Menu
Menu
For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
As discussions about the future of Europe's Green Deal<\/a> and other environmental measures continue, new data highlights the sometimes overlooked influence of corporate lobbying on these laws. It has long been known that there is a disconnect between businesses that openly tout their sustainability credentials and those that secretly advocate against environmental regulations. However, it has been challenging to locate reliable evidence to back up this claim until now. According to a recent investigation, industry lobbying played a role in financial services businesses' exclusion from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Europe's rule governing responsible supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7306,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_content":"\n As discussions about the future of Europe's Green Deal<\/a> and other environmental measures continue, new data highlights the sometimes overlooked influence of corporate lobbying on these laws. It has long been known that there is a disconnect between businesses that openly tout their sustainability credentials and those that secretly advocate against environmental regulations. However, it has been challenging to locate reliable evidence to back up this claim until now. According to a recent investigation, industry lobbying played a role in financial services businesses' exclusion from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Europe's rule governing responsible supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7306,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_content":"\n As discussions about the future of Europe's Green Deal<\/a> and other environmental measures continue, new data highlights the sometimes overlooked influence of corporate lobbying on these laws. It has long been known that there is a disconnect between businesses that openly tout their sustainability credentials and those that secretly advocate against environmental regulations. However, it has been challenging to locate reliable evidence to back up this claim until now. According to a recent investigation, industry lobbying played a role in financial services businesses' exclusion from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Europe's rule governing responsible supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7306,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_content":"\n As discussions about the future of Europe's Green Deal<\/a> and other environmental measures continue, new data highlights the sometimes overlooked influence of corporate lobbying on these laws. It has long been known that there is a disconnect between businesses that openly tout their sustainability credentials and those that secretly advocate against environmental regulations. However, it has been challenging to locate reliable evidence to back up this claim until now. According to a recent investigation, industry lobbying played a role in financial services businesses' exclusion from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Europe's rule governing responsible supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7306,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_content":"\n As discussions about the future of Europe's Green Deal<\/a> and other environmental measures continue, new data highlights the sometimes overlooked influence of corporate lobbying on these laws. It has long been known that there is a disconnect between businesses that openly tout their sustainability credentials and those that secretly advocate against environmental regulations. However, it has been challenging to locate reliable evidence to back up this claim until now. According to a recent investigation, industry lobbying played a role in financial services businesses' exclusion from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Europe's rule governing responsible supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7306,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_content":"\n As discussions about the future of Europe's Green Deal<\/a> and other environmental measures continue, new data highlights the sometimes overlooked influence of corporate lobbying on these laws. It has long been known that there is a disconnect between businesses that openly tout their sustainability credentials and those that secretly advocate against environmental regulations. However, it has been challenging to locate reliable evidence to back up this claim until now. According to a recent investigation, industry lobbying played a role in financial services businesses' exclusion from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Europe's rule governing responsible supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7306,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_content":"\n As discussions about the future of Europe's Green Deal<\/a> and other environmental measures continue, new data highlights the sometimes overlooked influence of corporate lobbying on these laws. It has long been known that there is a disconnect between businesses that openly tout their sustainability credentials and those that secretly advocate against environmental regulations. However, it has been challenging to locate reliable evidence to back up this claim until now. According to a recent investigation, industry lobbying played a role in financial services businesses' exclusion from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Europe's rule governing responsible supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7306,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_content":"\n As discussions about the future of Europe's Green Deal<\/a> and other environmental measures continue, new data highlights the sometimes overlooked influence of corporate lobbying on these laws. It has long been known that there is a disconnect between businesses that openly tout their sustainability credentials and those that secretly advocate against environmental regulations. However, it has been challenging to locate reliable evidence to back up this claim until now. According to a recent investigation, industry lobbying played a role in financial services businesses' exclusion from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Europe's rule governing responsible supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7306,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_content":"\n As discussions about the future of Europe's Green Deal<\/a> and other environmental measures continue, new data highlights the sometimes overlooked influence of corporate lobbying on these laws. It has long been known that there is a disconnect between businesses that openly tout their sustainability credentials and those that secretly advocate against environmental regulations. However, it has been challenging to locate reliable evidence to back up this claim until now. According to a recent investigation, industry lobbying played a role in financial services businesses' exclusion from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Europe's rule governing responsible supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7306,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_content":"\n As discussions about the future of Europe's Green Deal<\/a> and other environmental measures continue, new data highlights the sometimes overlooked influence of corporate lobbying on these laws. It has long been known that there is a disconnect between businesses that openly tout their sustainability credentials and those that secretly advocate against environmental regulations. However, it has been challenging to locate reliable evidence to back up this claim until now. According to a recent investigation, industry lobbying played a role in financial services businesses' exclusion from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Europe's rule governing responsible supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Many experts say that industry lobbying may influence the regulations and try to break the rules. Many critics say that these new rules not only target Chinese companies but also harm US businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7306,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_content":"\n As discussions about the future of Europe's Green Deal<\/a> and other environmental measures continue, new data highlights the sometimes overlooked influence of corporate lobbying on these laws. It has long been known that there is a disconnect between businesses that openly tout their sustainability credentials and those that secretly advocate against environmental regulations. However, it has been challenging to locate reliable evidence to back up this claim until now. According to a recent investigation, industry lobbying played a role in financial services businesses' exclusion from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Europe's rule governing responsible supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
This new trade restriction to prevent Chinese technology from growing has a large impact on semiconductor industries. Approximately 140 Chinese companies have to face \u200csevere challenges due to this new trade rule. They are not allowed to continue the process of chip production. Due to these rules, various memory chip shipments to China have been banned. The rule also imposes worldwide restrictions on equipment used to manufacture chips, effective December 31. Furthermore, US companies strictly investigate that everyone must follow the rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many experts say that industry lobbying may influence the regulations and try to break the rules. Many critics say that these new rules not only target Chinese companies but also harm US businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7306,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_content":"\n As discussions about the future of Europe's Green Deal<\/a> and other environmental measures continue, new data highlights the sometimes overlooked influence of corporate lobbying on these laws. It has long been known that there is a disconnect between businesses that openly tout their sustainability credentials and those that secretly advocate against environmental regulations. However, it has been challenging to locate reliable evidence to back up this claim until now. According to a recent investigation, industry lobbying played a role in financial services businesses' exclusion from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Europe's rule governing responsible supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
To balance \u200cgrowing concerns about threats from China<\/a>, these new rules were imposed. They have only aimed to prevent China from making advanced chips that harm America\u2019s security. The US never wants China to gain an edge in military and artificial technology. According to the Biden administration, this is the only way to secure a US security position.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n This new trade restriction to prevent Chinese technology from growing has a large impact on semiconductor industries. Approximately 140 Chinese companies have to face \u200csevere challenges due to this new trade rule. They are not allowed to continue the process of chip production. Due to these rules, various memory chip shipments to China have been banned. The rule also imposes worldwide restrictions on equipment used to manufacture chips, effective December 31. Furthermore, US companies strictly investigate that everyone must follow the rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many experts say that industry lobbying may influence the regulations and try to break the rules. Many critics say that these new rules not only target Chinese companies but also harm US businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7306,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_content":"\n As discussions about the future of Europe's Green Deal<\/a> and other environmental measures continue, new data highlights the sometimes overlooked influence of corporate lobbying on these laws. It has long been known that there is a disconnect between businesses that openly tout their sustainability credentials and those that secretly advocate against environmental regulations. However, it has been challenging to locate reliable evidence to back up this claim until now. According to a recent investigation, industry lobbying played a role in financial services businesses' exclusion from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Europe's rule governing responsible supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":52},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, these steps are being taken to save national security. After having deep discussions with industry leaders, allies, and experts, the government decided to put this ban on China. Some national security groups have lobbied for tougher rules. At the same time, some have said that these restrictions will not prove successful for \u200cUnited States companies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To balance \u200cgrowing concerns about threats from China<\/a>, these new rules were imposed. They have only aimed to prevent China from making advanced chips that harm America\u2019s security. The US never wants China to gain an edge in military and artificial technology. According to the Biden administration, this is the only way to secure a US security position.