Podcast appearances and mentions of matthew feeney

The approaches taken by governments to online safety vary widely. Matthew Feeney and Jennifer Huddleston discuss how various states and countries are handling the issue and assess the risks to privacy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As with so much modern political theatre, the debate on artificial intelligence has become polarised to a point that is often profoundly unhelpful, with a false dichotomy between 'doomers' and utopians who see AI as a solution to the world's many problems, both technical and social.Between those positions is a world of nuance and wildly varying predictions on what this expanding new technology could mean. All the while commentators and politicians talk about 'AI policy' as if it were a single thing, rather than a whole suite of overlapping issues: they range from the banal – discriminatory algorithms and deepfake of politicians, say – to the unnerving prospect of AI reaching a human-like level of intelligence. As one of our guests in this week's episode puts it, at this stage talking about 'AI policy' is about as useful as talking about 'electricity policy'.To hammer out some of those questions we brought together Connor Axiotes, the Lead on Risk Policy at the Adam Smith Institute, and our own Head of Tech from the Centre for Policy Studies, Matthew Feeney. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Breathless predictions of AI-induced doom are all around, with some experts in the field saying the technology has already advanced beyond the point of no return. The recent open letter signed by the likes of Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak and Andrew Yang was just the latest example of the unease that programmes such as Chat GPT-4 have provoked. So how well-founded are the fears that a super-intelligent AI might render humanity obsolete? And what of the more prosaic and immediate concern that chatbots will turf millions of people out of work, spread disinformation and generally make our already topsy-turvy world even more unstable? To find out, we invited out colleague Matthew Feeney, Head of Tech at the Centre for Policy Studies, for an illuminating discussion on the history of artificial intelligence, where the tech is now and where it could take us in the future. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It seems like everyone is mad at “Big Tech.” Progressives dislike it because they think it's too permissive of the spread of mis- and disinformation. Conservatives dislike it because they think it's biased against them. Both sides agree that government should do something about it. Which, if you care about a free, open, and innovative internet, is a terrible idea.To discuss the state and future of digital expression, I'm joined by my good friend Matthew Feeney, Head of Technology and Innovation at the London-based Centre for Policy Studies.ReImagining Liberty is a project of The UnPopulist, and is produced by Landry Ayres. Podcast art by Sergio R. M. Duarte. Music by Kevin MacLeod. Get full access to Aaron Ross Powell at www.aaronrosspowell.com/subscribe Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What kind of country is Britain today?That might be a rather broad question, but thanks to the recently published census, we can have a stab at answering it – at least for England and Wales. For this week's topical podcast we kick off with deep dive into those findings, what they say about Britain's demography and, in particular, the rapidly declining status of Christianity.And if it's British institutions you're worried about, you might be interested in hearing about this week's hoo-ha at the Wellcome Trust, where the museum's own board appear uncomfortable with the very concept of a museum.We'll also trawl through the iniquities of the Online Safety Bill with our colleague Matthew Feeney, the Head of Tech and Innovation at the Centre for Policy Studies. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A beautiful conversation with Leica user Dan Baker about his journey into photography [ instagram : https://www.instagram.com/danbaker88/ : Vero : Danbaker88 Web: www.danbaker.me ] where we talk about Life, Love, and Leica's (C) [SMH Photo Design]. The Pod: 0:01 : Intro ; 05:45 : When I started making photos ; 09:15 : Color was a struggle ; 14:15 : Looking for other things ; 16:45 : When I discovered street photography ; 21:00 : The evolution of my photography ; 24:30 : Still life ; 27:45 : Film ; 45:45 : Staying educated ; 50:15 : Luck or Skill ; 54:00 : Joel Meyerowitz ; 56:45 : Finding my scene | Ice cream on the floor ; 1:07:XX : When I'm in the zone ; 1:10:XX : Time to shift ; 1:12:XX : Socials ; 1:19:XX : My comfort zone ; 1:25:XX : Chaos ; 1:28:XX : Something all photographers should know ; 1:34:XX : Covid ; 1:37:XX : Summer of distance : Covid Project ; 1:40:XX : Adapting ; 1:43:XX : Staying motivated ; 1:47:XX : My advice to you ; 1:50:XX : Advice to myself ; 1:51:XX : My recommendations ; 1:57:XX : The Final Question. Dan's recommendations : C. Martin Zanca jo [ instagram : https://www.instagram.com/trueliespictures/ ] : Matthew Feeney [ instagram : https://www.instagram.com/matt__feeney/ ] --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/ricardo-huerta2/support

For its numerous failings, facial recognition technology is proving to have surprisingly invasive capabilities. Matthew Feeney details the latest. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Why are we talking about “Big Tech” now in a way we we weren't 5 years ago? Cato's own Matthew Feeney and Will Duffield join Trevor to discuss how the 2016 election changed the political landscape, the value of moderation, and how digital infrastructure influences a platform's power. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

