Entries Tagged "laws"

Page 1 of 35

AI Data Centers and the Concentration of Wealth

This essay was written with Nathan E. Sanders, and originally appeared in The Guardian.

Opposition to AI data centers has emerged as a primary theme in US politics, one that—surprisingly—doesn’t fall along party lines. We applaud people coming together for constructive debate on any issue, and agree that communities need to evaluate whether any economic benefits these data centers bring is worth their costs. Still, we worry that a focus on data centers obscures the larger impacts of AI on people’s lives: the concentration of power of AI companies, and their widespread political and financial influence.

Local data center opposition is grounded in legitimate concerns about misallocation of land resources when housing is at a premium, pressures on already higher energy prices, and localized environmental impact. Unlike other resource-consuming and polluting industrial facilities, data centers produce very few jobs. The fact that US opposition to data centers seems to be most fierce among lower-income communities reflects righteous indignation with an inequitable bargain, where tech companies and developers profit from exploiting local resources but offer little in return. On a global scale, their carbon footprint could grow unsustainably if usage accelerates. And all this is in aid of a technology that many fear will propagate misinformation, take their jobs, or even cause existential risks for humanity.

For some, data center opposition may feel like the only tangible mechanism for registering their concern, disapproval, or even anger about AI. The problem is that this may be exactly what the AI companies are banking on. They can overcome the protest when it matters to them, and live with a significant fraction of proposals being defeated. More importantly, focusing political opponents on the data center issue obscures the bigger prize they’re after.

While there is a staggering three-quarters of a trillion dollars being spent on data center infrastructure by US companies this year alone, this investment should be taken in perspective. The market for enterprise software, for example, is about twice this size. And it’s small compared with what these companies actually want.

AI companies have their eyes set on capturing all the value created by entire industries. The technology has arguably already conquered customer service and consumer sales. But on the horizon are bigger targets, such as enterprise software development, creative design, management and even legal services. In AI companies and their allies’ vision of the future, AI replaces teachers and doctors. The companies would rather spend time fighting resistance to how fast they are building computing infrastructure than dealing with issues of how their products should be used in those fields, or how those fields should be protected from their products.

And while data center opposition campaigns have been successful in building widespread appeal, their effectiveness in the US is mixed. They seem to be most successful when organizing against speculative, early-stage data center proposals that have a relatively low likelihood to ever see fruition. Meanwhile, advanced-stage, well-capitalized data center projects have proven to have the resources to overcome local opposition. An OpenAI- and Oracle-backed facility in Saline township, Michigan, is breaking ground on construction even after local officials voted to reject it. The developers sued the town of 3,000 and forced a settlement that involved their project going forward. Meanwhile, the Trump administration, a vigorous ally of corporate AI, has signaled its willingness to advance AI infrastructure development by overriding state objections and even using federal lands.

Also consider that rampant data center development may be a momentary spike rather than a longstanding concern. Demand for the centralized computing that data centers provide may well decline over time. The leading Chinese labs, such as Z.ai, are innovating in technical mechanisms to make frontier-class models smaller and cheaper to run. AI power users have become adept at miniaturizing open weight models, ones published free for anyone to download and use, to run locally on their own computers. Apple and Google both support infrastructure stacks for running AI models directly on mobile phones. It could be that the current mania for data centers will look like the fiber optic cable bubble from the early 2000s, as demand shifts to smaller models and AI usage on people’s own devices.

For those concerned primarily with affordability and environmental protection, singling out data center construction is misplaced. Energy rates and inflation today seem to be most visibly affected by the US-Iran war. The US is disinvesting in long-term energy security by ceding the renewable energy industry to China and actively cancelling climate commitments. Consider that 10% of global carbon emissions stem from heating buildings, which dwarfs energy use by AI and could be cut fivefold by using heat pumps powered by renewable energy. With respect to housing affordability, federal housing subsidies have changed little over three decades, in inflation-adjusted terms, even as housing costs have spiked and homeowners have enjoyed robust tax incentives.

As for AI itself, the concentration of power and wealth in these tech companies is the greatest existential risk facing society today. This means we must limit corporate power, especially corporations’ ability to exploit the public and manipulate our political system.

Opposing data centers should be just a starting point. We can advocate for states to regulate AI, to reject irresponsible uses of the technology, and shape corporate behavior. We can fight for AI computation to be taxed, so that the public can capture some of the profit of AI use while also forcing AI companies to internalize more of the energy and environmental consequences associated with its use. And we all can join the global movement for Public AI, an alternative ecosystem for AI that is developed under public control with an incentive structure to create public benefit rather than private profit.

