Effectiveness and Implications of The California Consumer Privacy Act

By: Sari Richmond

Edited by: lauren levinson and alex brunet

The 2018 enactment of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which went into effect on January 1, 2020, was a major step in US data privacy law. The CCPA, the first law of its kind in the United States, gives Californians more control over their personal data and places strict requirements on companies. [1] 

By giving people the right to know what personal information is gathered about them, to whom it is sold, and how to access, delete, and opt out of having their personal information sold, the CCPA seeks to improve consumer privacy. [1] 

Initial assessments suggest that the CCPA substantially increased consumer awareness and control over personal information. [2] Companies have been compelled to revise their data collection and processing practices, which has led  to greater transparency.

However, maximizing the law's effectiveness has been challenging for multiple reasons. Compliance costs for small and mid-sized enterprises have been overwhelming. [3] Additionally, the California Attorney General's office is mainly responsible for enforcement of the law, and has been criticized for a lack of proactiveness. Because one of the main goals of the law was to have a deterrent effect, this behavior from the Attorney General’s office may be stifling its effectiveness. [1] Furthermore, vagueness in the CCPA’s language has led to a variety of interpretations, complicating consistent enforcement throughout the state, especially because of California’s high volume of businesses and high population.

The CCPA can be seen as an addition to California's existing consumer protection laws, like the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). These laws both aim to safeguard consumers from deceptive business practices and ensure fair competition. [4]

The CCPA works with some ideas present in the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. By extension, these ideas can apply to individuals' control over their personal information. This aligns with the Supreme Court's decision in Katz v. United States (1967), which expanded the Fourth Amendment's protection to include certain expectations of privacy. From this perspective, the provisions outlined in the CCPA are safely constitutional as they hinge on the idea of personal privacy. [4]

However, critics argue that data, particularly in aggregate form, constitutes speech and that the law could infringe on the free speech rights outlined in the First Amendment. This argument parallels the Supreme Court's decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011), where the Court struck down a Vermont law restricting the sale of prescriber-identifiable data. [6] The Court ruled in this case that the information about doctors' prescribing habits is a form of speech, meaning selling and using this data is protected under the First Amendment. [6] In addition, because the case concerned doctors and pharmaceutical companies, there was concern that speech was being restricted in a certain group of people – a perspective that could be applied to the CCPA as it clearly prioritizes personal privacy over the rights of a business to share information. 

The CCPA represents a notable step toward greater consumer privacy in the digital age. Thus far it has been effective, but faces challenges in enforcement and interpretation. Legally, it bridges consumer protection statutes with constitutional privacy and free speech considerations. As data privacy continues to evolve, the CCPA sets a precedent for future legislation, and it has the potential to influence broader federal data privacy laws.

Notes:

1. “California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General.” 2024. California Department of Justice. 

2. Mulgund, Pavankumar. 2022. “The implications of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) on healthcare organizations: Lessons learned from early compliance experiences.” Science Direct. 

3. Kessel, Emily, Sarah Miller, and Carrie Gardner. 2021. “Potential Implications of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) for Insider Risk Programs.” SEI Blog.

4. “California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act - 2023 Overview.” 2024. Steptoe. 

5. Stewart, Potter. n.d. “Katz v. United States.” Oyez.

6. Kennedy, Anthony M. 2011. “Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.” Oyez.

Bibliography:

“California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General.” 2024. California Department of Justice. https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa.

“California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act - 2023 Overview.” 2024. Steptoe. https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/californias-unfair-competition-law-and-consumers-legal-remedies-act-2023-overview.html.

Kennedy, Anthony M. 2011. “Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/10-779.

Kessel, Emily, Sarah Miller, and Carrie Gardner. 2021. “Potential Implications of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) for Insider Risk Programs.” SEI Blog. https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/blog/potential-implications-of-the-california-consumer-privacy-act-ccpa-for-insider-risk-programs/.

Mulgund, Pavankumar. 2022. “The implications of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) on healthcare organizations: Lessons learned from early compliance experiences.” Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883721000666.

Stewart, Potter. n.d. “Katz v. United States.” Oyez.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35.