How have conservatives changed their tune about large tech companies, so-called Big Tech? Matthew Feeney and Ryan Bourne comment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Inspired by Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” and in the vein of his financial crisis origin story, “The Big Short”, Adam McKay's 2021 Netflix film, “Don't Look Up” posits a world where the sky is falling, politicians are too self absorbed to do anything, and the media is hellbent on distraction by any means necessary. Trevor Burrus, Matthew Feeney, and Natalie Dowzicky join us to parse the fact from fiction, and explain how successful it is in getting its strident hope across. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Drones are among the most exciting and promising new technologies to emerge in the last few decades. Photographers, firefighters, filmmakers, engineers, and retailers have all used drones to improve public safety, innovate, and enhance creativity. Yet drones pose unique regulatory and privacy issues, and lawmakers at the federal and state levels are adopting policies that both ensure the safety of our national airspace and restrict the use of warrantless aerial surveillance. At a time when low-flying drones are affordable and ubiquitous, how useful are the airspace regulations and privacy laws designed for traditional airplanes and helicopters? Is there a way to build a regulatory and legal environment that ensures entrepreneurs and hobbyists can safely use drones while also protecting us from intrusive aerial surveillance?

Drones are among the most exciting and promising new technologies to emerge in the last few decades. Photographers, firefighters, filmmakers, engineers, and retailers have all used drones to improve public safety, innovate, and enhance creativity. Yet drones pose unique regulatory and privacy issues, and lawmakers at the federal and state levels are adopting policies that both ensure the safety of our national airspace and restrict the use of warrantless aerial surveillance. At a time when low-flying drones are affordable and ubiquitous, how useful are the airspace regulations and privacy laws designed for traditional airplanes and helicopters? Is there a way to build a regulatory and legal environment that ensures entrepreneurs and hobbyists can safely use drones while also protecting us from intrusive aerial surveillance?

Drones are among the most exciting and promising new technologies to emerge in the last few decades. Photographers, firefighters, filmmakers, engineers, and retailers have all used drones to improve public safety, innovate, and enhance creativity. Yet drones pose unique regulatory and privacy issues, and lawmakers at the federal and state levels are adopting policies that both ensure the safety of our national airspace and restrict the use of warrantless aerial surveillance. At a time when low-flying drones are affordable and ubiquitous, how useful are the airspace regulations and privacy laws designed for traditional airplanes and helicopters? Is there a way to build a regulatory and legal environment that ensures entrepreneurs and hobbyists can safely use drones while also protecting us from intrusive aerial surveillance?

Matthew Feeney and Caleb Watney discuss Denis Villeneuve's 2021 film adaption of Frank Herbert's Dune.Frank Herbert's 1965 Dune is a futuristic geopolitical allegory that was anti-corporate and pro-eco-radicalism. Villeneuve's film adaptation of the book stays pretty true to the original story, it's set in the very distant future, in which humanity has evolved in many scientific respects and mutated in a lot of spiritual ones. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

WGN Radio’s Karen Conti was joined by Matthew Feeney, Director of Project on Emerging Technologies, Cato Institute, to talk about the Facebook whistleblower and what it could mean for government regulation of social media.

1.Introduction: Caleb O. Brown 2. Jennifer Schulp and SEC Commissioner Elad Roisman on the future of equities markets 3. Nolan Gray, a housing researcher on the hurdles to reforming housing 4. Abigail Hall, an economist, on military affiliation in the attack on the Capitol 5. Will Ruger, President Trump's nominee for ambassador to Afghanistan on the rocky but necessary exit from Afghanistan 6. Matthew Feeney on the promising and troubling potential uses of drone technology See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In the new book, Eyes to the Sky: Privacy and Commerce in the Age of the Drone, essayists detail both the promising and troubling potential uses of drone technology. Matthew Feeney is the book's editor. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Matthew Feeney of the Cato Institute discusses how the call for regulation of big tech companies may inadvertently make them more powerful while stifling innovation in the process.

Persistent aerial surveillance may make the jobs of cops easier, but it's no solution if it endangers your rights. Matthew Feeney discusses the case of Balitmore's aerial surveillance program. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Conservatives like to bemoan their treatment at the hands of companies like Facebook and YouTube, but fostering decentralized alternatives is somehow nowhere in their stump speeches. Matthew Feeney comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

"Deepfakes" are one of the latest technologies to prompt debate about online media. Using Deepfake techniques, users can make realistic-looking fake media in which people say and/or or do things they never, in fact, said or did. Although artists, documentarians, filmmakers, and many others have used Deepfakes to produce creative, and potentially life-saving, content, Deepfakes can also be used for harm, including assaults on people’s dignity and political stability. The technology, like many other innovations before it, presents risks and opportunities.Lawmakers and academics have proposed laws to mitigate such harms. How should lawmakers approach the abusive use of Deepfakes? Can lawmakers craft legislation that limits the worst uses of Deepfakes without hampering the creation of valuable and creative Deepfake media? In this live podcast, leading experts discuss these and other questions related to this emerging technology, using Matthew Feeney's new paper on the topic, "Deepfake Laws Risk Creating More Problems Than They Solve," as a jumping-off point.The paper is available here: https://regproject.org/paper/deepfake-laws-risk-creating-more-problems-than-they-solve/.Featuring:- Joshua Abbott, Executive Director, Center for Law, Science and Innovation, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law- Bobby Chesney, James A. Baker III Chair in the Rule of Law and World Affairs and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, University of Texas at Austin School of Law- Matthew Feeney, Director, Project on Emerging Technologies, Cato Institute- [Moderator] Kathryn Ciano Mauler, Product Counsel, GoogleVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

