The FPF Center for Artificial Intelligence: Navigating AI Policy, Regulation, and Governance
The rapid deployment of Artificial Intelligence for consumer, enterprise, and government uses has created challenges for policymakers, compliance experts, and regulators. AI policy stakeholders are seeking sophisticated, practical policy information and analysis.
This is where the FPF Center for Artificial Intelligence comes in, expanding FPF’s role as the leading pragmatic and trusted voice for those who seek impartial, practical analysis of the latest challenges for AI-related regulation, compliance, and ethical use.
At the FPF Center for Artificial Intelligence, we help policymakers and privacy experts at organizations, civil society, and academics navigate AI policy and governance. The Center is supported by a Leadership Council of experts from around the globe. The Council consists of members from industry, academia, civil society, and current and former policymakers.
FPF has a long history of AI-related and emerging technology policy work that has focussed on data, privacy, and the responsible use of technology to mitigate harms. From FPF’s presentation to global privacy regulators about emerging AI technologies and risks in 2017 to our briefing for US Congressional members detailing the risks and mitigation strategies for AI-powered workplace tech in 2023, FPF has helped policymakers around the world better understand AI risks and opportunities while equipping data, privacy and AI experts with the information they need to develop and deploy AI responsibly in their organizations.
In 2024, FPF received a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to advance the Whitehouse Executive Order in Artificial Intelligence to support the use of Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) by government agencies and the private sector by advancing legal certainty, standardization, and equitable uses. FPF is also a member of the U.S. AI Safety Institute at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) where it focuses on assessing the policy implications of the changing nature of artificial intelligence.
Areas of work within the FPF Center for Artificial Intelligence include:
- Legislative Comparison
- Responsible AI Governance
- AI Policy by Sector
- AI Assessments & Analyses
- Novel AI Policy Issues
- AI and Privacy Enhancing Technologies
FPF’s new Center for Artificial Intelligence will be supported by a Leadership Council of leading experts from around the globe. The Council will consist of members from industry, academia, civil society, and current and former policymakers.
FPF Center for AI Leadership Council
The FPF Center for Artificial Intelligence will be supported by a Leadership Council of leading experts from around the globe. The Council will consist of members from industry, academia, civil society, and current and former policymakers.
We are delighted to announce the founding Leadership Council members:
- Estela Aranha, Member of the United Nations High-level Advisory Body on AI; Former State Secretary for Digital Rights, Ministry of Justice and Public Security, Federal Government of Brazil
- Jocelyn Aqua, Principal, Data, Risk, Privacy and AI Governance, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
- John Bailey, Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
- Lori Baker, Vice President, Data Protection & Regulatory Compliance, Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (DPA)
- Cari Benn, Assistant Chief Privacy Officer, Microsoft Corporation
- Andrew Bloom, Vice President & Chief Privacy Officer, McGraw Hill
- Kate Charlet, Head of Global Privacy, Safety, and Security Policy, Google
- Prof. Simon Chesterman, David Marshall Professor of Law & Vice Provost, National University of Singapore; Principal Researcher, Office of the UNSG’s Envoy on Technology, High-Level Advisory Body on AI
- Barbara Cosgrove, Vice President, Chief Privacy Officer, Workday
- Elizabeth Denham, Chief Policy Strategist, Information Accountability Foundation, Former UK ICO Commissioner and British Columbia Privacy Commissioner
- Lydia F. de la Torre, Senior Lecturer at University of California, Davis; Founder, Golden Data Law, PBC; Former California Privacy Protection Agency Board Member
- Leigh Feldman, SVP, Chief Privacy Officer, Visa Inc.
- Lindsey Finch, Executive Vice President, Global Privacy & Product Legal, Salesforce
- Harvey Jang, Vice President, Chief Privacy Officer, Cisco Systems, Inc.
- Emerald de Leeuw-Goggin, Global Head of AI Governance & Privacy, Logitech
- Ewa Luger, Professor of human-data interaction, University of Edinburgh; Co-Director, Bridging Responsible AI Divides (BRAID)
- Dr. Gianclaudio Malgieri, Associate Professor of Law & Technology at eLaw, University of Leiden
- State Senator James Maroney, Connecticut
- Christina Montgomery, Chief Privacy & Trust Officer, AI Ethics Board Chair, IBM
- Carolyn Pfeiffer, Senior Director, Privacy, AI & Ethics and DSSPE Operations, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine
- Ben Rossen, Associate General Counsel, AI Policy & Regulation, OpenAI
- Crystal Rugege, Managing Director, Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Rwanda
- Guido Scorza, Member, The Italian Data Protection Authority
- Nubiaa Shabaka, Global Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Cyber Legal Officer, Adobe, Inc.