A Time Limit on Creativity?: The Supreme Court Addresses Intellectual Property Law in the Music Industry

By: Faith Magiera

EDited by: chloe shah and claire quan

Sampling in the music industry is no new phenomenon. Songs on the radio today often use old beats or melodies and repurpose them in order to create a new song. To pair with the prevalence of sampling is also the increase of copyright claims based on the use of original songs in other works. [1] In a May 2024 Supreme Court ruling in WARNER CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC., ET AL. v. NEALY, questions about intellectual property law were answered while also raising new questions about the future of the statute of limitations regarding copyright cases. [2] This case builds on the recent focus on intellectual property and ownership in the arts, as we see artists like Taylor Swift grapple with reclaiming their creative works while also navigating questions about the statute of limitations and the underlying worth of originality in creative works. [3] While the increase in copyright lawsuits includes more than the sampling issue underlying Warner v. Nealy, the idea that the Supreme Court is addressing issues surrounding intellectual property adds to the burgeoning importance of copyright law in creative works. [4]

The case begins with the story of how the joint music venture, Music Specialist Inc., came to be. Tony Butler and Sherman Nealy created the company in 1983 and began to craft a portfolio under the umbrella of the company, with the joint venture ending soon after a small portfolio was created. [5] Nealy subsequently went to jail for 2 periods, one spanning 1989-2008 and one spanning 2013-2015. [6] While Nealy was in jail, Butler licensed some of the works with Warner Chappell Music, Inc., which eventually led to a famous, media-publicized, and licensed Flo Rida song “In the Ayer” that sampled one of their pieces, “Jam the Box.” [7] Nealy argued that, as the agreement to sample his portfolio occurred without his knowledge, he had grounds to sue for copyright infringement. [8] In order to prove his standing based on the Copyright Act after so much time has passed, he had to assert that he “commenced [the lawsuit] within three years after the claim accrued.” [9]

The majority opinion, authored by Elena Kagan and decided in a 6-3 margin, sided with Sherman Nealy. [10] The reasoning of the opinion was based on the use of the discovery rule as underlying the statute of limitations for copyright law. Under the discovery rule, a claim can be filed within three years of the person offended learning about the infringement, which is commonly used in medical malpractice cases. [11] While its use here can be questioned and is questioned later in the dissenting opinion, Warner Chappell did not object to the use of the discovery rule governing the case in any of their briefs. [12] As Nealy proved that he did not learn of the infringements until 2016, the majority opinion holds not only that Nealy can recover all the copyright damages, but also that the court does not have to decide “whether a copyright claim accrues when a plaintiff discovers or should have discovered an infringement, rather than when the infringement happened” because the “issue is not properly presented here.” [13] The end decision of the case, while ruling in favor of the defendant because of the idea that a “judicially invented damages limit” would be the reasoning to withhold awarding damages to Nealy, it also fails to address whether the discovery rule should be applied at all. [14]

The dissenting opinion, authored by Gorsuch and joined by Alito and Thomas, takes issue with the use of the discovery rule without detailing why it is applicable. [15] In the main thesis of the dissent they state that “Rather than address[ing] that question [of the application of discovery rule], the Court takes care to emphasize that its resolution must await a future case.” [16] This reasoning in the dissent refers specifically to the “without deciding” clause in the second sentence of the majority opinion, as the opinion signals from the very start that while there are greater questions about the statute of limitations regarding the Copyright Act, they will ultimately not be addressed in this decision. [17] The dissent additionally takes issue with the fact that “the Act almost certainly does not tolerate a discovery rule.” [18] Through stating that the discovery rule cannot be used in this context as it does not fall under the special circumstances that usually govern applications of the discovery law, Gorsuch ends the opinion by asserting that this case followed faulty logic by “answer[ing] a question …that almost certainly does not [matter].” [19] 

Concluding this story about creativity and intellectual property law by pointing out the importance of the dissent shows that while this case may be a win for additional copyright claims and protections around old pieces of artwork, there is also an open path for the reinvestigation of what constitutes a good copyright claim. Consequently, it becomes important to tune into these rulings as the Supreme Court continues to grapple with questions that will impact creativity in the arts for years to come, especially as they relate to the discovery rule and statute of limitations in the future.

Notes:

1. Wang, Amy X.. 2020. “How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits.” Rolling Stone. January 9, 2020. https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/music-copyright-lawsuits-chilling-effect-935310/?sub_action=logged_in. 

