Stewart Baker, a leading lawyer in Washington, D.C., says Congress is pushing forward with data regulation legislation that would trap Americans in a tangle of hidden quotas within private software.
Baker told Breitbart News that the progressive bill grew out of a Democratic campaign to banish discrimination claims from “artificial intelligence” (AI) software.
The bill would also ensure that AI companies face lawsuits if they don’t equalize the outcomes of the software “algorithms” used by many Main Street companies, which progressives tout as “disparate impacts” on population groups. “We’re trying to end discrimination,” Baker said.
However, the demand for computerized group leveling is U.S. Privacy Rights Act of 2024 Baker said it would ensure endless discrimination against many individuals by corporations, adding:
Whenever he applies for a job, whenever he asks for medical insurance, whenever he needs insurance… or whenever he wants to buy a house and get a mortgage, he makes an application and it goes through screening. It will be executed. [software] “We need to make sure we’re balancing the race, gender, and sexual preference of those who pass…We have an algorithm that makes these decisions, don’t worry, it’s unbiased and certified unbiased!” is the process.
“This is a very ambitious effort to smuggle quotas into places in American life where they have never been before and to subvert them.” [the U.S. Supreme Court’s] “Harvard’s decision will be nearly impossible to reverse,” Baker told Breitbart News.
The bill’s regulation of decision-making software opens up a new world for big government and Washington technocrats, he says. “For technocrats, what AI is for desktop computers…it’s an opportunity to impose values. [via software] without getting complicated [citizens]…I vote against you. ”
“It’s the same phenomenon” as social media companies and purported fact-checkers regulating Americans’ freedom of speech, he added.
In an article for Reason.com, Baker said: warned:
The provision could be adopted within weeks without scrutiny. That’s because the bill is packaged as part of a bipartisan bill to set federal privacy standards, which have been out of reach in Washington for decades. And the bill appears to break the impasse by giving Republicans some of the federal overrides that business allies want while giving Democrats and left-wing advocacy groups the ability to quietly reverse them. . Supreme Court Harvard University Decision And it imposes identity-based quotas on large swathes of American life.
This trade-off first appeared in 2023 bill Democratic and Republican members of the House Commerce Committee Approved by an overwhelming vote of 53-2.. However, the bill failed to gain support from Sen. Cantwell (D-Wash.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. This time, a lightly revised version of the bill was supported by both Sen. Cantwell and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.).
…
In short, it’s that simple. If you use [software] Algorithms should be used to ensure that the risk of disparate influences is mitigated when making important human resources decisions such as hiring, promotions, advertising, and the allocation of other goods and services.
The Supreme Court has almost explicitly opposed the legal status of quotas in its 2023 decision banning racial quotas in college admissions. These quotas grew out of efforts in the 1960s to eliminate racial prejudice by promising affirmative action as a defense against lawsuits.
But the bill would not formally impose citations, Baker said, only threatening companies if the numbers in their private databases produce patterns or decisions that progressives dislike.
This is an effort to outsource the imposition of quotas in a way that makes it difficult for people to realize they are being victimized and almost impossible to figure out who to sue.
Conservatives and moderates oppose hidden quotas, but the bill would face a tough legal battle if it becomes law, he said.
There will be [legal] the argument that this violates equal protection because it encourages, or effectively mandates, quotas; [required by the constitution].But I think [the bill] It’s designed to say, “No, no, no, we’re just trying to avoid biased results from our algorithms. Of course, the Equal Protection Clause doesn’t like bias.”so you will have to find [a judge] Who is responsible for all of the disproportionate impacts? [legal] This doctrine is constitutionally questionable.I don’t know if there is a court that would say that…and the mechanism by which that happens [in software] Because it is so complex, much of this problem will arise without even disadvantaged people knowing enough to sue.
But companies will use quota software because they want to avoid lawsuits and bad publicity, he added.
Companies have been imposing quotas since the 1970s. As long as you’re guaranteed not to be sued, that’s all they ask: “Tell us how many people of a certain class you want to hire, and we’ll hire them as long as you promise to do so.” No one. No one will call us racist and no one will sue us. ” The law guarantees what will happen
Baker told Breitbart News that the bill is being pushed by Senate and House committee chairs from Washington state, where Microsoft is based.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, said: tout A bill to protect the “civil rights of Americans”:
Prevent companies from using people’s personal information to discriminate against them.
Allows individuals to opt out of companies using algorithms to make decisions about housing, employment, health care, credit opportunities, education, insurance, and access to public accommodations.
Requires annual reviews of algorithms to ensure they do not put individuals, including youth, at risk of harm, including discrimination.
Baker said retiring Republican Rep. McMorris Rodgers “is all over it.” “It’s on her website and she loves it.”
Ironically, Sen. McMorris Rodgers is also trying to expand online speech through a separate bill that would repeal Section 230, which regulates internet speech.
…This bill would encourage Congress and stakeholders to work together over the next 18 months to evaluate and enact a new legal framework that enables free speech and innovation, and would encourage these companies to We aim to encourage you to become an administrator…
Mr Baker said the apportionment bill: [big-government] Because this is another technical means that allows them to push up positions that are known to be unpopular, or at least of the majority. [hidden] It’s a technical tool. ”
