|
When Technology Outpaces the Law
|
|
|
Last fall, a 91-year-old man died in jail after being charged with murder the year prior. The primary evidence against him? Heart rate data and a timestamp from the victim’s Fitbit and some video footage from a neighbor’s Ring doorbell camera.
Wired Magazine artfully outlined the horrific story here, highlighting the thorny issues that new technologies like these now present when it comes to the law. It begs the question: Can fitness trackers, connected bras and smart watches be used to incriminate us in court?
It also underscores a serious problem. Technology is racing ahead at an unprecedented speed, and our laws aren't keeping pace. That’s a dangerous place to be. Tech is emerging as the new Wild West, with a lack of sensible legal frameworks in everything from cryptocurrency and automatic hacking to privacy laws and robots on construction job sites. As of now, we only have the existing democratic instruments of change, which are patents, regulation, legislation and lawsuits. And society is trusting our lawmakers, political appointees, and agency heads to apply those instruments to technologies that could drastically change the future of humanity.
|
|
|
Every organization is facing an unprecedented amount of uncertainty right now: policy uncertainty, regulatory uncertainty, legal uncertainty. All that in addition to all the business and tech disruption on the near-term horizon. Which means that anyone working in government affairs, policy, risk and compliance must methodically and consistently map scenarios that address uncomfortable questions, like:
- What happens when smart home device makers stop making firmware upgrades? If your "smart" microwave isn't supported anymore, should consumers still be able to use at least the microwave function? Related: If companies brick (decommission) legacy devices rather than continue to support them, and consumers are forced to throw them away, are we causing a future environmental catastrophe? Who gets to decide on firmware upgrades? The market or the government?
- Who, technically, can own our genetic data? Should permissions rest solely in the hands of each person? Or should an intermediary -- like 23andMe - get to decide?
- Can government force big tech companies to make A.I. explainable? Using policy? Regulation? Or would a new law have to be passed?
- Can law enforcement agencies use the Fourth Amendment to compel a company to jailbreak a device?
- If citizens use spatial computing systems in their homes, are the data generated by walls and physical spaces governed by privacy rights?
|
|
|
Waiting to react in this uncertain policy environment and volatile political climate is a big risk. Those working in government relations positions don't have a tradition of long-term modeling or scenario planning. Lawmakers continue to prioritize regulation rather than developing new ways to incentivize collaboration. State and local legislatures don't have a sophisticated enough understanding of the global tech landscape, or why the fragmentation of local laws could solve temporary problems but lead to much bigger challenges. For example, if the US, there are myriad different local restrictions on face recognition, some more stringent than others. What about all of the other biometric recognition systems that don't involve a physical camera? What about the systems that score us? The data alone aren't that compelling -- it's what can be understood from those data using increasingly advanced systems.
As we transition into a critical new era of technology and science that will forever shape the course of human history, those working in government relations, policy and regulation must start mapping and modeling the future.
|
|
Emerging Trend: Old Laws Clash with New Tech
Key Insight: Technology is now moving faster than any government’s ability to legislate it. As a result, countries around the world are learning the hard way what happens when old laws clash with new technology.
Examples: Last week, U.S. Attorney General William Barr asked Apple to unlock the iPhone of the killer at the deadly shooting at the naval air station in Pensacola, Florida—a move that pits personal privacy against public safety. Also related to privacy: one lawsuit that claims that Alexa’s listening violates children’s privacy, and doctors and healthcare companies prepare for legal battles, as genomic testing surges.
Robots bring up equally thorny questions. For instance, a robot went awry and crushed a man in a German Volkswagen plant, and an Uber autonomous vehicle killed a woman in Arizona last year. The devastating stories beg the question: who is responsible if robots kill?
And when it comes to cryptocurrency, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce recently said her agency’s agency's hesitancy to offer new guidance on the tech could put America behind other countries when it comes to innovation. The status quo, she said, was "a regulatory version of an escape room."