2. Brittain, Blake. 2024. “US Supreme Court Rules against Warner Music in Copyright Damages Case.” Reuters. May 9, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rules-against-warner-music-copyright-damages-case-2024-05-09/.

3. Milano, Brett. “How Taylor Swift Changed the Copyright Game by Remaking Her Own Music.” Harvard Law School. April 3, 2024. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/how-taylor-swift-changed-the-copyright-game-by-remaking-her-own-music/. 

4. Wang, “How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits.”

5. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 1 (2024)

6. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 2 (2024)

7. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 2 (2024)

8. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 2 (2024)

9. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C § 507.

10.  Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 1 (2024)

11. “Statutes of Limitations and the Discovery Rule in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.” 2018. Justia. September 14, 2018. https://www.justia.com/injury/medical-malpractice/statutes-of-limitations-and-the-discovery-rule/#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20the%20discovery%20rule.

12. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 4 (2024)

13. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 4 (2024)

14. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 6 (2024)

15. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 1 (2024)

16. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 1 (2024)

17. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 1 (2024)

18. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 1 (2024)

19. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 3 (2024)

Bibliography:

Brittain, Blake. 2024. “US Supreme Court Rules against Warner Music in Copyright Damages Case.” Reuters. May 9, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rules-against-warner-music-copyright-damages-case-2024-05-09/.

Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C § 507.

Milano, Brett. “How Taylor Swift Changed the Copyright Game by Remaking Her Own Music.” Harvard Law School. April 3, 2024. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/how-taylor-swift-changed-the-copyright-game-by-remaking-her-own-music/. 

“Statutes of Limitations and the Discovery Rule in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.” 2018. Justia. September 14, 2018. https://www.justia.com/injury/medical-malpractice/statutes-of-limitations-and-the-discovery-rule/#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20the%20discovery%20rule.

Wang, Amy X.. 2020. “How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits.” Rolling Stone. January 9, 2020. https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/music-copyright-lawsuits-chilling-effect-935310/?sub_action=logged_in. 

Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. (2024)

Understanding the Public Lands Rule

By: Kunjal Bastola

Edited by: Connor Tooman and grace wu

On Thursday, April 18, the Department of the Interior announced the Public Lands Rule to promote the conservation of land and wildlife.[1] This rule guides the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the protection of clean water and wildlife habitats, restoration of lands and waters where necessary, and consideration of science, data, and Indigenous knowledge when making decisions.[2] The 245 million acres of land managed by the BLM are primarily used for industrial purposes, such as ranching and drilling, but this new rule allows the BLM to offer “restoration and mitigation leases” to companies intending to use the lands for conservation purposes.[3] This has the effect of putting “conservation, recreation, and renewable energy development on equal footing with resource extraction.”[4] Before this, the BLM offered leases to oil and gas companies, mining firms, and ranchers, contributing to the United States’ high amount of greenhouse gas emissions.[5] While the new rule doesn’t erase the damages done by mining and drilling on public lands, it makes some headway in mitigating those damages and potentially converting the use of public lands from environmentally harmful tactics to more sustainable uses. 

Under President Biden, the BLM has increased its focus on mitigating the effects of climate change and development, but there is more to be done. This rule has been in the works since it was first proposed in April 2023. The final rule came after a 90-day comment period during which the BLM held five public meetings and received over 200,000 comments, with the vast majority of them supporting the rule.[6] “Today’s final rule helps restore balance to our public lands as we continue using the best-available science to restore habitats, guide strategic and responsible development, and sustain our public lands for generations to come,” said Interior Secretary Deb Haaland in a statement.[7] 

While this new rule is a huge step forward for environmentalists, the decision does not come without some pushback, especially from fossil fuel industry groups and Republican officials. National Mining Association President and CEO, Rich Nolan, said in a statement that “this rule will obstruct responsible domestic mining projects and compound permitting challenges, further deepening our already grave foreign mineral import reliance.”[8] John Barrasso, a Republican senator from Wyoming, calls the rule a threat to the “Wyoming way of life,” saying he plans to introduce a Congressional Review Act “to repeal this outrageous rule.”[9] 

As the debate over how to administer public lands continues, converting lands previously used for the extraction of fossil fuels to lands used for the restoration and replenishment of wildlife habitats is a huge step forward for the Biden administration and environmentalists. With droughts and wildfires running rampant throughout the country’s lands, steps must be taken to mitigate the effects of climate change before the damage it causes becomes irreversible. The Public Lands Rule is a step in the right direction, but there is still a lot more work to be done. 