How free should law enforcement feel to make use of new investigative technology without permission from political authorities? Matthew Feeney and Patrick Eddington discuss facial recognition tech in the wake of last month's Capitol attack. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

How will regulating stock trades change following last week's big short squeeze executed by retail traders? Jennifer Schulp and Matthew Feeney comment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Twitter banned President Trump after he used the platform to help spin up a crowd just before last week's deadly Capitol attack. That should seem like an easy call. But what about similar bans on some Trump supporters? The removal of accounts on various platforms appeared to be fairly widespread. Will Duffield and Matthew Feeney comment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Twitter banned President Trump after he used the platform to help spin up a crowd just before last week's deadly Capitol attack. That should seem like an easy call. But what about similar bans on some Trump supporters? The removal of accounts on various platforms appeared to be fairly widespread. Will Duffield and Matthew Feeney comment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Matthew Feeney from the CATO Institute is here to help explain the FCC’s review on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and what that means for social media. Source: CATO Institute article by Michael Feeney ‘Accusations of Social Media “Election Interference” Put Online Speech at Risk’ FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s Statement FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr’s Statement Law Street article by Christina Tabacco ‘FCC Chairman Expresses Desire to Reform Section 230’ Legal Talk Today Episode ‘Trump vs. Twitter (again)’ New York Times article by Kevin Roose ‘Facebook and Twitter Dodgea 2016 Repeat, and Ignite a 2020 Firestorm’ Reply Comments of Co-Authors of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 by U.S. Representative Chris Cox and U.S. Senator Ron Wyden Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Twitter’s Civic Integrity Policy Twitter’s Private Information Policy

Matthew Feeney from the CATO Institute is here to help explain the FCC’s review on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and what that means for social media. Source: CATO Institute article by Michael Feeney ‘Accusations of Social Media “Election Interference” Put Online Speech at Risk’ FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s Statement FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr’s Statement Law Street article by Christina Tabacco ‘FCC Chairman Expresses Desire to Reform Section 230’ Legal Talk Today Episode ‘Trump vs. Twitter (again)’ New York Times article by Kevin Roose ‘Facebook and Twitter Dodgea 2016 Repeat, and Ignite a 2020 Firestorm’ Reply Comments of Co-Authors of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 by U.S. Representative Chris Cox and U.S. Senator Ron Wyden Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Twitter’s Civic Integrity Policy Twitter’s Private Information Policy

Lunatics Radio Hour teamed up with Jollyville Radio to bring you a Halloween Radio Drama. *Tune in to Jollyville for the clean version!*Written and Directed by Abby Brenker & Michael Crosa.Starring Sara Luke as Terry Mitcham, Jarrett Kerr as Henry Chadwick Jones & Patrick Troy-Brandt as Bruce Kitchens.Supporting Cast; Brian Green, Dan Roberts, Miranda Warzel.Advertiser Voices; UncleASAR ALKEBULAN, Emily Ancinec, Lizzie Brister, Michael Crosa, Michelle Darcy, Richard Dayries & Robert Leary.Sound Design by Alan Kudan.Music and Additional Editing by Michael Crosa.Photo by Matthew Feeney.-- Check out Abby's book Horror Stories here. Available in eBook and paperback.Music by Michaela Papa & Jordan Moser. Poster Art by @akay_illustrates.Lunatics Magazine is available here. Subscribe to our newsletter! Follow us on Instagram @thelunaticsproject and on YouTube - Films About Lunatics.Consider helping Black Trans folks by donating to the Marsha P Johnson Institute.Subscribe to Anti-Racism Daily - a daily email newsletter from Nicole Cardoza.Also, consider donating to The Loveland Foundation, a fund that provides therapy for Black women. Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/filmsaboutlunatics)

A looming Department of Homeland Security rule would require collection of biometric information on not just immigrants, but related Americans. Patrick Eddington and Matthew Feeney say the rule has massive civil liberties implications. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

There are some things that even a pandemic cannot stop. One of those things is political pressure to "do something" about Big Tech. Paul checks in with Matthew Feeney and Will Duffield to get an update on the state of the techlash. Furthermore, this year many of the major social media platforms have ramped up their fact-checking operations in an attempt to combat disinformation about the pandemic and partisan politics, but it is possible that they have opened a Pandora's Box of unintended consequences by doing so. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Contact tracing was among the many solutions presented to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Many problems with the plans rolled out by states emerged almost immediately. Julian Sanchez and Matthew Feeney discuss their chapter in the new Pandemics and Policy report. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Matthew Feeney, director of Cato Institute's Project on Emerging Technologies, talks to us about section 230 of the communications decency act and many common misunderstandings about it from all sides of the political spectrum. 

