submitted papers, and event attendees for their thought-provoking work and support.

Later that week, FPF honored the winners of internationally focused papers in a virtual conversation hosted by FPF Global Policy Manager Bianca-Ioana Marcu, with FPF CEO Jules Polonetsky providing opening remarks.

The first discussion was moderated by FPF Policy Counsel Maria Badillo with authors Luca Belli (Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School) and Pablo Palazzi (Allende & Brea) on their paper, Towards a Latin American Model of Adequacy for the International Transfer of Personal Dataco-authored by Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (University of Montevideo), Jonathan Mendoza Iserte (National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data Protection), and Nelson Remolina Angarita (Law School of the University of the Andes). The conversation focused on diverse mechanisms for data transfers, such as the adequacy system, and the relevance and necessity of having a regional model of adequacy, including the benefits of having a Latin American model. The authors also dive into the role of the Ibero-American Data Protection Network.

The second discussion of the event was led by FPF Senior Fellow and Considerati Managing Director Cornelia Kutterer with author Catherine Jasserand (University of Groningen) on her winning paper Experiments with Facial Recognition Technologies in Public Spaces: In Search of an EU Governance Framework. Their conversation highlighted the experiments and trials in the paper as well as the legality of facial recognition technologies under data protection law. The second portion of the discussion focused on the EU AI Act and how it relates to the relevancy and applicability of the laws highlighted in the paper.

We hope to see you next year at the 15th Annual Privacy Papers for Policymakers!

fpf.org/blog/ai-audits-equity-…

Twitter WhatsAppFacebook LinkedInEmailPrint

di Eliana Riva –

Pagine Esteri, 19 marzo 2024. Solo nelle ultime ore di oggi sono stati uccisi decine di palestinesi nella Striscia di Gaza. La distruzione di due case e un appartamento a Rafah hanno causato la morte di 14 persone tra le quali bambini. Ieri, tra le vittime negli edifici dell’area dell’ospedale al-Shifa attaccati dall’esercito, c’erano 9 membri della famiglia Erbi. Due giorni fa, il 17 marzo, a Nusseirat 36 membri della famiglia Tabitibi sono stati uccisi da un bombardamento. La stessa sorte è toccata il 22 Novembre a 52 membri della famiglia Qadoura, a Jabalia: spazzate via tre generazioni, dai nonni ai nipoti. Sono solo alcune delle ultime e più note stragi civili familiari di questi 5 mesi di guerra nella Striscia di Gaza che hanno causato circa 31.800 morti e 74.000 feriti, per la stragrande maggioranza donne e bambini.

Eppure, Israele continua ad assicurare che i bombardamenti incessanti siano gestiti in maniera da ridurre al minimo le vittime civili e che le procedure garantiscono attacchi “proporzionati”. Il premier Netanyahu ha ripetuto il concetto leggendario secondo cui le IDF sarebbero “The most moral Army in the word“, l’esercito più morale del mondo. Le dichiarazioni del governo e dei vertici militari possono essere provate? Secondo alcuni veterani israeliani si tratta di menzogne: i protocolli militari sono saltati, gli attacchi hanno cambiato modalità e stanno producendo un numero enorme di vittime tra i civili di Gaza.

A marzo l’associazione israeliana Breaking the Silence ha pubblicato un report dal titolo “Il mito israeliano dell’Esercito Morale. Il fallimento dei protocolli di targeting dell’IDF sta producendo massicce vittime civili”. Breaking the Silence si occupa di raccogliere le esperienze dei soldati israeliani che si trovano a gestire e controllare ogni aspetto della vita quotidiana dell’intera popolazione palestinese. ONG istituita da veterani dell’IDF (le forze armate israeliane), per quasi 20 anni ha dato ai soldati congedati l’opportunità di raccontare le loro esperienze mantenendo l’anonimato, con l’obiettivo di sensibilizzare l’opinione pubblica sulle conseguenze di una prolungata occupazione militare.

Nel fascicolo pubblicato pochi giorni fa, l’associazione mette a confronto alcuni dei più sanguinosi attacchi israeliani su Gaza degli ultimi anni (2008-09; 2012; 2014; 2021). Le procedure utilizzate nei bombardamenti precedenti seguivano alcune direttive ideate per limitare il numero di vittime civili. Erano fallaci e spesso inutili, spiega Avner Gvaryahu, il direttore di Breaking the Silence, ma c’erano. Il riferimento è, ad esempio, alla tattica di “bussare al tetto (roof knocking)” prima di abbattere un’abitazione civile. Nella pratica si traduceva nel lancio di un razzo di avvertimento sullo stabile che sarebbe stato distrutto, con lo scopo teorico di dare il tempo (pochi minuti) alle persone al suo interno di uscirne. Questa procedura veniva utilizzata solo quando l’obiettivo dell’esercito non era un edificio militare e si puntava a distruggere l’abitazione e non uccidere chi vi era dentro. Quando, cioè, l’intelligence riteneva che uno degli appartamenti potesse essere la casa di un membro o un sostenitore di Hamas che in quel momento, però, non si trovava lì o che magari era già stato ucciso in precedenza. L’associazione israeliana B’Tselem fece notare nel 2014, non unica tra le ONG che si occupano di diritti umani, che distruggere le case dei militanti rappresenta una violazione del diritto internazionale in quanto si tratta di edifici civili e non militari. Ma l’esercito israeliano giudica qualsiasi stabile in cui viva una persona sospettata di essere sostenitrice di Hamas o di altri gruppi armati palestinesi, anche in assenza di armi e equipaggiamenti, un “quartier generale” del movimento.

