Podcasts about tech policy

In this episode, we reflect on the 19th edition of CPDP (Computers, Privacy and Data Protection), the major Brussels tech policy conference, held last week under this year's theme, "Competing Visions, Shared Futures." We discuss the dominant debates from the gathering, including the contested Digital Omnibus simplification package, digital and tech sovereignty, researcher access to platform data under the Digital Services Act, the rising prominence of child online safetWe feature voices from across the conference, including Tech Policy Press contributing editor Mark Scott, AlgorithmWatch's Oliver Marsh, the Knight-Georgetown Institute's Peter Chapman, the Center for Democracy and Technology's Marie Seck, Project SENTIMENT's Joel Baumann, Mozilla's Svea Windwehr, and conference director Barbara Lazarotto.And, you'll hear two interviews: a conversation with European Data Protection Supervisor Wojciech Wiewiórowski on whether the GDPR needs reform amid the simplification push, and a wide-ranging reflection from CPDP founder Paul De Hert on how the conference and the field of data protection have evolved over nearly two decades, the value of reasoned disagreement, and why Europe should be more self-critical.

Today on AmperWave Daily, the global free speech battle intensifies as Elon Musk clashes with European regulators and French authorities amid ongoing investigations into X (formerly Twitter) and its AI system Grok. Supporters call it censorship pressure. Critics call it accountability. But the stakes are increasingly framed as something much bigger: the future of open speech online.

From Australia's teen social media ban to AI safety, there's so many tech policy matters these days! So to wrap up the summer series — finally! — I decided to chat with Johanna Weaver and Zoe Jay Hawkins from the Tech Policy Design Institute in Canberra.In this episode we talk about how Australia as a middle power can participate in global tech policy. We chat about AI slop, the battle between Anthropic and the Pentagon, the digital duty of care, and of course the social media age restrictions.This episode was recorded on 11 March 2026, so some of the topical references may be slightly dated.Full podcast details and credits:https://the9pmedict.com/edict/00266/Please consider supporting the the current crowdfunder:https://the9pmedict.com/relocateOr if you miss that or prefer to not use GoFundMe:https://the9pmedict.com/tip/https://skank.com.au/subscribe/

A member of the Senate's transportation oversight committee said this week that he hopes to effectively “seal off” the U.S. from vehicles made by Chinese automakers.U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, said during remarks ahead of the New York Auto Show that he would introduce a bill in the coming weeks to strengthen an existing ban on Chinese vehicles, Reuters reported.Rules finalized under the Biden administration early last year sought to prohibit Chinese automakers from selling passenger vehicles in the U.S., citing data privacy and national security concerns, but Moreno indicated that his measure will go further, incorporating not just vehicle imports but “hardware” and “software,” as well as partnerships between Chinese vehicle makers and other companies.Moreno told the Automotive Forum event that he aims for a framework in which “there's never a scenario where a ​Chinese automobile will enter our market.”He also said that he hopes governments in other nations would make similar efforts, from Canada and Mexico to the rest of Latin America and Europe. Chinese cars, however, are already sold in many of those markets.U.S. automakers and other industry groups, meanwhile, recently called on the government to prevent Chinese cars from entering the domestic market altogether ahead of a planned visit to China next month by President Trump. Trump, Reuters noted, had suggested during an event in Detroit earlier this year that he would be open to a Chinese auto plant in the U.S.#China #AutoIndustry #TradePolicy #Tariffs #NationalSecurity #ElectricVehicles #EVs #Manufacturing #GlobalTrade #SupplyChain #Automotive #USPolitics #Geopolitics #TechPolicy #DataSecurity #Cybersecurity #IndustryNews #BusinessNews #USManufacturing #Imports #TradeWar #EconomicPolicy #FutureOfAuto #Regulation #AutoNews

Assemblymember Chris Ward (D–San Diego) held a press conference Tuesday at the State Capitol to announce the introduction of AB 1542, new legislation to strengthen protections for sensitive personal data; continued efforts to advance AB 322, a two-year bill to ban the sale of geolocation data; and renewed momentum for AB 1337, a two-year bill currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee to modernize public-sector privacy protections. The press conference brought together consumer advocates, civil rights organizations, and privacy experts to underscore the urgency of protecting Californians' personal information from misuse, exploitation, and sale without consent. “Californians should not have to worry that their sensitive personal information is being sold to the highest bidder,” said Assemblymember Chris Ward. “From precise location data to deeply personal information, these bills work together to stop the sale of geolocation data, strengthen protections for sensitive information, and ensure government agencies are held to modern privacy standards. California led the nation on privacy once before, and we must continue to lead as technology evolves.” Justin Brookman, Director of Tech Policy at Consumer Reports, warned that data-driven pricing and monetization practices are outpacing existing protections. “People should not have to worry that their sensitive personal information is going to be sold to the highest bidder,” Brookman said. “The California Consumer Privacy Act was groundbreaking, but it needs to be updated to address the realities of the modern data ecosystem. Companies should use personal information like geolocation to deliver the services we ask for—not to secretly monetize it through data brokers.” Advocates emphasized the heightened risks these practices pose to vulnerable communities. “When businesses sell and trade sensitive personal information like precise location or immigration status, they open the door to surveillance, targeting, and exploitation. Those harms fall the hardest on the most vulnerable in our community, including immigrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking," said Lan Le, Policy Advocate at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California (AJSOCAL). “These data privacy bills send a clear message: dignity and safety are rights, not commodities.” Supporters also highlighted the need to modernize how public agencies handle personal data. “In an era of increasing digital surveillance and data collection, it's crucial that our privacy laws evolve,” said Rindala “Rin” Alajaji, Associate Director of State Affairs at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “AB 1337 is a much-needed update to ensure local governments are held accountable for how they handle personal data.” Tracy Rosenberg, Executive Director of Oakland Privacy, underscored how the measures work together. “The bill duo of AB 1337 and AB 322 attacks our current dystopia in two vital ways,” Rosenberg said. “They modernize privacy protections, add transparency and limits around precise location data, and curb invasive practices that expose Californians to government and industry overreach.” John Bennett, Initiative Director at CITED, emphasized the broader democratic stakes. “Privacy and freedom of movement are cornerstones of a healthy democracy,” Bennett said. “It's time to strengthen our data privacy laws and fulfill the promise of California's constitutional right to privacy—so people can move, assemble, and participate in civic life without fear of surveillance.” Ward's legislative package builds on California's landmark privacy framework to protect sensitive personal data, prohibit the sale of geolocation information, and ensure privacy rights keep pace with modern technology.