The US midterm elections present ample opportunity for those seeking to control the AI political agenda. In the recent New York congressional Democratic primary, PACs linked to the dueling AI companies Anthropic and OpenAI spent millions of dollars lobbying for or against “AI safety“, the idea that we must urgently monitor and prevent people from using AI to cause catastrophic harms. We’re already seeing a similar dynamic play out in races in Massachusetts and other states.

Why would Anthropic and OpenAI—bitter industry rivals but fundamentally on the same side politically—support opposing viewpoints? Because they both ultimately profit from the mystique: the idea that their products are so powerful that controlling those products is the world’s most important challenge. Here’s the typical read on the dynamic. To one side (backed by OpenAI affiliates), “safety” comes from the appearance of US industry dominating AI innovation, under the slow-moving control of federal lawmakers (and without pesky state regulators in the way). To the other side (backed by Anthropic), “safety” means a heavier regulatory framework that plays to Anthropic’s posturing as the ethics- and compliance-focused AI vendor. In both cases, it’s more marketing than principled concern about safety.

Political organizers should call out and reject the AI companies’ framing of the debate, and reorient campaign agendas around populist resistance to corporate concentration of wealth and power. When AI companies pump millions into legislative races, the result should not be hyperbolic discussion of AI superintelligence. And when a plot of land in a small town is pitched as a data center site, the debate should be about more than the local costs and benefits. It should include out-of-control money in politics, and Citizens United-proof solutions to limit corporate influence like public financing and state regulation.

We all have a vested interest in what’s on the policy agenda, and what the outcomes are. Today, the greatest risk AI poses to society is the exacerbation of inequality and the concentration of wealth. The real problem is trillion-dollar AI companies and their trillionaire oligarchs cozying up to political power in Washington and governments worldwide, and using their money to enact their agenda over the popular will of the people. This is the issue we’d like to see put front and center, and it requires solutions much more extensive than slowing data center development.

Posted on July 13, 2026 at 7:01 AM • View Comments

AI Use by the US Government

On 14 April, the Trump administration quietly acknowledged the widespread use of AI to automate government processes. The office of management and budget (OMB) disclosed a staggering 3,611 active or planned use cases for AI across the federal government. The list has ballooned by 70% from the one published in the final year of the Biden administration, and includes many disturbing-seeming plans to hand over sensitive governmental functions to AI.

Scanning this list, many readers may find many causes for alarm. It represents a transfer of decision processes from human to machine on a massive scale over matters of individual freedom, public health and well-being, nuclear reactor safety and more.

Consider these examples. The Health and Human Services’ (HHS) office of administration for children and families hired the world’s “scariest AI company,” Palantir—notorious for its work on behalf of the military, the CIA and ICE—to scan all grant applications to flag those not ideologically aligned with the administration’s dictates. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is developing an AI system to assess the “potential for misconduct for newly admitted inmates,” routing people into high-security confinement before they have actually done anything wrong in their custody. These read like programs fit for a Philip K Dick or George Orwell novel.

Other use cases insert AI into life-and-death decision making. The Department of Veterans Affairs is developing an AI that will listen in on calls to the veterans crisis line, and then gather information from external databases to assess the mental state and suicide risk of the caller.

The Department of Energy is testing the use of AI to control nuclear reactors, targeting a way to autonomously respond to potential nuclear safety incidents. Here’s one that’s disturbing for its retirement, rather than its deployment: the state department has ended a program to use AI to forecast mass civilian killings, which had been intended to aid conflict prevention.

While it’s easy to raise questions about these and similar uses of AI, the reality is that any of these programs could be implemented responsibly. In some cases, like the HHS system, the AI might be enforcing alignment to a policy prescription that opponents abhor. But that concern is more about the policy itself rather than the idea that agencies should comply with executive orders.

In other cases, there may even be bipartisan agreement on the goal, like taking urgent action to help veterans at risk of self-harm. Lots of work and validation is needed to prove AI safe and effective for these use cases and convince the public it is appropriate, but the idea is plausible.

In other cases, a scary-sounding AI use may not even be new. The use of predictive methods and statistics to assign prisoner security classifications goes back decades, even if such systems are often biased and ineffective.

Using autonomous systems for model predictive control (MPC) of nuclear reactors is a well studied, and a widely applied aspect of nuclear plant management. And the recently disclosed addition of AI was initiated under the Biden administration.

