The Canadian government’s long-awaited and much-needed AI strategy is finally set to be unveiled this week, with AI minister Evan Solomon promising a plan that prioritizes AI adoption, investment, and regulatory guardrails to enhance trust, privacy and safety. My Globe and Mail op-ed argues the strategy seems doomed to fail, even before it is released, with the government’s own digital policies working against it. An astonishing series of developments in recent weeks amount to digital self-sabotage, leaving global technology giants alarmed and Canadian tech companies openly considering leaving the country.
Post Tagged with: "solomon"
Why the Online Harms Act is the Wrong Way to Regulate AI Chatbots
In the wake of reports that AI Minister Evan Solomon may press AI companies such as OpenAI to more aggressively report potential safety risks identified in private chats to law enforcement, attention has quickly turned to the Online Harms Act as a potential regulatory solution. The Online Harms Act or Bill C-63, died on the order paper last year, but is expected to return in some form in the coming months. Given that the Act is tailor made to address online harms, it isn’t surprising that some would suggest that it could be expanded to cover AI chatbots.
Yet the law was deliberately designed to avoid doing what politicians want the AI companies to do as it expressly exempted private communications and proactive monitoring from its scope. Indeed, applying the Online Harms Act to AI chatbots would not simply extend existing online safety rules to a new technology. It would require dismantling core privacy safeguards which were added after the government’s earlier online harms proposal faced widespread criticism for encouraging platform monitoring and rapid reporting to law enforcement. In effect, proposals to use online harms to regulate AI chatbots risks reviving many of the same surveillance concerns that forced the government back to the drawing board just a few years ago.
More Transparency Not Police Reporting: Navigating the Safety-Privacy Balance for AI ChatBots
My Globe and Mail op-ed begins by noting that AI Minister Evan Solomon summoned executives from OpenAI to Ottawa last week to explain why the company declined to alert police that it had flagged the account of Jesse Van Rootselaar, the Tumbler Ridge shooter who killed eight people earlier this month. The company stopped short of warning authorities, concluding that the account activity did not meet its standard of an “imminent and credible risk of serious physical harm to others.” After the meeting, Mr. Solomon expressed disappointment with OpenAI, saying the company had not presented “substantial new safety protocols.” Justice Minister Sean Fraser said it expects OpenAI to make changes, or else the government would step in to regulate artificial intelligence companies.
The desire to hold someone responsible for the potential prevention of the Tumbler Ridge tragedy is understandable. Add in the mounting pressure for AI regulation, and OpenAI makes for a perfect target for blame and threats of government action. Yet holding AI chatbots liable for reporting to police what users privately post in their conversations creates its own risks, undermining privacy and effectively encouraging heightened corporate surveillance.
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 259: The Privacy and Surveillance Risks of AI Chatbot Reporting to Police
Over the past ten days, Canada has witnessed one of the fastest-moving technology policy debates in recent memory. What began as reporting about a tragic act of violence – the shootings in Tumbler Ridge, BC – quickly evolved into questions about AI safety, corporate responsibility, police reporting obligations, and now potential AI regulation.
This week’s Law Bytes podcast is a bit different from the norm. Building off my Globe and Mail op-ed, I walk through what has happened thus far, examine the potential policy responses, and explain why both the Online Harms Act and current AI legislative models are poorly suited to this problem, and argue that Canada instead needs to start thinking seriously instead about an AI Transparency Act.
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 258: Jaxson Khan With an Insider Perspective on AI Policy Development in Canada
Earlier this month, the government quietly released a “what we heard” report this discussing the response to its 30-day sprint AI consultation from last October. The consultation was promoted as giving Canadians – including a 28 person expert advisory board – the chance to provide their views on AI as the AI Minister Evan Solomon works toward a national AI strategy. The consultation garnered some criticism for its speed and missing perspectives on the expert panel. More recently on the use of AI to assess the results have sparked further doubts about it.
Jaxson Khan is the CEO and Founder of Aperature AI and a Senior Fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto. But before that, he served as Senior Policy Advisor the Minister of Innovation Science and Industry, where AI was one of his lead responsibilities. Jaxson joins the Law Bytes podcast to provide an insider perspective on AI policy development along with his thoughts on the AI consultation and its results.
Recent Posts
The Two Weeks That Reshaped Canada’s Digital Policy 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 274: Mark Musselman on What Stakeholders Really Think About the Government’s Reversal of the CRTC Online Streaming Act Decision 
Improv Policy: The Government Doesn’t Know What To Do About Its Online Streaming Act Mess 
Soft Ban or Hard Verification Requirement?: Why Bill C-34’s Social Media Ban Exemption Gets the Incentives Wrong and Comes Too Late to Matter 
New Rights, New Powers, Long Delays: Bill C-36’s Seven-Step Process for Privacy Reform to Take Effect