The race for the first viable driverless taxi fleet is still moving forward at a rapid pace, with players like Tesla and Waymo generating regular headlines highlighting the good and the bad.And though the vision is there, the technology that's being tested now in a handful of American cities is not perfect just yet.Recent reports point to comments made by Waymo's chief safety officer, Mauricio Peña, regarding the degree of independence his company's autonomous vehicles really offer.In an early February Congressional hearing, lawmakers grilled Waymo and Tesla executives on the future of autonomous vehicles.During the meeting, Waymo's Peña was pressed on the firm's use of foreign workers and technology, and the extent to which Waymo was using foreign assistance came as a bit of a surprise: the company is apparently using workers in the Philippines to remotely “fix” stumped autonomous vehicles on their routes.Peña stressed that the humans in question do not remotely operate the vehicles fully, rather they “provide guidance” – a clarification that didn't quell the concerns of some lawmakers, including Massachusetts senator Ed Markey, who said “having people overseas influencing American vehicles is a safety issue.” Additional concerns raised in the hearing were those of cybersecurity and, of course, the offshoring of jobs.Markey added, “It's one thing when a taxi is replaced by an Uber or a Lyft. It's another thing when the jobs just go completely overseas.”#AutonomousVehicles, #DriverlessCars, #Robotaxi, #Waymo, #Tesla, #SelfDriving, #AI, #ArtificialIntelligence, #TechNews, #TransportationTech, #FutureOfTransportation, #Mobility, #AVSafety, #Cybersecurity, #RemoteWork, #Offshoring, #USCongress, #TechPolicy, #Regulation, #StartupNews, #VentureCapital, #SmartCities

Milwaukee police have banned the use of facial recognition technology for now, following a heated Fire and Police Commission meeting. A tech policy shares what the public should know.

Khaby Lame ha ''venduto'' la sua società per 900 milioni di dollari.O almeno, questo è quello che è stato comunicato. In realtà, la vera storia parla di un'operazione finanziaria complessa e di un avatar digitale che potrebbe ridefinire il concetto di influencer. I dettagli della transazione non riguardano solo azioni (carta su carta), ma toccano temi innovativi e controversi come la monetizzazione dell'identità.La svendita della libertà personale per un avatar AI: Khaby potrebbe aver ceduto qualcosa di ben più prezioso di semplici quote societarie. In un mercato dove l'identità diventa un bene scambiabile, la storia di Khaby solleva inquietanti interrogativi sul futuro del nostro io digitale.Questa non è solo una storia di numeri.L'intelligenza artificiale sta davvero liberando gli influencer o ne fa schiavi in modo nuovo? ~~~~~ INGAGGI E SPONSORSHIP ~~~~~ Per contatti commerciali: sales@matteoflora.comPer consulenze legali: info@42LawFirm.it~~~~~ SOSTIENI IL CANALE! ~~~~~Con la Membership PRO puoi supportare il Canale » https://link.mgpf.it/proSe vuoi qui la mia attrezzatura » https://mgpf.it/attrezzatura~~~~~ SEGUIMI ANCHE ONLINE CON LE NOTIFICHE! ~~~~~» CANALE WHATSAPP » https://link.mgpf.it/wa» CANALE TELEGRAM » https://mgpf.it/tg» CORSO (Gratis) IN FUTURO » https://mgpf.it/nl» NEWSLETTER » https://mgpf.it/nl~~~~~ CIAO INTERNET E MATTEO FLORA ~~~~~ Questo è “Ciao Internet!” la prima e più seguita trasmissione di TECH POLICY in lingua italiana, online su YouTube e in Podcast.Io sono MATTEO FLORA e sono:» Professore in Fondamenti di Sicurezza delle AI e delle SuperIntelligenze (ESE)» Professore ac in Corporate Reputation e Crisis Management (Pavia).Sono un Imprenditore Seriale del digitale e ho fondato:» The Fool » https://thefool.it - La società italiana leader di Customer Insight» The Magician » https://themagician.agency - Atelier di Advocacy e Gestione della Crisi» 42 Law Firm » https://42lf.it - Lo Studio Legale per la Trasformazione Digitale » ...e tante altre qui: https://matteoflora.com/#aziendeSono Future Leader (IVLP) del Dipartimento di Stato USA sotto Amministrazione Obama nel programma “Combating Cybercrime (2012)”.Sono Presidente di PermessoNegato, l'associazione italiana che si occupa di Pornografia Non- Consensuale e Revenge Porn.Conduco in TV “Intelligenze Artificiali” su Mediaset/TgCom.

No, non parliamo di Signorini, ma della Consob che ha multato Fabrizio Corona per 200.000 euro dopo il lancio della sua meme coin “”. Un token promosso su Telegram, Instagram e sito dedicato, scambiato in DeFi su Raydium, senza white paper, senza notifica e perfino senza una vera persona giuridica dietro. Quando l'autorità ha chiesto chiarimenti, zero risposte: per Consob è condotta dolosa e stop alla replica.Il punto non è “cripto sì/cripto no”: il punto è la scorciatoia. Usare la fama per vendere un prodotto che molti percepiscono come investimento, mentre le regole (MiCAR) chiedono trasparenza minima e responsabilità. Qui l'asimmetria informativa è totale: chi compra pensa di giocare “da insider”, ma il banco lo gestisce uno solo. E la viralità non è competenza: è solo leva emotiva, FOMO e marketing travestito da opportunità.Ne parlo con Marco Tullio Giordano, avvocato (42 Law Firm), per capire cosa contesta davvero Consob e cosa cambia con MiCAR.~~~~~ INGAGGI E SPONSORSHIP ~~~~~ Per contatti commerciali: sales@matteoflora.comPer consulenze legali: info@42LawFirm.it~~~~~ SOSTIENI IL CANALE! ~~~~~Con la Membership PRO puoi supportare il Canale » https://link.mgpf.it/proSe vuoi qui la mia attrezzatura » https://mgpf.it/attrezzatura~~~~~ SEGUIMI ANCHE ONLINE CON LE NOTIFICHE! ~~~~~» CANALE WHATSAPP » https://link.mgpf.it/wa» CANALE TELEGRAM » https://mgpf.it/tg» CORSO (Gratis) IN FUTURO » https://mgpf.it/nl» NEWSLETTER » https://mgpf.it/nl~~~~~ CIAO INTERNET E MATTEO FLORA ~~~~~ Questo è “Ciao Internet!” la prima e più seguita trasmissione di TECH POLICY in lingua italiana, online su YouTube e in Podcast.Io sono MATTEO FLORA e sono:» Professore in Fondamenti di Sicurezza delle AI e delle SuperIntelligenze (ESE)» Professore ac in Corporate Reputation e Crisis Management (Pavia).Sono un Imprenditore Seriale del digitale e ho fondato:» The Fool » https://thefool.it - La società italiana leader di Customer Insight» The Magician » https://themagician.agency - Atelier di Advocacy e Gestione della Crisi» 42 Law Firm » https://42lf.it - Lo Studio Legale per la Trasformazione Digitale » ...e tante altre qui: https://matteoflora.com/#aziendeSono Future Leader (IVLP) del Dipartimento di Stato USA sotto Amministrazione Obama nel programma “Combating Cybercrime (2012)”.Sono Presidente di PermessoNegato, l'associazione italiana che si occupa di Pornografia Non- Consensuale e Revenge Porn.Conduco in TV “Intelligenze Artificiali” su Mediaset/TgCom.