But anyone reviewing the 2025 inventory could be forgiven for leaping to severe conclusions. What matters are the details of how the AI system is used, and here the inventory is severely lacking.

The disclosures carry minimal information, and lack the context necessary to understand their purpose and approach. The descriptions are typically just a sentence, and rarely more than a paragraph.

And while the process theoretically involves some form of public consultation, in reality there is generally none. It would take an eagle-eyed citizen to even come across this disclosure. Unless you read FedScoop regularly, or watch the OMB’s federal chief information officer’s GitHub account, you probably missed it.

Only one of the examples cited above (the DoJ) even proposes to involve the public. Under the administration’s policy, it’s not required for the rest because they are not classified as “high impact” use cases—a label that is applied inconsistently across agencies.

We wrote a book surveying applications of AI to democratic processes worldwide, including executive agencies as well as the courts, legislatures and politics. Our conclusion was that, while there are inappropriate applications of AI in governance that should be resisted, an urgent need to reform the economics of AI, and an imperative for renovating the democratic systems it is being unleashed on, there are also valuable and beneficial use cases for AI in government.

Machine translation is a good example. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has deployed an AI translation system to help officers when human interpreters are not available. The idea that CBP, an agency under heavy scrutiny for reported abuses of human rights, would direct people to talk to a machine instead of a person may strike many as inhumane.

It’s true that human interpreters have very real advantages when it comes to understanding nuance from physical cues and social context. But an officer with a competent AI translator available immediately is better than one who cannot communicate with the person in front of them.

The Trump administration’s AI use case inventory has 70 such translation use cases, up from 58 in the Biden administration’s 2024 disclosure.

Disclosure of AI use cases could be a means to build public confidence and trust, but only if paired with consistent, meaningful public consultation. Washington DC and California are actively engaging the public to determine where and how it’s appropriate to use AI in government processes, or for government to regulate AI use in society.

Both have held public deliberations on this topic at a wide scale, using AI platforms. These examples demonstrate the potential for capturing broad-based public input to steer AI policy.

The international gold standard was arguably set by the French in 2016, via their Digital Republic Act. The law, itself informed by an online citizen consultation, requires all algorithms used to automate government administrative decisions to be subject to public records requests, to be appealable to a human reviewer, and to have mandatory notification of the use of automation to those affected by the decisions.

Canada offers another example of what more rigorous and participatory disclosure might look like. In 2025, they launched an AI use case registry, not unlike the US inventory. However, Canada also has a federal directive mandating a transparent risk-scoring and impact assessment process for automated systems that make administrative decisions about citizens.

That longstanding directive requires a detailed explanation of risks and benefits as well as consultation with certain stakeholders from the conception of the AI use case. The Canadian system could be improved; it could require a public comment period and an obligation for agencies to respond substantively to feedback before engaging in sensitive uses of AI.

AI offers real potential to improve the efficacy, efficiency and accessibility of government. But, equally, there is legitimate reason for public concern and distrust that can only be addressed through transparency and dialog. The US should adopt, at the federal and state level, algorithmic impact risk assessment procedures and public comment processes to facilitate a safe, trusted, equitable transformation of government agencies to take advantage of modern technology.

This essay was written with Nathan E. Sanders, and originally appeared in The Guardian.

Posted on June 17, 2026 at 7:04 AM • View Comments

How Dangerous Is Anthropic’s Mythos AI?

Last month, Anthropic made a remarkable announcement about its new model, Claude Mythos Preview: it was so good at finding security vulnerabilities in software that the company would not release it to the general public. Instead, it would only be available to a select group of companies to scan and fix their own software.

The announcement requires context—but it contained an essential truth.

While Anthropic’s model is really good at finding software vulnerabilities, so are other models. The UK’s AI Security Institute found that OpenAI’s GPT-5.5, already generally available, is comparable in capability. The company Aisle reproduced Anthropic’s published results with smaller, cheaper models.

At the same time, Anthropic’s refusal to publicly release its new model makes a virtue out of necessity. Mythos is very expensive to run, and the company doesn’t appear to have the resources for a general release. What better way to juice the company’s valuation than to hint at capabilities but not prove them, and then have others parrot their claims?

Nonetheless, the truth is scary. Modern generative AI systems—not just Anthropic’s, but OpenAI’s and other, open-source models—are getting really good at finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in software. And that has important ramifications for cybersecurity: on both the offense and the defense.