Emma Ashford and Trevor Thrall chat with Peter Singer of New America about his new novel Burn In, and why fiction can be useful for our understanding of national security policy. Peter Singer bio, https://www.newamerica.org/our-people/peter-warren-singer/ Burn In: A Novel of the Real Robotic Revolution, https://www.burninbook.com/Surveillance Takes Wing: Privacy in the Age of Police Drones, Matthew Feeney, https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/surveillance-takes-wing-privacy-age-police-dronesHow Drones are Changing Warfare, Cato Unbound, https://www.cato-unbound.org/issues/january-2012/how-drones-are-changing-warfare See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Will contact tracing for COVID-19 inevitably become a new police power to be used to track or generate criminal suspects? Patrick Eddington and Matthew Feeney comment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The President and several U.S. Senators seem not to understand how key provisions of federal law protect social media platforms and other websites from their unwanted advances. Matthew Feeney comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Join Jimmy Sengenberger with UCLA law professor Eugene Volok and Cato Institute's Matthew Feeney! On a Free to Choose Friday, Jimmy (@SengCenter) focuses on the dangers of regulating “Big Tech.” UCLA School of Law professor Eugene Volokh, purveyor of the Volokh Conspiracy blog at Reason (@VolokhC), offers a legal analysis of President Trump's social media executive order Thursday, the idea of regulating big tech generally, and why both are troubling and problematic from a legal standpoint. Then, Matthew Feeney (@M_Feeney), director of the Cato Institute Project on Emerging Technologies, joins Jimmy to explore the pitfalls of regulating Big Tech, the fallacies of the argument for it, and why President Trump is erring in his social media executive order.

Matthew Feeney and John Samples join the show today to talk about how private companies are moderated their vast social networks. Recently, Facebook announced its' new Oversight Board and Cato Institute's very own, John Samples, is one of the members. The Board will effectively take final and binding decisions on whether specific content should be allowed or removed from Facebook and Instagram.Are big tech companies censoring conservative viewpoints? How should we talk about conservative bias? Can governments censor private companies? Does Facebook have to be transparent about what content they moderate? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Is there a role for government surveillance during a pandemic? And if so, does the genie go back in the bottle when the threat has passed? Matthew Feeney comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, Matthew Feeney hosts a discussion with Ashkhen Kazaryan and Caleb Watney on the approach regulators might take to the brave new world of facial recognition technology. Featuring:- Ashkhen Kazryan, Director of Civil Liberties, TechFreedom- Caleb Watney, Fellow, Technology and Innovation, R Street Institute- [Moderator] Matthew Feeney, Director, Project on Emerging Technologies, Cato InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.Additional Resources:- Brookings Institution: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2019/06/20/what-are-the-proper-limits-on-police-use-of-facial-recognition/- Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/blog/should-police-facial-recognition-be-banned- Tech Policy Corner: https://techpolicycorner.org/creeped-out-congress-grills-fbi-on-facial-recognition-tech-37a1123f48f8

In this episode, Matthew Feeney hosts a discussion with Ashkhen Kazaryan and Caleb Watney on the approach regulators might take to the brave new world of facial recognition technology. Featuring:- Ashkhen Kazryan, Director of Civil Liberties, TechFreedom- Caleb Watney, Fellow, Technology and Innovation, R Street Institute- [Moderator] Matthew Feeney, Director, Project on Emerging Technologies, Cato InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.Additional Resources:- Brookings Institution: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2019/06/20/what-are-the-proper-limits-on-police-use-of-facial-recognition/- Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/blog/should-police-facial-recognition-be-banned- Tech Policy Corner: https://techpolicycorner.org/creeped-out-congress-grills-fbi-on-facial-recognition-tech-37a1123f48f8

A tech company promises to link up photos of unknown people with their presence on the web for private clients and police. What does that mean for privacy, and for how police do their jobs? Matthew Feeney comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Elizabeth Warren would seek to make certain online election‐​related speech subject to criminal and civil penalties. What speech could bring those penalties? Matthew Feeney explains. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A new app called Clearview AI poses some scary privacy risks. It has a database of over 3 billion images from which it can draw when scanning someone's face to identify them. It can be used to identify just about anyone. It's not publicly available yet, but some law enforcement agencies have access. Matthew Feeney is the director of the emerging technologies wing of the CATO Institute. He's worried about what this kind of tech can do to privacy and freedom. He joins Brent for a discussion on the topic.

A new app called Clearview AI poses some scary privacy risks. It has a database of over 3 billion images from which it can draw when scanning someone's face to identify them. It can be used to identify just about anyone. It's not publicly available yet, but some law enforcement agencies have access. Matthew Feeney is the director of the emerging technologies wing of the CATO Institute. He's worried about what this kind of tech can do to privacy and freedom. He joins Brent for a discussion on the topic.

A new app called Clearview AI poses some scary privacy risks. It has a database of over 3 billion images from which it can draw when scanning someone's face to identify them. It can be used to identify just about anyone. It's not publicly available yet, but some law enforcement agencies have access. Matthew Feeney is the director of the emerging technologies wing of the CATO Institute. He's worried about what this kind of tech can do to privacy and freedom. He joins Brent for a discussion on the topic.