Notes: 

1. “Biden-Harris Administration finalizes strategy to guide balanced management, conservation of public lands,” Bureau of Land Management, April 18, 2024, https://www.blm.gov/press-release/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-strategy-guide-balanced-management-conservation.  

2.  “Public Lands Rule,” Bureau of Land Management, Accessed May 22, 2024. https://www.blm.gov/public-lands-rule. 

3. Kiley Price, “The Biden Administration Makes Two Big Moves To Conserve Public Lands, Sparking Backlash From Industry,” Inside Climate News, April 23, 2024, https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23042024/todays-climate-biden-public-lands-conservation/. 

4. Maxine Joselow, “ The U.S. just changed how it manages a tenth of its land,” The Washington Post, April 18, 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/04/18/biden-public-lands-conservation-rule/.  

5. Maxine Joselow, “ The U.S. just changed how it manages a tenth of its land,” The Washington Post, April 18, 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/04/18/biden-public-lands-conservation-rule/.  

6. “Biden-Harris Administration finalizes strategy to guide balanced management, conservation of public lands,” Bureau of Land Management, April 18, 2024, https://www.blm.gov/press-release/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-strategy-guide-balanced-management-conservation.  

7. “Biden-Harris Administration finalizes strategy to guide balanced management, conservation of public lands,” Bureau of Land Management, April 18, 2024, https://www.blm.gov/press-release/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-strategy-guide-balanced-management-conservation.  

8. “New BLM Conservation Rule Will Obstruct Responsible Domestic Mining, Deepen Import Reliance,” National Mining Association, April 18, 2024, https://nma.org/2024/04/18/new-blm-conservation-rule-will-obstruct-responsible-domestic-mining-deepen-import-reliance/. 

9.  John Barasso, “Barrasso: BLM Rules Threatens Wyoming Way of Life,” April 18, 2024, https://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=4B3DBFE1-45F9-4DD4-AEB4-41FD8B19CE08.  

Bibliography:

Barrasso, John. “Barrasso: BLM Rules Threatens Wyoming Way of Life.” April 18, 2024. https://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=4B3DBFE1-45F9-4DD4-AEB4-41FD8B19CE08.  

“Biden-Harris Administration finalizes strategy to guide balanced management, conservation of public lands.” Bureau of Land Management. April 18, 2024. https://www.blm.gov/press-release/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-strategy-guide-balanced-management-conservation.  

Joselow, Maxine. “ The U.S. just changed how it manages a tenth of its land.” The Washington Post. April 18, 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/04/18/biden-public-lands-conservation-rule/. 

“New BLM Conservation Rule Will Obstruct Responsible Domestic Mining, Deepen Import Reliance.” National Mining Association. April 18, 2024. https://nma.org/2024/04/18/new-blm-conservation-rule-will-obstruct-responsible-domestic-mining-deepen-import-reliance/. 

Price, Kiley. “The Biden Administration Makes Two Big Moves To Conserve Public Lands, Sparking Backlash From Industry.” Inside Climate News. April 23, 2024. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23042024/todays-climate-biden-public-lands-conservation/. 

“Public Lands Rule.” Bureau of Land Management. https://www.blm.gov/public-lands-rule.

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act and the Future of AI Regulations

By: Eliana Aemro Selassie

Edited by: Micah Sandy and Alexandria Nagy

On March 13, 2024, the European Parliament approved the Artificial Intelligence Act, a series of safety measures and regulations that also ensure there is flexibility for AI corporations to foster innovation and technological advancements [1]. The act is the first “comprehensive regulation on AI by a major regulator” in the world, marking a monumental milestone in the regulation of AI [2]. As AI has become increasingly powerful and new advancements in the field have increased the ability of AI algorithms to operate without human input, governments are becoming more concerned with regulating these innovations, especially since they can be weaponized for harm. The EU is at the forefront of these regulations by being the first governing body to produce an act with tenable measures to regulate AI.