Attackers will use these capabilities to find, and automatically hack, vulnerabilities in systems of all kinds. They will be able to break into critical systems around the world, sometimes to plant ransomware and make money, sometimes to steal data for espionage purposes, and sometimes to control systems in times of hostility. This will make the world a much more dangerous, and more volatile, place.

But at the same time, defenders will use these same capabilities to find, and then patch, many of those same systems. For example, Mozilla used Mythos to find 271 vulnerabilities in Firefox. Those vulnerabilities have been fixed, and will never again be available to attackers. In the future, AIs automatically finding and fixing vulnerabilities in all software will be a normal part of the development process, which will result in much more secure software.

Of course, it’s not that simple. We should expect a deluge of both attackers using newly found vulnerabilities to break into systems, and at the same time much more frequent software updates for every app and device we use. But lots of systems aren’t patchable, and many systems that are don’t get patched, meaning that many vulnerabilities will stick around. And it does seem that finding and exploiting is easier than finding and fixing. All of this points to a more dangerous short-term future. Organizations will need to adapt their security to this new reality.

But it’s the long term that we need to focus on. Mythos isn’t unique, but it’s more capable than many models that have come before. And it’s less capable than models that will come after. AIs are much better at writing software than they were just six months ago. There’s every reason to believe that they will continue to get better, which means that they will get better at writing more secure software. The endgame gives AI-enhanced defenders advantages over AI-enhanced attackers.

Even more interesting are the broader implications. The same searching, pattern-matching and reasoning capabilities that make these models so good at analyzing software almost certainly apply to similar systems. The tax code isn’t computer code, but it’s a series of algorithms with inputs and outputs. It has vulnerabilities; we call them tax loopholes. It has exploits; we call them tax avoidance strategies. And it has black hat hackers: attorneys and accountants.

Just as these models are finding hundreds of vulnerabilities in complex software systems, we should expect them to be equally effective at finding many new and undiscovered tax loopholes. I am confident that the major investment banks are working on this right now, in secret. They’ve fed AI the tax code of the US, or the UK, or maybe every industrialized country, and tasked the system with looking for money-saving strategies. How many tax loopholes will those AIs find? Ten? One hundred? One thousand? The Double Dutch Irish Sandwich is a tax loophole that involves multiple different tax jurisdictions. Can AIs find loopholes even more complex? We have no idea.

Sure, the AIs will come up with a bunch of tricks that won’t work, but that’s where those attorneys and accountants come in—to verify, and then justify, the loopholes. And then to market them to their wealthy clients.

As goes the tax code, so goes any other complex system of rules and strategies. These models could be tasked with finding loopholes in environmental rules, or food and safety rules—anywhere there are complex regulatory systems and powerful people who want to evade those rules.

The results will be much worse than insecure computers. Tax loopholes result in less revenue collected by governments, and regulatory loopholes allow the powerful to skirt the rules, both of which have all sorts of social ramifications. And while software vendors can patch their systems in days, it generally takes years for a country to amend its tax code. And that process is political, with lobbyists pressuring legislators not to patch. Just look at the carried interest loophole, a US tax dodge that has been exploited for decades. Various administrations have tried to close the vulnerability, but legislators just can’t seem to resist lobbyists long enough to patch it.

AI technologies are poised to remake much of society. Just as the industrial revolution gave humans the ability to consume calories outside of their bodies at scale, the AI revolution will give humans the ability to perform cognitive tasks outside of their bodies at scale. Our systems aren’t designed for that; they’re designed for more human paces of cognition. We’re seeing it right now in the deluge of software vulnerabilities that these models are finding and exploiting. And we will soon see it in a deluge of vulnerabilities in all sorts of other systems of rules. Adapting to this new reality will be hard, but we don’t have any choice.

This essay originally appeared in The Guardian.

Posted on May 14, 2026 at 7:04 AM • View Comments

3D Printer Surveillance

New York is contemplating a bill that adds surveillance to 3D printers:

New York’s 2026­2027 executive budget bill (S.9005 / A.10005) includes language that should alarm every maker, educator, and small manufacturer in the state. Buried in Part C is a provision requiring all 3D printers sold or delivered in New York to include “blocking technology.” This is defined as software or firmware that scans every print file through a “firearms blueprint detection algorithm” and refuses to print anything it flags as a potential firearm or firearm component.

I get the policy goals here, but the solution just won’t work. It’s the same problem as DRM: trying to prevent general-purpose computers from doing specific things. Cory Doctorow wrote about it in 2018 and—more generally—spoke about it in 2011.

