Routific

routific

The rise of e-commerce has been remarkable over recent years, and it shows no signs of plateauing. As this sector expands, the demand for streamlined delivery systems also grows significantly. Central to this demand is the idea of last-mile delivery, a term initially used in the telecom sector and then adopted by logistics and supply chain management. Last-mile delivery is the last step in the delivery process. It's the journey a product makes from a distribution center or facility to the final destination, usually a customer's home. Even though it's the concluding phase, last-mile delivery can be the most intricate and costly in the entire supply chain. Thus, it accounts for a substantial part of the total delivery cost. Factors such as traffic congestion, misaligned delivery timings, and increasing customer demands for speed and flexibility contribute to it vastly. Considering the influence of these obstacles on operational proficiency and customer contentment, companies are constantly exploring innovative strategies to make this process more efficient and cost-effective. With technologies ranging from artificial intelligence to self-driving vehicles, last-mile delivery is undergoing a transformative phase, becoming more streamlined and customer-focused. Challenges in last-mile delivery While last-mile delivery presents an opportunity for e-commerce businesses to distinguish themselves from competitors, it also has a unique set of its own troubles. One of them is meeting the growing customer expectations. Today's consumers demand not only speedy delivery but also the flexibility to alter delivery times and locations, which can complicate logistics planning. Plus, customers often expect real-time updates on their orders, which requires sophisticated tracking systems. Geographical issues also pose serious challenges. Goods delivery to outlying suburban and rural locations, where residences are widely dispersed, can be both time-intensive and costly. Meanwhile, deliveries in cities face their own unique challenges such as heavy traffic, scarce parking, and restricted access, which all can cause delays. Cost management is another big problem. With fuel, labor, and vehicle maintenance costs steadily rising, keeping last-mile delivery affordable without compromising on efficiency is a balancing act. Moreover, the environmental footprint of logistics has gained significant public attention, regarding emissions and sustainable practices. Safeguarding the delivered goods, especially when handling high-value or perishable items, is another aspect companies must handle. And finally, scaling last-mile delivery operations to accommodate increasing volumes of orders while maintaining the same level of service quality is a constant struggle for many companies. Handy tech solutions Innovative technologies have the potential to reshape last-mile delivery, helping to address the challenges we've outlined earlier. Today, there’s an array of technological options that a business can integrate into its day-to-day operations. Autonomous Vehicles Several companies are already deploying drones for delivery. In the US, Amazon, with its Prime Air service, plans to deliver packages up to five pounds in 30 minutes or less using unmanned aerial vehicles. Alphabet's Wing has also received regulatory approval to start drone delivery services in several regions of Australia, Finland, and the US. Ground robots are another nice development. For example, Starship Technologies has deployed its delivery robots in multiple cities worldwide, including the US, the UK, and the company’s homeland of Estonia. They operate autonomously 99% of the time and can carry items within a 4-mile radius. The company operates AI and Machine Learning Route optimization software, such as Routific or ORTEC, use AI and machine learning algorithms to calculate the most efficient delivery routes. These systems consider various factors, such as traffic, weather conditions, and package destinations, to reduce travel time and costs. These advanced systems evaluate a lot of factors when plotting routes. They take into account real-time traffic data, weather conditions, package destinations, and even the capacity of the delivery vehicle. Importantly, these systems are dynamic. They continuously learn and adjust to changing conditions, ensuring the most up-to-date information is used for decision-making. For instance, if there's a sudden traffic jam due to an accident, the system can quickly re-route the delivery vehicle to avoid delays. Internet of Things IoT technology is being used to create smart logistics networks. Companies like Roambee provide real-time visibility into the delivery process through sensor data. Their devices monitor location, temperature, humidity, and more, providing crucial information for deliveries, especially for sensitive goods. For example, pharmaceutical products or perishable foods need to be kept at specific temperatures, and real-time monitoring allows companies to ensure these conditions are maintained throughout the whole delivery journey. Moreover, IoT-enabled predictive maintenance can alert companies about potential issues with their delivery vehicles before they result in costly downtimes. This information, derived from continuous monitoring and data analysis, allows companies to manage their fleet, proactively. Blockchain Technology VeChain, a blockchain platform, is an excellent example of using blockchain in logistics management. This tech enhances transparency and security by offering a full view of the supply chain. So, consumers can use VeChain to verify product authenticity, and businesses can improve logistics processes with it. Visibility provided by such services helps companies identify any bottlenecks or inefficiencies in their logistics network, which leads to more streamlined operations and enhanced performance. Plus, the security of blockchain technology means that this data is less susceptible to tampering or fraud. Real-life examples Many companies have embraced innovative technologies to improve their last-mile delivery operations. Here are a few examples from worldwide leading businesses. FedEx This global delivery provider has been exploring autonomous delivery solutions for some time, and one result is Roxo, the SameDay Bot. It’s a delivery robot designed to transport smaller shipments, specifically in urban environments where traffic and parking can be tricky. Roxo can navigate pedestrian paths and even climb stairs, which makes it an efficient option for quick, local deliveries. DHL Another logistics giant has leveraged AI and machine learning to optimize their delivery routes. The company has reported reduced delivery times, fuel costs, and CO2 emissions. Furthermore, DHL uses IoT for predictive vehicle maintenance, which allows them to improve efficiency by reducing unexpected downtime. Domino's Pizza The major fast food chain has partnered with Nuro, a leading autonomous delivery company, to use their autonomous vehicles for pizza delivery in the US. By providing customers with a unique pin to retrieve their order from the vehicle, Domino's has streamlined its delivery process and enhanced customer experience. Zipline Zipline is a company that uses drones for last-mile delivery of medical supplies. It operates in hard-to-reach places like rural Rwanda and Ghana, where conventional delivery methods just don’t work. By deploying drones, Zipline ensures that hospitals and health centers receive necessary supplies promptly. Potential problems Despite all these advantages, there are potential challenges that businesses need to navigate while using new tech solutions for their last-mile delivery. Regulatory issues may be a significant roadblock, especially concerning autonomous vehicles and drones. Different regions have various rules regarding unmanned vehicle operation, and compliance is important here. Cybersecurity is another concern. With businesses growing increasingly dependent on digital solutions, the threat of cyberattacks grows high. It's crucial to have strong security protocols to protect sensitive data, like customer details and payment information. The initial cost of these technologies can be significant. Deploying state-of-the-art AI systems, autonomous vehicles, or blockchain solutions requires a sizable investment. Some businesses, especially smaller ones, might find these upfront costs too much. And while some customers appreciate the convenience and speed these technologies offer, others may have privacy or safety concerns, particularly around drone deliveries and data sharing. Lastly, technical issues and the need for skilled personnel to manage these new technologies can also present challenges. Companies need to ensure they have the necessary technical expertise on hand to implement and operate these solutions. What lies in the future Looking ahead, new technologies are set to continue transforming the last-mile delivery sector. Innovations such as hyper-local fulfillment centers and advanced predictive analytics could lead to even faster and more efficient deliveries. We might also see wider adoption of blockchain for logistics, enabling even greater transparency and security in transactions. As technologies mature, we will likely witness increased cooperation between regulatory bodies and businesses to create supportive frameworks for innovations like drone delivery. This could make last-mile delivery even more efficient. The evolution of e-commerce logistics depends on our willingness to adopt these innovative technologies. Given the clear benefits — enhanced efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and customer satisfaction — it appears that businesses should be keen to invest in these advancements and utilize them. However, embracing these solutions should also come with a degree of caution. It's essential to navigate potential challenges, such as regulatory hurdles and cybersecurity risks, with due diligence. The right balance will allow businesses to optimize their last-mile delivery services effectively while maintaining customer trust.

