Posts by Charles Ghose

'Scandal-plagued' data broker tracked visits to '600 Planned Parenthood locations'

The Dark Side of Data Brokerage in Reproductive Rights

The egregious exploitation of personal data by pro-life groups through data brokers like Near Intelligence is not only an assault on privacy but also a reprehensible intrusion into the lives of individuals making deeply personal healthcare decisions. The revelation that nearly 600 Planned Parenthood facilities across 48 states were targeted with anti-abortion ads based on location data is deeply troubling. This practice not only violates the fundamental right to privacy but also undermines the autonomy of individuals seeking reproductive healthcare services.

The implications of this invasive surveillance extend far beyond mere advertising tactics. It creates a culture of fear and intimidation around accessing essential healthcare services, particularly for those facing difficult decisions regarding pregnancy. No individual should be subjected to such targeted harassment while exercising their right to make informed healthcare choices.

Furthermore, the sale of sensitive location data to various entities, including government agencies and defense contractors, raises serious concerns about the misuse of personal information for surveillance purposes. The fact that Near Intelligence reportedly sold US citizens' location data, including visits to reproductive health clinics, to entities like the Pentagon and defense contractor AELIUS Exploitation Technologies is alarming.

Senator Ron Wyden's call for an investigation into Near Intelligence and his advocacy for robust consumer data privacy legislation are crucial steps towards holding data brokers accountable for their unethical practices. We must demand comprehensive regulations that protect individuals' privacy rights and prevent the exploitation of personal data for commercial or ideological purposes.

In conclusion, the use of personal data to target individuals accessing abortion clinics represents a blatant violation of privacy and autonomy. It is imperative that we take a stand against such intrusive practices and work towards enacting meaningful reforms to safeguard individuals' privacy and dignity.

European Court of Human Rights declares backdoored encryption is illegal

The Significance of the European Court of Human Rights' Ruling on Encryption

The recent declaration by the European Court of Human Rights, asserting the illegality of backdoored encryption, is a crucial step towards safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals. It marks a significant milestone in the ongoing battle against widespread government surveillance, unwarranted intrusions into personal lives, and unauthorized monitoring of private communications.

Privacy is not just a luxury but a fundamental human right. It forms the cornerstone of individual autonomy, enabling people to freely express themselves, share thoughts, and communicate without fear of unwarranted interference. Encryption plays a pivotal role in upholding this right by providing a secure means of communication, shielding sensitive information from unauthorized access and malicious actors.

Introducing backdoors into encrypted communications undermines this essential privacy protection. It creates vulnerabilities that can be exploited not only by governments but also by cybercriminals, endangering the security and privacy of millions of individuals worldwide. Moreover, such measures erode trust in digital platforms and weaken the integrity of online communication channels.

Supporters of backdoors often argue for the need to combat terrorism and crime. While these are legitimate concerns, compromising encryption is not the solution. History has shown that weakening encryption tools ultimately harms law-abiding citizens more than it hinders criminals. Additionally, backdoors can be misused by authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent, target political opponents, and violate human rights on a mass scale.

Furthermore, the right to privacy extends beyond individual liberties—it is essential for the functioning of democratic societies. Privacy fosters freedom of thought and expression, encourages innovation and creativity, and fosters a climate of trust between individuals and the institutions they interact with. Without robust privacy protections, we risk sliding into a surveillance state where citizens are constantly monitored and their every move scrutinized.

In conclusion, the Court of Human Rights' ruling against backdoored encryption underscores the critical importance of preserving privacy in the digital age. It reaffirms the rights of individuals to secure, private communications and sets a precedent for upholding these principles globally. Encryption is not just a tool for protecting data; it is a fundamental pillar of democracy, enabling individuals to exercise their rights and freedoms without fear of unwarranted surveillance or intrusion. We must continue to defend encryption and privacy rights against any attempts to weaken them in the name of security or surveillance.

America's broadband bill subsidy runs out of money and halts enrollments

Affordable Connectivity: A Vital Lifeline for Millions

There wouldn't have ever been the need for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) if internet companies offered affordable internet services at affordable prices for low-income people on welfare. We live in such an internet-connected world, with doctor appointments being scheduled online, welfare benefits able to be applied for in some states online, smart speakers, along with job applications, online college courses, paying bills, affordable housing lotteries and housing, receiving medical results, and many more aspects of life done through the internet. It is unthinkable that soon those 23 million US households on the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) will soon lose this benefit because the US government is not providing funding for the program. Fortunately, some companies like Verizon are claiming that they will continue their own version of this affordable internet subsidy called the Verizon Forward Discount. It is about time the US government prioritizing the needs of US citizens and committing to ensuring every low-income and impoverished US citizen has affordable access to the internet, as the internet is more of a vital necessity than a luxury.