Posted on February 12, 2026 at 7:01 AM • View Comments

Against the Federal Moratorium on State-Level Regulation of AI

Cast your mind back to May of this year: Congress was in the throes of debate over the massive budget bill. Amidst the many seismic provisions, Senator Ted Cruz dropped a ticking time bomb of tech policy: a ten-year moratorium on the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence. To many, this was catastrophic. The few massive AI companies seem to be swallowing our economy whole: their energy demands are overriding household needs, their data demands are overriding creators’ copyright, and their products are triggering mass unemployment as well as new types of clinical psychoses. In a moment where Congress is seemingly unable to act to pass any meaningful consumer protections or market regulations, why would we hamstring the one entity evidently capable of doing so—the states? States that have already enacted consumer protections and other AI regulations, like California, and those actively debating them, like Massachusetts, were alarmed. Seventeen Republican governors wrote a letter decrying the idea, and it was ultimately killed in a rare vote of bipartisan near-unanimity.

The idea is back. Before Thanksgiving, a House Republican leader suggested they might slip it into the annual defense spending bill. Then, a draft document leaked outlining the Trump administration’s intent to enforce the state regulatory ban through executive powers. An outpouring of opposition (including from some Republican state leaders) beat back that notion for a few weeks, but on Monday, Trump posted on social media that the promised Executive Order is indeed coming soon. That would put a growing cohort of states, including California and New York, as well as Republican strongholds like Utah and Texas, in jeopardy.

The constellation of motivations behind this proposal is clear: conservative ideology, cash, and China.

The intellectual argument in favor of the moratorium is that “freedom“-killing state regulation on AI would create a patchwork that would be difficult for AI companies to comply with, which would slow the pace of innovation needed to win an AI arms race with China. AI companies and their investors have been aggressively peddling this narrative for years now, and are increasingly backing it with exorbitant lobbying dollars. It’s a handy argument, useful not only to kill regulatory constraints, but also—companies hope—to win federal bailouts and energy subsidies.

Citizens should parse that argument from their own point of view, not Big Tech’s. Preventing states from regulating AI means that those companies get to tell Washington what they want, but your state representatives are powerless to represent your own interests. Which freedom is more important to you: the freedom for a few near-monopolies to profit from AI, or the freedom for you and your neighbors to demand protections from its abuses?

There is an element of this that is more partisan than ideological. Vice President J.D. Vance argued that federal preemption is needed to prevent “progressive” states from controlling AI’s future. This is an indicator of creeping polarization, where Democrats decry the monopolism, bias, and harms attendant to corporate AI and Republicans reflexively take the opposite side. It doesn’t help that some in the parties also have direct financial interests in the AI supply chain.

But this does not need to be a partisan wedge issue: both Democrats and Republicans have strong reasons to support state-level AI legislation. Everyone shares an interest in protecting consumers from harm created by Big Tech companies. In leading the charge to kill Cruz’s initial AI moratorium proposal, Republican Senator Masha Blackburn explained that “This provision could allow Big Tech to continue to exploit kids, creators, and conservatives? we can’t block states from making laws that protect their citizens.” More recently, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis wants to regulate AI in his state.

The often-heard complaint that it is hard to comply with a patchwork of state regulations rings hollow. Pretty much every other consumer-facing industry has managed to deal with local regulation—automobiles, children’s toys, food, and drugs—and those regulations have been effective consumer protections. The AI industry includes some of the most valuable companies globally and has demonstrated the ability to comply with differing regulations around the world, including the EU’s AI and data privacy regulations, substantially more onerous than those so far adopted by US states. If we can’t leverage state regulatory power to shape the AI industry, to what industry could it possibly apply?

The regulatory superpower that states have here is not size and force, but rather speed and locality. We need the “laboratories of democracy” to experiment with different types of regulation that fit the specific needs and interests of their constituents and evolve responsively to the concerns they raise, especially in such a consequential and rapidly changing area such as AI.

We should embrace the ability of regulation to be a driver—not a limiter—of innovation. Regulations don’t restrict companies from building better products or making more profit; they help channel that innovation in specific ways that protect the public interest. Drug safety regulations don’t prevent pharma companies from inventing drugs; they force them to invent drugs that are safe and efficacious. States can direct private innovation to serve the public.

But, most importantly, regulations are needed to prevent the most dangerous impact of AI today: the concentration of power associated with trillion-dollar AI companies and the power-amplifying technologies they are producing. We outline the specific ways that the use of AI in governance can disrupt existing balances of power, and how to steer those applications towards more equitable balances, in our new book, Rewiring Democracy. In the nearly complete absence of Congressional action on AI over the years, it has swept the world’s attention; it has become clear that states are the only effective policy levers we have against that concentration of power.