In the third episode in the Universal Basic Income (UBI) series, we explore the libertarian arguments for UBI. These range from deeming private charity a market failure, a preference for UBI over the welfare state, and UBI as a necessary bulwark against coercion.Please 'Subscribe' and leave a 5-star review. Thank you!***References:‘Basic Income: A Guide for the Open-Minded’, Guy Standing, 2017, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.‘In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State’, Charles Murray, 2006, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington DC.‘Capitalism and Freedom’, Milton Friedman (with the assistance of Rose D. Friedman), 1962, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Making Sense with Sam Harris Podcast, ‘Episode #73 – Forbidden Knowledge’.Intelligence Squared Debate: ‘The Universal Basic Income Is the Safety Net of the Future.’‘Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money’, Matthew Feeney, Reason.‘The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income, Matt Zwolinski, Libertarianism.org.‘A Hayekian Case for Free Markets and a Basic Income’ (May 30, 2019), Matt Zwolinski, The Future of Work, Technology, and Basic Income, edited by Michael Cholbi and Michael Weber (Routledge, 2019).LibertyPen, ‘Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax’.‘The Economic Case for a Universal Basic Income’, Ed Dolan, Medium.Students for Liberty, ‘Debate: Should libertarians support a Universal Basic Income?’***Music: Julian AngelatosArtwork: Nerpa Mate

Is a ban on hate speech a solution to any actual problem? Matthew Feeney comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Matthew Feeney and Peter Van Doren interview Hal Varian about his professional experience starting with his economics column at the New York Times. They also cover other topics like the Google search engine, autonomous vehicles, and working in the age of automation. Varian even suggests that problem with autonomous vehicles is not the vehicle, but the humans that interfere with them.Is there a market for search engines? How do people use search engines? Is Google a monopoly? Which country has the shortest workweek in the developed world? Is our labor market tightening?Further Reading:Sometimes the Stock Does Better Than the Investor That Buys the Stock, written by Hal R. VarianGooglenomics: A long-read Q&A with chief economist Hal Varian, written by James PethokoukisGoogle chief economist Hal Varian says a robot isn’t after your job, written by Olivera PerkinsHal Varian on Taking the Academic Approach to Business (Ep. 69), Conversations with TylerRelated Content:Will Artificial Intelligence Take Your Job?, Building Tomorrow PodcastDoes More Technology Create Unemployment?, written by A.D. Sharplin and R. H. MabryThe Ethics of Artificial Intelligence is Best Left to Researchers, written by Ryan Khurana See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this inaugural Tech Roundup podcast, experts discuss various questions raised by "deep fake" technology, in which machine learning algorithms are used to create synthetic videos and photos. What are the potential societal and political implications of their emergence? What challenges might they present to regulators?Join Professor Robert Chesney (co-author of "Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security"), Matthew Feeney, and Will Rinehart as they explore the implications of this emerging technology.Featuring:- Robert M. Chesney, James A. Baker III Chair in the Rule of Law and World Affairs and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law- Matthew Feeney, Director, Project on Emerging Technologies, Cato Institute- [Moderator] Will Rinehart, Director of Technology and Innovation Policy, American Action ForumVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In this inaugural Tech Roundup podcast, experts discuss various questions raised by "deep fake" technology, in which machine learning algorithms are used to create synthetic videos and photos. What are the potential societal and political implications of their emergence? What challenges might they present to regulators?Join Professor Robert Chesney (co-author of "Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security"), Matthew Feeney, and Will Rinehart as they explore the implications of this emerging technology.Featuring:- Robert M. Chesney, James A. Baker III Chair in the Rule of Law and World Affairs and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law- Matthew Feeney, Director, Project on Emerging Technologies, Cato Institute- [Moderator] Will Rinehart, Director of Technology and Innovation Policy, American Action ForumVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The National Conservatism Movement is trying to continue Trumpism long after Trump is out of the White House. Recently, they held a conference in D.C. in order to streamline their message. The keynote speakers were Tucker Carlson, John Bolton, Josh Hawley, Peter Thiel, and Yoram Hazony, whose speech announced that “today is our independence day”. In this episode, Aaron Ross Powell, Paul Matzko, Jason Kuznicki, & Matthew Feeney analyze Josh Hawley’s America’s Epicurean Liberalism by defining what it means to be an American. What is the religious angle to national conservatism? What civic virtues does Joshua Hawley value? What does it mean to be American? Should society have a purpose?Further Reading:America’s Epicurean Liberalism, written by Joshua D. HawleyPlanned Parenthood v. CaseyThe Man Behind National Conservatism, written by Daniel LubanRelated Content:Social Media’s Moral Panic (with Milton Mueller), Free Thoughts PodcastWhat Senator Hawley Gets Wrong about American Identity, written by Aaron Ross Powell See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The FBI, Facebook, and the Federal Trade Commission need to have a talk about what it means to "secure user data.” The FBI wants to engage in more surveillance and the FTC wants Facebook to do a better job protecting user data from outsiders. Matthew Feeney comments on a new fight over surveillance and Facebook user privacy. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) says social media is addictive and Big Tech hasn’t done much for the public interest lately. What should that mean for government regulation of big tech? Ryan Bourne and Matthew Feeney comment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What are the users of Google, Facebook, and Twitter due, exactly? If anti-conservative bias exists on big speech platforms, is federal law or the Constitution on the side of the conservatives? Matthew Feeney comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Building Tomorrow isn’t in the business of encouraging government bloat, but in this episode we consider whether, sometimes, eliminating a government agency might be a penny wise, pound foolish decision. In particular, Paul and Will are joined by Zach Graves and Daniel Schuman as they discuss proposals to resurrect the Office for Technology Assessment, which had advised Congress on tech policy until getting the axe in the mid-1990s. Just as the Congressional Budget Office provides ostensibly non-partisan estimates of the cost of proposed legislation, the OTA would provide non-partisan reports weighing the costs and benefits of tech related legislation.Do we lobby more than we use to? Why do employees leave their work at Capitol Hill? What is the purpose of executive orders? Which Congressional agencies focus on technology policy? What is the economic cost of not having privacy legislation now? How much power does the Congressional Budget Office have?Further Reading:How Congress Got Dumb on Tech—and How It Can Get Smart, written by Grace GedyeInside GAO’s Plan to Make Congress More Tech-Savvy, written by Jack CorriganMomentum builds for Congress restoring Office of Technology Assessment, written by Jory HeckmanHouse members call for Office of Technology Assessment revival, written by Katherine Tully-McManusRelated Content:Decentralization and Privacy Are Inevitable — in Tech and in Government, written by Aaron Ross PowellEmerging Tech (with Matthew Feeney), Free Thoughts PodcastOn Innovation: Don’t Ask for Permission, Building Tomorrow Podcast See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