La procedura del missile di avvertimento rimaneva però, quando utilizzata, molto pericolosa, imprecisa, non sicura: non tutti possono lasciare la propria casa, nel cuore della notte magari, in pochissimi minuti e allontanarsi abbastanza da non essere colpiti dai detriti del palazzo distrutto. Persone anziane, bambini, malati, posso rimanere bloccati. A volte altri edifici dell’area, e quindi altre famiglie, sono state pesantemente coinvolte nell’abbattimento.

In ogni caso, a differenza del passato, nell’attacco cominciato a ottobre, dopo l’incursione di Hamas che ha causato circa 1.200 vittime in Israele, questa procedura non viene utilizzata. Richiede tempo e un intervento manuale e le IDF si affidano questa volta a procedure automatizzate che velocizzano gli attacchi e colpiscono un numero elevato di obiettivi in un tempo ristretto.

Breaking the Silence fa presente che le informazioni di tipo strutturale (presenza umana, densità abitativa) che venivano prima utilizzate per calcolare la potenza degli attacchi e stimare i “danni collaterali” (anche in questo caso inadeguate a proteggere i civili), sono diventate vetuste. Il numero di esseri umani presenti in un quartiere residenziale, ad esempio, è stato completamente mutato dai trasferimenti di massa ordinati dallo stesso esercito. Se prima l’intercettazione dei cellulari veniva utilizzata per mappare le persone all’interno della Striscia e sapere chi si trova dentro una struttura, oggi richiede tempo e non è tra le priorità di Israele. Le informazioni così ricavate servivano, ad esempio, ad avvisare telefonicamente responsabili di ONG straniere, membri delle Nazioni Unite o di altre organizzazioni umanitarie, giornalisti, di lasciare l’edificio nel quale si trovavano perché stava per essere attaccato. Anche questa metodologia era assolutamente imprecisa. Basti pensare che rappresentanti di associazioni con progetti nella Striscia hanno ricevuto la telefonata dell’esercito che gli intimava di lasciare l’edificio nel quale si trovavano anche se in quel momento erano, in realtà, in un altro Paese e, addirittura, in un altro continente.

L’impressionante frequenza degli attacchi è resa oggi possibile, spiega l’ONG, anche da un nuovo sistema di intelligenza artificiale che genera nuovi potenziali bersagli. “Un sistema progettato per produrre obiettivi in serie compromette inevitabilmente la precisione e aumenta i danni ai civili, come evidenziato dallo sconcertante bilancio delle vittime a Gaza negli ultimi mesi”. Tutto ciò accade quando “gestire il conflitto” diventa l’unico obiettivo in assenza di un piano complessivo e realistico che conduca verso la fine e oltre la guerra. Pagine Esteri

Twitter WhatsAppFacebook LinkedInEmailPrint

L'articolo Breaking the Silence: “I protocolli militari israeliani sono saltati, a Gaza civili uccisi in massa” proviene da Pagine Esteri.

The majority of the EU Parliament’s lead committees today approved far-reaching new anti-money laundering laws: Anonymous cash payments over €3,000 will be banned in commercial transactions. Cash payments over €10,000 will even be completely banned in business transactions. And anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies to wallets operated by providers (hosted wallets) will be prohibited even for minimum amounts without a threshold.

MEP and digital freedom fighter Dr. Patrick Breyer (Pirate Party) explains his vote against as follows:

“Generally prohibiting anonymous payments would at best have minimal effects on crime, but it would deprive innocent citizens of their financial freedom. The medicines or sex toys I buy is nobody’s business. To collect donations, dissidents such as the late Alexei Navalny and his wife are increasingly reliant on anonymous donations in virtual currencies worldwide. Wikileaks has also already been cut off from donations by credit card companies. Where every financial transaction is captured and saved forever, this creates a honey pot for malicious hackers and law enforcement as well as a chilling government shadow over every purchase or donation.

This EU war on cash will have nasty repercussions! For thousands of years, societies around the world have lived with privacy-protecting cash. With the creeping abolition of cash, there is a threat of negative interest rates and the risk of banks cutting off the money supply at any time. Dependence on banks is increasing at an alarming rate. This kind of financial disenfranchisement must be stopped.

Instead, we need to think about ways we can bring the best attributes of cash into our digital future. We have a right to pay and donate online without our personal transactions being recorded. If the EU believes it can regulate virtual currencies at a regional level, it hasn’t understood the global nature of the Internet.”

Background on the cash limit:

There was a great public outcry when the Commission asked the public for their opinion on limiting cash payments in 2017. More than 90% of responding citizens spoke out against such a step. Respondents considered paying anonymously in cash an “essential personal freedom” and that “Restrictions on payments in cash are ineffective in achieving the potential objectives (fight against criminal activities, terrorism, tax evasion)”. According to an ECB survey up to 10% of citizens use cash even for amounts greater than 10.000 € (e.g. buying cars). According to calculations by shadow economy expert Friedrich Schneider of the University of Linz, banning large cash payments would have “only minimal lowering effects on crime”.

