AI

  • US firm fined by Dutch for illegal facial recognition data gathering

    Steve WoodsGDPR, Privacy, Security, Tech

    Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens logoThe Dutch Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (Personal Data Protection Authority) has announced today that it has imposed a fine of €30.5 mn. on the US company Clearwiew AI, as well as a non-compliance penalty in excess of €5 mn.

    Stylised facial recognitionClearview is an American company that offers facial recognition services, which has, inter alia, built up an illegal database with billions of photos of faces, including those of Dutch citizens. Furthermore, the authority has warned that using the services of Clearview is also prohibited.

    Clearview offers facial recognition services to intelligence and investigative services. Moreover, Clearview customers can provide camera images to find out the identity of people shown in the images. To this end, Clearview has a database with more than 30 billion photos of people, which it has scraped automatically from the internet and then converted into a unique biometric code per face, all without the knowledge and consent of its victims.

    According to the authority’s chair Aleid Wolfsen, “Facial recognition is a highly intrusive technology, that you cannot simply unleash on anyone in the world. If there is a photo of you on the internet – and doesn’t that apply to all of us? – then you can end up in the database of Clearview and be tracked. This is not a doom scenario from a scary film. Nor is it something that could only be done in China. This really shouldn’t go any further. We have to draw a very clear line at incorrect use of this sort of technology.’

    Clearview says that it provides services to intelligence and investigative services outside the European Union (EU) only.

    Clearwiew’s services illegal and in breach of the the GDPR

    Clearview has seriously violated the privacy law General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on several points: the company should never have built the database and is insufficiently transparent. It should never have built the database with photos, the unique biometric codes and other information linked to them. This especially applies to the codes. Like fingerprints, these are biometric data. Collecting and using them is prohibited. There are some statutory exceptions to this prohibition, but Clearview cannot rely on them.

    Clearview is an American company without an established presence n Europe. Other data protection authorities have already fined Clearview on various earlier occasions, but the company has not changed its conduct. For this reason the Dutch regulator is investigating ways to ensure the violations stop, including whether the company’s directors can be held personally liable for data protection violations.

    Wolfsen: ‘Such [a] company cannot continue to violate the rights of Europeans and get away with it. Certainly not in this serious manner and on this massive scale. We are now going to investigate if we can hold the management of the company personally liable and fine them for directing those violations. That liability already exists if directors know that the GDPR is being violated, have the authority to stop that, but omit to do so, and in this way consciously accept those violations.’

    Clearview has not objected to the decision and is therefore unable to appeal against the fine.

  • German literary translators want strict AI regulation

    Steve WoodsLanguage, Politics, Tech

    German news site heise reports that German-speaking literary translators associations are demanding stricter regulation of Artificial Intelligence (usually abbreviated to AI) due to its threats to art and literature.

    “Art and democracy too are being threatened.” This is being said by German-speaking literary translators associations in Germany, Austria and Switzerland in respect of the increasing “automation of intellectual work and human speech“. They have therefore collaborated on an open letter (PDF) in which they are demanding strict regulation of AI.

    Artificial Intelligence graphic combining a human brain schematic with a circuit board.
    Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

    Regulation must ensure that the functionality of generative AI and its training data must be disclosed. Furthermore, AI providers must clearly state which copyrighted works they have used for training. No works should be used for this purpose against the wishes of copyright holders. In addition to this, the open letter states that copyright holders should be paid if AI is trained using their works and a labelling requirement should be introduced for 100% AI content.

    “Human language is being simulated now”

    “A translation is the result of an individual interaction with an original work”, the translators write. This interaction must take place responsibly. How a sentence is constructed and what attention is focused on guides the inner experience of readers. The language skills needed for this are developed and honed in the active writing process. “The creation of a new literary text in another language makes the translator a copyright holder of a new work.”

    However, text-generating AI can only simulate human speech, according to the translators. “They have neither thoughts, emotions nor aesthetic sense, know no truth, have no knowledge of the world and no reasons for translation decisions.” Due to their design, language simulations are often illogical and full of gaps; they contain substitute terms and statements that are not always immediately recognised as incorrect.

    “AI multiplies prejudices”

    The translators continue by saying that When AI products are advertised, it is suggested that the AI can work independently, “understand” and “learn”. “This means the huge amounts of human work on which the supposedly ‘intelligent’ products are based are kept secret.” Millions of copyrighted works are ‘scraped‘ from illegally established internet libraries to create language bots.

    These and other arguments are combined in a “Manifesto for Human Language”. In it the translators write as follows: “Bot language only ever reproduces the status quo. It multiplies prejudices, inhibits creativity, the dynamic development of languages and the acquisition of language skills.” Text-generating AI is attempting to make human and machine language indistinguishable. It is not designed as a tool, but a replacement for human skill.

    However, AI is not intelligence at all, since this also includes emotional, moral, social and aesthetic intelligence, practical sense and experience which arise from physicality and action. “In this respect, the technical development of language bots cannot be termed ‘progress'”, the open letter states.

  • EU Parliament wants to protect Free Software in AI regulation

    Steve WoodsOpen Source, Politics, Tech

    FSFE logoToday the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) reports that the European Parliament’s two competent committees – the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) – today voted by a large majority to protect Free Software in the EU’s AI Regulation. Furthermore, non-profit organisations and small Free Software projects up to the size of micro-enterprises, are largely to be exempted from this regulation.

    In addition, the FSFE comments that this principle must be anchored in the Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive and the parliament’s forthcoming votes.