Scott Babwah Brennan is the director of NYU's Center on Technology Policy. Scott and his team have just released their 2025 State Technology Policy Report—a thorough and thoughtful survey and analysis of the tech legislation coming out of statehouses across the country. Scott joins the show to discuss the report and break down how states are shaping the regulatory landscape on AI, child online safety, data privacy, and more.Links:The Center on Technology Policy: State Technology Policy Report 2025

In today's Tech3 from Moneycontrol, we continue our year-end wrap with a deep dive into how India's technology policy landscape unfolded in 2025. From app bans and data protection concerns to the IndiaAI Mission's GPU push and foundational model plans, we track the policy moves shaping startups and tech. The episode also looks at Bengaluru's civic flashpoints, mobility battles, infrastructure delays, and the governance questions that defined the year.

In 2025, tech policy felt like everything happened everywhere at once. Google lost two antitrust cases but avoided a breakup. Meta won its case entirely. The SEC went from suing crypto companies to dropping every major enforcement action. Net neutrality died—again—this time probably for good. TikTok got banned, then unbanned, then re-banned, then saved by executive order—five times. Chinese hackers compromised 200 companies through our telecom networks. And Congress finally actually passed a law protecting kids online—The Take it Down Act, to be precise.It was a year in many ways defined by tensions and contradictions. Courts stripped power from federal agencies just as the new administration tried to bring those agencies under tighter presidential control. The administration took some actions to be tough on China, while other measures appeared to let our chief adversary off the hook. States rushed to fill the vacuum on AI and privacy while the White House has threatened to preempt them. Platforms loosened content moderation in the US while facing record fines in Europe. And Washington declared it wanted to win the AI race—while local communities debated whether they even wanted data centers in their backyards.So what were the biggest tech and telecom policy stories of 2025? Which developments will have staying power, and which were little more than sound and fury? What should we be watching heading into 2026? And did anyone actually win this year—or did everyone just survive?To unpack all this, Evan is joined by Luke Hogg, Director of Technology Policy at FAI, and Josh Levine, Research Fellow at FAI.

In this episode of Top in Tech, Megan Stagman, Director, and Associates Anna Lisa Schäfer-Gehrau and Sarah Shinton, delve into the sharpening geopolitical rift between the US administration and Europe over the course of 2025, and what this means for the tech sector specifically. They explore the implications of last week's US national security strategy, the EU's recent enforcement cases against American tech companies (and the reaction that this sparked), as well as the growing controversy on issues like digital services taxes. The team also ask the question of what other alliances grow in strategic importance if the Europe-US relationship declines, and what this new world order means for multinational companies trying to navigate competing regulatory regimes. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tech leaders are pushing the idea that automation can strengthen democracy — but as usual, their bold suggestions are based on castles made of sand. Alex and Emily tear down some flimsy arguments for AI governance, exposing their incorrect assumptions about the democratic process.References:"This Is No Way to Rule a Country""Four ways AI is being used to strengthen democracies worldwide"Also referenced:Collective Intelligence Project surveysInterview with CalMatters CEOFresh AI Hell:Amazon introduces AI translation for Kindle authorsNature op ed recommends AI versions of Einstein, Bohr, and FeynmanAn AI Podcasting Machine Is Churning Out 3,000 Episodes a WeekAI dating café to open in New YorkRecipe slop flooding social mediaAI slop about Autism published in NatureUpwork ad for fixing LLM editorial"Hundreds of Chicago residents sign petition to pause robot delivery pilot program over safety concerns"Check out future streams on Twitch. Meanwhile, send us any AI Hell you see.Our book, 'The AI Con,' is out now! Get your copy now.Subscribe to our newsletter via Buttondown. Follow us!Emily Bluesky: emilymbender.bsky.social Mastodon: dair-community.social/@EmilyMBender Alex Bluesky: alexhanna.bsky.social Mastodon: dair-community.social/@alex Twitter: @alexhanna Music by Toby Menon.Artwork by Naomi Pleasure-Park. Production by Ozzy Llinas Goodman.

2025 has been a momentous year for UK tech policy - with highlights including the publication of various Government strategies and publications, ongoing debates on AI regulation, AI copyright and training, Ofcom's regulatory enforcement of the Online Safety Act and the CMA's Special Market Status investigations under the Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers Act, alongside Government proposals for a new Digital ID scheme. In this special feature episode, David Swanson, Senior Associate in the Tech, media and telecoms practice sits down with Lord Clement-Jones, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Science, Innovation, and Technology in the House of Lords - to discuss these developments. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A recent proposal by Lina Khan, co-chair of Zohran Mamdani's mayoral transition team, to cap the price of beer at stadiums in New York City sparked a debate on X last month. At the center of that debate was Matthew Yglesias, editor and author the Slow Boring newsletter, who argued that the modern antitrust movement has become "slipshod" and is ignoring basic economic trade-offs in favor of political wins.In this episode, Yglesias joins Luigi and Bethany to discuss his views on the theoretical and practical limitations of the "Neo-Brandeisian" approach to antitrust. He contends that proposals like price caps for complementary goods like stadium concessions reveals a lack of economic rigor, arguing that such measures often result in higher ticket prices rather than consumer savings . He suggests that the movement increasingly attempts to use antitrust law as a universal tool for societal grievances.Bethany and Luigi debate Yglesias on the limits of this modern anti-monopoly movement, arguing that he sounds like a "Chicago economist circa 1970" who assumes markets are always efficient and rational. From the lobbying might of the banking industry to the extractive fees of Amazon, Luigi argues that economic concentration inevitably morphs into political power which standard price theory often ignores. He posits that even if consolidated industries remain price-efficient, their size allows for the capture of the regulatory process—citing the banking and tobacco industries as historical precedents.Of course, antitrust enforcement isn't the only proposal on the table to address people's concerns about price levels, as the current excitement around the "affordability" and "abundance" movements demonstrate. But Yglesias argues neither abundance, affordability nor antitrust is going to drive down nominal prices. As he puts it: the only thing that could do that is “a catastrophic depression…but that's not going to make people happier". Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The federal government spends over $100 billion on information technology (IT) every year. About 80 percent of that goes toward operating and maintaining systems, many of which are long outdated and obsolete. Some federal IT systems are more than 50 years old.On day one of his presidency, Trump signed an EO that established the Department of Government Efficiency, which included a mandate to modernize “Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”While DOGE helped shine a spotlight on the issue, it isn't new. The Government Accountability Office has long warned about the risks of poor federal software practices—taxpayer waste, inefficient government processes, harms to citizens who rely on services like veterans benefits, and cybersecurity vulnerabilities.Many presidents have tried to solve it, but despite some improvements here and there, the problem has persisted for lots of reasons. Government agencies often lack the expertise to understand their software products and needs. Agencies have also failed to properly audit and track their software purchases. The companies who sell software to the government often deliberately make it difficult for agencies to modernize, change vendors, or diversify their supply chains.With a renewed focus on government efficiency, how can Congress and the Trump administration tackle the long-festering problem of outdated and vulnerable federal IT? What can agencies do on their own, and what requires an act of Congress? And how would the American people benefit from improving these systems?Evan is joined by Dan Lips, Senior Fellow at FAI and Luke Hogg, Director of Tech Policy at FAI. For more, see Dan's blog post and Evan's op-ed. 