Instead of impeding states from regulating AI, the federal government should support them to drive AI innovation. If proponents of a moratorium worry that the private sector won’t deliver what they think is needed to compete in the new global economy, then we should engage government to help generate AI innovations that serve the public and solve the problems most important to people. Following the lead of countries like Switzerland, France, and Singapore, the US could invest in developing and deploying AI models designed as public goods: transparent, open, and useful for tasks in public administration and governance.

Maybe you don’t trust the federal government to build or operate an AI tool that acts in the public interest? We don’t either. States are a much better place for this innovation to happen because they are closer to the people, they are charged with delivering most government services, they are better aligned with local political sentiments, and they have achieved greater trust. They’re where we can test, iterate, compare, and contrast regulatory approaches that could inform eventual and better federal policy. And, while the costs of training and operating performance AI tools like large language models have declined precipitously, the federal government can play a valuable role here in funding cash-strapped states to lead this kind of innovation.

This essay was written with Nathan E. Sanders, and originally appeared in Gizmodo.

EDITED TO ADD: Trump signed an executive order banning state-level AI regulations hours after this was published. This is not going to be the last word on the subject.

Posted on December 15, 2025 at 7:02 AM • View Comments

Banning VPNs

This is crazy. Lawmakers in several US states are contemplating banning VPNs, because…think of the children!

As of this writing, Wisconsin lawmakers are escalating their war on privacy by targeting VPNs in the name of “protecting children” in A.B. 105/S.B. 130. It’s an age verification bill that requires all websites distributing material that could conceivably be deemed “sexual content” to both implement an age verification system and also to block the access of users connected via VPN. The bill seeks to broadly expand the definition of materials that are “harmful to minors” beyond the type of speech that states can prohibit minors from accessing­ potentially encompassing things like depictions and discussions of human anatomy, sexuality, and reproduction.

The EFF link explains why this is a terrible idea.

Posted on December 1, 2025 at 7:59 AM • View Comments

On Hacking Back

Former DoJ attorney John Carlin writes about hackback, which he defines thus: “A hack back is a type of cyber response that incorporates a counterattack designed to proactively engage with, disable, or collect evidence about an attacker. Although hack backs can take on various forms, they are—­by definition­—not passive defensive measures.”

His conclusion:

As the law currently stands, specific forms of purely defense measures are authorized so long as they affect only the victim’s system or data.

At the other end of the spectrum, offensive measures that involve accessing or otherwise causing damage or loss to the hacker’s systems are likely prohibited, absent government oversight or authorization. And even then parties should proceed with caution in light of the heightened risks of misattribution, collateral damage, and retaliation.

As for the broad range of other hack back tactics that fall in the middle of active defense and offensive measures, private parties should continue to engage in these tactics only with government oversight or authorization. These measures exist within a legal gray area and would likely benefit from amendments to the CFAA and CISA that clarify and carve out the parameters of authorization for specific self-defense measures. But in the absence of amendments or clarification on the scope of those laws, private actors can seek governmental authorization through an array of channels, whether they be partnering with law enforcement or seeking authorization to engage in more offensive tactics from the courts in connection with private litigation.

Posted on November 12, 2025 at 7:01 AM • View Comments

The Semiconductor Industry and Regulatory Compliance

Earlier this week, the Trump administration narrowed export controls on advanced semiconductors ahead of US-China trade negotiations. The administration is increasingly relying on export licenses to allow American semiconductor firms to sell their products to Chinese customers, while keeping the most powerful of them out of the hands of our military adversaries. These are the chips that power the artificial intelligence research fueling China’s technological rise, as well as the advanced military equipment underpinning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The US government relies on private-sector firms to implement those export controls. It’s not working. US-manufactured semiconductors have been found in Russian weapons. And China is skirting American export controls to accelerate AI research and development, with the explicit goal of enhancing its military capabilities.

American semiconductor firms are unwilling or unable to restrict the flow of semiconductors. Instead of investing in effective compliance mechanisms, these firms have consistently prioritized their bottom lines—a rational decision, given the fundamentally risky nature of the semiconductor industry.

We can’t afford to wait for semiconductor firms to catch up gradually. To create a robust regulatory environment in the semiconductor industry, both the US government and chip companies must take clear and decisive actions today and consistently over time.