Background on “virtual cash”:

Unlike cash, which is entirely anonymous, transactions carried out with cryptocurrencies can, in the case of Bitcoin, be traced on the “blockchain”. Law enforcement has again and again been successfully prosecuting such criminals by detecting unusual patterns and identifying suspects. Some criminals have eventually de-anonymized themselves, and every criminal will need to eventually exchange their digital funds for real money. Virtual Assets are of minor relevance to the global financial system. There is insufficient evidence on the volume and frequency of the usage of cryptocurrencies for money laundering. EU rules would be easy to circumvent due to the global nature of the Internet. Virtual Assets can technically be transferred directly from one person to another without using intermediaries, which makes them impossible to regulate. Where Virtual Assets have been used for criminal activities in the past, prosecution has been possible on the basis of the current rules.

patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-cash-c…

The lead LIBE committee in the EU Parliament today voted in favor of increased surveillance of air travelers. Pirate Party MEP Dr. Patrick Breyer explains the consequences and his opposition:

“The fact that non-European flights are placed under general suspicion was already the case before. However, even where there are no border controls concerning national or Schengen flights, airlines will have to scan a machine-readable ID card and report the passenger data in future. This makes it much easier to create movement profiles.

Whether and which passenger data is reported to law enforcement agencies for flights without border controls is a secret. The secret report is by no means limited to suspects, but covers entire flight connections on the basis of a vague ‘risk analysis’.

This tightening of air traveler surveillance contradicts the achievement of abolishing border controls in Europe. It is not justified to place unsuspicious air travelers under general suspicion. That is why I voted against the reform.”

The API reform still requires a final plenary approval before it enters into force.

Full text of the new regulations:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014\_2019/plmrep/COMMITTEES/LIBE/DV/2024/03-18/ANNEXtoAPIBorders-2022-0424COD\_EN.pdf

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014\_2019/plmrep/COMMITT

Council press release:

consilium.europa.eu/de/press/p…

patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-tighte…

Twitter WhatsAppFacebook LinkedInEmailPrint

di Safa Naser* – Carnegieendowment.org/sada

“Insegnate ai vostri figli che la Palestina è occupata e che non esiste uno Stato chiamato Israele.” Queste furono le parole del re Faisal bin Abdulaziz, che governò l’Arabia Saudita fino al 1975, e il cui regno è ancora considerato il più fermamente favorevole alla Palestina nella memoria popolare.

Coloro che hanno vissuto quell’epoca e i periodi successivi ricorderanno che i media statali sauditi si sono astenuti persino dal nominare Israele, usando invece termini come “il nemico sionista”, “l’esercito di occupazione” e “il ministro della guerra”. Durante i periodi di intenso conflitto nei territori palestinesi, i canali ufficiali sospendevano prontamente la programmazione regolare in osservanza di un “periodo di lutto” e dedicavano ampio tempo di trasmissione alla cronaca di eventi e al lancio di campagne di donazioni per i palestinesi.

È solo ricordando questa storia che si può cogliere il drastico cambiamento nella posizione dell’Arabia Saudita. Oggi, il festival di intrattenimento e sport Riyadh Season continua nel mezzo del conflitto in corso nella Striscia di Gaza, e scrittori e professionisti dei media sauditi adottano regolarmente la narrativa israeliana quando documentano la realtà della guerra.

Si è trattato di un cambiamento graduale avvenuto nel corso di molti anni, ma iniziato dopo gli attentati dell’11 settembre 2001 e le accuse di coinvolgimento saudita. L’Arabia Saudita si è affrettata ad assolversi dall’accusa di aver propagato una “cultura della morte” e dell’estremismo religioso adottando un discorso mediatico critico nei confronti della religione. La Palestina e le fazioni della “resistenza islamica”, già respinte dalla comunità internazionale e dall’asse arabo della “moderazione”, alla fine sono diventate il bersaglio di questo discorso. In più di un’occasione, quando Gaza è stata bombardata, la stampa saudita ha ridicolizzato della resistenza palestinese e si è allineata con Israele, giustificando i suoi attacchi come risposte alle provocazioni di Hamas.

Il canale Al-Arabiya, fondato nel 2003, ha rafforzato la nuova direzione dell’Arabia Saudita adottando un approccio mediatico che alcuni consideravano al servizio degli interessi dell’Occidente, aprendo la strada alla normalizzazione nella regione e promuovendo l’idea del diritto storico di Israele alla terra di Palestina.

L’erede al trono saudita Mohammed bin Salman

La trasformazione si estese anche all’establishment religioso ufficiale del Paese. Nel 2012, il Ministero degli Affari islamici ha incaricato gli imam della Grande Moschea della Mecca di astenersi da qualsiasi supplica contro gli ebrei al termine dei sermoni del venerdì, sottolineando che “pregare per la distruzione di ebrei e cristiani non è conforme alla Sharia. ” Sono invece emersi sermoni che reinterpretavano Aqeedat Al-Walaa wal Baraa, la dottrina di Fedeltà e Rinnegamento, sottolineando che le credenze religiose sulla lealtà dei non musulmani non dovrebbero estendersi alle relazioni internazionali.