What if the rules we write today could make tomorrow's technology more human, safer, and genuinely worth wanting? We sit down with Anna Aseeva, a legal strategist working at the intersection of sustainability, intellectual property, and AI, to map a smarter path for digital innovation that starts with design and ends with systems people trust.We dig into the significant shifts shaping tech governance right now. Anna explains a practical model for aligning IP and sustainability: protect early to nurture fragile ideas through sandboxes and investment, then open up mature solutions with licensing that shares benefits and safeguards intent. This conversation is equally about culture and code. We talk about legal design that reads like plain talk, citizen participation that turns evidence into policy input, and civic apps that could let communities steer platform rules. We cover digital sustainability beyond emissions—lighter websites, greener hosting, and product decisions that fight digital obesity and planned obsolescence. And we don't shy away from the realities of AI: hallucinated footnotes, invented coauthors, and the simple fixes that come from a careful human in the loop.If you're a builder or curious listener who wants technology to serve people and planet, you'll find clear takeaways: design for sustainability from day one, keep humans in charge of final decisions, protect what's fragile, open what's ready, and invite people into the process. Subscribe, share with a friend, and tell us: where should human review be non-negotiable?Send us a textCheck out "Protection for the Inventive Mind" – available now on Amazon in print and Kindle formats. The views and opinions expressed (by the host and guest(s)) in this podcast are strictly their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the entities with which they may be affiliated. This podcast should in no way be construed as promoting or criticizing any particular government policy, institutional position, private interest or commercial entity. Any content provided is for informational and educational purposes only.

The future of AI may be decided in backyards. Data Centers—the sprawling facilities designed to support the massive computing required to train and run AI models—are being built across the country. One estimate sees more than $1 trillion dollars in capital spending on data centers in the next four years. And they use electricity—a lot of it. While data centers can bring construction jobs,  tax revenue, and economic development to their communities, they also bring complaints about power and water usage, noise pollution, and architectural blight.Debates are raging from town halls to the halls of Congress. Yes, politicians want the US to lead the world in AI, but elected officials, particularly local ones, are hearing from constituents concerned about data centers, including the potential to raise electric bills. The decisions being made right now in places like Northern Virginia, Umatilla, Oregon, and Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, will determine whether AI infrastructure is scaled quickly, or whether a backlash slows it down. If done right, data centers can bring world-class tech capabilities, lower electricity prices, energy abundance, and local tax revenue. Done poorly, we see working class Americans paying more for power, the electric grid struggling, and the potential for the American public to turn sour on data canters en masse.So what do people need to know about data centers to make informed decisions? What really is the impact of data centers on water and electricity? What should policymakers in Washington do, if anything, about these debates? And are there ways to balance legitimate local concerns without hamstringing a strategic imperative?Evan is joined by Asad Ramzanali, Director of Artificial Intelligence & Technology Policy at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator. He was previously Chief of Staff at the White House Office of Science and Tech Policy under President Biden and Legislative Director to former Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA). You can read his recent op-ed on data centers here. Evan is also joined by Daniel King, Research Fellow at FAI where he focuses on the energy and security dimensions of artificial intelligence. Daniel completed Master's studies in Statistics & Data Science at Yale University and earned a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mathematics from Brown University. Check out his substack on AI and energy, Policy Gradients.

In this episode of Top in Tech, Tom Doherty, Director at Global Counsel, is joined by Alex Dawson, UK Director, and Jessica Mills, Analyst, to unpack the recent Labour Party Conference and what it means for government policy, technology, and the wider political landscape. They explore how Labour emerged from the conference, with Keir Starmer's keynote speech setting the tone for the party's agenda, and the key discussions about tech policy in and around the conference including the government's push on digital ID, online safety, AI regulation and copyright. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

SUPPORT ME ON PATREON!!!Buy a subscription to my Tech and Online Culture newsletter, User Magazine to support my work!!!!

In this episode, Professor Stephen Goldsmith speaks with Dr. Andrew Schroeder of Direct Relief and CrisisReady. They discuss how cities can break down data silos and build integrated, actionable platforms to better respond to public health and environmental emergency. Schroeder explains the role of emerging technologies like AI and cloud data platforms, the importance of recruiting data talent in city government, and practical frameworks for connecting health and environmental data. He also previews a joint workshop on urban heat crises, highlighting the need for simulation, coordination, and a people-centered approach to data-driven disaster management.Music credit: Summer-Man by KetsaAbout Data-Smart City SolutionsData-Smart City Solutions, housed at the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard University, is working to catalyze the adoption of data projects on the local government level by serving as a central resource for cities interested in this emerging field. We highlight best practices, top innovators, and promising case studies while also connecting leading industry, academic, and government officials. Our research focus is the intersection of government and data, ranging from open data and predictive analytics to civic engagement technology. We seek to promote the combination of integrated, cross-agency data with community data to better discover and preemptively address civic problems. To learn more visit us online and follow us on Twitter. 

In this episode, Professor Stephen Goldsmith speaks with Santi Garces, Boston's chief innovation officer. They discuss Goldsmith's new StatGPT paper, which explores how generative AI can transform city performance management. Garces also shares practical examples from Boston and insights from the recent Bloomberg Center for Cities stat and AI workshop, where 14 cities gathered to explore real-world applications of generative AI in government.Music credit: Summer-Man by KetsaAbout Data-Smart City SolutionsData-Smart City Solutions, housed at the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard University, is working to catalyze the adoption of data projects on the local government level by serving as a central resource for cities interested in this emerging field. We highlight best practices, top innovators, and promising case studies while also connecting leading industry, academic, and government officials. Our research focus is the intersection of government and data, ranging from open data and predictive analytics to civic engagement technology. We seek to promote the combination of integrated, cross-agency data with community data to better discover and preemptively address civic problems. To learn more visit us online and follow us on Twitter. 