At a live recording of the Cato Daily Podcast in San Francisco, Cato's Diego Zuluaga and Matthew Feeney explored the costs and benefits of a relatively unregulated cryptocurrency marketplace. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What risks do incarcerated writers face when their words travel beyond prison walls? And how do audiences of their work read, honor, and bear witness without assuming voyeuristic or exploitative perspectives? The PEN America Prison Writing Program commissioned currently incarcerated writers to reflect on these and other tensions between the realm of public readership and the often hidden creative life in prison. Dynamic authors, poets, activists, and actors Mahogany L. Browne, Aja Monet, Jon Sands, Christopher Soto, Kirya Traber and Jecoina Vinson bring the writers’ messages to life on the stage. Featuring original work by: Brian Batchelor, Peter Dunne, Greg Goodman, Lacino Hamilton, Elizabeth Hawes, Matthew Feeney, Benjamin Frandsen, Arthur Longworth, Justin Rovillos Monson, Santonio Murff and Joe Vanderford See more about the event at: https://pen.org/works-of-justice-on-writing-in-prison/

Until recently, private social media companies have been free to moderate content on their own platforms. But accusations of political bias have caused some to call for government regulation of the efforts social media companies make to moderate content. Some have even suggested that social media entities ought to be nationalized to ensure they operate in the public interest. Is there a role here for government to play, or would government intervention create unintended consequences while simultaneously stifling free speech? These are just some of the questions addressed in John Samples’s recently published policy analysis, “Why the Government Should Not Regulate Content Moderation by Social Media.” Join us on Monday, April 15, to hear from author John Samples and the director of Cato’s project on emerging technologies, Matthew Feeney.

Until recently, private social media companies have been free to moderate content on their own platforms. But accusations of political bias have caused some to call for government regulation of the efforts social media companies make to moderate content. Some have even suggested that social media entities ought to be nationalized to ensure they operate in the public interest. Is there a role here for government to play, or would government intervention create unintended consequences while simultaneously stifling free speech? These are just some of the questions addressed in John Samples’s recently published policy analysis, “Why the Government Should Not Regulate Content Moderation by Social Media.”Join us on Monday, April 15, to hear from author John Samples and the director of Cato’s project on emerging technologies, Matthew Feeney. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Cryptocurrency advocates often praise its decentralized nature, which promises to strip out intermediaries that both slow and function as a tax on private exchanges of goods and services. But even the most decentralized cryptocurrency still needs go-betweens in order to function for a mass consumer audience. Simply put, most consumers are willing to give a little on transparency and privacy in order to get more convenience and ease of access.Even so, cryptocurrency should provide significant improvements in multiple venues, including international payments. Also, as Matthew Feeney notes, crypto-fueled alternatives to popular payment processing platforms could be a needed response to the rise of de-platforming and corporate censorship by tech giants like Apple and Google. However, to succeed, cryptocurrencies need to effectively respond to a wave of “double spend” attacks that exploit the dive in crypto prices over the past year for fraudulent ends.What is a decentralized currency? How do consensus and virtuous behavior relate to cryptocurrency? What is the problem with intermediaries? Does crypto-technology have potential applications for anti-corruption schemes and programs? What is a double-spend attack? Does Alex Tabbarok possess mystical, prophetic gifts?Further Reading:Should Cryptocurrencies Be Regulated like Securities?, written by Diego ZuluagaThe Future of Financial Services: Disintermediation, Decentralization: A Familiar Tune for Credit Unions?, speech delivered by Diego Zuluaga to Michigan Credit Union Economic SummitRippleJordan Peterson is leaving Patreon, Should You?, written by Nicole RussellRelated Content:The Future of Money, Free Thoughts PodcastWhat’s in Your (Crypto) Wallet?, Building Tomorrow PodcastIs Bitcoin the Future of Money?, Free Thoughts Podcast See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Federal tactics aimed at enforcing immigration law should be very concerning to law-abiding American citizens. Matthew Feeney discusses the findings of his new paper. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Like economic policy, it can be hard to judge the relative freedom of tech policy. Depending on the tech policy we are referring to, the United States is still a massive hub and innovator. That is not to say that we do not have current regulations that may inhibit innovation of certain emerging tech sectors. Naturally, with new technology, comes fear of the unknown and we have to make sure that we do not succumb to those fears. Listening to fears could result in limiting our ability to develop the tech to the fullest extent.How do we address the federalism question when it comes to tech policy? When it comes to emerging tech, are we forced to imagine threats? Should we be concerned about the level of pervasive private surveillance? What threat do Amazon, Google, and Facebook pose since they centralize our data?Further Reading:Permissionless Innovation, written by Adam ThiererTechnopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, written by Neil PostmanOf Rockets and Robotics: The Regulation of Emerging Aerial Technology, The Cato InstituteRelated Content:Killer Drones or Delivery Drones, Building Tomorrow PodcastIs China beating the U.S. at Innovation?, Building Tomorrow PodcastWelcome to the Sharing Economy, Free Thoughts PodcastIn the Economy of the Future, You Won’t Own Your Kitchen, written by Pamela J. Hobart See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The U.S. could perform better at protecting the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. For a live recording of the Cato Daily Podcast at Cato Club 200 event in Middleburg, Virginia, Matthew Feeney and Julian Sanchez explain how courts think about those rights in the digital age. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