    Alexander Sander, FSFE’s Senior Policy Consultant, explains as follows:

    Instead of putting the responsibility on the Free Software developers, it should be put on the companies that profit from it on the market. Smaller organisations and non-profit activities, for example by foundations, must be excluded. With this vote, the Members of the European Parliament are thus recognising the reality of Free Software development and trying to protect it. The principle of transferring responsibility and liability to those who profit on the market instead of focusing on developers must also be anchored in the Cyber Resilience Act and the Product Liability Directive. This is the only way to not only protect Free Software and its contributors but also consumers and customers.

    The final vote on the AI Act is expected in the next few weeks, after which discussions on the final text will take place between the Parliament, Council of Ministers and the Commission. The Parliament is currently discussing the amendments to the Cyber Resilience Act and the Product Liability Directive which have been submitted.

  • New Alpha of 0 A.D. released

    Steve WoodsLinux, Open Source, Tech

    Wildfire Games has published a new version of its free real-time strategy game 0 A.D. The game comes with an open source licence and can be played on Linux, Windows and Mac OS X. New translations have made their way into 0 A.D. Alpha 16 “Patañjali” and the game can now be played in 13 different languages. Additional languages will follow. A Japanese translation is also ready; however, it has not been incorporated into the latest release due to the size of the script files. In addition, these make heavy demands on the hardware. The Japanese translation with its script files is therefore available as a separate download.

    A new AI called Petra should demand more of players and behave more aggressively during expansion and fighting. Just like human opponents, it builds defensive towers and fortifications. Petra will handle resources better than its predecessor (called Aegis) and also conduct trade with allies.

    The interface style introduced with the multi-player lobby in version Alpha 15 is now used throughout the game. Biolinum, a font from the Libertine Open Fonts Project is used as the game’s new font. In a multi-player game all players must now conform the game settings using “Ready” before it can start. A new version of the SpiderMonkey JavaScript engine, which provides new functions, has also been incorporated in 0 A.D. Alpha 16. Information about additional new features in 0 A.D. can be found in the release notes.

    Download 0 A.D. Alpha 16 Patañjali.

  • Canaries save money with open source

    Steve WoodsLinux, Open Source, Politics, Tech

    Canary Islands coat of armsCanary Islands news site La Provincia reports that the autonomous government of the Canaries is saving €400,000 per year by backing the use of free and open source operating systems and software and avoiding paying licences to multinational companies for the use of programs and their updates. Apparently the autonomous government annual IT costs have reduced from €1,006,500 to €750,000. Roberto Moreno, the general director for telecommunications and new technologies explains that the migration from proprietary to free and open source software means the government is ridding itself of dependency on one vendor because, in this case “the owner is the one who buys it and can make the changes and modifications needed with his own resources and personnel, which is always much cheaper” than being beholden to an outside company.

    Moreno, who is a professor of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC), states that the objective is shown by the current legislature’s wishes to introduce these changes to reduce expenditure, given the current economic crisis and the lack of funds in the region’s coffers.

    The next step planned by the Canaries government is to replace the ubiquitous MS Office suite currently used with a free and open source alternative, which is most likely to be Apache OpenOffice. That change will involve some 30,000 desktops and will save the public purse a fair few euros more.

  • Happy 30th, GNU!

    Steve WoodsLinux, Open Source, Tech

    Today is the 30th birthday of the GNU Project, which instigated the whole move towards free and open source software and the wealth of GNU/Linux distributions and software currently available.

    GNU’s initial aim, as outlined by Richard Stallman, was to develop a Unix-like operating system, but one which contained no proprietary Unix code.

    GNU 30th anniversary logo

    Stallman’s original announcement is reproduced below.

    Free Unix!

    Starting this Thanksgiving I am going to write a complete Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu’s Not Unix), and give it away free(1) to everyone who can use it. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed.

    To begin with, GNU will be a kernel plus all the utilities needed to write and run C programs: editor, shell, C compiler, linker, assembler, and a few other things. After this we will add a text formatter, a YACC, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other things. We hope to supply, eventually, everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and anything else useful, including on-line and hardcopy documentation.

    GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have longer filenames, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, filename completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C and Lisp will be available as system programming languages. We will have network software based on MIT’s chaosnet protocol, far superior to UUCP. We may also have something compatible with UUCP.

    Who Am I?

    I am Richard Stallman, inventor of the original much-imitated EMACS editor, now at the Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT. I have worked extensively on compilers, editors, debuggers, command interpreters, the Incompatible Timesharing System and the Lisp Machine operating system. I pioneered terminal-independent display support in ITS. In addition I have implemented one crashproof file system and two window systems for Lisp machines.

    Why I Must Write GNU

    I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. I cannot in good conscience sign a non-disclosure agreement or a software license agreement.

    So that I can continue to use computers without violating my principles, I have decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free.

    How You Can Contribute

    I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and money. I’m asking individuals for donations of programs and work.

    One computer manufacturer has already offered to provide a machine. But we could use more. One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU will run on them at an early date. The machine had better be able to operate in a residential area, and not require sophisticated cooling or power.

    Individual programmers can contribute by writing a compatible duplicate of some Unix utility and giving it to me. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would be very hard to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not work together. But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this problem is absent. Most interface specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If each contribution works with the rest of Unix, it will probably work with the rest of GNU.

    If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full or part time. The salary won’t be high, but I’m looking for people for whom knowing they are helping humanity is as important as money. I view this as a way of enabling dedicated people to devote their full energies to working on GNU by sparing them the need to make a living in another way.

    For more information, contact me.

    Arpanet mail:
    RMS@MIT-MC.ARPA

    Usenet:
    …!mit-eddie!RMS@OZ
    …!mit-vax!RMS@OZ

    US Snail:
    Richard Stallman
    166 Prospect St
    Cambridge, MA 02139