From November 8, 2020 (Episode 279): Billy Easley sits down with former host Ashkhen Kazaryan. They remind us of the value of the free and open Internet.Links:Revising the Law That Lets Platforms Moderate Content Will Silence Marginalized VoicesFree Speech and Tech Policy at the US Supreme Court, 2025 (AEI Event)

In this episode, Senior Fellow in Technology Policy Jennifer Huddleston and Technology Policy Research Fellow Matthew Mittelsteadt break down the Trump administration's new AI Action Plan and what it means for American innovation. Matt Mittelsteadt, “The AI Action Plan: Taking AI Innovation Seriously,” Cato at Liberty (July 28, 2025)Matt Mittelsteadt, “The Safety Risks of the Coming AI Regulatory Patchwork,” Cato at Liberty (June 24, 2025)Jennifer Huddleston, “Content Creators, Entrepreneurial Users, and the Impact of Tech Policy,” Policy Analysis (April 29, 2025)Jennifer Huddleston, “Is AI a Horse or a Zebra When It Comes to the First Amendment,” Cato at Liberty (July 28, 2025) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tech reporter Ben Brody discusses the impact of tariffs on semiconductors and President Trump's calling for the removal of Intel's CEO this past week. This story was featured in The Readback, our weekend digest featuring the best of Punchbowl News this week. Want more in-depth daily coverage from Congress? Subscribe to our free Punchbowl News AM newsletter at punchbowl.news. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode Professor Goldsmith interviews Professor Dan Huttenlocher, inaugural dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing and expert  on artificial intelligence and computer science. They discuss the different ways that generative AI could be used by governments, in service of constituents, and what kinds of operational standards are required for the productive and safe use of AI technologies. Music credit: Summer-Man by KetsaAbout Data-Smart City SolutionsData-Smart City Solutions, housed at the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard University, is working to catalyze the adoption of data projects on the local government level by serving as a central resource for cities interested in this emerging field. We highlight best practices, top innovators, and promising case studies while also connecting leading industry, academic, and government officials. Our research focus is the intersection of government and data, ranging from open data and predictive analytics to civic engagement technology. We seek to promote the combination of integrated, cross-agency data with community data to better discover and preemptively address civic problems. To learn more visit us online and follow us on Twitter. 

In this episode of In AI We Trust?, cohosts Miriam Vogel and Nuala O'Connor are joined by Adam Thierer, resident senior fellow @ R Street's Tech & Innovation team. Adam weighs in on the Trump Administration's AI Action Plan, the importance of Congress in developing AI policy, and existing legal principles and practices that help define the new digital and AI age. They focused on the mandate for AI literacy, as well as the necessity of AI technologies being regulated in a transparent and trustworthy way that end users, and particularly consumers, can understand.

Daniel M. Gerstein, senior policy researcher at RAND and former acting under secretary at the DHS Science and Technology Directorate, joins Steve Gruber to break down President Trump's recent executive orders on drone policy. He outlines what the new directives mean for national security, privacy, and the rapidly evolving role of unmanned systems in both domestic and global contexts.

This weekend, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) turns 35. Signed into law on July 26, 1990, the law provides broad anti-discrimination protections for people with disabilities in the US, and has impacted how people with disabilities interact with various technologies. To discuss how the law has aged and what the fight for equity and inclusion looks like going forward, Tech Policy Press fellow Ariana Aboulafia spoke with three leaders working at the intersection of disability and technology:Maitreya Shah is the tech policy director at the American Association of People with Disabilities.Blake Reid is a professor at the University of Colorado.Cynthia Bennett is a senior research scientist at Google.

Jaap van Etten, Co-Founder and CEO of Datenna, joined Jeanne Meserve live at SCSP's AI+ Expo for a conversation on rethinking tech policy in the U.S.-China competition. They discussed leveraging open-source intelligence to track China's technological and military-civil fusion ecosystem, and more. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit scsp222.substack.com

Canadian political leaders are in a precarious moment. Fresh off the resignation of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and ascendancy of his successor, new Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader Mark Carney, the nation faces a brewing trade war with the United States and a deteriorating relationship with its president, Donald Trump.In addition to managing those global tensions, Canadian leaders have a long to-do list on tech policy, including figuring out the nation's approach to artificial intelligence and online harms. How will the new Carney-led government in Canada navigate those issues?Tech Policy Press associate editor Cristiano Lima-Strong spoke to three experts to get a sense:Renee Black is founder of goodbot, where she works on preventing harmful disinformation and bias, and establishing frameworks that protect digital rights.Maroussia Lévesque is a doctoral candidate and lecturer at Harvard Law School, an affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center, and a senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation.Vass Bednar is a public policy entrepreneur working at the intersection of technology and public policy.

Most American parents say technology makes it harder to raise kids than in the pre-social media era. And while social scientists debate the exact impact of ubiquitous Internet access on children, policymakers are increasingly responding to parents' concerns. The Kids Online Safety Act, which aims to address the addictive features of social media that hook kids, was recently reintroduced by Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). The legislation would also require tech platforms to take steps to prevent and mitigate specific dangers to minors, including the promotion of suicide, eating disorders, drug abuse, and sexploitation. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. John James (R-MI) are promoting the App Store Accountability Act, which would require Google and Apple to verify users' ages before downloading apps. And Senators Cruz (R-TX) and Schatz (D-HI) propose banning kids from using social media altogether.There is clearly a lot of interest from parents and policymakers in addressing these concerns over the impact of technology on children. But there is also a robust and ongoing debate about the actual harm to kids, and whether concerns are well founded or overblown. Jonathan Haidt's book, The Anxious Generation made quite a splash, but many social psychologists have pushed back on his findings. And while the surgeon general under President Biden advocated a warning label for social media, a recent study by researchers at the University of South Florida found that kids with smartphones were better off than those without smartphones, while acknowledging harms from cyber bullying and otherwise.The fundamental question seems to be: Is this just another moral panic, or are we letting Big Tech conduct a massive unregulated experiment on our children's brains?Evan is joined by Clare Morell, Director of the Technology and Human Flourishing Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. She is the author of The Tech Exit: A Practical Guide to Freeing Kids and Teens from Smartphones, and her work has appeared in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Fox News.

Welcome back to my new series Free Speech Friday! :) Right now, lawmakers in congress are trying to pass the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a dangerous censorship bill that would give the government unprecedented control over the internet and force platforms to spy on youth.KOSA claims to make kids "safer" online, but don't let the name fool you. This law would give the government unprecedented power to censor speech across the entire internet in the name of "protecting kids."From mental health support communities to LGBTQ forums, KOSA endangers the very spaces young people turn to for help, identity, and connection. KOSA isn't about safety, it's about giving the government unprecedented control over speech. Ari Cohen is the Lead Counsel for Tech Policy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and promoting free speech rights for all Americans. He joined me to break down KOSA and explain the many problems with the proposed law. If you believe in a free and open internet, please join me in sending a message to your lawmakers right now and tell them to reject KOSA:https://www.fightforthefuture.org/actions/censorship-wont-make-kids-safe***** Buy a subscription to my Tech and Online Culture newsletter, User Magazine to support my work!!

