Real-time, remote biometric monitoring has been outlawed by the European Parliament, making it impossible for police departments around the EU to employ live facial recognition technology. Legislators had earlier approved the restriction after confronting early resistance over worries that it would be overly broad.
The restriction might put the parliamentarians in conflict with EU countries which would rather heavily implement the technology for policing.
The decision also includes further restrictions on general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) and so-called fundamental models, such OpenAI’s GPT-4. Regardless of their intended use, the law mandates that businesses like OpenAI Inc. and Google do risk assessments and give descriptions of the copyrighted content used to train their models.
Roberta Metsola, the president of the parliament, stated during a news conference that any upcoming advancements in artificial intelligence would need to be subject to consistent, clearly stated rules and constraints.
“There is one thing that we will not compromise on: Anytime technology advances, it must go hand in hand with our fundamental rights and democratic values,” he added.
On June 14, the AI Act’s whole draft was approved by a resounding majority. 499 delegates voted in favor, 28 voted against, and 93 did not participate in the voting. The vote kicks off what is known as the “trilogue” round of discussions amongst the parliament members, where the finer points of the measure will be finalized.
According to Bloomberg, the EU Commission is aiming for a deal by the end of the year, meaning the new AI Act regulations could affect businesses as soon as 2026.
However, according to Brando Benifei, one of the primary writers of the measure, some regulations may be put into place much earlier.
In the meanwhile, representatives from the EU, notably Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager, are working to develop a voluntary code of conduct with G7 digital corporations that also includes countries like India and Indonesia.
Facial scanning in public places would be authorized for specific law-enforcement scenarios under an earlier agreement reached by EU member states at the end of last year. This issue will continue to be a sticking point for a number of EU member states in the next discussions.
People’s Party members who lean farther to the right petitioned to add exceptions to the rule, such as in cases of looking for missing children and stopping terrorist acts. But in the resounding vote earlier this month, legislators mostly ignored these arguments.
“The result of today gives us even a stronger position. It’s clear that the parliament doesn’t want us to recede on such important topics, on avoiding mass surveillance,” said Benifei.
Concerns
In its report (pdf), the European Parliamentary Research Service describes how AI technology such as facial recognition could be problematic in terms of personal freedom.
“While there are real benefits to using facial recognition systems for public safety and security, their pervasiveness and intrusiveness, as well as their susceptibility to error, give rise to a number of fundamental rights concerns with regard, for instance, to discrimination against certain segments of the population and violations of the right to data protection and privacy,” the report states.
The AI Act was first proposed in 2021 (pdf), and was initially touted as a risk-based approach that would effectively regulate the application of AI rather than the actual technology itself. The proposal would have banned practices like social credit scoring and the implementation of technologies that would likely have negative impacts in terms of bias, discrimination, and citizens’ fundamental rights.
The drive to include general-purpose AI in the act, which would apply to a considerably larger range of circumstances, was instead led by EU member states.
According to reports, members of the European Parliament went a step further by putting restrictions to “foundational models.” This refers to the substantial language models that underlie chatbots like ChatGPT, which have recently been under intense public and official attention.
In a statement, Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton said he expects clear and proportionate rules on generative AI to be focal points of the trilogue process.
“We need effective transparency requirements on AI-generated content and strict rules against ‘deep fakes,’” he said.
The scope of the new EU legislation may have significant effects on a market that is now pegged at close to $1.5 trillion in value. If they don’t comply, businesses might be subject to hefty fines of up to 6% of their annual income.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) is ramping up pressure on the FBI and IRS to release unredacted records related to Jeffrey Epstein, insisting the public deserves full transparency regarding his associates and financial dealings.
In a letter addressed to newly appointed FBI Director Kash Patel and acting IRS Commissioner Douglas O’Donnell, Blackburn, 72, demanded the agencies provide “complete, unredacted records” regarding Epstein, including flight logs, surveillance footage, and financial documents.
“This critical information identifying every individual who could have participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s abhorrent conduct is long overdue,” Blackburn wrote. “The survivors of Mr. Epstein’s horrific crimes want transparency and accountability, and they—and the American people—deserve nothing less.”
Epstein, a disgraced financier with high-profile connections, was arrested in July 2019 on federal child sex trafficking charges. He was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell a month later, with the official ruling being suicide. His death has fueled years of speculation and demands for answers regarding his extensive network of associates.
Demands for Full Disclosure
Blackburn is specifically seeking the unredacted flight logs from Epstein’s private jet and helicopter, along with his convicted associate Ghislaine Maxwell’s records, including the infamous “little black book.” Additionally, she is calling for the release of surveillance footage from Epstein’s Palm Beach residence, which was allegedly a hub for his illicit activities.
While redacted versions of these documents have previously surfaced online or been included in lawsuits, Blackburn argues that the full versions must be made public. “Since Mr. Epstein’s death in 2019, there is still much about this tragic case that is not known—including the names of his associates that are listed in the flight logs of his private jet and in Ghislaine Maxwell’s ‘little black book,’” she wrote.
Beyond the FBI, Blackburn is also pressing the IRS for records detailing Epstein and Maxwell’s financial dealings. She is requesting “any and all” documents revealing individuals and entities that had financial relationships with them.