Innovative Technologies for Last-Mile Delivery in E-commerce Logistics Scaling

A Rising Tide of SaaS Companies Providing Infrastructure For Today’s Fastest Growing Businesses By now, everyone has marveled at the meteoric rise of on-demand economy companies like Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and Slack. So much has been written about the factors that have propelled them to popularity — innovative tech tools, mobile technology, , rising consumer demand for immediate services and the increasing acceptance of people-to-people shared assets. the elasticity in expenses and pricing permitted by cloud computing Recently, though, more attention is being paid to the startups behind the startups. These are the growing cohort of sophisticated B2B tech companies that provide the support systems require to streamline operations and scale up to even greater heights. These “infrastructure” startups make on-demand economy platforms run efficiently and focus on their opportunities for growth. on-demand enterprises Though they may not get the same attention as the Ubers of the world, these B2B SaaS platforms enable new on-demand companies to move forward without reinventing the wheel every time. Consumers and providers see a sleekly designed app connecting customers and independent contractors, but underpinning the platforms is software that helps automate the infrastructure. In essence, the on-demand economy has spawned an entirely new ecosystem of ancillary tech companies providing services in categories including: Payments Community collaboration Human resources Integration services Customer support Training Focusing on the core This trend is similar to how companies emerged to supply parts to the auto industry. That allowed big auto brands to innovate by investing more resources in designers to create stunning design, in engineers to improve performance and in marketers to hone their message and build their audience. These investments were possible because the company no longer has to spend energy on basic parts that every car needs. Like in the auto industry, B2B SaaS platforms are enabling entrepreneurs with great ideas for on-demand companies to get up and running faster than ever because they don’t have to recreate all the core infrastructure tech from scratch. Additionally, like Airbnb and Uber can improve gross margins and profitability by beginning to outsource the legacy non-core systems they built before these offerings existed. Their success is nurturing the growth of the larger ecosystem of infrastructure providers. established on-demand companies Partnering with B2B SaaS companies for infrastructure makes perfect sense for on-demand startups. They are often founded on the idea that instead of a central corporate entity delivering produce products and services, the platform can facilitate the distribution of services or assets (like a home or car ride) between individuals in a decentralized fashion. So distributing activities that aren’t core to their value proposition works naturally in this environment. On-demand economy companies focus on developing a great platform to . Their resources are better utilized concentrating on that rather than building an infrastructure system, especially when there are so many tech solutions in the marketplace that can provide those services. connect consumers with the service The companies behind the on-demand economy Recently, a . The solutions provided by these companies touch on everything from background checks of contractors and HR administration to schedule management and route logistics for delivery services. CB Insights article detailed over 50 tech startups providing infrastructure support to on-demand economy companies Here are just a few examples: companies like and , which are doing for the on-demand economy what Paypal did for eBay by reducing friction for both the customer and provider sides of platforms. Payment processing Stripe Braintree companies like and , which reduce support costs by leveraging the engagement and knowledge of a company’s customer base. Community collaboration Lithium Jive-x softwares like and gives your team a single place to manage all of your HR needs — payroll, benefits, compliance, and more. Human Resources Bamboo HR Zenefits software like and , which help growing on-demand companies scale up finding the best-qualified candidates for their workforce. Recruiting and onboarding Fountain Intuit Workforce services like and Onfido, which reduce compliance and security risks, critical in business models that use large numbers of providers. Background check support Chekr software like and , which speed up applications and approvals so providers can out in the field and earning money. Document signing HelloSign Docusign services like , which help the first generation of digital-native and mobile-native companies automate their workflows. Integration Zapier companies like and , which give on-demand companies plug-and-play infrastructure for live chat, support, engagement, service and marketing. Community support Intercom Zendesk companies like , , , and Beeline, which power the delivery management, safety analytics, navigation, scheduling, dispatching, critical to many on-demand startups. Fleet optimization Onfleet Zendrive Routific Fleetmatics Partnering for success Our company, , a modern LMS for customer, partner and workforce training, recently worked with on-demand economy platform , an online food delivery service, to help optimize the onboarding process for their couriers. When we first met with Postmates, onboarding new couriers took a month, which was way too long of a lag time between the complicated application and first revenue-generating assignment. SchoolKeep Postmates By partnering with us to implement our B2B software, Postmates’ onboarding time for couriers was reduced to just one day. Required documents were collected while the couriers were simultaneously educated and guided through a frictionless onboarding process. All this was achieved without Postmates having to build the costly process flow themselves. Instead of spending valuable engineering resources on solving the problem, they leveraged a software optimized to support SaaS companies. This allowed them to focus on building new and improved features and on enhancing the experience for both couriers and consumers. The on-demand business model is a proven economic engine of the future, and it’s exciting to see these new B2B infrastructure platforms making it even easier and cheaper for entrepreneurs to bring their ideas for to fruition. on-demand services Next time you read about the on-demand economy giants, remember there’s also a growing ecosystem of infrastructure startups partnering with those enterprises to help them succeed. By reducing costs and freeing up resources for innovation, they let the Ubers of the world do what they do best — create outstanding user experiences for customers and providers and create businesses built to thrive for the long term. Summary A growing number of tech startups providing everything from HR administration and training to route logistics and marketing power are reducing costs and supporting the growth of today’s on-demand platforms. One of the main things fast growing companies are doing is utilizing training as a competitive advantage. To get started, check out . The Beginner’s Guide to Creating an Online Training Program