Consider the financial services industry. Those companies are also heavily regulated, implementing US government regulations ranging from international sanctions to anti-money laundering. For decades, these companies have invested heavily in compliance technology. Large banks maintain teams of compliance employees, often numbering in the thousands.

The companies understand that by entering the financial services industry, they assume the responsibility to verify their customers’ identities and activities, refuse services to those engaged in criminal activity, and report certain activities to the authorities. They take these obligations seriously because they know they will face massive fines when they fail. Across the financial sector, the Securities and Exchange Commission imposed a whopping $6.4 billion in penalties in 2022. For example, TD Bank recently paid almost $2 billion in penalties because of its ineffective anti-money laundering efforts

An executive order issued earlier this year applied a similar regulatory model to potential “know your customer” obligations for certain cloud service providers.

If Trump’s new license-focused export controls are to be effective, the administration must increase the penalties for noncompliance. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) needs to more aggressively enforce its regulations by sharply increasing penalties for export control violations.

BIS has been working to improve enforcement, as evidenced by this week’s news of a $95 million penalty against Cadence Design Systems for violating export controls on its chip design technology. Unfortunately, BIS lacks the people, technology, and funding to enforce these controls across the board.

The Trump administration should also use its bully pulpit, publicly naming companies that break the rules and encouraging American firms and consumers to do business elsewhere. Regulatory threats and bad publicity are the only ways to force the semiconductor industry to take export control regulations seriously and invest in compliance.

With those threats in place, American semiconductor firms must accept their obligation to comply with regulations and cooperate. They need to invest in strengthening their compliance teams and conduct proactive audits of their subsidiaries, their customers, and their customers’ customers.

Firms should elevate risk and compliance voices onto their executive leadership teams, similar to the chief risk officer role found in banks. Senior leaders need to devote their time to regular progress reviews focused on meaningful, proactive compliance with export controls and other critical regulations, thereby leading their organizations to make compliance a priority.

As the world becomes increasingly dangerous and America’s adversaries become more emboldened, we need to maintain stronger control over our supply of critical semiconductors. If Russia and China are allowed unfettered access to advanced American chips for their AI efforts and military equipment, we risk losing the military advantage and our ability to deter conflicts worldwide. The geopolitical importance of semiconductors will only increase as the world becomes more dangerous and more reliant on advanced technologies—American security depends on limiting their flow.

This essay was written with Andrew Kidd and Celine Lee, and originally appeared in The National Interest.

Posted on August 6, 2025 at 12:35 AM • View Comments

“Encryption Backdoors and the Fourth Amendment”

Law journal article that looks at the Dual_EC_PRNG backdoor from a US constitutional perspective:

Abstract: The National Security Agency (NSA) reportedly paid and pressured technology companies to trick their customers into using vulnerable encryption products. This Article examines whether any of three theories removed the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that this be reasonable. The first is that a challenge to the encryption backdoor might fail for want of a search or seizure. The Article rejects this both because the Amendment reaches some vulnerabilities apart from the searches and seizures they enable and because the creation of this vulnerability was itself a search or seizure. The second is that the role of the technology companies might have brought this backdoor within the private-search doctrine. The Article criticizes the doctrine­ particularly its origins in Burdeau v. McDowell­and argues that if it ever should apply, it should not here. The last is that the customers might have waived their Fourth Amendment rights under the third-party doctrine. The Article rejects this both because the customers were not on notice of the backdoor and because historical understandings of the Amendment would not have tolerated it. The Article concludes that none of these theories removed the Amendment’s reasonableness requirement.

Posted on July 22, 2025 at 7:05 AM • View Comments

AI-Generated Law

On April 14, Dubai’s ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, announced that the United Arab Emirates would begin using artificial intelligence to help write its laws. A new Regulatory Intelligence Office would use the technology to “regularly suggest updates” to the law and “accelerate the issuance of legislation by up to 70%.” AI would create a “comprehensive legislative plan” spanning local and federal law and would be connected to public administration, the courts, and global policy trends.

The plan was widely greeted with astonishment. This sort of AI legislating would be a global “first,” with the potential to go “horribly wrong.” Skeptics fear that the AI model will make up facts or fundamentally fail to understand societal tenets such as fair treatment and justice when influencing law.

The truth is, the UAE’s idea of AI-generated law is not really a first and not necessarily terrible.

