GeoAI and the Law Newsletter
Keeping geospatial professionals informed on the legal and policy issues that will impact GeoAI
Summary of Recent Developments in GeoAI and the Law
There was an interesting conversation on LinkedIn this week regarding the use of the term GeoAI. The discussion centered around whether the term was needed (or even valid) as geospatial information was just another type of information included in AI.
Here are some of my thoughts on the issue:
1. I believe that the geospatial community spends a lot of time talking to itself about the the benefits of geospatial rather than engaging with similar or complementary communities that can facilitate greater adoption of geospatial technology. (See Deep Dive below for additional thoughts on this topic as it relates to the legal community.)
2. I also agree that there is an argument that the term GeoAI suggests that geospatial technology is somehow different or unique (or, in the words of one of the participants in the discussion, “sexier”) than AI, and consequently further isolates the geospatial community.
3. However, I see other technology subsectors adopt and use portmanteaus (e.g., fintech or edutech) in ways that distinguish but do not necessarily isolate them from the larger technology sector.
4. Ultimately, I chose to use the term GeoAI for two reasons. First, because I see it being used in the broader geospatial community and felt including it in the title of the newsletter would catch the attention of the intended audience. Second, because I do believe that there are legal issues (e.g., privacy, liability, intellectual property rights, national security) that are made more complicated – because of the unique characteristics of geospatial information (i.e., its versatility, power, and the numerous ways it can be collected).
I would be interested in your thoughts.
Recommended Reading
Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI: Fostering a Trusted Ecosystem
Singapore released a model governance framework that is intended to “set forth a systematic and balanced approach to address generative AI concerns while continuing to facilitate innovation.”
US state AI governance bills: Reflecting on the 2024 cycle with a new resource (IAPP)
I encourage everyone in the geospatial community working with or on AI to read this article on the current status of AI legislation at the state level within the U.S.
South Korea’s data protection authority issues guidance on when synthetic data can be used without the legal restrictions required for personal information.
Italy’s data protection authority announces intent to protect personal data from webscraping
From the article (translated from Italian) “[t]he Italian Data Protection Authority has published the indications to defend personal data published online by public and private entities as data controllers from Web scraping, [in order to stop] the indiscriminate collection of personal data on the internet, carried out by third parties with the aim of training generative artificial intelligence models.”
Senate Democrat pushes for expansion to copyright act to include generative AI research (FedScoop)
Senator Mark Warner proposes adding generative artificial intelligence research focused specifically on embedded biases in AI systems and models as an exemption under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The Deep Dive
I recently participated in another engaging discussion on LinkedIn about the geospatial community’s focus on ethics, especially concerning privacy. This conversation began with a post about an upcoming talk on GeoAI, which includes a segment on ethics and privacy. I argued that if the geospatial community continues to treat location privacy primarily (or exclusively) as an ethical issue, it might be caught off guard by new laws or regulations that significantly affect its ability to collect, use, or share geospatial information. Some of you might recall a similar situation with export controls a few years ago.
This is not to diminish the importance of ethics in the geospatial field. However, at this juncture, I recommend we prioritize the legal aspects of location privacy. Laws and regulations are currently being developed at both federal and state levels that affect certain types of geospatial information, often without sufficient input from our community. Given its deep understanding of the benefits and potential risks of location privacy, the geospatial community must engage with lawmakers and regulators. Focusing solely on ethical debates diverts geospatial professionals’ attention from influencing critical legal frameworks.
Privacy laws often require balancing the public good against risks to individuals. Lawmakers and regulators who do not fully grasp the benefits of geospatial information are unlikely to strike the right balance. Furthermore, without a comprehensive understanding of how geospatial data is collected, legislation might become overly broad, unintentionally restricting the collection or use of essential geospatial information. This could lead to confusing or conflicting results of what is being regulated.
This issue is already evident in laws like the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, which broadly defines precise geolocation data as "information derived from technology, including but not limited to global positioning system level latitude and longitude coordinates or other mechanisms, that directly identifies the specific location of a natural person with precision and accuracy within a radius of 1,750 feet.” Similarly, earlier this year the Department of Justice published a proposed rule to protect sensitive information from being sold to foreign adversaries that would regulate geolocation “and related sensor data”. On the other hand, President Biden recently signed legislation passed by Congress to address similar concerns that defines “precise geolocation information” as information that “(A) is derived from a device or technology of an individual; and (B) reveals the past or present physical location of an individual or device that identifies or is linked or reasonably linkable to 1 or more individuals, with sufficient precision to identify street level location information of an individual or device or the location of an individual or device within a range of 1,850 feet or less.’
My concern is that over time U.S. privacy laws, developed without adequate input from the geospatial community, might make the collection, use, and sharing of geospatial information as complex and costly as managing medical information under HIPAA. While some geospatial data might require such stringent protection, not all geospatial information is equally sensitive. Without our input, lawmakers may be unable to craft legislation that distinguishes between the different types.
You might wonder how this discussion on ethics versus law relates to GeoAI. Privacy is a primary concern for lawmakers and regulators when it comes to AI. Many resources in our Recommended Reading section highlight privacy or data protection authorities because the privacy community is actively engaging with lawmakers and influencing regulations. Consequently, it is crucial for the geospatial community to engage in these discussions. Poorly crafted laws and regulations could severely impact GeoAI development and deployment.