Powering the On-Demand Economy

With all of my interest in technology and innovation, what really makes me tick is finding ways to intertwine my love of (Jewish mystical philosophy) with the technological tools that are rapidly evolving and shaping our lives. Chassidus Despite all of our advancement and development, humans still yearn for an inner connection and purpose. So with all the information bombardment and distractions synonymous with our advancements, how do we find a path through all of the “noise?” , the mystical populist movement jumpstarted by the in the early 18th Century among Eastern European Jewry teaches that everything in Creation can be uplifted for a higher purpose. From eating to entertainment, are not really mundane tools, but rather vehicles for a Divine purpose. The challenge is not the tools, but rather who is harnessing them and what their mission is. Chassidus Baal Shem Tov Today’s advancements in bio and medical technologies as well as ease of communication has radically changed our world for the good. Yet, the darkness that has spread across social media and messaging platforms like Telegram, Tinder, and even WhatsApp has disrupted social norms in place for thousands of years, unleashing visceral urges and deviant behaviors. Most of all, social media and messaging apps have funneled away the exuberance and joy of our youth. How Do We Rectify These Tools? The drive to know, to connect to one another has replaced the patient growth that was once held dear to most people. The constant data driven targeting and influencing allowed and even pushed by Google and Facebook as well as other big information and social media giants can be overcome. Ultimately the solution rests within each of us. Our main mission in our lives is to strive to instill within our mundane reality a higher purpose to our choices. When technology comes into conflict with this, it means we ourselves are not choosing correctly. Once again the onus is on us, no on the tools. This means the tools we use must be part of the mission we are striving to carry out — that part of us which yearns to spread goodness and light in the world. If these technological tools are used for the opposite, meaning to aid our selfishness and base desires, then no good can come from them. Only evil. These vessels, tools, and technology can and should be uplifted from a mundane appearance to that of purposeful existence. In , this is called filling the vessels with light. Chassidus Each one of us wants to draw our special individual light into the world. However, we are easily distracted, caught up into the mundane covering and never realizing that the tools we have can be used for a higher purpose. If we want to truly change our world, we must first change ourselves and then the technology we use will change as well.