Alla fine del 2020, dopo che gli Accordi di Abraham hanno stabilito relazioni diplomatiche tra Israele e gli Emirati Arabi Uniti, l’Arabia Saudita ha rivisto i suoi programmi scolastici per eliminare i contenuti che rappresentavano gli ebrei in una luce negativa. Ora, la normalizzazione non è più un segreto né un sogno lontano: il principe ereditario saudita Mohammed bin Salman ha dichiarato apertamente, durante una recente intervista con Fox News, che il suo paese si sta costantemente muovendo verso la normalizzazione delle sue relazioni con Israele.

Tuttavia, dato lo status di Israele come “nemico storico” dei sauditi, per preparare l’opinione pubblica ad accettare la normalizzazione è stato necessario reindirizzare questa ostilità verso un obiettivo diverso. Sui social media, gli account sauditi lanciano campagne quotidiane contro i palestinesi, con il pretesto di rispondere a tweet ritenuti offensivi nei confronti dell’Arabia Saudita. Frasi come “I palestinesi ci odiano” e “I palestinesi hanno venduto la loro terra” sono circolate ampiamente su siti web popolari, mentre hanno guadagnato terreno anche hashtag come “La Palestina non è la mia causa” e “Israele non è il mio nemico”. Ci sono state anche campagne che mirano a seminare dubbi sugli eventi storici, inclusa l’uccisione di Muhammad al-Durra nel 2000, e a minare il legame storico dei palestinesi con la terra in generale.

Molti sostengono che il discorso sui social media non riflette accuratamente la posizione popolare saudita, suggerendo che i sauditi si oppongono silenziosamente alla politica del loro governo. I risultati di un recente sondaggio d’opinione, che ha indicato che Israele rimane impopolare presso la maggioranza dei sauditi, sembrano sostenere questa idea. Una piccola percentuale della popolazione potrebbe accettare la normalizzazione, purché questa rimanga limitata alle sole relazioni economiche. Tuttavia, anche questa minoranza è diminuita durante il recente conflitto a Gaza, sebbene rimanga superiore ai livelli precedenti agli Accordi di Abramo. Forse, quindi, è solo questione di tempo prima che emerga una nuova Arabia Saudita, dove la Palestina non trova posto.

Tuttavia, a prescindere dal sostegno ufficiale dello Stato e dei media alla normalizzazione, è probabile che si trovi ad affrontare una resistenza duratura da parte della popolazione saudita, anche se oscurata dallo stretto controllo di sicurezza dello Stato. La causa palestinese è profondamente radicata nella coscienza collettiva saudita – esemplificata dal video di un bambino saudita in lacrime per la sofferenza di Gaza – e rimarrà tale nelle generazioni attuali e future di cittadini sauditi.

*Safa Naser è una giornalista e ricercatrice indipendente dello Yemen. Seguitela su X @SafaNaser

Twitter WhatsAppFacebook LinkedInEmailPrint

L'articolo I venti della normalizzazione rimodellano l’immagine dell’Arabia Saudita proviene da Pagine Esteri.

I titoli di oggi: Elezioni in Russia, congratulazioni a Putin da Cina, India e Corea del Nord Usa commissionano a SpaceX centinaia di satelliti spia. Pla: “minacciata sicurezza globale” Evergrande: Hui Ka Yan accusato di frode per 80 miliardi di dollari In Cina e Corea del Sud aumentano i matrimoni per la prima volta in dieci anni Giappone: banca centrale ...

L'articolo In Cina e Asia – Putin incassa le congratulazioni di Cina, India e Corea del Nord proviene da China Files.

Wei Tingting è in cella da qualche ora. Gli agenti le hanno confiscato gli occhiali, lasciandola sola e confusa con la sua grave miopia. Per farsi forza, ma soprattutto per far sentire la sua voce alle compagne nelle stanze a fianco, intona: «Spezziamo le nostre pesanti catene; rivendichiamo il nostro potere di donne». Sono versi di una canzone fatta girare ...

L'articolo Il femminismo in Cina non vuole prendere un thè proviene da China Files.

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.

ActivityPub is at an interesting place. Since its intial adoption by Mastodon in 2017, the standard has become all but ubiquitous across the Fediverse. In less than seven years, it has become the most-used protocol across the entire network.

According to FediDB, the ActivityPub side of the Fediverse is now used by nearly 10 million people, across more than 27,000 servers. FediDB also tracks 48 different platforms leveraging ActivityPub in some way. With Threads actively doing work their own implementation, these stats are likely to skyrocket, in more ways than one.

This kind of growth is a really positive sign for the network, as it suggests that widespread adoption of the Fediverse might actually be feasible. In order to get there, though, a number of developers have looked at ActivityPub and wondered: what could we do to make this better?

Table of Contents

• What does ActivityPub need?
  
  • ActivityPub’s Protocol
  • ActivityPub’s Ecosystem

  
  

• Ongoing Efforts
  
  • FediDevs
  • Fediverse Enhancement Proposals
  • Social Web Incubator Community Group (SocialCG)

  
  

• Towards ActivityPub 2.0

What does ActivityPub need?

While the Fediverse has seen an explosion of features involving chat, multimedia, live streaming, groups, events, and more, some people would say that the network suffers from a few glaring omissions.