Mozilla adds paid-for data-deletion tier to Monitor, its privacy-breach radar

The Need for Fair Compensation in Data Broker Practices

Even though it is commendable that Mozilla is entering the realm of offering a paid tier service called Mozilla Monitor Plus, allowing subscribers to request their personal information be deleted from data brokers' databases, it is disappointing that the public has to resort to these paid services in the first place. This is due to the complex and time-consuming process presented when individuals attempt to make the requests themselves, especially considering the multitude of data broker companies out there. It is high time for other states to follow in the lead of California, which has taken a stance to protect consumers' personal details with the California Delete Act and other privacy measures.

What I find outrageous is that these data brokers are profiting from people's personal details that are not their generated content or personal property. Isn't it about time that each person whose personal details are in a data broker's database receives payment? They should receive a percentage of the profits that these data broker companies make, or at least some sort of compensation from the sale of their personal information.

Lurie Children's Hospital back to pen and paper after cyberattack

Cyber Attacks in Healthcare Call For Cyber Security Improvements

With cyber attacks compromising sensitive patient information in US hospitals, it's evident that a reassessment of how prescriptions and health insurance claims are processed is long overdue. It's astonishing that despite advancements in technology and public awareness campaigns advocating for privacy settings on social profiles and caution against sharing personal information online, patient data such as date of birth, home address, telephone number, and in some cases, social security numbers or Medicaid/Medicare numbers, suffice for accessing and processing prescriptions and insurance claims.

There's an urgent need for a better patient identification system that doesn't rely on such vulnerable personal information. Perhaps technologies that identify patients by their voice or face could be explored, although it's worth noting that even AI programs can clone voices and faces. The most effective solution lies in hospitals enhancing their cybersecurity measures.

It's disheartening that it takes the threat of losing federal funding for hospitals to prioritize cybersecurity standards. Hospitals must not only prioritize patient health but also safeguard their personal data from cyber attacks.

In conclusion, it's imperative for hospitals, health clinics, and pharmacies to prioritize the implementation of robust cybersecurity measures to protect patient information. This isn't just about complying with regulations but about demonstrating a genuine commitment to patient welfare and data security in an increasingly digital age.

Survey: Over half of undergrads in UK are using AI in university assignments

"The Ethical Dilemma: Lawyers, AI, and Legal Research"

It is one thing not being able to pay for the assistance of a lawyer and to use AI programs like ChatGPT to find case law. But for established lawyers who have a law degree to rely on AI for searching case law, that is not only a disservice to their client but blatant laziness.

Lawyers have access to law libraries, law websites like LexisNexis, law periodicals, and more that someone representing themselves pro se does not readily have access to. Therefore, it is understandable for a person going through the pro se process to try AI programs like ChatGPT to search for cases on a legal topic or issue. Can AI be dependable? No, it can't. As mentioned in the article, there have been lawyers from New York on separate occasions who relied on cases searched by ChatGPT, which turned out not to exist.

In my opinion, the published cases from websites like Justia and Casetext, along with published cases from circuit courts, the US Supreme Court, and courts of appeal, should be made available to AI programs like ChatGPT to make information on legal matters easier to search and sift through when trying to locate cases on a particular matter.

By utilizing reliable sources and platforms like LexisNexis, lawyers can demonstrate their commitment to thorough research and provide the best representation for their clients. It's not only about fulfilling professional duties but also about upholding the integrity of the legal profession. Let's raise the bar and embrace technology responsibly to serve justice effectively.

Everyone's suing AI over text and pics. But music? You ain't seen nothing yet

Defending AI's Creative Freedom

AI isn't the only casualty of greedy record labels crying about copyright violations. Just take a look at how a YouTube video of a birthday party, a high school concert, or a music recital will have a copyright claim against the video just because a copyrighted piece of music is playing in the background. Do these record labels expect YouTubers to ask a restaurant or clothing store to turn off the music so they can make a video? Or tell a museum or festival not to play any music to avoid a copyright claim, which comes with the threat of a copyright strike that could result in YouTube deleting their YouTube Channel? I thought in the United States there is freedom of expression, but this freedom is fine on YouTube as long as the YouTuber is not using copyrighted music in their videos or livestreams. Now AI is under attack.