Inner Purpose and the Rectification of Technology

Multiple countries are committed to signing the world’s first artificial intelligence treaty, which will soon be ratified and go into effect. Is it too little, too late? Will it adversely affect research and development in the field? The only way to predict its impact is to dissect the framework’s language and analyze existing AI regulations. World Leaders Have Already Signed the AI Treaty The Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law is the world’s first AI Treaty. After spending years in development and being adopted in May 2024 by the Council of Europe — a 46-member human rights organization — it opened for signature in September. This treaty is a legal framework that covers an algorithm’s entire life cycle. Interestingly, the Council of Europe defines an AI system as a “machine-based system” that uses input to infer how to generate outputs, including content, predictions, decisions, and recommendations. The framework explicitly notes the existence of subsets. The 57 countries and entities that negotiated the AI Treaty now get an opportunity to sign it. World leaders like the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States were among the first to sign. The treaty will go into effect after a three-month buffer period once five signatories — including three members of the Council of Europe — ratify it. The distinction between signing and ratification is essential. While the first indicates a country’s approval, the latter is legal consent. Since the Council of Europe’s AI Treaty is legally binding, the Council of Europe must follow through with this second step to enforce it. If it proceeds, each nation will have to develop a governance framework. This treaty requires those involved to make broad commitments to safety, privacy, and ethics, leaving the finer details open to interpretation so each party can navigate them as they see fit. Whether they adopt legislative, administrative, or investigative measures, they must make an effort to ensure accountability for AI’s impacts on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Why the World Is Working Together to Regulate AI Although advanced AI has only existed for a few years, it has already greatly impacted most industries. Sectors like health care, manufacturing, and agriculture have historically been slow to adopt the latest technologies but have readily accepted artificial intelligence. For instance, 86% of healthcare companies, 50% of senior sales and marketing professionals, and even 76% of researchers are using AI today — and even more plan to adopt it in the future. With these algorithms entering every industry from education to retail, inaction is risky. In terms of safety, there is a significant cybersecurity threat posed by large language models collecting massive amounts of user information. A single data breach could result in a countless number of credit card fraud, impersonation__,__ and identity theft cases. Unchecked development could be unsafe or unethical even without considering potential security issues. Advanced algorithms can produce hundreds of thousands of words in seconds, process thousands of documents in moments, and extract hidden insights without preparation. In other words, they are incredibly powerful — and there is virtually no barrier to entry. What happens if a terror group poisons a dataset to spread misinformation? How does the government punish a company for stealing personally identifiable information from users? Until the law catches up, regulatory and law enforcement agencies are at a disadvantage. The world is working together to regulate AI because it recognizes the potential danger. How the World’s First AI Treaty Came to Be AI is rapidly evolving, leaving regulatory agencies struggling to keep up. While the world’s first AI Treaty marks a turning point in regulation, it is not the first step nations have taken to control this technology’s growth. Many have been concerned since it first began trending, prompting them to work quickly to put new laws on the books. In 2021, the EU proposed regulations to control AI. By 2024, it had developed and adopted the world’s first comprehensive AI regulation. The EU AI Act establishes rules for providers and users depending on the system’s risk level. Many countries looked to it for guidance when developing their own governance frameworks. No comprehensive regulation exists in the United States. However, the Biden Administration enacted an executive order in 2023 on AI's safe development and use. It outlined eight guiding principles for federal agencies, instructing them to prioritize security and transparency for responsible innovation. It also recently published a blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. International standards also exist, though, like many governance frameworks, they aren’t enforceable. For instance, ISO/IEC 42001 — published by the International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission — is the world’s first standard for AI management systems and means to promote progress without stifling innovation. How Will the AI Treaty Affect the Average AI User? Since the AI Treaty doesn’t specify rules, laws, or punishments, there’s no telling how it will affect the average AI user yet. Although it goes into effect just three months after being ratified by five countries, most nations will need more time to draft legislation. They will likely prioritize sharing and refining frameworks over implementation for a few years. Technically, a follow-up mechanism exists to enforce the treaty’s requirements. Countries must periodically report to the Conference of the Parties to share what steps they’ve taken. However, deviation won’t exactly get them in trouble. This system of accountability can only incentivize progress — there likely won’t be any legitimate punishment for noncompliance. For the time being, AI companies and users are safe from regulation. Eventually, though, the federal government will create rules that influence advanced algorithms' development, testing, and utilization. It may be sooner than later since the legally binding framework they have just entered into incentivizes them to accelerate their progress. What This Means for the Future of AI Technology Without details on how major world powers expect to proceed with regulation, there’s no telling how their involvement in the AI Treaty could influence the future of algorithm-based technology. That said, extrapolating the results of the few existing comprehensive governance frameworks can help narrow the possibilities. The AI Treaty’s Potential Positive Influence People’s first reaction to regulation is usually adverse — they expect it to make their lives more difficult or unnecessarily convoluted. In reality, legal frameworks are essential for protecting companies and end users from unforeseen adverse outcomes. Since AI’s capabilities remain largely unexplored, guidance is critical. Even if the United States or the United Kingdom were to create a comprehensive governance framework today, their rules would only be enforceable within their borders. The emergence of the world’s first AI treaty marks a promising turning point for regulation. Moreover, regulation may ultimately incentivize research and development. Patent and copyright law are excellent examples of this — they prevent one-to-one copies, forcing people to innovate. Holding AI companies to a higher standard could result in better, more trustworthy products instead of seemingly endless, low-effort imitations. The AI Treaty’s Potential Negative Influence Realistically, there is a significant chance AI companies — and firms using AI — will be noncompliant with whatever regulation their governments enforce because of the AI Treaty. While they will likely be given a grace period to fix those issues, a decent percentage will lack the resources to do so. As a result, they may go out of business, hindering innovation. Some experts may have an issue with the treaty’s language. Its main goal — to hold AI accountable for its impacts on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law — has already been criticized as being too Western and too abstract. Moreover, since the AI Treaty does not define specific measures countries must take, some may go too far. Regulating algorithms is uncharted territory. They may compensate for uncertainty by attempting to make their rules future-proof. In doing so, they could stifle research and development, preventing growth in domestic AI. Will This Treaty Stand in the Way of Innovation? The AI treaty likely won’t stifle innovation, but only time will tell. Industry professionals concerned about what this convention means for the future of research and development should follow their country’s regulatory agencies closely post-ratification. This way, they can act proactively to ensure they don’t risk noncompliance. Multiple countries are committed to signing the world’s first artificial intelligence treaty, which will soon be ratified and go into effect. Is it too little, too late? Will it adversely affect research and development in