In light of some of the developments taken on by Nostr and Bluesky, ActivityPub can feel downright limited in terms of what platforms in the Fediverse can do today:

• Bluesky makes server migration dead simple for users, leading to a process that feels seamless and non-intrusive.
• Bluesky offers a stackable moderation system that allows people to subscribe to labeling services and help each other curate and filter the network.
• Nostr benefits from a relay system that eschews the need for dedicated instances entirely, instead relying on keys for identity.
• While a little more on the cryptocurrency side of things, Nostr incorporates direct payments into the network, allowing creators to compensate each other.

This isn’t a proclamation that ActivityPub is inherently bad, so much as these other projects can offer advantages that most existing implementations lack.

There are a lot of big ideas on how to improve the situation, and it boils down to two problem areas:

1. The ActivityPub protocol specification
2. The ecosystem built around ActivityPub.

ActivityPub’s Protocol

The ActivityPub protocol is the heart and soul of most Fediverse platforms these days. As a specification, it stipulates methods and behaviors for implementations to follow. Unfortunately, critics have pointed to the fact that the spec can feel too flexible in defining some behaviors, but too loose in defining others.

“The spec is incomplete,” writes Ilja, a regular contributor to Akkoma, “if someone makes a followers-only post and someone replies, then the ‘Mastodon way’ is to address the reply to the followers of the account who replies. The proper way to handle this, is by addressing the followers collection of the OP, and let OP forward the Activity to its followers. But we don’t do that because we don’t know how to do forwarding.”

Another headache that exists for implementors right now comes from most ActivityPub platforms needing to rely on undefined behavior. The following pieces are heavily relied on, but don’t exist in the spec:

• Webfinger – Webfinger is a common tool and data format for looking up resources at an address. If you’ve ever copied and pasted a URL into search to pull in a remote post, Webfinger is what powers it!
• Privacy Scopes – in standard ActivityPub, servers make use of to and cc fields to determine which people a post gets sent to. These fields can address individual Actors, or a Collection of Actors. However, there isn’t really a specification on how scopes ought to work: Quiet Public, Followers-Only, Private Mention and Local-Only are all examples of privacy scopes that not only define a grouping of people, but also behavior for posts themselves.
• Account Migration – Mastodon kind of set the standard for moving accounts from one server to another: your old profile Authenticates your new one, and a relationship is established. After the primary account is set, the old account gets marked with a Tombstone object that redirects to the new profile.
• Moderation Tooling – federated reports, instance blocks, management of blocklists and permission levels, individual user moderation, etc. This is a rapidly evolving space that depends heavily on collaboration.

However, they’re absolutely required for a working platform to exist in the Fediverse. This leads to implementors to do a lot of extra work to figure out how things work today, and how to correctly use them.

ActivityPub’s Ecosystem

The ecosystem built around ActivityPub suffers from problems, too. Despite aspirations to provide a common protocol between very different kinds of platforms, the Fediverse still predominantly looks and works like Mastodon.

There are three reasons for this:

1. Lack of a Test Suite – ActivityPub was first adopted by Mastodon, which acted as rocket fuel for mass adoption of the standard. However, the lack of an independent testing suite for implementors left builders to instead test against Mastodon, making it a de facto standard.
2. Bespoke Client APIs – In addition to a server-to-server federation protocol, ActivityPub offers a secondary spec for client-server relationship. Mastodon ended up pushing it’s own API that was arguably easier to use, but just about every platform in the space could have instead been a client, instead of building their own stacks, APIs, and federation extensions.
3. Duplication of Effort – A very weird phenomenon in this space is that implementors don’t just build something once. As of this writing, there are approximately six different Group Actor implementations, all of which are built slightly differently, made by different people, and meant to solve different problems.

None of these things are necessarily earth-shattering problems per se, but we’ve ended up with an ecosystem where a lot of effort gets duplicated, people are implementing entire platforms from scratch, and everyone is also using Mastodon as a compatibility benchmark.

Ongoing Efforts

The important thing to remember is that this is far from a hopeless situation. As of this writing, there are some incredibly smart people trying to figure out how to fill in the gaps.

“The most important thing about ActivityPub is that it’s extensible,” says ActivityPub co-author Evan Prodromou, “that’s a strength; it means we can really quickly get new distributed social applications running on the network.”

These groups all intersect in a variety of ways, and each one of them is attempting to attack specific problem areas. They’re constantly comparing notes, holding deep discussions, and investigating what enhancements the whole Fediverse might benefit from.

FediDevs

The Fediverse Developer Network is a newer effort that aims to make development more approachable to implementors and newcomers alike. Their goal? Get people in a room together.

“How do we build this stuff to be compatible with other people’s projects, while also lifting the lowest common denominator for everybody?” says FediDevs founder Johannes Ernst, ” It probably starts with making it easier for developers to find each other and compare notes.”

According to Johannes, FediDevs incorporates three big ideas:

1. Developers in the Fediverse ought to have an easy way to find where everyone else is at, and catch up on what’s happening.
2. New developers need a resource library of best practices, emerging concepts, and documentation to prepare for connecting their apps to a global federated network.
3. There needs to be a place to publish guides and tools that make everyone’s lives easier.

FediDevs has already beared fruit through a project called FediTest, a test suite intended to provide different “test profiles” so that builders can see how their own work might interact with other platforms.

diode.zone/videos/embed/df0ac4…

Even though FediTest is still very young, the promise of such an effort is clear: people could stop relying on a specific platform for compatibility testing, and instead use a more flexible, agnostic solution that accounts how lots of different projects do things.