FBI Director Patel’s Pledge
During his confirmation hearing last month, Patel assured Blackburn that he would “absolutely” work with her to bring more transparency to Epstein’s case files. However, it remains unclear how far he will go in releasing sensitive documents, particularly given past concerns over revealing the names of individuals who met with Epstein but were not implicated in criminal activity.
Blackburn has been a consistent advocate for obtaining these records. She previously urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to subpoena the files and pressed former FBI Director Christopher Wray on the issue. In December 2023, Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that his team would “figure out if there’s more information we can provide” on Epstein, but no follow-up information was ever released.
“Director Wray never provided any such follow-up information,” Blackburn noted in her letter to Patel. “Over a year has elapsed since then, and we still do not have all of the necessary information regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.”
The demand for transparency on Epstein’s network is gaining momentum. Last week, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi revealed that Epstein’s client list is “sitting on my desk” as it undergoes review for potential release.
As the pressure mounts, Patel and O’Donnell now face a crucial decision: whether to follow through on their promises of transparency or continue withholding key documents that could shed light on one of the most notorious criminal cases of the century. The American people, as Blackburn asserts, are watching—and waiting.
Biden Administration’s Nicotine Ban: A Move Toward Regulation or a Boost for Cartels?
In a controversial move during its final days, the Biden administration is advancing a proposal to drastically lower nicotine levels in cigarettes, effectively banning traditional products on the market. While the administration frames the measure as a step toward reducing smoking addiction, critics argue it will backfire, fueling black markets and empowering criminal cartels.
Regulatory Shift with Broad Implications
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed that its proposed rule to establish maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes has completed regulatory review. The measure is part of a broader effort to make cigarettes less addictive, potentially shaping one of the most impactful tobacco policies in U.S. history.
FDA Commissioner Robert Califf previously stated that the initiative aims to “decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit.” However, opponents warn that this policy could create new public safety and economic challenges.
A “Gift” to Organized Crime
Critics of the proposed regulation, including former ATF official Rich Marianos, are sounding the alarm. Marianos described the plan as a “gift with a bow and balloons to organized crime cartels,” arguing that it would open the floodgates for illegal tobacco trafficking.
Mexican cartels, Chinese counterfeiters, and Russian mafias are well-positioned to exploit the demand for high-nicotine cigarettes. These groups, already entrenched in smuggling operations, would likely ramp up efforts to meet consumer demand. This shift would not only enrich organized crime but also compromise public health by introducing unregulated, potentially more harmful products into the market.
Unintended Consequences for Public Health
While the FDA’s goal is to reduce smoking rates, experts suggest the policy may have the opposite effect. Smokers could resort to “compensatory smoking,” consuming more cigarettes to achieve their desired nicotine levels. This behavior increases exposure to harmful chemicals like tar, negating the intended health benefits.
Additionally, the regulation could discourage smokers from transitioning to safer alternatives, such as vaping or nicotine replacement therapies. By removing higher-nicotine products from the legal market, the government risks alienating individuals who might otherwise seek healthier pathways to quitting smoking.
National Security and Economic Concerns
Beyond health implications, the nicotine ban raises significant national security issues. A 2015 State Department report highlighted the role of tobacco trafficking in funding terrorist organizations and criminal networks. Reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes could expand this illicit market, providing criminal groups with a lucrative new revenue stream.
Moreover, law enforcement agencies could face increased pressure as they work to combat tobacco smuggling alongside ongoing efforts to address opioid and fentanyl trafficking. This strain on resources could compromise broader public safety initiatives.
Balancing Public Health and Freedom
The proposed nicotine reduction also ignites debates over personal freedom. While reducing addiction is a laudable goal, critics argue that adults should retain the right to make their own choices regarding tobacco use. For many, the measure feels like government overreach, imposing a paternalistic approach to health regulation.
As the Biden administration pushes forward with its nicotine reduction proposal, the policy’s broader implications remain uncertain. While intended to curb addiction and promote public health, critics warn of significant risks, including empowering organized crime, increasing smoking rates, and straining law enforcement resources.
A more balanced approach—focused on education, harm reduction, and access to cessation resources—may better address smoking-related challenges without creating new societal harms.
McDonald’s has announced plans to scale back certain diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, citing a “shifting legal landscape” following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to end affirmative action in college admissions.
The fast-food corporation intends to retire specific diversity goals for senior leadership positions and discontinue a program that encouraged suppliers to implement diversity training and enhance minority representation within their leadership teams. Additionally, McDonald’s will pause participation in external surveys that assess workplace inclusion, a move similar to recent actions by companies like Lowe’s and Ford Motor Co.
Despite these changes, McDonald’s emphasizes its ongoing commitment to fostering an inclusive environment. The company reports that 30% of its U.S. leaders come from underrepresented groups and that it has achieved gender pay equity across all levels since setting that goal in 2021. McDonald’s also plans to continue supporting efforts to maintain a diverse base of employees, suppliers, and franchisees, and will keep reporting its demographic information.
This development aligns with a broader trend among major corporations reassessing their DEI strategies in response to legal and societal shifts. Companies such as Walmart, John Deere, and Harley-Davidson have similarly rolled back diversity programs following the Supreme Court’s ruling and subsequent conservative backlash.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login