the field? The only way to predict its impact is to dissect the framework’s language and analyze existing AI regulations. World Leaders Have Already Signed the AI Treaty The Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law is the world’s first AI Treaty. After spending years in development and being adopted in May 2024 by the Council of Europe — a 46-member human rights organization — it opened for signature in September. This treaty is a legal framework that covers an algorithm’s entire life cycle. Interestingly, the Council of Europe defines an AI system as a “machine-based system” that uses input to infer how to generate outputs, including content, predictions, decisions, and recommendations. The framework explicitly notes the existence of subsets. as a “machine-based system” as a “machine-based system” The 57 countries and entities that negotiated the AI Treaty now get an opportunity to sign it. World leaders like the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States were among the first to sign. The treaty will go into effect after a three-month buffer period once five signatories — including three members of the Council of Europe — ratify it. after a three-month buffer period after a three-month buffer period The distinction between signing and ratification is essential. While the first indicates a country’s approval, the latter is legal consent. Since the Council of Europe’s AI Treaty is legally binding, the Council of Europe must follow through with this second step to enforce it. If it proceeds, each nation will have to develop a governance framework. This treaty requires those involved to make broad commitments to safety, privacy, and ethics, leaving the finer details open to interpretation so each party can navigate them as they see fit. Whether they adopt legislative, administrative, or investigative measures, they must make an effort to ensure accountability for AI’s impacts on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Why the World Is Working Together to Regulate AI Although advanced AI has only existed for a few years, it has already greatly impacted most industries. Sectors like health care, manufacturing, and agriculture have historically been slow to adopt the latest technologies but have readily accepted artificial intelligence. For instance, 86% of healthcare companies, 50% of senior sales and marketing professionals, and even 76% of researchers are using AI today — and even more plan to adopt it in the future. 86% of healthcare 86% of healthcare 50% of senior sales 50% of senior sales 76% of researchers 76% of researchers With these algorithms entering every industry from education to retail, inaction is risky. In terms of safety, there is a significant cybersecurity threat posed by large language models collecting massive amounts of user information. A single data breach could result in a countless number of credit card fraud, impersonation__ , __ and identity theft cases. , Unchecked development could be unsafe or unethical even without considering potential security issues. Advanced algorithms can produce hundreds of thousands of words in seconds, process thousands of documents in moments, and extract hidden insights without preparation. In other words, they are incredibly powerful — and there is virtually no barrier to entry. What happens if a terror group poisons a dataset to spread misinformation? How does the government punish a company for stealing personally identifiable information from users? Until the law catches up, regulatory and law enforcement agencies are at a disadvantage. The world is working together to regulate AI because it recognizes the potential danger. How the World’s First AI Treaty Came to Be AI is rapidly evolving, leaving regulatory agencies struggling to keep up. While the world’s first AI Treaty marks a turning point in regulation, it is not the first step nations have taken to control this technology’s growth. Many have been concerned since it first began trending, prompting them to work quickly to put new laws on the books. In 2021, the EU proposed regulations to control AI. By 2024, it had developed and adopted the world’s first comprehensive AI regulation. The EU AI Act establishes rules for providers and users depending on the system’s risk level. Many countries looked to it for guidance when developing their own governance frameworks. establishes rules for providers and users establishes rules for providers and users No comprehensive regulation exists in the United States. However, the Biden Administration enacted an executive order in 2023 on AI's safe development and use. It outlined eight guiding principles for federal agencies, instructing them to prioritize security and transparency for responsible innovation. It also recently published a blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. enacted an executive order enacted an executive order International standards also exist, though, like many governance frameworks, they aren’t enforceable. For instance, ISO/IEC 42001 — published by the International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission — is the world’s first standard for AI management systems and means to promote progress without stifling innovation. is the world’s first standard is the world’s first standard How Will the AI Treaty Affect the Average AI User? Since the AI Treaty doesn’t specify rules, laws, or punishments, there’s no telling how it will affect the average AI user yet. Although it goes into effect just three months after being ratified by five countries, most nations will need more time to draft legislation. They will likely prioritize sharing and refining frameworks over implementation for a few years. Technically, a follow-up mechanism exists to enforce the treaty’s requirements. Countries must periodically report to the Conference of the Parties to share what steps they’ve taken. However, deviation won’t exactly get them in trouble. This system of accountability can only incentivize progress — there likely won’t be any legitimate punishment for noncompliance. For the time being, AI companies and users are safe from regulation. Eventually, though, the federal government will create rules that influence advanced algorithms' development, testing, and utilization. It may be sooner than later since the legally binding framework they have just entered into incentivizes them to accelerate their progress. What This Means for the Future of AI Technology Without details on how major world powers expect to proceed with regulation, there’s no telling how their involvement in the AI Treaty could influence the future of algorithm-based technology. That said, extrapolating the results of the few existing comprehensive governance frameworks can help narrow the possibilities. The AI Treaty’s Potential Positive Influence People’s first reaction to regulation is usually adverse — they expect it to make their lives more difficult or unnecessarily convoluted. In reality, legal frameworks are essential for protecting companies and end users from unforeseen adverse outcomes. Since AI’s capabilities remain largely unexplored, guidance is critical. Even if the United States or the United Kingdom were to create a comprehensive governance framework today, their rules would only be enforceable within their borders. The emergence of the world’s first AI treaty marks a promising turning point for regulation. Moreover, regulation may ultimately incentivize research and development. Patent and copyright law are excellent examples of this — they prevent one-to-one copies, forcing people to innovate. Holding AI companies to a higher standard could result in better, more trustworthy products instead of seemingly endless, low-effort imitations. The AI Treaty’s Potential Negative Influence Realistically, there is a significant chance AI companies — and firms using AI — will be noncompliant with whatever regulation their governments enforce because of the AI Treaty. While they will likely be given a grace period to fix those issues, a decent percentage will lack the resources to do so. As a result, they may go out of business, hindering innovation. Some experts may have an issue with the treaty’s language. Its main goal — to hold AI accountable for its impacts on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law — has already been criticized as being too Western and too abstract. has already been criticized has already been criticized Moreover, since the AI Treaty does not define specific measures countries must take, some may go too far. Regulating algorithms is uncharted territory. They may compensate for uncertainty by attempting to make their rules future-proof. In doing so, they could stifle research and development, preventing growth in domestic AI. Will This Treaty Stand in the Way of Innovation? The AI treaty likely won’t stifle innovation, but only time will tell. Industry professionals concerned about what this convention means for the future of research and development should follow their country’s regulatory agencies closely post-ratification. This way, they can act proactively to ensure they don’t risk noncompliance.