"Quiet Skies" monitors American travelers who are on a secret watchlist. Are you on the list? Matthew Feeney discusses the problems with this unwarranted surveillance. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's record with respect to warrantless government surveillance of Americans is worthy of scrutiny. Matthew Feeney discusses Klayman v. Obama. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Since the Supreme Court found recently that cops generally need a warrant to access certain data that gives away your location, how does surveillance change? Patrick Eddington and Matthew Feeney comment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Using Amazon's “Rekognition," a video and image analysis program, police in at least two cities have the ability to identify and track many people as they go about their business. Matthew Feeney comments on the implications. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is imbued with vast powers, and evidence shows those powers are used without many of the checks that exist in other federal agencies. Alex Nowrasteh and Matthew Feeney comment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Technology to intercept illegal immigrants can also be used to hassle American citizens. Much of the new technology doesn't work as well as advertised. Meanwhile, the logistical problems with building a massive border wall have barely begun. Matthew Feeney and David Bier comment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Listen to an audio version of Matthew Feeney's commentary "When It Comes to Surveillance, Watch the Watchmen." See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The first months of the Trump administration have confirmed that criminal justice will remain a contentious issue for the foreseeable future. Trump's "law and order" rhetoric on the campaign trail has led to significant changes in federal criminal justice policy. At the state and local levels, lawmakers are struggling with the opioid epidemic, overincarceration, and how to work with new federal enforcement goals.In the current environment, how should legislators tackle the most serious and enduring criminal justice issues? What policies should be implemented? What should officials' priorities be? To answer these and other questions, experts from courtrooms, universities, law enforcement agencies, and think tanks will gather at the Cato Institute for its third annual criminal justice conference, Criminal Justice at a Crossroads. We hope that you will join us. Panel 3: Criminal Justice and the BorderDara Lind, senior reporter, Vox.comLaura Donohue, professor of law at Georgetown University Law CenterJay Ahern, principal and security services practice leader at The Chertoff Group and former acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border ProtectionModerated by Matthew Feeney, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