Small businesses are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, particularly in personalized email marketing, which has become a primary channel for nearly 19% of small to mid-sized businesses in 2025. Despite the growing interest, many businesses face challenges in implementation, with 35% citing a lack of familiarity with AI as a significant barrier. A recent survey indicates that while 38% of small and medium-sized businesses are utilizing AI across various functions, the actual productivity gains from AI investments, such as chatbots, have been minimal, with only a 3% time savings reported. This discrepancy highlights the gap between the hype surrounding AI and its real-world applications.Legislative developments are also shaping the tech landscape, with Washington State introducing a new sales tax on technology and digital services to address a significant budget shortfall. This tax, expected to generate billions over the next few years, has raised concerns among local tech industry leaders about its potential impact on competitiveness. Additionally, Congress is considering a moratorium on state regulations regarding AI, which could undermine privacy protections established by states. Critics argue that this could hinder essential consumer safeguards, while proponents believe a unified regulatory framework is necessary for innovation.Cybersecurity remains a pressing issue, with notable incidents highlighting vulnerabilities in the sector. Delta Airlines is pursuing legal action against cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike following a massive IT failure that led to significant flight cancellations and financial losses. Meanwhile, a new malware called LumaStealer has infected hundreds of thousands of devices, prompting a coordinated response from Microsoft and Europol. The FBI has also issued warnings about AI-generated voice scams, which pose a growing threat to trust-based systems like email and voice approvals.The podcast emphasizes the importance of resilience and responsibility in cybersecurity, urging IT service providers to focus on trust governance rather than merely managing technology. As AI continues to evolve, the need for systematic validation of communications and relationships becomes critical. The discussion underscores the necessity for businesses to navigate the complexities of AI adoption and cybersecurity effectively, ensuring that they are not only keeping pace with technological advancements but also safeguarding their operations and customer trust. 00:00 AI's Real Value Lies in Utility, Not Innovation, Say Analysts Tracking SMB Adoption Trends+06:36 U.S. Tech Policy in Flux: More States Tax IT, Feds Push AI Preemption, and Data Privacy Falters11:34 Cybersecurity's Trust Gap Widens: Delta Can Sue CrowdStrike, AI Voice Scams Rise, and North Korea Hacks U.S. Firms This is the Business of Tech.    Supported by:  https://afi.ai/office-365-backup/ All our Sponsors: https://businessof.tech/sponsors/ Do you want the show on your podcast app or the written versions of the stories? Subscribe to the Business of Tech: https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe/Looking for a link from the stories? The entire script of the show, with links to articles, are posted in each story on https://www.businessof.tech/ Support the show on Patreon: https://patreon.com/mspradio/ Want to be a guest on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights? Send Dave Sobel a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech Want our stuff? Cool Merch? Wear “Why Do We Care?” - Visit https://mspradio.myspreadshop.com Follow us on:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079/YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradio/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradio/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.tech

Today's guest is Milton L. Mueller,  a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology in the School of Public Policy and the head of an advocacy policy analysis group called the Internet Governance Project. Mueller has long walked the halls and sat in the rooms where internet governance is discussed and debated, and has played a role in shaping global Internet policies and institutions. He's the author of a new book called Declaring Independence in Cyberspace: Internet Self-Governance and the End of US Control of ICANN, which takes us into those rooms, telling the story of how and why the US government gave up its control of ICANN, a key internet governance institution responsible for internet names, numbers, and protocols. That history tells us a lot about where we are today when it comes to the broader geopolitics and governance of technology, and it has implications for the governance fights ahead, including over artificial intelligence.

Now in its third year, the Russo-Ukraine War has upended the post-Cold War security landscape, exposing deep fractures in the global balance of power. As western unity frays and U.S. diplomacy shifts under President Trump, the war has become a flashpoint for competing visions of the international order. This week, the European Union gave Russia an ultimatum: accept a proposed ceasefire or face expanded sanctions—just days ahead of a potential round of direct peace talks in Istanbul on Thursday. The stakes are high, and the choices made this week could reshape not only the trajectory of the war but the future of global security.How should we understand the prospects for a sustainable peace in Ukraine amidst evolving geopolitical dynamics and continued battlefield uncertainty? To help make sense of these developments, Just Security Senior Fellow and Director of the Oxford Programme for Cyber and Tech Policy, Brianna Rosen, sat down with Sir Lawrence Freedman, Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King's College London and Professor Janina Dill, Dame Louise Richardson Chair in Global Security at Oxford University's Blavatnik School of Government. This conversation was part of the Calleva-Airey Neave Global Security Seminar Series at the University of Oxford. Show Notes: Just Security's Russia-Ukraine War Archive Ambassador Daniel Fried's "How to Land the Emerging Peace Deal on Peace for Ukraine"Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Tech policy has created more opportunities for entrepreneurship than just Silicon Valley startups. The availability of online platforms has empowered a new wave of entrepreneurs who might never reach household fame but who are contributing both to their own households and the greater economy. Jennifer Huddleston, a senior fellow in tech policy, speaks with two content creators about how these platforms and tech policy have impacted their businesses and changed their lives. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The pace of change is accelerating in the market, which means we can always take a step back to understand where those changes have come from and how that drives business activities.Bill Wright, head of global government affairs at Elastic, joins for this episode to explain how the fundamentals of the Trump administration's approach to artificial intelligence and cybersecurity line up with those from the Biden Administration.Yes many things are different, but several others are not as well. For Wright, this shows just how critical cyber and AI are to the federal government. As he tells Editor Nick Wakeman, the Trump administration is looking to expand the government's AI and cyber strategy with a greater emphasis on commercial technology.And of course, speed and efficiency are key points Wright addresses too. As he explains, understanding where customers have come from and where they want to go is step one in finding growth opportunities across today's market.Here are the tech takeaways from Trump's budget proposal‘Just wait' to see how CISA reforms play out, DHS head tells cyber communityIndustry awaits how OMB AI guidance on paper will be implemented in practiceWhat the federal workforce could look like with AI government employees

Try Fellow's AI Meeting Copilot - 90 days FREE - fellow.app/cooAI and Privacy: Navigating the EU's New AI Act with Flick FisherIn this episode of Between Two COOs, host Michael Koenig welcomes back Flick Fisher, an expert on EU privacy law. They dive deep into the newly enacted EU Artificial Intelligence Act and its implications for businesses globally. They discuss compliance challenges, prohibited AI practices, and the potential geopolitical impact of AI regulation. For leaders and operators navigating AI in business, this episode provides crucial insights into managing AI technology within regulatory frameworks.00:00 Introduction to Fellow and AI Meeting Assistant01:01 Introduction to Between Two COOs Episode02:08 What is the EU's AI Act?03:42 Prohibited AI Practices in the EU07:46 Enforcement and Compliance Challenges12:18 US vs EU: Regulatory Landscape29:58 Impact on Companies and Consumers31:55 Future of AI RegulationBetween Two COO's - https://betweentwocoos.com Between Two COO's Episode Michael Koenig on LinkedInFlick Fisher on LinkedInFlick on Data Privacy and GDPR on Between Two COO'sMore on Flick's take of the EU's AI Act