The first instance of enacted law known to have been written by AI was passed in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 2023. It was a local ordinance about water meter replacement. Council member Ramiro Rosário was simply looking for help in generating and articulating ideas for solving a policy problem, and ChatGPT did well enough that the bill passed unanimously. We approve of AI assisting humans in this manner, although Rosário should have disclosed that the bill was written by AI before it was voted on.

Brazil was a harbinger but hardly unique. In recent years, there has been a steady stream of attention-seeking politicians at the local and national level introducing bills that they promote as being drafted by AI or letting AI write their speeches for them or even vocalize them in the chamber.

The Emirati proposal is different from those examples in important ways. It promises to be more systemic and less of a one-off stunt. The UAE has promised to spend more than $3 billion to transform into an “AI-native” government by 2027. Time will tell if it is also different in being more hype than reality.

Rather than being a true first, the UAE’s announcement is emblematic of a much wider global trend of legislative bodies integrating AI assistive tools for legislative research, drafting, translation, data processing, and much more. Individual lawmakers have begun turning to AI drafting tools as they traditionally have relied on staffers, interns, or lobbyists. The French government has gone so far as to train its own AI model to assist with legislative tasks.

Even asking AI to comprehensively review and update legislation would not be a first. In 2020, the U.S. state of Ohio began using AI to do wholesale revision of its administrative law. AI’s speed is potentially a good match to this kind of large-scale editorial project; the state’s then-lieutenant governor, Jon Husted, claims it was successful in eliminating 2.2 million words’ worth of unnecessary regulation from Ohio’s code. Now a U.S. senator, Husted has recently proposed to take the same approach to U.S. federal law, with an ideological bent promoting AI as a tool for systematic deregulation.

The dangers of confabulation and inhumanity—while legitimate—aren’t really what makes the potential of AI-generated law novel. Humans make mistakes when writing law, too. Recall that a single typo in a 900-page law nearly brought down the massive U.S. health care reforms of the Affordable Care Act in 2015, before the Supreme Court excused the error. And, distressingly, the citizens and residents of nondemocratic states are already subject to arbitrary and often inhumane laws. (The UAE is a federation of monarchies without direct elections of legislators and with a poor record on political rights and civil liberties, as evaluated by Freedom House.)

The primary concern with using AI in lawmaking is that it will be wielded as a tool by the powerful to advance their own interests. AI may not fundamentally change lawmaking, but its superhuman capabilities have the potential to exacerbate the risks of power concentration.

AI, and technology generally, is often invoked by politicians to give their project a patina of objectivity and rationality, but it doesn’t really do any such thing. As proposed, AI would simply give the UAE’s hereditary rulers new tools to express, enact, and enforce their preferred policies.

Mohammed’s emphasis that a primary benefit of AI will be to make law faster is also misguided. The machine may write the text, but humans will still propose, debate, and vote on the legislation. Drafting is rarely the bottleneck in passing new law. What takes much longer is for humans to amend, horse-trade, and ultimately come to agreement on the content of that legislation—even when that politicking is happening among a small group of monarchic elites.

Rather than expeditiousness, the more important capability offered by AI is sophistication. AI has the potential to make law more complex, tailoring it to a multitude of different scenarios. The combination of AI’s research and drafting speed makes it possible for it to outline legislation governing dozens, even thousands, of special cases for each proposed rule.

But here again, this capability of AI opens the door for the powerful to have their way. AI’s capacity to write complex law would allow the humans directing it to dictate their exacting policy preference for every special case. It could even embed those preferences surreptitiously.

Since time immemorial, legislators have carved out legal loopholes to narrowly cater to special interests. AI will be a powerful tool for authoritarians, lobbyists, and other empowered interests to do this at a greater scale. AI can help automatically produce what political scientist Amy McKay has termed “microlegislation“: loopholes that may be imperceptible to human readers on the page—until their impact is realized in the real world.

But AI can be constrained and directed to distribute power rather than concentrate it. For Emirati residents, the most intriguing possibility of the AI plan is the promise to introduce AI “interactive platforms” where the public can provide input to legislation. In experiments across locales as diverse as Kentucky, Massachusetts, France, Scotland, Taiwan, and many others, civil society within democracies are innovating and experimenting with ways to leverage AI to help listen to constituents and construct public policy in a way that best serves diverse stakeholders.

If the UAE is going to build an AI-native government, it should do so for the purpose of empowering people and not machines. AI has real potential to improve deliberation and pluralism in policymaking, and Emirati residents should hold their government accountable to delivering on this promise.

Posted on May 15, 2025 at 7:00 AM • View Comments

1 2 3 … 35

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.