Fediverse Enhancement Proposals

The Fediverse Enhancement Proposals project is a comprehensive effort to distill some of the network’s best ideas into standardized documents that explain how they should work. The effort is an initiative of the SocialHub developer community, and serves as a testbed for their ideas.

FEP is very much in the spirit of XMPP Extension Protocols or Nostr Implementation Possibilities, suggesting ways that existing systems could be extended. Check out some of these ideas:

• FEP-1b12: Group federation – Specifies how a federated group or forum could work. Originally, this was proposed by Nutomic from the Lemmy project, and now Lemmy, Kbin, and Friendica all support this as a standard.
• FEP-5624: Per-object reply control policies – Some centralized platforms have a way to disable comments or replies on a status. What would it take to make this work in a federated model?
• FEP-5feb: Search indexing consent for actors – People on Mastodon can opt-in to being discovered by the Search function. How might we extend this to other Fediverse platforms?
• FEP-c390: Identity Proofs – How might a Fediverse Identity prove its authenticity, while also verifying associated links and accounts?
• FEP-ef61: Portable Objects – How might we separate user data from an instance, so that the user can move it if they need to migrate somewhere else?
• FEP-61cf: The OpenWebAuth Protocol – Derived from the Hubzilla Project’s technology. Wouldn’t it be great if you could use your Fediverse identity across the network? No matter what server URL you land on, permissions can be unlocked for you to perform basic interactions and see private content.

The repository contains a treasure trove of ideas, ranging from immediately obvious needs to larger, more abstract concepts about how the network could work one day. Many of these submissions are still in a DRAFT status for the moment, but a few of the FINAL entries are actively being used. The project is already helping the network develop further.

Social Web Incubator Community Group (SocialCG)

The SocialCG is an implementor’s group that focuses on best practices for those building on ActivityPub. A big focus for the group involves running case studies for different conventions are approached within the Fediverse. Here are a few ongoing studies:

• HTTP Signatures – An examination of how systems like Mastodon use cryptographic signatures as identity proofs on actors and their activities.
• ActivityPub-Webfinger – Studying the how and why so many ActivityPub systems rely on Webfinger to fetch remote data.
• Testing – A monumental collaboration between dozens of people, this is an ongoing study of existing ActivityPub Testing Suite tools, and insights on how exactly a standard test suite could be built.
• Data Portability – researching existing cases for moving data, activities, objects, and Actors across the network.

Towards ActivityPub 2.0

So, what does all of this add up to? Is it possible to bring all of this work into an updated version of the ActivityPub Protocol standard?

“I think there will be a working group chartered at the W3C to make backwards-compatible changes,” Evan Prodromou explains, “especially clarifying difficult text, and possibly recommending profiles for other standards…”

Despite the importance of the W3C and standardization, though, Evan also believes that there’s value to the fast-paced development of emerging projects with new ideas.

“…the innovation is always going to be at the edge, with new extensions.”

I, for one, agree with him. There’s some amazing developments happening in the space, and the future is looking bright.

The post The Efforts to Extend ActivityPub appeared first on We Distribute.

Even if you’ve been a part of the Fediverse for a long time, you’d be excused if you had never heard of Nomadic Identity. Within the confines of Mastodon, it’s a relatively unknown concept. But, for some of us, it’s something of a pipe dream: decentralized identity management with remote access control. On paper, that doesn’t sound too exciting, but it’s a huge concept. Even more exciting: the guy who designed it is bringing it to ActivityPub.

What the Heck is Nomadic Identity?

Nomadic Identity is a concept pioneered by Mike Macgirvin, a longtime builder in the Fediverse. If you’ve ever used Friendica, Hubzilla, or Streams, you’ve used software written by this guy.

wedistribute.org/2017/10/got-z…

Got Zot — Mike Macgirvin on building your own apps and protocols
An interview with the brilliant mind behind the Zot protocol, MagicAuth, and Nomadic Identity.

One of the big problems in federated social systems involves permissions, identity, and data. We can sum this up in three parts:

1. Permission Management – If I visit a friend’s site to interact with something, there typically isn’t a way for me to do anything while I’m over there. I have to go back to my server.
2. Identity Management – Okay, I have a way to validate that I’m really me. What do I have as a fallback if that fails?
3. Data Portability – What happens to my stuff if my server goes down? Can I move to another servers and get my statuses, messages, and interactions back? Could I even just do it temporarily, to keep my followers, while my server gets sorted out?

From the end user’s side of the house, everything boils down to how their identities are coupled to their instances. ActivityPub-based systems like Mastodon do a pretty decent job with letting people migrate from one server to another, letting users pull in remote statuses from a URL, and letting users decide who is allowed to see or reply to their posts. It’s a far better situation than what came before ActivityPub.

At the end of the day, though, what is currently provided in the ActivityPub side of the network is somewhat limited, compared to what the Zot protocol brings to the table with Nomadic Identity. Let’s dive into the three different components: OpenWebAuth, Channel Relays, and Data Migration.

OpenWebAuth

OpenWebAuth used to be called “Magic Auth”, because of how seamless the experience is. Instead of only being able to manage things from your social dashboard, you can jump from one part of the Fediverse to another, and your permissions will be granted automatically. It all happens in the browser.