Frank Schaeffer In Conversation with Marietje Schaake, exploring her work and the themes of her book, The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valley_____LINKShttps://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/people/marietje-schaakehttps://www.lovechildrenplanet.com/events/it-has-to-be-read-the-tech-coup-by-marietje-schaake_____I have had the pleasure of talking to some of the leading authors, artists, activists, and change-makers of our time on this podcast, and I want to personally thank you for subscribing, listening, and sharing 100-plus episodes over 100,000 times.Please subscribe to this Podcast, In Conversation… with Frank Schaeffer, on your favorite platform, and to my Substack, It Has to Be Said. Thanks! Every subscription helps create, build, sustain and put voice to this movement for truth. Subscribe to It Has to Be Said. Support the show_____In Conversation… with Frank Schaeffer is a production of the George Bailey Morality in Public Life Fellowship. It is hosted by Frank Schaeffer, author of Fall In Love, Have Children, Stay Put, Save the Planet, Be Happy. Learn more at https://www.lovechildrenplanet.comFollow Frank on Substack, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Threads, TikTok, and YouTube. https://frankschaeffer.substack.comhttps://www.facebook.com/frank.schaeffer.16https://twitter.com/Frank_Schaefferhttps://www.instagram.com/frank_schaeffer_arthttps://www.threads.net/@frank_schaeffer_arthttps://www.tiktok.com/@frank_schaefferhttps://www.youtube.com/c/FrankSchaefferYouTube In Conversation… with Frank Schaeffer Podcast

Does a cat stand on two legs or four?  The answer to that question may tell you all you need to know about the government involving itself in social media content moderation. On today's show, we cover the latest tech policy developments involving the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, AI regulation, and more.   Guests: - Ari Cohn, FIRE's lead counsel, tech policy. - Adam Thierer, a resident technology and innovation senior fellow at the R Street Institute   - Jennifer Huddleston, a technology policy senior fellow at the CATO Institute   Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 01:30 Section 230 06:55 FCC and Section 230 14:32 Brendan Carr and “faith-based programming” 28:24 Media companies' settlements with the Trump 30:24 Brendan Carr at Semafor event 38:37 FTC and social media companies 48:09 AI regulations 01:03:43 Outro   Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.   Show notes: “Seeing reports that the FCC plans to take a vague and ineffective step on Section 230 to try to control speech online…” FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez via X (2025) “Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr taking first steps in eroding key legal protection enjoyed by Big Tech” New York Post (2025) Section 230 text “Federal Communications Commission” Brendan Carr via Project 2025 (2022) “Bless Ron Wyden and his steady defense of Section 230. He is absolutely right: 230 is a pro-competition law.” Adam Kovacevich via X (2025) “If Google is looking to block faith-based programming on YouTube, they are doing a really really bad job at it…” Adam Thierer via X (2025) “I have received complaints that Google's @YouTubeTV is discriminating against faith-based programming…” Brendan Carr via X (2025) “FCC's Carr defends broadcast probes, slams social media ‘threat'” Semafor (2025) “Petition for rulemaking of the national telecommunications and information administration” National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2020) “FCC Chair Brendan Carr taking first steps in eroding key legal protection enjoyed by Big Tech” New York Post (2025) “Big Tech censorship is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal…” FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson via X (2025) “Federal Trade Commission launches inquiry on tech censorship” FTC (2025) “Moody v. NetChoice” (2024) “The FTC is overstepping its authority — and threatening free speech online” FIRE (2025) “Wave of state-level AI bills raise First Amendment problems” FIRE (2025) “AI regulatory activity is completely out of control in the U.S…” Adam Thierer via X (2025)   “Cyber rights: Defending free speech in the digital age” Mike Godwin (1995) “Greg Lukianoff testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, February 6, 2024” FIRE (2024) “Technologies of Freedom” Ithiel de Sola Pool (1984)

Former Trump administration cybersecurity official Sean Planky has been nominated to lead the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). His nomination comes amid significant layoffs at the agency, where over 100 employees were let go, including key members of the Red Team responsible for simulating cyberattacks. These cuts raise concerns about CISA's ability to maintain cybersecurity amid ongoing federal budget constraints, potentially leading to increased threats in the private sector as federal infrastructure and intelligence sharing weaken.In the realm of artificial intelligence, the General Services Administration (GSA) has introduced a custom chatbot named GSAI to automate various government tasks, coinciding with significant job cuts within the agency. While the chatbot aims to enhance efficiency, internal memos have warned employees against inputting sensitive information. This trend reflects a broader movement in the federal government towards tech-driven workforce reductions, raising questions about data privacy and the reliability of AI tools in government operations.Utah has made headlines by passing legislation requiring App Store operators to verify the ages of users and obtain parental consent for minors downloading apps. This law, aimed at enhancing online safety for children, has garnered support from major tech companies but has also faced criticism regarding potential infringements on privacy rights. The Supreme Court is expected to examine age verification issues, particularly concerning adult content websites, highlighting the ongoing debate over online safety regulations.The podcast also discusses the competitive landscape of AI, with Google reporting continued growth in search queries despite the rise of ChatGPT. New benchmarks have been developed to measure the honesty of AI models, revealing that larger models do not necessarily correlate with higher honesty rates. As companies like Microsoft and Amazon introduce advanced AI tools, the implications for businesses are significant, emphasizing the need for oversight and governance in AI deployment to mitigate risks associated with inaccuracies and compliance issues. Three things to know today00:00 Cybersecurity Jobs Cut, AI Hired, and Kids Get ID'd—Welcome to the Future of Tech Policy05:45 ChatGPT Isn't Killing Google Search—And AI Lies More Than You'd Think08:27 Microsoft and OpenAI: A Rocky Relationship, While AI Prices Tumble Supported by:  https://getflexpoint.com/msp-radio/  Event: https://www.nerdiocon.com/ All our Sponsors: https://businessof.tech/sponsors/ Do you want the show on your podcast app or the written versions of the stories? Subscribe to the Business of Tech: https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe/Looking for a link from the stories? The entire script of the show, with links to articles, are posted in each story on https://www.businessof.tech/ Support the show on Patreon: https://patreon.com/mspradio/ Want to be a guest on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights? Send Dave Sobel a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech Want our stuff? Cool Merch? Wear “Why Do We Care?” - Visit https://mspradio.myspreadshop.com Follow us on:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079/YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradio/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradio/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.tech

The 119th Congress faces a pivotal moment in shaping America's technological future. With advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity threats on the rise, and digital trade playing a crucial role in the economy, lawmakers must decide whether to embrace policies that foster innovation or burden industries with heavy-handed regulations. In this episode of American Potential, host David From speaks with James Czerniawski, Senior Policy Analyst at Americans for Prosperity, about the critical tech policies Congress should prioritize. They discuss why a light-touch regulatory approach is essential for AI to reach its full potential, how digital privacy laws should be structured to prevent a patchwork of conflicting state regulations, and why cybersecurity must remain a top priority to safeguard national security. With China aggressively investing in AI and emerging markets rapidly evolving, America cannot afford to fall behind. This conversation highlights why unleashing innovation through free-market principles—not bureaucratic red tape—will keep the U.S. at the forefront of technological leadership. Will Congress rise to the challenge? Tune in to find out.