- Rob Sherman, Vice President and Deputy Chief Privacy Officer for Policy, Meta
- Dr. Anna Zeiter, Vice President & Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy, Data & AI Responsibility, eBay
- Yeong Zee Kin, Chief Executive of Singapore Academy of Law and former Assistant Chief Executive (Data Innovation and Protection Group), Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore
For more information on the FPF Center for AI email [email protected]
Featured
Brain-Computer Interfaces & Data Protection: Understanding the Technology and Data Flows
This post is the first in a four-part series on Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs), providing an overview of the technology, use cases, privacy risks, and proposed recommendations for promoting privacy and mitigating risks associated with BCIs. Click here for FPF and IBM’s full report: Privacy and the Connected Mind. Additionally, FPF-curated resources, including policy & regulatory […]
Overcoming Hurdles to Effective Data Sharing for Researchers
In 2021, challenges faced by academics in accessing corporate data sets for research and the issues that companies were experiencing to make privacy-respecting research data available broke into the news. With its long history of research data sharing, FPF saw an opportunity to bring together leaders from the corporate, research, and policy communities for a conversation […]
Organizations must lead with privacy and ethics when researching and implementing neurotechnology: FPF and IBM Live event and report release
A New FPF and IBM Report and Live Event Explores Questions About Transparency, Consent, Security, and Accuracy of Data The Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) and the IBM Policy Lab released recommendations for promoting privacy and mitigating risks associated with neurotechnology, specifically with brain-computer interface (BCI). The new report provides developers and policymakers with actionable […]
Data Sharing … By Any Other Name
There are many different uses of the term “data sharing” to describe a relationship between parties who share data from one organization to another organization for a new purpose. Some uses of the term data sharing are related to academic and scientific research purposes, and some are related to transfer of data for commercial or government purposes. ..it is imperative that we are more precise which forms of sharing we are referencing so that the interests of the parties are adequately considered, and the various risks and benefits are appropriately contextualized and managed.
Five Things Lawyers Need to Know About AI
Lawyers are trained to respond to risks that threaten the market position or operating capital of their clients. However, when it comes to AI, it can be difficult for lawyers to provide the best guidance without some basic technical knowledge. This article shares some key insights from our shared experiences to help lawyers feel more at ease responding to AI questions when they arise.
Brain-Computer Interfaces: Privacy and Ethical Considerations for the Connected Mind
BCIs are computer-based systems that directly record, process, analyze, or modulate human brain activity in the form of neurodata that is then translated into an output command from human to machine. Neurodata is data generated by the nervous system, composed of the electrical activities between neurons or proxies of this activity. When neurodata is linked, or reasonably linkable, to an individual, it is personal neurodata.
The Spectrum of AI: Companion to the FPF AI Infographic
This paper outlines the spectrum of AI technology, from rules-based and symbolic AI to advanced, developing forms of neural networks, and seeks to put them in the context of other sciences and disciplines, as well as emphasize the importance of security, user interface, and other design factors.
Now, On the Internet, EVERYONE Knows You’re a Dog
Digital identity systems vary in complexity. At its most basic, a digital ID would simply recreate a physical ID in a digital format, whereasa fully integrated digital identity system would provide a platform for a complete wallet and verification process, usable both online and in the physical world.
India’s new Intermediary & Digital Media Rules: Expanding the Boundaries of Executive Power in Digital Regulation
The majority of these provisions were unanticipated, resulting in a raft of petitions filed in High Courts across the country challenging the validity of the various aspects of the Rules, including with regard to their constitutionality.
South Korea: The First Case Where the Personal Information Protection Act was Applied to an AI System
As AI regulation is being considered in the European Union, privacy commissioners and data protection authorities around the world are starting to apply existing comprehensive data protection laws against AI systems and how they process personal information. On April 28th, the South Korean Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC) imposed sanctions and a fine of KRW […]