IBM defines AI as “Technology that enables computers and machines to simulate human intelligence and problem-solving capabilities” [3]. AI has been extremely impactful because of its ability to conduct complex tasks that would typically require human input and direction. In the last year, AI has undergone considerable developments, specifically generative AI which has dramatically increased the capacity of AI to conduct tasks free of human input [4]. The independent abilities of generative AI poses many potential benefits since it simplifies complex and mundane tasks typically done by humans. Generative AI is particularly easy to integrate into the workplace because its rapid summarizing capacity has surpassed the limits of human memory, reduces the need for humans to conduct mundane tasks, and increases overall productivity. 

Nonetheless, AI also poses many security and privacy risks to individuals and societies [5]. When AI-driven tools are used in policing, they disproportionately target low-income people and people of color as a result of biased algorithms. Stanford University also describes the potential harms of using AI in legal matters, notably sentencing decisions means “This dangerous reality means that an algorithmic estimate of an individual’s risk to society may be interpreted by others as a near certainty—a misleading outcome even the original tool designers warned against.” [5]. AI also poses privacy risks, since algorithms are designed to make decisions autonomously and without human intervention, a factor that can lead these algorithms to rapidly collect and analyze data [6]. The use of AI in biometrics is another growing concern for governments and individuals alike, given AI’s extensive ability to use and analyze facial recognition, fingerprint recognition, and iris recognition, making tracking and identifying people a much simpler process [7]. Many view this as a substantial privacy violation and note the potential for these biometrics to be weaponized for harmful means.

The EU’s new act aims to address these risks posed by AI and do so in a manner that supports both citizens and corporations. The act is unprecedented because it provides a distinct framework for the specific uses of AI for both business owners and citizens. It acknowledges that most AI systems are largely harmless, and instead aims to mitigate and minimize the larger risks posed by harmful algorithms, to ensure the safety of EU citizens. The act divides AI algorithms into 3 categories: high-risk, limited-risk, and minimal-risk. High-risk AI refers to AI that is used in any context that poses a threat to the safety, privacy, and well-being of European citizens, corporations, and infrastructure. This refers to the use of AI in things like critical infrastructure, notably transportation, the employment and management of workers, law enforcement, and migration and border control management. Any AI system that falls into this category requires extensive security measures and accuracy approvals from the European Parliament. Limited-risk AI refers to AI algorithms with limited transparency, which pose risks to users as a result of the lack of available knowledge and information on how the software operates. These algorithms are subject to supervision and security but to a lesser extent than the high-risk algorithms. Finally, minimal-risk means that there are no regulations outlined in the act because those softwares do not pose a severe threat [8].

Another critical component of the act that sets it apart and signals it as a sign of progress is that it takes a human-centered approach. One of the primary goals of the act is that it pushes to keep European technology at the forefront of AI research while ensuring that the democratic and civil rights of European citizens are also protected. These measures came as a result of the Conference on the Future of Europe (COFE), which was made up of a series of citizen’s proposals including increased AI regulations and laws. One of the proposals suggested “enhancing EU’s competitiveness in strategic sectors” through AI law and another encouraged creating “a safe and trustworthy society, including countering disinformation and ensuring humans are ultimately in control”. The act reflects this proposal since one of the key components is that it bans any AI applications that “threaten citizens’ rights” [1].

Another key component of the act is that it outlaws the use of biometrics in law enforcement except in particularly drastic circumstances like a terrorist attack and requires judicial authorization to do so. The act bans emotion recognition software from being used in the workplace and schools and forbids AI that “manipulates human behaviour or exploits people’s vulnerabilities”. Nonetheless, the act upholds COFE’s efforts to prevent technological innovation from being stunted. It accommodates the use of AI in public works, public policy, and infrastructure, enforcing the use of extra precautions and protective measures in these circumstances to allow AI to facilitate technological progress without putting citizens at risk. This ultimately demonstrates how the EU AI Act is unprecedented in nature, working to target the specific risks that dangerous algorithms may pose while simultaneously preventing scientific progress from being delayed. Brando Benifei, the Internal Market Committee co-rapporteur of the European Parliament described the act saying “We finally have the world’s first binding law on artificial intelligence, to reduce risks, create opportunities, combat discrimination, and bring transparency. Thanks to Parliament, unacceptable AI practices will be banned in Europe and the rights of workers and citizens will be protected” [1].   

