November 27, 2022

Volume XII, Number 331

Advertisement

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Releases AI Bill of Rights

This morning, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a long-awaited “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights” (“AI Bill of Rights”) that, when implemented, would apply to automated systems that have the potential to meaningfully affect the American public’s rights, opportunities, or access to critical resources or services. The AI Bill of Rights is designed to provide protections to apply broadly to all automated systems that “have the potential” to significantly affect individuals or communities, from civil rights/civil liberties (including privacy), to equal opportunities for healthcare, education, and employment, as well as access to resources and services.

The AI Bill of Rights contains five broad categories of practices designed to “guide the design, use, and deployment of automated systems to protect the rights of the American public in the age of artificial intelligence.” They are:

  • Safe and Effective Systems: Individuals “should be protected from unsafe or ineffective systems.” In addition, “[a]utomated systems should be developed with consultation from diverse communities, stakeholders, and domain experts to identify concerns, risks, and potential impacts of the system.”  

  • Algorithmic Discrimination Protections: Individuals “should not face discrimination by algorithms and systems should be used and designed in an equitable way.” To accomplish this, the AI Bill of Rights calls upon designers, developers, and deployers of automated systems to “take proactive and continuous measures to protect individuals and communities from algorithmic discrimination and to use and design systems in an equitable way.”

  • Data Privacy: Individuals “should be protected from abusive data practices via built-in protections” and “have agency over how [personal] data is used.” This includes, among other things, communities being protected “from violations of privacy through design choices that ensure such protections are included by default, including ensuring that data collection conforms to reasonable expectations and that only data strictly necessary for the specific context is collected.”

  • Notice and Explanation: Individuals “should know that an automated system is being used and understand how and why it contributes to outcomes that impact [them].” This includes, among other things, that “[d]esigners, developers, and deployers of automated systems should provide generally accessible plain language documentation including clear descriptions of the overall system functioning and the role automation plays, notice that such systems are in use, the individual or organization responsible for the system, and explanations of outcomes that are clear, timely, and accessible.”

  • Human Alternatives, Consideration and Fallback: Individuals “should be able to opt-out, where appropriate and have access to a person who can quickly consider and remedy problems [] encounter[ed].” This concept is explained as individuals “should be able to opt out from automated systems in favor of a human alternative, where appropriate.” The meaning of appropriateness is circumstance-dependent; as the AI Bill of Rights explains, it “should be determined based on reasonable expectations in a given context and with a focus on ensuring broad accessibility and protecting the public from especially harmful impacts.”

This effort is intended to further the ongoing discussion regarding privacy among federal government stakeholders and the public, but its impact on the private sector could well be limited because it assumes voluntary action rather than mandated outcomes. The document is described as being “intended to support the development of policies and practices that protect civil rights and promote democratic values in the building, deployment, and governance of automated systems.” However, it is “non-binding and does not constitute U.S. government policy.” Additionally, it “is not intended to, and does not, create any legal right, benefit, or defense, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”  

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNational Law Review, Volume XII, Number 277
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Kristin L. Bryan Litigation Attorney Squire Patton Boggs Cleveland, OH & New York, NY
Senior Associate

Kristin Bryan is a litigator experienced in the efficient resolution of contract, commercial and complex business disputes, including multidistrict litigation and putative class actions, in courts nationwide.

She has successfully represented Fortune 15 clients in high-stakes cases involving a wide range of subject matters.

As a natural extension of her experience litigating data privacy disputes, Kristin is also experienced in providing business-oriented privacy advice to a wide range of clients, with a particular focus on companies handling customers’ personal data. In this...

216-479-8070
Beth Goldstein, Health care Attorney Squire Patton Boggs
Associate

Beth Goldstein draws from a multifaceted background in health law and policy to counsel clients on legislative, regulatory, and legal matters relating to the health care sector.

Beth formed a deep understanding of Congress by serving for four years on the legislative staff of a committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, where she assisted the chairman in shepherding legislation through all stages of the legislative process, including a presidential veto override. Beth worked with outside stakeholders and across chambers to build strategic...

202-457-5129
Jeffrey L. Turner, Squire Patton, Congressional Investigations Lawyer, Business Advances Attorney
Partner

As head of the firm’s Public Policy Practice, Jeff Turner works with domestic and international clients to advance their business objectives. Collaborating with colleagues, they help block harmful legislation and regulations, they encourage Congress and regulatory agencies to adopt favorable legislation and regulations, and they navigate the challenges of congressional investigations. He also is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Public Policy Practice.

Jeff focuses much of his practice on public policy issues related to...

202-457-6434
Kyle R. Fath Cybersecurity Attorney Squire Patton Boggs New York Los Angeles
Of Counsel

Kyle Fath is counsel in the Data Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice. He offers clients a unique blend of deep experience in counselling companies through compliance with data privacy laws, drafting and negotiating technology agreements, and advising on the privacy, IT, and IP implications of mergers & acquisitions and other corporate transactions. His practice has a particular focus on the the ingestion and sharing of data by way of strategic data transactions, data brokers, and vendor relationships, the implications of digital advertising (as companies look toward...

212-872-9863
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement