Search results

[…] automated processing to infer or extrapolate certain listed traits based upon the consumer’s presence in a sensitive location; (5) Processing consumers’ PI which the business intends to use (or make available to others) to (i) train ADMT for a significant decision concerning a consumer, or (ii) train technology that verifies a consumer’s identity or […]

[…] existing state privacy law landscape.  Read the issue brief here Some key takeaways:  (1)  Businesses using ADMT to make significant decisions about consumers must (a) provide pre- use notice to consumers, and comply with consumer requests to opt-out of the use of ADMT and to access information about the business’s ADMT use;  (2)  Businesses […]

[…] states shaped AI legislation during the 2025 legislative session, spotlighting the trends and thematic approaches that steered state policymaking. By grouping legislation into three primary categories: (1) use– and context-specific measures, (2) technology-specific bills, and (3) liability and accountability frameworks, this report highlights the most important developments for industry, policymakers, and other stakeholders within […]

G en era ti ve AI fo r Org an iz a ti on al Use : I n te rn al Polic y Cons id era tio ns F u tu re of Priv a cy Fo ru m , up d ate d Ju ne 20 24 C O NSID ER ATIO […]

[…] other risks. ● Helps draft FPF reports. Stacey Gray, Senior Director for Artificial Intelligence, [email protected] Biometrics – Quarterly calls ● Private sector participants interested in technologies that use biometric data, such as for recognition and verification, detection, characterization, persistent tracking, and other emerging use cases such as digital identity and emotion analysis. ● Discusses […]

[…] framework must include documentation of governance structures, mitigation processes, cybersecurity practices, and a developer’s alignment with national/international standards. The framework must also assess catastrophic risk from internal use of models, raising the scope of compliance obligations. Frontier developers may make redactions to the framework to protect trade secrets, cybersecurity, and national security.  Transparency Report: […]

[…] ic a l harm ,” a pro vis io n no t in clu d ed in TFA IA . 2 . Sco p e: TFA IA use s wid er defin it io ns fo r “c a ta str o phic ris k ” an d se p ara te ly defin […]

[…] to opt-out, and appeal adverse decisions. It would also prohibit use of a high-risk AI system that produces algorithmic discrimination or has not passed an independent audit. Virginia HB 2094 (Veto’ed by Governor) Del. Maldonado (D) High-Risk AI / Automated Decisionmaking Would regulate AI systems used in consequential decisions, requiring entities to use reasonable […]

[…] strong concern that replicating the EU AI Act could create regulatory overreach. However, civil society groups argue that even comprehensive frameworks like the Colorado AI Act or Virginia’s HB 2094 (vetoed) are significantly narrower in scope and that highlighting that superficial similarities with the EU AI Act, such as shared definitions or structural references, […]

[…] AI development and deployment.  Enforcement tools and defense strategies: Legislatures expanded Attorney General investigative powers (such as civil investigative demands) in bills including Texas’ TRAIGA (enacted) and Virginia HB 2094 (vetoed). A variety of other defense mechanisms were introduced, including specific protections for whistleblowers, as represented in California’s SB 53 (enrolled). Looking Ahead to […]