Let's think of AI as a human with the talent of playing by ear. For a human to play by ear, they need to hear a piece of music; they learn to copy the piece of music by listening to it. If that human created a new piece of music from the experience of listening to music and playing by ear, would that be a problem? Of course not. Isn't training AI with pieces of music the same as a human listening to music and playing by ear? In this case, AI has the capability to play by ear, to make new pieces of music in a way from its memory like a human would.

As for making new music works using a famous singer's voice with AI without that famous singer knowing about it or being involved. Well, isn't that just like a human doing an impression of a famous singer? Are human impressionists breaking copyright by singing just like, for example, Michael Jackson or Frank Sinatra? Maybe as a compromise, the voice that is generated by AI shouldn't be 100% accurate, but I believe in most cases it isn't.

Elon Musk's brain-computer interface outfit Neuralink tests its tech on a human

Neuralink and Ethical Dilemmas: Balancing Innovation with Privacy and Humanity

Is Elon Musk's brain-computer interface outfit, Neuralink, truly going to improve the lives of people with disabilities? I am concerned that it is a pretext to exploit the power of technology to gain intrusive access to a human's thoughts. While the concept of using technology to assist individuals with disabilities is commendable, wouldn't it be more beneficial to direct resources towards research into regenerating cells in the human body to reverse cell damage or finding cures to reverse disabling conditions? Is there a possibility that if it works for people with disabilities to control a computer or cell phone with their thoughts, the reverse could also occur? Additionally, what about law enforcement's thirst for new gadgets to maintain law and order? Could this technology be used to extract a police statement by merely accessing a suspect's mind?

This raises significant ethical and privacy concerns. While advancements in technology have the potential to greatly benefit society, we must carefully consider the implications and ensure that safeguards are in place to protect individuals' rights and autonomy.

UK lawmakers say live facial recognition lacks a legal basis

Live Facial Recognition Ethics

In my opinion, with the number of prison spaces severely decreasing in the United Kingdom and the British prison system under pressure due to overcrowding, using live facial recognition to capture even more criminals doesn't make sense. How accurate is this technology? Witnesses sometimes make mistakes in prison lineups, and there have been cases where facial recognition has erred or faced difficulties when presented with individuals from minority communities. Furthermore, could this technology of live facial recognition be implemented into the vast United Kingdom CCTV network to track known prisoners living freely in the community?

Live Facial Recognition is based on a list of criminals who have already been caught, not on identifying new ones, which, in my opinion, contradicts efforts to rehabilitate these individuals. Should these ex-criminals always be marked as criminals for the rest of their lives? Will their images be on live facial recognition databases until the age of 100, similar to the lifespan of a criminal record in the United Kingdom?

Considering the strain on the prison infrastructure and the potential inaccuracies and ethical implications of live facial recognition, it's clear that alternative solutions should be explored. It's crucial to prioritize rehabilitation and reintegration of individuals into society while ensuring that law enforcement methods are accurate, fair, and respectful of individuals' rights.

AI is changing search, for better or for worse

Source Verification in the Age of AI

In my opinion, the average internet user often glides through the labyrinthine legal language of terms and conditions for online services, routinely clicking 'agree' without fully comprehending the implications. Their main objective? Swiftly creating accounts on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and others. This rush often sidelines any inclination towards fact-checking or scrutinizing the credibility of the information they encounter.

Some argue that search engines like Google provide better transparency as users can fact-check and evaluate the reliability of sources. However, the reality is that most users prioritize convenience over meticulous source verification. This preference for ease of use is further underscored by news journalists who occasionally rely on anonymous sources for their stories, leaving readers in the dark about the authenticity of the information presented.

In light of these observations, it's apparent that the average internet user prioritizes accessibility and speed over rigorous source verification. As we navigate this landscape, it's crucial to consider how artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping the way we access and consume information online. AI-driven platforms have the potential to streamline the information retrieval process, offering valuable insights and opinions while simplifying the user experience. This shift towards AI-driven solutions prompts us to reconsider traditional notions of source verification and highlights the evolving dynamics of internet usage in the digital age.

Furthermore, it's natural for people to seek opinions and advice from others, whether it's friends, family members, acquaintances, or colleagues. In face-to-face conversations or over the phone, we engage in discussions, listen to different viewpoints, and make judgments about the information we receive. However, traditional online search engines don't replicate this interactive experience. Instead, they present static webpages of information that users can't engage with in the same way as they would with another person.

AI changes this dynamic by allowing users to interact with the technology in a more conversational manner. With AI, users can communicate, ask for clarification, seek additional information, challenge viewpoints, or explore alternative perspectives. This capability transforms the way we engage with information online, providing a more dynamic and personalized experience that aligns with natural human communication patterns.