What Does the World's First AI Treaty Mean for the Future of AI?

Decentralized Micro-Governance Model for the Kingdom of Tonga Based on Proof-of-Work Consensus

Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 12 of 21. II The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an a textual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law. The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.” Ante, at 6. This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority’s attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. In any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all “official act[s].” Ante, at 14. Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. Finally, the majority declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him. See ante, at 30–32. That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force. Under scrutiny, its arguments crumble. To start, the majority’s broad “official acts” immunity is inconsistent with text, history, and established understandings of the President’s role. See Part III, infra. Moreover, it is deeply wrong, even on its own functionalist terms. See Part IV, infra. Next, the majority’s “core” immunity is both unnecessary and misguided. See Part V, infra. Furthermore, the majority’s illogical evidentiary holding is unprecedented. See Part VI, infra. Finally, this majority’s project will have disastrous consequences for the Presidency and for our democracy. See Part VII, infra. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. [1] Article II, §4, provides: “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” [2] To note, as the majority does, see ante, at 39, that this Court has recognized civil immunities arguably inconsistent with this view is not to say that Pinckney was wrong about what the Framers had “intended.” Indeed, Pinckney’s contemporaries shared the same view during the ratification debates. See, e.g., 4 Debates on the Constitution 109 (J. Elliot ed. 1836) (J. Iredell) (“If the President does a single act by which the people are prejudiced, he is punishable himself. . . . If he commits any crime, he is punishable by the laws of his country”). Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 12 of 21. Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 12 of 21. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here II The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an a textual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law. The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.” Ante, at 6. This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority’s attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. In any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all “official act[s].” Ante, at 14. Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. Finally, the majority declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him. See ante, at 30–32. That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force. Under scrutiny, its arguments crumble. To start, the majority’s broad “official acts” immunity is inconsistent with text, history, and established understandings of the President’s role. See Part III, infra. Moreover, it is deeply wrong, even on its own functionalist terms. See Part IV, infra. Next, the majority’s “core” immunity is both unnecessary and misguided. See Part V, infra. Furthermore, the majority’s illogical evidentiary holding is unprecedented. See Part VI, infra. Finally, this majority’s project will have disastrous consequences for the Presidency and for our democracy. See Part VII, infra. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. supremecourt.gov [1] Article II, §4, provides: “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” [2] To note, as the majority does, see ante, at 39, that this Court has recognized civil immunities arguably inconsistent with this view is not to say that Pinckney was wrong about what the Framers had “intended.” Indeed, Pinckney’s contemporaries shared the same view during the ratification debates. See, e.g., 4 Debates on the Constitution 109 (J. Elliot ed. 1836) (J. Iredell) (“If the President does a single act by which the people are prejudiced, he is punishable himself. . . . If he commits any crime, he is punishable by the laws of his country”).