The way this works is relatively simple: your browser accesses a token inside of a cookie. That token references your Digital Identity in the Fediverse, verifies it, and a handshake is performed. Afterwards, anything you were given permission to access unlocks and becomes visible on the page.

spectra.video/videos/embed/98b…
A really old video of Hubzilla doing it. I’m navigating from my site to Andrew’s.
OpenWebAuth solves one of the most frustrating UX problems the Fediverse currently has: dealing with remote content that you discovered somewhere else.

Channel Relays

Channel Relays are the second major piece of the puzzle here. Using a common ID, you can associate separate accounts across the network with one another. Each relay is verified through an Authorization process, and then each relay is tethered to one another like so:

Using your credentials, you can log into any one of these three relays, and post to your followers. If the server my work account is on suddenly goes down, I can still log in to my family account or blog, and keep interacting like nothing happened. I’m still in contact with my followers, and if I want, my relay accounts can replicate statuses posted from elsewhere.

A few clear benefits emerge from this:

• Network Resilience
• Censorship Resistance
• Ease of Migration

In fact, this mechanism is so good, it feeds directly into the next use-case: Data Migration.

Data Migration

So, we already have two pieces: multiple identities can be connected together across a network, logging into one can allow you to post from another, and a person can decide, at any time, which account will serve as their primary.

Because all of these things are set up, the act of moving your stuff becomes relatively trivial. All of your accounts are aware of each other. If you switch to a new primary, you can trigger an update to all of your existing conversation threads and comments to switch the author, and replicate the data on your end. Thanks to the way that Nomadic Identity is set up, those verified parts of your identity can perform those kinds of actions, whereas no other account can.

Why is This Important?

As we continue to think about how to further develop the Fediverse and give people more robust tools capable of doing more things, we have to consider the plumbing that holds it all together. Identity Management is one of those pieces of plumbing that’s surprisingly shaky, and requires serious consideration.

Digital Identities aren’t something unique to the fediverse and it’s not something Mastodon could stop if they wanted to. Nomadic identity is coming to the internet. The only question is who is going to own your identity. VISA/Mastercard, your government, Google, Microsoft, or you.
Mike Macgirvin

As Threads, Tumblr, and other big social networks come into the space, developers need to think about the stakes. The user migration flow is decent for moving from one server to another, but it’s relatively brittle, and currently only updates a reference from one account to another. The network lacks meaningful ways for people to pull their posts, messages, and media from the place they left.

The biggest takeaway here is that these are mature, time-tested mechanisms that could add extra layers of user agency and control to the Fediverse.

What’s Next?

Mike is already doing the work of figuring out how to retrofit these concepts onto ActivityPub. It’s likely that we’ll see additional Fediverse Enhancement Proposals to accommodate certain needs. For implementers, there are a few existing FEPs in the DRAFT stage that come recommended:

• FEP-ef61: Portable Objects
• FEP-521a: Representing actor’s public keys
• FEP-8b32: Object Integrity Proofs
• FEP-61cf: The OpenWebAuth Protocol

The post Oh, Zot! Nomadic Identity is Coming to ActivityPub appeared first on We Distribute.

It was bound to happen sooner or later. At least the person behind the reigns already makes great apps. That’s right: Daniel Supernault, creator of Pixelfed, is building a new social video app called Loops.

Introducing Loops, a fediverse TikTok platform.

Explore and share short videos on the fediverse using your Pixelfed or Mastodon account.

Available Soon.

loops.video/platform/fediverse…

Follow @loops for early access to the beta and updates.

#loops #pixelfed #pixelfedLoops

— pixelfed (@)2024-03-16T10:24:19.984Z

Not much is known about the app yet beyond what Dansup has said online. According to him, videos are only a maximum of 30 seconds in length, and that the Loops experience will be a separate app/platform from Pixelfed itself. Apparently, Loops is intended to recapture some of the experience of the beloved but short-lived Vine app. In Dansup’s own words, Loops is a revival of an older Pixelfed project, a dedicated UI for looping video.

The developer also stated an intention to assist and mentor the developer behind the similar Goldfish platform, which is intentionally designed to be more like Tiktok rather than Vine. Evidently, both apps are intended to be compatible with one another, as well as other video platforms in the Fediverse, such as PeerTube or Vidzy.

Honestly, I’m stoked about Loops, and can’t wait to beta test it. Maybe we could test it right alongside Dan’s other app, Sup?

The post Pixelfed introduces Loops, a Short-Form Video App appeared first on We Distribute.

dansup

2024-03-16 08:23:09

Loops are for short duration videos (max 30 seconds) and is a separate app/platform from Pixelfed.

We're also working with @stux and his #Goldfish project so the fediverse will have many options to choose from.

Loops is more like Vine, simple and short, for longer videos we think Goldfish and/or PeerTube can meet your needs.

This is the amazing thing about the fediverse, instead of competing with Goldfish, I'm mentoring/helping them.

In the fediverse, we all win, no matter the platform.