What’s next: With debates about the future of CRISPR, ocean plastics, climate change, autonomous vehicles, A.I. and space exploration reaching a fever pitch, expect new unilateral science and technology acts to be proposed. Without meaningful discussion about the long-range implications of legislation, lawmakers could cause drastic (if unintended) consequences for their constituents in the decades to come.
Near-Futures Scenarios (2023 - 2028):
Optimistic: The American government establishes a new department devoted to strategic foresight in technology in response to overwhelming demand from citizens and forward-thinking politicians. The department aims to increase accountability, and, through anti-trust efforts and new nationwide standards around emerging technologies, develops new legal frameworks to make new tech safer to use. It also responsibly regulates tech's biggest monopolies to encourage healthy competition in the industry.
Pragmatic: Political polarization increases. Lawmakers feel forced to achieve big wins on tech regulation but don't have a long-range plan. Associations convene working groups and publish policies on digital trust, ethics and values -- without inviting the tech companies and without a mandate to enact or enforce their guidelines. Government relations departments continue operating the old way: essentially reacting to policy changes and trying to influence lawmakers over time. In the absence of collaboration and a long-term vision, this leads to widespread misalignment, then vocal disagreement and ultimately inaction.
Action Meter:
Watchlist: Lawmakers, 2020 presidential campaigns, APEC, WEF, OECD, UN, Center for Democracy and Technology, tech companies worldwide.
|
|
2020 Emerging Tech Trend Report
It's the start of a new year and some of you have written or called asking when our annual report will be published. For the past few years, we have launched it March at the SXSW festival. As a member of our mailing list, you will get a message the weekend of March 13, 2020 with a link to download our 13th annual Emerging Tech Trends Report.
FTI's Annual Letter
Every December we publish an annual letter. Far from being a nostalgic look back at what was or might have been, or a list of predictions that might not be any more accurate than the local weather forecast, it's a way to think about the evolution of technology, science and humanity as part of a long continuum. Download or read online here.
New Research Available
The Future Today Institute's research is open source. We invite you to read, share and build on our work.
How To Do Strategic Planning Like A Futurist – Published in the Harvard Business Review. Futurists think about time differently, and company strategists could learn from their approach. For any given uncertainty about the future — whether that’s risk, opportunity, or growth — we tend to think in the short- and long-term simultaneously. To do this, FTI uses a framework that measures certainty and charts actions, rather than simply marking the passage of time as quarters or years. That’s why FTI's timelines aren’t actually lines at all — they are cones. Read our research and download the HBR article to share with your team.
For workshops, research collaborations and speaking requests, visit the Future Today Institute website.
|
|
FTI IRL
Thinking about the future? Say hello to the Future Today Institute when we're in a city near you. Here's where we'll be the next few weeks:
World Economic Forum
Davos, Switzerland
January 21 - 24
SXSW
Austin, Texas
March 13 - 16
|
|
|
FTI In The News
Technoea: Why A.I. is a threat to democracy, and what we can do to stop it. Read here.
CBC: Tech trends for 2020: minimalism, satellite-driven data and China's rise as a superpower. Read here.
KQed News: What's the future of the Internet? Read here.
GoTechDaily: Technical trends for 2020: minimalism, satellite-driven data and the emergence of China as a superpower. Read here.
The Financial Times: Is voice tech set to change the way we work? Read here.
The New York Times: Prime Mover: How Amazon Wove Itself Into the Life of an American City. Read here.
Visionary Artistry Magazine: Amy Webb: Strategically Predicting the Future. Read here.
Assume Tech: Why AI is a threat to democracy – and what we can do to stop it. Read here.
Forbes: BPS/Frontline's "In the Age of AI" Is Profoundly Exciting—and Frightening Read here.
AlleyWatch: Is China an AI Security Concern? Read here.
PBS: The Promise and Perils of Artificial Intelligence. Read here.
GoTechDaily: Why AI is a Danger to Democracy—and What We Can Do to End It Read here.
Harvard Business Review: How AI Will Amplify Human Intelligence. Read here.
Fast Company: Privacy in 2034: A corporation owns your DNA (and maybe your body). Read more here.
|
|
|
|
|