Justice Sotomayor's Dissenting Opinion on Trump v United States

How the U.S. Supreme Court Decided on the Outcome of Trump v United States

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Qin Wang, CSIRO Data61, Australia; (2) Shiping Chen, CSIRO Data61, Australia. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Ethereum Accounts Account Abstraction Security Analysis Further Discussions Conclusion & References IV. SECURITY ANALYSIS We explore the potential security issues that may exist in new account formats after its update. We recall a series of account threats and related smart contract risks and develop a framework to evaluate potential risks in account abstraction. Conventional analyses of Ethereum often partition it into four distinct layers (e.g., [20]): the application layer (including accounts, smart contracts, and EVM), the data layer (including transactions, blocks, and events), the consensus layer (involving PoX mechanisms and incentives), and the network layer (comprising node discovery, message propagation, and verification). Given the central theme of this endeavor around accounts, we deliberately narrow our purview to the application layer, exploring the potential vulnerabilities targeting accounts, smart contracts, and related solidity language. Additionally, our coverage extends to certain elements within the transaction and block layers. Focused scope. (Tab.III). Inspired by a series of elegant investigations [20]–[27], we distill a succinct overview of vulnerabilities present within the current Ethereum application layer. These vulnerabilities can be broadly attributed to three factors: design pitfalls, vulnerabilities intrinsic to the Solidity programming language, and errors stemming from contract programming. Within each of these categories, we identify and elaborate upon sub-vulnerabilities ( ) that manifest across diverse functions and processes ( ). Our discussion then delves into the potential of account abstraction to alleviate these vulnerabilities. We examine the feasibility of employing account abstraction to mitigate these issues and explore strategies for implementation that could effectively address these concerns ( ). Framework design Vulnerability CauseFmWhere byWhichFunc . Our discussions are categorized into two facets, contingent upon the effectiveness of AA updates. Analyses This vulnerability centers around a concurrency issue where the blockchain’s future state is contingent upon the sequence of transaction execution, a process influenced by miners who group transactions into blocks based on incentives. The design of AA effectively mitigates this problem by employing bundlers to manage and submit transactions. Unlike miners or validators, bundlers have a limited scope of impacting transaction orders, as they handle a relatively small number of transactions. ✓ Transaction disorder. This vulnerability happens when a contract utilizes block.timestamp in crucial operations or as a means of generating randomness. It can be exploited by a malicious miner who has the capability to manipulate the value of block.timestamp (evidenced by [28]). The introduction of account abstraction helps address this concern, as AA reduces reliance on block.timestamp and shifts focus to bundlers, which are better suited for managing transactions and ensuring more controlled and secure interactions. ✓ Timestamp manipulation. The vulnerability stems from the EVM’s absence of address validity checking. In the process of encoding during contract invocation, if the encoded arguments’ length is insufficient, the EVM compensates by adding extra zeros to ensure 32 bytes. The AA design, through the involvement of the bundler and EntryPoint contract, can mitigate this issue. The design can effectively check the length of Ethereum addresses via msg.data. ✓ Short address. This vulnerability revolves around the manipulation of seed (a form of randomness) by malicious miners in gambling and lottery contracts that use pseudorandom number generation. AA might not directly enhance the security of random seed creation. This is because the process of generating random seeds typically involves functions within the contract logic rather than being directly embedded in accounts, which is the primary focus of AA. ✗ Randomness reliance. Malicious actors leverage empty accounts (devoid of nonce, balance, code, and storage) to initiate a DoS attack. These empty accounts still necessitate tracking within the Ethereum state trie and result in extended transaction processing times. AA is not equipped to mitigate this vulnerability, as it currently lacks verification mechanisms for empty accounts. However, the issue has been addressed through the implementation of EIP-161. ✗ Empty account. Ethereum uses the gas mechanism to deter abuse of computing resources, but this vulnerability emerges when the gas cost for resource consumption is improperly set. The exploitation of under-priced opcodes will consume a disproportionate amount of computing resources. This issue is not specifically addressed by the design of account abstraction, as it pertains to the gas pricing and resource allocation mechanisms within Ethereum. ✗ Under-price opcodes. Solidity would trigger an exception and terminate the call due to its rigid limit of 1,024 frames in the EVM call stack. Malicious actors could recursively call a contract, causing it to reach the maximum stack depth and fail subsequent external calls. While account abstraction cannot inherently address this specific vulnerability, changes in the Ethereum protocol (e.g., EIP-150) can indirectly impact AA as well as other aspects of the Ethereum ecosystem. ✗ Stack limit. The vulnerability arises when a contract’s execution demands a greater amount of gas than the permitted block gas limit. This occurs due to the inclusion of unbounded operations, such as loops, within the contract. AA design offers effective solutions to counter such issues in two primary ways: Firstly, the paymaster contract defines a fee policy that establishes clear limitations on gas limits. This mechanism ensures that transactions adhere to predefined gas constraints, preventing situations where execution demands exceed the allowable limit. Secondly, after AA’s update, every loop in smart contracts is invoked by an internal account rather than an external account. This setup grants the contract owner the ability to terminate loops if necessary ✓ Unbounded operations. This vulnerability stems from the inconsistency between the two return values from different calling routes: (i) directly referencing the callee contract instance and (ii) using low-level methods like send and call. Route-(i) will return the call back to the caller while Route- (ii) returns false to the caller. The inconsistency in behavior persists in the current state of the Solidity compiler, lacking rectification. AA design does not inherently address this issue, but updates or changes in the Solidity compiler or EVM could potentially influence AA as well. ✗ Inconsistent call returns. The vulnerability arises from Solidity’s behavior regarding uninitialized compound local variables, which, when not explicitly initialized, leads to the reference defaulting to slot 0 and overwriting content from that point onwards. AA design does not address this particular languagelevel issue, but it’s fortunate that the vulnerability was rectified by updating the version of Solidity. ✗ Pointer unreset. ✗ Outdated compiler. This vulnerability surfaces when a contract is compiled using an outdated compiler that harbors bugs. While AA design may not directly address this concern, it aligns with the solution: opting for an up-to-date compiler can substantially reduce the associated risks. Keeping the compiler current is a key practice to ensure the solidity and security of the compiled contracts. The vulnerability stems from the misnaming of the constructor function, inadvertently allowing unauthorized parties to take ownership of the contract. While AA design cannot directly solve this issue, it is fortunate that the problem was mitigated through the introduction of the constructor keyword ✓ Unclear constructor name. A contract can invoke another contract’s function by directly referencing the callee contract’s instance. However, the verification process carried out by the Solidity compiler only assesses whether the invoked function has been declared, and it doesn’t extend to verifying child functions that the invoked function inherits or parent functions that trigger it. This loophole can lead to unintended function execution. AA design does not offer a solution for this vulnerability, as it stems from Solidity’s insufficient type system. In this context, AA’s mechanisms don’t directly address this issue. ✗ Type casts. The vulnerability arises when an external contract initiates a function within the caller contract before the latter’s ongoing execution concludes—essentially manifesting as a cyclic call. This exploitable invocation persists until the caller contract depletes its gas resources. The foundation of this vulnerability can be attributed to two pivotal factors: (i) a contract’s decision-making hinges on specific state variables, which necessitate updating prior to invoking another contract; and (ii) the absence of a predefined gas limit for the transition. The introduction of AA can offer a partial solution to this issue. AA’s advantages, including reduced gas consumption and the ability to control transactions precisely through the paymaster contract, contribute to its potential mitigation. Additionally, user operations are treated as distinct inputs through independent transactions, fostering an environment free from dependencies on other contracts. This segregation of operations enhances security by reducing the risk of vulnerability to such cyclic call-related attacks. ✓ Reentrancy. The vulnerability arises from a scenario in which users can deposit funds into their contract accounts but are unable to later access or spend those deposited funds. Two primary factors contribute to this vulnerability: (i) contracts not furnishing a function for the expenditure of funds, and (ii) the inadvertent or deliberate termination of the callee contract. Account abstraction can offer partial mitigation of this vulnerability due to its transaction batching made by bundlers. With each user-requested operation, such as depositing funds into a smart contract, the transaction bundler gains an enhanced capability to inspect the contract before sending tokens. This heightened level of examination surpasses that of a standard user. The transaction bundler possesses the potential to ensure that operations transpire within the confines of the originating contract’s security. ✓ Frozen ether. Contract upgrading can be approached through two methods: (i) Dividing a contract into a proxy contract (non-updatable) and a logic contract (updatable). (ii) Employing a registry contract to maintain a record of the updated contracts. While the design of account abstraction is separate from these complexities, its contract functionalities align with its principles of upgradability. ✗ Upgraded contract. EVM offers an opcode called delegatecall, allowing the bytecode of a callee contract to be inserted into the bytecode of the caller contract. The vulnerability arises due to the possibility that a callee contract can modify state variables within the caller contract. Account abstraction does not inherently provide a distinct method to mitigate this particular vulnerability. The effectiveness of AA’s security in mitigating the issue hinges on its inherent design and solution. Fortunately, addressing this can be achieved via a straightforward means by enhancing its declaration. ✗ Delegatecall injection. This vulnerability stems from the situation where a callee contract causes the execution of a caller contract to be reverted. The design of account abstraction does not offer a significantly improved mitigation for this issue, as it fundamentally stems from contract programming practices. Consequently, this vulnerability might still be pertinent even within AA’s contract functionalities. ✗ Unexpected revert. This vulnerability surfaces when a contract’s decision-making relies on the values of this.balance or address(this).balance. These values can be manipulated by an attacker to gain unauthorized access to funds. The design update introduced by AA can potentially influence this vulnerability. In AA, all account addresses are explicitly bound with balances, unlike the implicit nature of the former design. This alteration could impact the dynamics of this vulnerability. ✓ Manipulated balance. This vulnerability arises when the result of an arithmetic operation surpasses the range of a Solidity data type. Regrettably, neither the Solidity compiler nor the EVM incorporates mechanisms to identify integer overflow or underflow. Account abstraction design limitations prevent it from overcoming these challenges. However, a solution to mitigate this vulnerability is within reach through the utilization of the SafeMath library, which has already proven effective in handling such arithmetic issues. ✗ Integer overflow. The vulnerability surfaces when a sender channels funds to multiple recipients via a proxy contract, bypassing individual transactions. In this mechanism, the proxy contract evaluates the authenticity of digital signatures from senders. If these signatures lack essential data (such as nonce or proxy contract address), a malicious recipient can exploit the situation to replay the message repeatedly, facilitating the withdrawal of surplus payments. In AA’s design, the role of the bundler mirrors that of a proxy agent. The bundler manages the accumulation of multiple transactions, functioning as a trusted entity. This approach not only aligns with the principles of a proxy contract but also serves as a safeguard against replay attacks. Further, the adoption of multi-sig techniques in AA can also contribute to the mitigation of issues. ✓ Insufficient signature. When the owner of a contract or a third party utilizes the self-destruct method to terminate a contract, the contract’s bytecode and storage will be erased. The vulnerability emerges from inadequate authentication mechanisms embedded within the contract. AA can indeed mitigate this issue by introducing multi-factor authentication, a more robust approach. This mandates the approval of multiple parties before a suicide operation is executed. By implementing this safeguard, AA enhances security by fortifying the authentication process and reducing the likelihood of unauthorized termination. ✓ Self-destruct contract. The problem originates from the utilization of tx.origin, a global variable within Solidity that identifies the original EOA responsible for triggering the transaction. The vulnerability arises when a contract employs tx.origin for authorization, thereby exposing it to phishing attacks. AA addresses this concern through its integration of EOA with contract invocation. The integration is pivotal as AA replaces tx.origin with msg.sender in default authentication. This shift is now a necessary step to bolster security against vulnerabilities stemming from tx.origin usage. ✓ tx.origin. This security issue arises due to the absence of identity verification when a caller invokes a function to transfer Ether to a random address. As seen in the mitigation strategies employed for previous balance-related vulnerabilities, the authentication mechanisms and the role of the bundler within account abstraction can aid in alleviating this problem. This ensures that only authorized entities are permitted to initiate such actions, thwarting unauthorized withdrawals. ✓ Wrong payment. Transaction details within a blockchain are inherently public due to the nature of the technology. While designating a state variable as private can limit other contracts’ access, the value of such a variable can still be inferred from transaction data. It’s worth noting that AA design does not specifically address the intricacies of transaction confidentiality; however, it aligns with the overall progression of smart contract evolution. Mitigation strategies encompass the implementation of cryptographic techniques like commitment schemes [29] and zero-knowledge proofs [30]. Additionally, hardware-based solutions [31] could also be explored to enhance the security of sensitive data within an untrusted environment. ✗ Lack of confidentiality. This vulnerability stems from inaccurately defining the visibility of a function, where the default public visibility can be exploited by attackers to improperly access functions. AA design doesn’t directly address this issue but aligns with its solution. This vulnerability is mitigated by requiring explicit specification of function visibility, a measure AA’s design also adheres to. ✗ Erroneous visibility.

Account Abstraction, Analysed: Security Analysis

How to Write Your Own Typesafe React Router in 500 Lines

কিভাবে 500 লাইনে আপনার নিজের টাইপসেফ রিঅ্যাক্ট রাউটার লিখবেন

So schreiben Sie Ihren eigenen typsicheren React-Router in 500 Zeilen

Cómo escribir su propio enrutador Typesafe React en 500 líneas

Comment écrire votre propre routeur Typesafe React en 500 lignes

500 पंक्तियों में अपना खुद का टाइपसेफ रिएक्ट राउटर कैसे लिखें

独自のタイプセーフな React Router を 500 行で書く方法

500줄로 나만의 Typesafe React Router를 작성하는 방법

Como escrever seu próprio roteador Typesafe React em 500 linhas

Как написать свой собственный Typesafe React Router в 500 строк

Kendi Typesafe React Router'ınızı 500 Satırda Nasıl Yazabilirsiniz?

Cách viết Bộ định tuyến React Typesafe của riêng bạn trong 500 dòng

如何用 500 行代码编写自己的类型安全 React 路由器

The recent revelation of the purchasing the sensitive internet data of Americans did not feel like a bombshell despite its potential to shake public trust in government surveillance practices. National Security Agency (NSA) No front-page headlines blared with outrage; no politicians clamored for accountability. It seemed as though the acceptance of ubiquitous surveillance had dulled our collective sense of shock. Let’s talk about this shocking revelation and its profound implications for our data security. The NSA's Purchasing of Browser Data: A Breach of Legal Protocol In the digital age, where our every click and keystroke can be tracked, privacy often feels like a distant memory. But what if the very guardians of our freedoms were covertly peering into our online lives without the necessary checks and balances? Recently, a revelation shook the foundations of trust in government surveillance. But the surprising aspect is there wasn't a bombshell or a breaking news alert. Rather, it was a quiet unveiling of documents that painted a stark picture of the NSA's covert activities. Senator Ron Wyden disclosed that the National Security Agency has been purchasing Americans' web browsing data from commercial data brokers without warrants. This means that government agencies regularly spy on Americans by acquiring confidential information, bypassing the court orders intended to safeguard individual privacy rights. What makes this revelation particularly damning is the hypocrisy it exposes. The United States has always been a symbol of freedom and democracy and was criticizing other states for surveillance practices. Yet, behind closed doors, it appears that the U.S. government was engaging in similar activities, albeit with a veneer of legality. But perhaps what's most troubling is the nonchalance with which this revelation was met. It underscores a dangerous complacency, a tacit acceptance of surveillance as the new normal. A Senator’s Call for Action Wyden fought for almost 3 years to publicly release the fact that the NSA is buying Americans’ internet records. He has even succeeded in obtaining public confirmation of that fact after  placing a hold on the nomination of Lt. General Timothy Haugh to serve as NSA director. Following Senator Wyden's previous efforts that compelled the FBI to admit its purchase of sensitive data, he is now urging all intelligence agencies to halt buying personal data acquired illegally by data brokers. Expressing concern, Wyden emphasized that the government should not support an industry that blatantly violates Americans' privacy, branding such actions as both unethical and illegal. He addressed a letter to Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence, urging for the adoption of policies aligning with the legal standards set by the FTC for data sales. Questioning the Legality of Data Acquisition NSA officials briefed Senator Wyden, revealing that the agency not only purchases data on Americans within the US but also acquires their Internet metadata. Senator Wyden expressed concern about the implications of this revelation. He explained that accessing such data could expose personal and sensitive information, such as individuals' online activities, including visits to websites offering mental health support, resources for survivors of abuse, or providers of reproductive health services like birth control or abortion medication. The Role of Intelligence Agencies in Data Broker Violations Wyden highlighted the possibility that intelligence agencies might inadvertently aid data brokers in violating FTC regulations, which mandate clear disclosures and informed consent from users before their data is sold. Despite his seven-year investigation into data brokers, Wyden noted the absence of any company providing such warnings to users prior to data collection. Wyden referred to the case of X-Mode, a data broker recently scrutinized by the FTC for its questionable practices. This case appeared after the company admitted to selling sensitive location data without user consent, even after consent revocation. He described the FTC's order as establishing "new rules," although it primarily serves as a form of common law through settlements, indicating unacceptable practices under the FTC Act. X-Mode's violations of the FTC Act encompassed various infractions, including unfairly selling sensitive data, disregarding consumers' privacy choices, and deceptively collecting and using location data without consent verification. However, the FTC did not provide clarification on whether the order extends to data purchases by intelligence agencies. It's also important to mention that the FTC order includes exemptions for data collected outside the US for security or national security purposes by federal agencies or entities. Wyden Calls for Compliance with FTC Regulations Senator Wyden urged the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to instruct US intelligence agencies to cease purchasing Americans' private data obtained unlawfully, as per the new rules outlined by the FTC quite recently. The FTC's recent ruling stipulated that Americans must be informed and give consent for their data to be sold to "government contractors for national security purposes." Also, to address this issue, Wyden called for intelligence agencies to conduct a thorough inventory and promptly erase any illegally obtained data on Americans without proper authorization. He argued that failing to do so allows agencies like the NSA and FBI to bypass constitutional protections like the Fourth Amendment effectively. Wyden's Recommendations to Ensure Compliance In addition to urging compliance with the FTC's regulations, Wyden proposed three actions for intelligence agency elements to ensure adherence to the latest rulings: Conduct Inventory of Purchased Personal Data Intelligence agencies should compile an inventory of the personal data purchased about Americans, encompassing aspects like location and internet metadata. This recommendation aligns with the suggestion made by the Office of the DNI's Senior Advisory Group Panel on Commercially Available Information in its January 2022 report. Assess Data Sources Against FTC Standards Each data source identified in the inventory should be evaluated to determine whether it meets the standards outlined by the FTC for legal personal data sales. This aligns with the Senior Advisory Group's recommendation to identify and safeguard sensitive Commercially Available Information that raises privacy and civil liberties concerns. Purge Non-Compliant Data If the data purchases do not meet the FTC's legal standards, intelligence agencies should promptly purge the data. Any specific need to retain such data should be communicated to Congress, and the details of retained data should be made known to the American public to the greatest extent possible. Wyden's call for intelligence agencies to inventory and purge unlawfully collected data signifies a crucial step toward accountability and rectification. By holding agencies accountable for their actions, we can mitigate the adverse impacts of unwarranted surveillance on individuals' rights. Responses to Waden on Shady Data Broker Dealings In reply to Wyden's letter, Ronald Moultrie, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security, assured that the Department of Defense (DoD) strictly follows rigorous standards for privacy and civil liberties when obtaining Americans' location data. He stated that there is no existing legal obligation for the DoD to acquire court orders for commercially available information accessible to foreign adversaries, US companies, and private individuals. In another response to Wyden, General Paul Nakasone, the leader of the NSA, said that the agency takes measures to limit the collection of data on US individuals and only acquires essential information relevant to its missions. This includes some commercially available data on Americans involved in international communications, crucial for safeguarding the US Defense Industrial Base and supporting military weapons systems. But Wyden is still not convinced. He’s still concerned about the widespread unethical practice of data brokers selling Americans' information without their consent, emphasizing the urgent need for regulation. No reason can be enough to justify the support of intelligence agencies for companies engaged in intrusive surveillance, as identified by the FTC. Though Moultrie indicated that the DNI determines which information sources are suitable for intelligence activities, Wyden is more concerned about secret data acquisition. Americans must be told and allowed to opt out of such secretive data collection. The lack of transparency from intelligence agencies surrounding data purchases is raising many red flags. Final Words It has been all over the internet for the last few years that the NSA has bought the browsing data of Americans. But quite recently, all these speculations have turned into reality as Senator Wyden has finally succeeded in getting the truth out of the NSA after 3 years of consistent efforts. Now, Wyden is demanding intelligence agencies remove all the sensitive data that should not be attained by anyone without a warrant. Additionally, Wyden pointed out that, according to the FTC's order, Americans should be informed and consent to their data being sold to government contractors for national security purposes. This requirement aims to safeguard individuals' privacy rights amidst concerns about data exploitation. While the FTC has taken action against a handful of data brokers, the questionable practice of selling data without obtaining Americans' consent is a widespread issue requiring regulation. Instead of being customers in this questionable market, intelligence agencies ought to cease funding companies accused of engaging in intrusive and unregulated surveillance of Americans.

NSA Finally Admits The Purchase Of Americans’ Sensitive Data

NSA অবশেষে আমেরিকানদের সংবেদনশীল ডেটা ক্রয় স্বীকার করে

Die NSA gibt schließlich den Kauf sensibler Daten von Amerikanern zu

La NSA finalmente admite la compra de datos confidenciales de estadounidenses

La NSA admet enfin l’achat de données sensibles par les Américains

एनएसए ने अंततः अमेरिकियों के संवेदनशील डेटा की खरीद को स्वीकार कर लिया

NSA、ついにアメリカ人の機密データの購入を認める

NSA, 마침내 미국인의 민감한 데이터 구매를 인정

NSA finalmente admite a compra de dados confidenciais dos americanos

АНБ наконец признало покупку конфиденциальных данных американцев

NSA Sonunda Amerikalıların Hassas Verilerinin Satın Alındığını Kabul Etti

NSA cuối cùng thừa nhận việc mua dữ liệu nhạy cảm của người Mỹ

美国国家安全局最终承认购买美国人的敏感数据

Stories, News & Mentions about ROUTIFIC

Routific’s Stories on HackerNoon