This week, Elon Musk—amidst his other duties of gutting United States federal government agencies as head of the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE)—announced a hostile bid alongside a consortium of buyers to purchase control of OpenAI for $97.4 billion. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman vehemently replied that his company is not for sale.The artificial intelligence landscape is shifting rapidly. The week prior, American tech stocks plummeted in response to claims from Chinese company DeepSeek AI that its model had matched OpenAI's performance at a fraction of the cost. Days before that, President Donald Trump announced that OpenAI, Oracle, and Softbank would partner on an infrastructure project to power AI in the U.S. with an initial $100 billion investment. Altman himself is trying to pull off a much-touted plan to convert the nonprofit OpenAI into a for-profit entity, a development at the heart of his spat with Musk, who co-founded the startup.Bethany and Luigi discuss the implications of this changing landscape by reflecting on a prior Capitalisn't conversation with Luigi's former colleague Sendhil Mullainathan (now at MIT), who forecasted over a year ago that there would be no barriers to entry in AI. Does DeepSeek's success prove him right? How does the U.S. government's swift move to ban DeepSeek from government devices reflect how we should weigh national interests at the risk of hindering innovation and competition? Musk has the ear of Trump and a history of animosity with Altman over the direction of OpenAI. Does Musk's proposed hostile takeover signal that personal interests and relationships with American leadership will determine how AI develops in the U.S. from here on out? What does regulating AI in the collective interest look like, and can we escape a future where technology is consolidated in the hands of the wealthy few when billions of dollars in capital are required for its progress?Show Notes:On ProMarket, check out:Why Musk Is Right About OpenAI by Luigi Zingales, March 5, 2024Who Will Enforce AI's Social Purpose? By Roberto Tallarita, March 16, 2024

The Artificial Intelligence Action Summit recently concluded in Paris, France, drawing world leaders including U.S. Vice President JD Vance. The Summit led to a declaration on “inclusive and sustainable” artificial intelligence, which the United States and United Kingdom have refused to join, though 60 other nations, including China and India support the declaration. What are the key takeaways from the Summit? How might it shape other global efforts to regulate artificial intelligence? Joining the show to discuss the Summit is Dr. Brianna Rosen, Director of Just Security's AI and Emerging Technologies Initiative and Senior Research Associate at the University of Oxford.  Show Notes:Brianna Rosen (LinkedIn – X – Bluesky)Paras Shah (LinkedIn – X)Just Security's Artificial Intelligence coverageJust Security's Tech Policy under Trump 2.0 SeriesMusic: “Parisian Dream” by Albert Behar from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/albert-behar/parisian-dream (License code: RXLDKOXCM02WX2LL)

The tech industry is calling this AI's “Sputnik Moment” – and President Donald Trump has said it's a “wake-up call” for U.S. companies. We're talking about DeepSeek, the Chinese AI startup that has rapidly emerged as a formidable contender in the global AI race.DeepSeek is making waves for developing powerful open-source language models that rival leading U.S. competitors – at a fraction of the cost and with far lower computational requirements.The DeepSeek saga raises urgent questions about China's AI ambitions, the future of U.S. technological leadership, and the strategic implications of open-source AI models. How did DeepSeek get here? What does its rise mean for competition between China and the United States? And how should U.S. policymakers respond?Today, we're going beyond the headlines to dive deeper into DeepSeek. We'll explore popular myths and misconceptions surrounding DeepSeek, the technology behind it, and what it means for national security and U.S. policy going forward. Joining the show to unpack these developments are leading experts in the field: Dr. Keegan McBride, Lauren Wagner, and Lennart HeimKeegan is a Lecturer at the University of Oxford and an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Lauren is a researcher and investor, now with ARC Prize, previously worked at Meta and Google. And Lennart is a researcher at RAND and a professor of policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School.This episode was hosted by Dr. Brianna Rosen, Director of Just Security's AI and Emerging Technologies Initiative and Senior Research Associate at the University of Oxford. Show Notes: Lennart Heim (LinkedIn – Website – X) Keegan McBride (LinkedIn – X)Brianna Rosen (LinkedIn – X – Bluesky)Lauren Wagner (LinkedIn — X)Lennart's Just Security article with Konstantin F. Pilz (Bluesky – LinkedIn – Website – X) “What DeepSeek Really Changes About AI Competition”Keegan's Just Security article “Open Source AI: The Overlooked National Security Imperative” Just Security's Artificial Intelligence coverageJust Security's Tech Policy under Trump 2.0 SeriesMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

What will the future of tech policy look like in a second Trump administration? And how will changes in the tech world—everything from the proliferation of AI and bots to the fragmentation of social media—impact how people talk, interact, and find information online? On the GZERO World Podcast, Nicholas Thompson, CEO of The Atlantic, joins Ian Bremmer to discuss the intersection of technology, media, and politics as Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House. Trump had a contentious relationship with the tech industry in his first term, but this time around, tech leaders are optimistic Trump 2.0 will be good for business, buoyed by hopes of loosening AI regulations, a crypto boom, and a more business-friendly administration. What does Big Tech stand to gain–or lose–from a second Trump presidency? Will Elon Musk help usher US tech policy into a new era, or will he create more chaos in the White House? And how concerned should we be about the dangers of AI-generated content online? Thompson and Bremmer break down the big changes in Big Tech and where the industry goes from here. Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.

This episode of “Lawfare Live: National Security and the 2024 Election” was recorded on October 15 in front of a live audience on Youtube and Zoom.Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes spoke to Lawfare Senior Editors Quinta Jurecic, Eugenia Lostri, and Alan Rozenshtein, Lawfare Tarbell Fellowin Artificial Intelligence Kevin Frazier, and Associate Professor of Law at St. John's University Law School Kate Klonick. They discussed former President Trump and Vice President Harris's positions on various tech policies, like content moderation, AI, cybersecurity, antitrust, and TikTok bans.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Lisa welcomes Kara Frederick, director of tech policy at the Heritage Foundation, to discuss pressing issues. They delve into the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, cyber attacks linked to the Chinese government, and Mark Zuckerberg's letter revealing government pressure on Facebook to censor content. Frederick provides expert insights on encrypted accounts, the nature of cyber threats, and the implications of Section 230 for big tech. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday & Thursday.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.