The rise of AI and GPT technologies presents significant ethical and security challenges. A major issue is bias in AI systems, where algorithms may reflect and perpetuate societal prejudices, leading to unfair treatment in areas like hiring or criminal justice. Additionally, misinformation generated by AI-powered systems poses risks, as GPT models can produce convincing but false or misleading content.

Privacy concerns are another challenge, with AI being used to collect and analyze personal data without consent. Moreover, AI-generated deepfake videos and voice impersonation pose risks to credibility and authenticity, enabling fraud and misinformation by mimicking real individuals' faces and voices. In a broader sense, the potential for job displacement due to automation raises economic and social concerns. Let’s look at some more challenges:

Unjustified Actions: Algorithmic decision-making often relies on correlations without establishing causality, which can lead to erroneous outcomes. Inauthentic correlations may be misleading, and actions based on population trends may not apply to individuals. Acting on such data without confirming causality can cause inaccurate and unfair results.

Opacity: This issue refers to AI's decision-making being hidden or unintelligible. This opacity stems from complex algorithms and data processes being unobservable and inscrutable, making AI unpredictable and difficult to control. Transparency is essential but not a simple solution to AI-related ethical issues.

Bias: AI systems reflect the biases of their designers, contradicting the idea of unbiased automation. Development choices embed certain values into AI, institutionalizing bias and inequality. Addressing this requires inclusivity and equity in AI design and usage to mitigate these biases.

Gatekeeping: AI’s personalization systems can undermine personal autonomy by filtering content and shaping decisions based on user profiles. This can lead to discriminatory pricing or information bubbles that restrict decision-making diversity. Third-party interests may override individual choices, affecting user autonomy.

Complicated Accountability: As AI spreads decision-making, it diffuses responsibility. Developers and users might shift blame, complicating responsibility for unethical outcomes. Automation bias increases reliance on AI outputs, reducing accountability in complex, multi-disciplinary networks. Moreover, the notion that engineers and software developers hold “full control” over each aspect of an AI system is usually precarious.

Ethical Auditing: Auditing AI systems is crucial for transparency and ethical compliance. Merely revealing the code does not ensure fairness; comprehensive auditing, through external regulators or internal reporting, helps identify and correct issues like discrimination or malfunction. This process is essential for AI systems with significant human impact.

Addressing these issues requires transparency, improved regulations, and responsible AI development practices. Bias in AI can be mitigated by diverse training datasets, while stricter policies can limit the misuse of generated content. Collaboration between tech companies, policymakers, and ethicists is crucial to ensure the responsible and ethical use of AI in society.

Google’s internet bot detector has evolved over the years from Captcha to reCaptcha to reCaptcha V3. Now, no more boxes need to be checked, nor is identifying objects or alphabets required. Studying the way an individual navigates through a website, conclusions can be drawn on it being a bot or not. This improvement however comes in at the cost of the user’s privacy. According to a researcher, Google uses cookies to identify whether a user is a bot or not; the same cookies which enable us to open new tabs and open accounts without the need of logging in everytime. Another researcher however states that a browser connected with a Google account is more secure than the one which isn’t. Hence, although security is gained, more of the user’s data is also going into the hands of Google. Read more at: https://www.fastcompany.com/90369697/googles-new-recaptcha-has-a-dark-side

Back in the 20's, technology used to be simple. Core functions of the system were not affected by the records management. Every organization has started getting connected to the internet in order to make the lives easier of their workers as well customers. Everyone wants to get access to basic information over the internet as it is an opportunity to learn more about everything which relates to good or bad performance. Even from the customer's side, access to internet helps business with floods of data which leads them to focused marketing. Such information is also spread to the hackers. Hackers then use such individual information to get through government entities or set up robbery attacks. As keepers of the information, companies should hence protect the data and make sure trust is not violated. The exposed information is generally customer information. Determined hackers cannot be stopped from entering into the system. Identities are stolen and more valuable information is lost other than just credit card numbers. Data should be protected by the organization as if it was their own personal information. Apps are a disaster these days as they are gateways to information which directly reach the hackers since consumers unknowingly take such things for granted and provide all their details. Security and privacy experts should be hired and organizations should be very careful with customer information. Read more at: http://www.cmswire.com/information-management/protect-information-as-if-it-was-your-own/?pageNum=2

In the era of Big Data, the fight for protection has as of now been battled and lost. The personal data is routinely gathered and exchanged and there are few powerful controls over how it is utilized or secured. Data scientists and analysts are now saying that now is the right time for enactment to recover some of that protection and guarantee that any information that is gathered remains secure.

We have become the product and are being productised and sold to anyone. We’re being monetised and mobilized as products with inducement of the services of we use such as Facebook and Twitter. The dilemma that the regulators are facing is how they can regulate the collection, storage and trading of personal data on the on the internet, when all of these activities, and the corporations themselves, operate across multiple continents and jurisdictions.

The task of reclaiming some semblance of privacy is all the more urgent because the rate at which personal data is being collected is accelerating. The buzz around big data is attracting millions of dollars of from investors and brands hoping to turn a profit, while intelligence agencies are also furiously collecting information about our online activities for much different purposes.

And alongside these, there’s also the black market operators that make millions of dollars a year out of things like identity theft and matching disparate data sets across the web to help identify people who might be suitable targets for a scam. 

New privacy principles were recently passed into law which required all businesses earning more than $3m annually to disclose to customers how their information was being stored and used, however the new legislation stopped short of mandating compulsory data breach notifications for businesses who fall victim to security violations.

A bill that would make it illegal to hide security problems was set to pass into law last year, however it failed to make it through both houses of the Senate before the election. And since the Coalition took power, the legislation has stalled. 

Still, there are many privacy challenges ahead, and the problems have by no means been solved. Most methods of anonymizing do not scale well as p or n get large. Either they add so much noise that new analyses become nearly impossible or they weaken the privacy guarantee. Network-like data pose a special challenge for privacy because so much of the information has to do with relationships between individuals. In summary, there appears to be “no free lunch” in the trade-off between privacy and information. To read more: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/20/little-privacy-in-the-age-of-big-data

An article by E-Commerce Times columnist, Peter S. Vogel, says that it is hard to detect which is growing at a faster pace - cloud or cybercrime. Cloud may be anywhere in the world which creates interesting and complex legal questions regarding privacy of data stored in the cloud. Nevertheless, more businesses are migrating to the cloud to host data, often without regard to the legal consequences.  Many companies are migrating to the cloud to reduce their IT costs but are creating new malware-based and cyber-crime risks to their businesses. If cybercrime and cloud-focused malware continue to grow along with the cloud, the predicted growth of cloud migration may not be realized.

To know more follow http://www.technewsworld.com/story/80107.html