When Customs and Border Patrol search your computer, what rights do you retain? Matthew Feeney comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The 287(g) program allows local cops to become deputy federal law enforcers for immigration and the Trump Administration is working to expand it. The program's effectiveness so far is less than stellar. Matthew Feeney comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What happens when gathering evidence is stymied by software and hardware terms and conditions? Matthew Feeney discusses the case of Evidence.com. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Department of Homeland Security wants border drones that can recognize faces and track individuals over long distances. Matthew Feeney discusses the implications for liberty and privacy. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Patrick G. Eddington joins us this week to tell us about the history of the Central Intelligence Agency, how the CIA operates, and what the new Wikileaks revelations mean for our privacy online.What does the CIA do, and how does it go about that? How close to reality does Hollywood get when portraying the CIA? What’s the difference between the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA? What have these new revelations told us about what the CIA is doing?Correction: Eddington states that the Privacy and Civil Liberites Oversight Board was composed of three Republicans and two Democrats under Obama; it was actually composed of two Republicans and three Democrats. Today, the only remaining board member is a Republican.Show Notes and Further ReadingEddington mentions Glenn Greenwald’s book No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State (2015).He also mentions a new study by our colleague Adam Bates, “Stringray: A New Frontier in Police Surveillance.”Here is the previous Free Thoughts episode we recorded with Eddington on the CIA’s torture program. Listeners may also be interested in this episode with Julian Sanchez, “Deconstructing the Surveillance State,” and this episode with Matthew Feeney and Adam Bates, “How New Technology Is Changing Law Enforcement.” See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The testimony of a camera was not enough to convince a juror in South Carolina that the police officer who shot and killed Walter Scott was guilty of murder. Matthew Feeney comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What’s a pretextual police stop? When do police need your consent to a search, and are these searches unconstitutional? Jonathan Blanks joins us this week to share his findings on how police searches disproportionately affect minorities.Show Notes and Further ReadingJonathan Blanks’s “Thin Blue Lies: How Pretextual Stops Undermine Police Legitimacy” appears in Volume 66, Issue 4 of the Case Western Reserve Law Review.Here’s a previous Free Thoughts episode with Blanks on police misconduct. Listeners may also be interested in this Free Thoughts episode with Adam Bates and Matthew Feeney on how new technologies are changing law enforcement.Blanks mentions this article by George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson in the March 1982 issue of The Atlantic, which originated the “broken windows” theory of policing.Aaron mentions watching the 1971 Don Siegel film Dirty Harry, starring Clint Eastwood. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a foundational utilitarian philosopher, as well as one of the foremost thinkers in the classical liberal tradition.John Samples and Matthew Feeney join us for a discussion on the theory of liberty Mill articulates in his book On Liberty. We focus on how Mill thinks of liberty in relation to others and to the state, how utilitarianism influenced his thinking, and Mill’s defense of freedom of thought and free speech, which was quite radical for his time.This episode is part one of a series that will be continued at a later date.Show Notes and Further ReadingThe Liberty Fund’s Library of Economics and Liberty has the full text of On Liberty available for free.When discussing Mill’s views about tolerating divergent opinion, Aaron mentions this previous Free Thoughts podcast with Andrew Jason Cohen on toleration. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The shooter in Dallas who killed several police officers was ultimately taken out with a robot and explosives. What can be done to assure that use of technology remains a last resort? Matthew Feeney comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Body camera footage and witness recordings help investigators after police-initiated killings. In the case of Alton Sterling, killed by Baton Rouge police this week, will investigators ask the right questions? Matthew Feeney comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What is a Stingray? How does it work? Is it a good idea to make police wear body cameras? Should officers be able to turn these cameras off? What about the privacy of the civilians being recorded? Should law enforcement agencies have access to drone technology? Where do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy?Matthew Feeney and Adam Bates join us this week to discuss new technologies available to law enforcement agencies in America, and the legal implications of these technologies.Where does a right to privacy apply in these new eras of government data collection? How should we balance police effectiveness and respect for Fourth Amendment privacy rights?Show Notes and Further ReadingFeeney recently authored a policy analysis on police body cameras, “Watching the Watchmen: Best Practices for Police Body Cameras.”Feeney also mentions a project our Cato colleague Patrick Eddington is working on: a timeline chronicling the American government’s surveillance activities over the past century. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Technology is rapidly changing the way law enforcement operates, and as we've learned from previous guests, such as Adam Bates on StingRay Surveillance, the change is not always for the better. On the other hand, the recent adoption of body cameras by a growing number of police departments would seem to increase accountability and civility in officer-civilian interactions without much of a downside. Matthew Feeney, policy analyst at the Cato Institute, says the technology – while promising – is not a panacea. The public widely supports the adoption of body cameras, but could there be a risk that new technology is getting ahead of sound policy, and putting our privacy at risk? What appears like a simple criminal justice reform turns out to have multiple complex considerations, including whether or not police can view the footage before submitting a statement. It takes a Cato analyst to explain the nuances of best practices for body cameras. Bob and Matthew discuss how we can get the best of both worlds: keeping police accountable while keeping our privacy too.

Donald Trump needs drones to make his border security plans work. The problem is that it won't work. Matthew Feeney and Alex Nowrasteh comment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

George Lucas doesn’t like the new Star Wars, straight white people get a dating site, Mike says nice things about Mormonism, vagina speakers are now a thing and Cato Institute’s Matthew Feeney comments on policing in America.   Full show notes on our Facebook page.

Police body cameras will not end police abuse, but they have the potential to give critical context to high-stakes police interactions. Matthew Feeney discusses the findings of his new report. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Despite its popularity, not everyone is so enamored with Uber. Recently, it has fallen under scrutiny for its utilization of independent contractors and been accused of violating local regulations for taxi services. Perhaps the most visible challengers to Uber’s ride sharing service are the taxicab companies and unions who are crying fowl in major metropolitan areas. In this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Bob Ambrogi discusses these issues and more with guests Jonathan Handel from University of Southern California and Matthew Feeney from the Cato Institute. Tune in to hear about categories for workers and liability for accidents in the new sharing economy. Special thanks to our sponsor Clio.

The truth about the death of Samuel DuBose at the hands of Ray Tensing in Cincinnati might never have come to light if not for Tensing's own body camera. Matthew Feeney comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

New York Mayor Bill De Blasio has backed away from plans to regulate services like Uber and Lyft. But he may revisit the issue soon enough. Matthew Feeney comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Philosophy is concerned with three basic questions: “What is there?,” “How do I know about it?,” and “What do I do about it?” The three questions correspond to the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.Our Cato colleague Matthew Feeney joins us this week to talk about philosophy, rhetoric, why people disagree about politics, performative morality, the non-aggression axiom, and more.Show Notes and Further ReadingLast week’s Free Thoughts Podcast with Andrew I. Cohen on the intersection of philosophy and public policy.Our Free Thoughts Podcast with Michael Huemer on political authority and ethical intuitionism.Brink Lindsey’s book, Human Capitalism: How Economic Growth Has Made Us Smarter — and More Unequal (2012).Jonathan Haidt’s morality quiz at YourMorals.org. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The real value of so-called "sharing economy" peer-to-peer software applications may be helping those in the developing world develop capital in the face of government mandates. Matthew Feeney comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.