Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Downloads

Content

OA1290 - Jenessa returns with a surveillance grab bag: a New York mayor declares a bizarre "emergency" to keep her city's Flock cameras running after the city council said no, and a state lawsuit arguing license plate readers are flatly unconstitutional, no federal court needed. Plus a federal bill that could make biased AI hiring and healthcare tools very expensive, and the surprisingly deadly reason some camera poles might already be illegal.

Cases discussed:

Common Council of Troy v. Mantello

Umamoto v. Westchester County

AI Civil Rights Act

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Files

Comments

Alex

The right isn't opposed to the boot in practice, as long as they're the ones doing the treading.

Michael McElroy

oh hey it's where I live. Mantello is a Trump wannabe. She's mostly known for being an apparent alcoholic who drinks in her office and constantly does photo ops.

VMLs last day as a GC is Oct 30 next project TBA

New York State passed a law moving most local elections onto the federal cycle, which is why my term as council member is only 3 years instead of 4 and the supervisor that was elected in the same cycle as me has a 1 year term instead of 2 (she is running for reelection this fall). This should hopefully improve turnout for most local elections in NY.

Jenessa Seymour

Yes definitely should help! Still need to get the rest moved though. When that law passed, I spent hours combing through it to figure out which positions were excepted. Wrote it up for my team… it’s a 4 page single-spaced document. Final summary: It moved 7 contests to even years and left 17 on odd years. It’s a lot more complicated than it needs to be, but that seems to be all because the remaining positions are written into the state constitution. There’s a group working towards a constitutional amendment to move the rest

Susan

Florida’s Constitution has an explicit right to privacy

The spiraling shape will make you go insane

Regarding the "Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a developer or deployer from denying service to an individual, ... if the differential in service is necessary and directly related to the value provided to the developer or deployer by the covered algorithm." carveout: the thing that comes to mind immediately for me is anti-spam algorithms. I think most spam filtering is out of scope of the "consequential actions" of the bill, but might be a useful analogy: we're generally pretty happy to have spam emails for example filtered into a mailbox that we don't read. It might make sense to have an human appeal process for that - it's a big complaint about platforms like YouTube that it's basically impossible to get an automated decision reviewed by a human. But humans are expensive, and spammers will just demand reviews of everything if they can, so it's got to be ok to at least charge for the review (maybe refunded if they decide that you're right) or limit the number of reviews you can request before you're perma-banned. Hard balance to strike though; it's a genuinely thorny problem.

Jason Valasek

Bootlickers don't know they're bootlickers; they think they're the boot.

One eyed one horned Denver airport people mover

The AI Civil Rights Act sounds a lot like the EU AI Act which was passed a couple years ago, but has been rolled out in phases. The final phase was rolled out this month I believe, so we will see what kind of effect it has and what sorts of fines companies can expect to get here soon. I’m not in the EU, but I work for a tech company in the hiring space so because we do business in the EU we all had to do compliance training this summer to learn about how to use AI in ways that comply with EU law. The nice thing about there only being 3 tech companies is that it only takes one or two places to pass good regulations for it to become practically the global standard. Cory Doctorow explicitly calls this out as a strategy to fight Enshittification in his book.