🚀

Secret agent headcheese: la prima volta che lo sentirete avrete l’effetto (collaterale) di chi ascoltò gli esordi dei Sex Pistols negli anni ’70: “Cos’è ‘sto macello!”…però poi vi piace.

iyezine.com/secret-agent-headc…

@Musica Agorà

Secret agent headcheese - Escape from Alcatraz

^{In Your Eyes ezine}

In questo nuovo ep di remixes del lavoro di Pyrame “Electroncia melancholia” si è proprio scelto la canzone che dà il titolo per nuove vibrazioni elettroniche. I produttori scelti per dare la loro interpretazione del brano sono l’italiano A- Tweed con due remix, il russo Volta Cab e l’ altro italiano Philip Lawns, tutti su Thisbe Recordings.

iyezine.com/pyrame-electronica…

@Musica Agorà

Pyrame - Electronica melancholia (remixes)

^{In Your Eyes ezine}

La legge europea sull’intelligenza artificiale stabilisce norme per l’uso dell’intelligenza artificiale (#AI) nell’Unione europea (#UE) e mira a garantire che i sistemi di intelligenza artificiale non comportino rischi sistemici per l’Unione. Il testo (europarl.europa.eu/doceo/docum…) non verrà promulgato prima di maggio 2024 e le regole dell’AI Act entreranno in vigore a scaglioni.

Il Regolamento si basa sul livello di rischio, con obblighi graduati in base a esso, dalle pratiche inaccettabili, agli usi ad alto rischio, quelli che necessitano di trasparenza (come chatbot, AI generative e deepfakes) e quelli a basso rischio, regolati da principi generali.

Tra le pratiche vietate di AI rientrano la manipolazione o l'inganno a fini di distorsione del comportamento, i sistemi che sfruttano le vulnerabilità, la categorizzazione biometrica che viola i diritti personali, la classificazione di individui o gruppi sulla base di comportamenti o caratteristiche sociali, l'identificazione biometrica remota in tempo reale in pubblico per le forze dell'ordine, profilazione di individui per comportamenti criminali, database di riconoscimento facciale non autorizzati e deduzione di emozioni nelle istituzioni senza ragioni mediche o di sicurezza. In particolare, i sistemi di AI che non presentano rischi significativi per la salute, la sicurezza o i diritti fondamentali delle persone fisiche non saranno considerati ad alto rischio se soddisfano criteri specifici. I modelli di AI per scopi generali devono soddisfare obblighi quali la manutenzione della documentazione e la cooperazione con le autorità. I deep fake, definiti come contenuti ingannevoli generati dall'intelligenza artificiale, richiedono la divulgazione se non legalmente autorizzati o fanno parte di opere artistiche. Inoltre, il watermarking dei contenuti generati dall’intelligenza artificiale è obbligatorio per motivi di trasparenza, per cui i fornitori devono garantire una marcatura efficace e la compatibilità con gli standard tecnici.

Sebbene la legge copra vari aspetti della regolamentazione dell’AI, comprese disposizioni per diversi settori, non delinea specificamente cosa una forza di polizia può o non può fare con l’AI.

Gli aspetti maggiormente critici riguardano l'identificazione biometrica.

A tale riguardo l'art. 26, comma 10, così recita: “ nel quadro di un'indagine per la ricerca mirata di una persona sospettata o condannata per aver commesso un reato, il deployer di un sistema di IA ad alto rischio (elenco nell' Allegato III, ndr) per l'identificazione biometrica remota a posteriori chiede un'autorizzazione, ex ante o senza indebito ritardo ed entro 48 ore, da parte di un'autorità giudiziaria o amministrativa la cui decisione è vincolante e soggetta a controllo giurisdizionale, per l'uso di tale sistema, tranne quando è utilizzato per l'identificazione iniziale di un potenziale sospetto sulla base di fatti oggettivi e verificabili direttamente connessi al reato. Ogni uso è limitato a quanto strettamente necessario per le indagini su uno specifico reato. Se l'autorizzazione richiesta di cui al primo comma è respinta, l'uso del sistema di identificazione biometrica remota a posteriori collegato a tale autorizzazione richiesta è interrotto con effetto immediato e i dati personali connessi all'uso del sistema di IA ad alto rischio per il quale è stata richiesta l'autorizzazione sono cancellati.” (...) In nessun caso tale sistema di IA ad alto rischio per l'identificazione biometrica remota a posteriori è utilizzato a fini di contrasto in modo non mirato, senza alcun collegamento con un reato, un procedimento penale, una minaccia reale e attuale o reale e prevedibile di un reato o la ricerca di una determinata persona scomparsa. Occorre garantire che nessuna decisione che produca effetti giuridici negativi su una persona possa essere presa dalle autorità di contrasto unicamente sulla base dell'output di tali sistemi di identificazione biometrica remota a posteriori. (...). Indipendentemente dalla finalità o dal deployer, ciascun uso di tali sistemi di IA ad alto rischio è documentato nel pertinente fascicolo di polizia e messo a disposizione della pertinente autorità di vigilanza del mercato e dell'autorità nazionale per la protezione dei dati, su richiesta, escludendo la divulgazione di dati operativi sensibili relativi alle attività di contrasto“

L’AI Act mira a stabilire un quadro per garantire l’uso etico e responsabile dell’AI, che include la gestione dei potenziali rischi e la garanzia del controllo umano sulle decisioni critiche.

Le limitazioni e le normative specifiche riguardanti l’uso dell’intelligenza artificiale da parte delle forze di polizia possono variare tra i diversi Stati membri dell’UE. La legge sull’intelligenza artificiale fornisce un quadro completo per la regolamentazione dell’IA, ma l’attuazione e l’applicazione di tali regolamenti saranno effettuate a livello nazionale.