Given the extent of this progress in Europe, it calls into question the potential for similar AI regulations to be created elsewhere in the world. The government of the United States has similarly made strides to regulate AI, notably in the White House which has developed a blueprint for the AI Bill of Rights. The proposed bill emphasizes the potential for AI to produce biased and discriminatory algorithms, unfairly collect social media data and violate privacy, and provide unsafe patient care and medical systems. The Bill breaks down different types of AI into 5 categories: safe and effective systems, algorithmic discrimination protections, data privacy, notice and explanation, and human alternatives, consideration, and fallback. Its ultimate goal is to address the safety and discriminatory concerns of AI in a similar fashion to the EU AI Act [9]. However, bipartisan disputes and the importance of technological innovation in the United States question whether the Bill or similar legislation will soon be enacted [10]. Nonetheless, the EU AI Act shows considerable progress in global policy-making to ensure that as AI advances and becomes increasingly complex, policies to regulate these advancements are implemented alongside it, thus ensuring the protection of people and allowing for technological developments.

Notes:

1. European Parliament. 2024. “Artificial Intelligence Act: MEPs adopt landmark law | News.” European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240308IPR19015/artificial-intelligence-act-meps-adopt-landmark-law.

2. EU Artificial Intelligence Act. n.d. “The EU Artificial Intelligence Act.” EU Artificial Intelligence Act | Up-to-date developments and analyses of the EU AI Act. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/. 

3. IBM. n.d. “What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?” IBM. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://www.ibm.com/topics/artificial-intelligence.

4. Shaner, Kyle. 2024. “Examining the potential benefits and dangers of AI.” University of Cincinnati. https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2024/02/examining-the-potential-benefits-and-dangers-of-ai.html. 

5. Stanford University. n.d. “SQ10. What are the most pressing dangers of AI?” One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100). Accessed May 21, 2024. https://ai100.stanford.edu/gathering-strength-gathering-storms-one-hundred-year-study-artificial-intelligence-ai100-2021-1-0. 

6. Sher, Gai, Ariela Benchlouch, and Barnes Cellino. 2023. “The privacy paradox with AI.” Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/privacy-paradox-with-ai-2023-10-31/. 

7. Yurdasen, Deniz. 2023. “How Artificial Intelligence (AI) Is Used In Biometrics.” Aratek. https://www.aratek.co/news/how-artificial-intelligence-ai-is-used-in-biometrics. 

8. European Commission. n.d. “AI Act | Shaping Europe's digital future.” Shaping Europe's digital future. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai. 

9. The White House. n.d. “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights | OSTP.” The White House. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/. 

10. Matthews, Dylan. 2023. “The AI rules that Congress is considering, explained.” Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23775650/ai-regulation-openai-gpt-anthropic-midjourney-stable. 

Bibliography:

EU Artificial Intelligence Act. n.d. “The EU Artificial Intelligence Act.” EU Artificial Intelligence Act | Up-to-date developments and analyses of the EU AI Act. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/.

European Commission. n.d. “AI Act | Shaping Europe's digital future.” Shaping Europe's digital future. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai.

European Parliament. 2024. “Artificial Intelligence Act: MEPs adopt landmark law | News.” European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240308IPR19015/artificial-intelligence-act-meps-adopt-landmark-law.

IBM. n.d. “What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?” IBM. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://www.ibm.com/topics/artificial-intelligence.

Matthews, Dylan. 2023. “The AI rules that Congress is considering, explained.” Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23775650/ai-regulation-openai-gpt-anthropic-midjourney-stable.

Shaner, Kyle. 2024. “Examining the potential benefits and dangers of AI.” University of Cincinnati. https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2024/02/examining-the-potential-benefits-and-dangers-of-ai.html.

Sher, Gai, Ariela Benchlouch, and Barnes Cellino. 2023. “The privacy paradox with AI.” Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/privacy-paradox-with-ai-2023-10-31/.

Stanford University. n.d. “SQ10. What are the most pressing dangers of AI?” One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100). Accessed May 21, 2024. https://ai100.stanford.edu/gathering-strength-gathering-storms-one-hundred-year-study-artificial-intelligence-ai100-2021-1-0.

The White House. n.d. “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights | OSTP.” The White House. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/.

Yurdasen, Deniz. 2023. “How Artificial Intelligence (AI) Is Used In Biometrics.” Aratek. https://www.aratek.co/news/how-artificial-intelligence-ai-is-used-in-biometrics.