Schwartz Reisman Director Gillian Hadfield argues that current approaches towards explainable AI are insufficient for users. What is needed instead is “justifiable AI” that can show how the decisions of an AI system are justifiable according the rules and norms of our society.

In the second of two posts, Leslie Regan Shade, Monica Jean Henderson, and Katie Mackinnon explore research on children’s and youth’s experiences of online spaces, their needs for privacy protection, and how conceptions of digital tools and the corporations that make them can be better informed through digital literacy.

In the first of two posts, Leslie Regan Shade, Monica Jean Henderson, and Katie Mackinnon explore the implications of Bill C-11 in terms of impacts on digital privacy for youth and children. The authors reflect on the need to balance online risks and opportunities for minors in the context of their research with The eQuality Project.

When we say that something is good or bad, is that a claim about objective facts, or something dependent on our perspective? Guest blogger Cory Travers Lewis reflects on Denis Walsh’s way of thinking about norms—one which treats them as both objective facts and as dependent on the perspective of particular living things.

In a new op-ed for The Globe and Mail, SRI Faculty Affiliate Marlène Koffi explains how Canada’s ongoing internet-connection crisis has highlighted many existing social inequities during the COVID-19 pandemic. To correct this, Koffi argues government must update its data collection methods and invest in public-private partnerships.

SRI Graduate Fellow Shabnam Haghzare reflects on Joanna J. Bryson’s seminar about AI ethics, AI as human-authored tool, and the need for AI regulation in the service of public good. Bryson is professor of ethics and technology at the Hertie School in Berlin.

“How do we adapt our systems of rules to keep up with social and economic change?” Gillian K. Hadfield contributes to The Toronto Star’s Saturday Debate, exploring whether or not we should fear artificial intelligence and describing the regulatory technologies that are required to help us keep AI in check.

SRI privacy experts propose a shift to regulating “information about persons” provides better architecture to rethink contemporary privacy risks and develop a data governance framework suited to the 21st century. Part of an ongoing series of commentaries on the features, implications, and controversies surrounding privacy law reforms in an increasingly digital and data-rich context.

Canada’s Bill C-11 is a welcome update in protecting the privacy of Canadians. But privacy is not free. Privacy regulations are shown to inhibit innovation, increase inequality, and hurt competition. Will privacy law reforms further entrench the dominant market positions of big players like Google? Avi Goldfarb explores the implications on the Schwartz Reisman blog.

While Canada’s proposed Bill C-11 offers a definition of deidentified data, computer scientists Sasho Nikolov and Nicolas Papernot argue this is inadequate because it focuses on modifying personal information rather than method of analysis. They offer an accessible explanation of privacy protection frameworks centered around algorithms rather than the data themselves.

Canada’s proposed Bill C-11 requires “knowledge and consent” for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information. However, Bill C-11 also creates some new exceptions to consent, including for personal information that has been “de-identified.” In this article, experts Lisa Austin and David Lie examine this new de-identification regime.

The Canadian government’s proposed new private sector privacy legislation (Bill C-11) introduces some notable changes to existing legislation (PIPEDA), including new exceptions to the “knowledge and consent” requirements. Schwartz Reisman Research Lead Lisa Austin, specialist in law and technology, comments on the “business activities” exception.