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n This new trade restriction to prevent Chinese technology from growing has a large impact on semiconductor industries. Approximately 140 Chinese companies have to face \u200csevere challenges due to this new trade rule. They are not allowed to continue the process of chip production. Due to these rules, various memory chip shipments to China have been banned. The rule also imposes worldwide restrictions on equipment used to manufacture chips, effective December 31. Furthermore, US companies strictly investigate that everyone must follow the rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many experts say that industry lobbying may influence the regulations and try to break the rules. Many critics say that these new rules not only target Chinese companies but also harm US businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7306,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-04 18:17:40","post_content":"\n As discussions about the future of Europe's Green Deal<\/a> and other environmental measures continue, new data highlights the sometimes overlooked influence of corporate lobbying on these laws. It has long been known that there is a disconnect between businesses that openly tout their sustainability credentials and those that secretly advocate against environmental regulations. However, it has been challenging to locate reliable evidence to back up this claim until now. According to a recent investigation, industry lobbying played a role in financial services businesses' exclusion from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Europe's rule governing responsible supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exclusion of investors from EU legislation has been sharply denounced by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights<\/a>. The paper highlights the considerable resistance to the measures from the French insurers' association, the Association des Assureurs Mutualistes (AAM), and the Italian stock exchange, Borsa Italiana. This is true even if AAM bills itself as a part of the \"social and solidarity economy\" under French law and Borsa Italiana is a member of the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative. Company lobbying in the two years preceding the deal that exempted finance from the EU Directive's purview was examined using the \"Social LobbyMap\" technique, which was based on media stories, freedom-of-information requests, and public material. Companies frequently use their organizations to spread unfavorable messages, according to a thorough examination of the stances taken by nine businesses and 10 trade groups in France, Italy, and Spain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only France's responsible investor association, L'Association AFR, spoke in support of the law, while eight of the 10 trade associations that were examined were against incorporating the banking industry. The survey points out differences inside France, where half of corporate answers supported the rule while six out of seven groups pushed against it, even though business associations throughout Europe <\/a>tend to have the most sway over lobbying. The fact that none of the Italian businesses under investigation backed the plans highlights Italy's spectacular but ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the directive in the European Council alongside Germany. The study, however, casts doubt on the notion that businesses are inherently anti-regulation. Well-known Spanish companies, such as insurance Seguros RGA, vigorously backed the rule through in-depth lobbying as well as public declarations. Companies are encouraged by the \"Social LobbyMap\" project to match their sustainability and purpose statements with their trade associations and their public policy initiatives. Since they are typically the ones who examine the organizations they invest in, investors are viewed as essential to accomplishing this aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Social LobbyMap\" approach expands upon the work of the \"Influence Map\" initiative, which started in the US and forced many US companies to withdraw from trade groups that held regressive views on climate change. It is unclear if this new study on human rights and social campaigning will have a comparable effect in Europe. Companies will be under immediate scrutiny for their stance on this legislation due to a new European Commission consultation on guidance for the CSDDD, impending lobbying regarding the Directive's transposition in member states, and a planned review within two years regarding whether finance might be brought back into its scope. Making sure that a company's actions, including lobbying, are in line with its principles is a fundamental component of responsible business. The \"Social LobbyMap\" seeks to hold companies responsible by making sure their participation in trade associations and government relations matches their professed sustainability pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerns over corporate influence on EU legislation were voiced by the European Parliament and the civil society group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in late January 2024. The security department will launch an investigation \u201con the behavior and possible security breaches of interest representatives\u201d concerning the new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported), according to an internal email sent by Parliament President Roberta Metsola, as reported by Politico. The CEO released a study on industrial lobbying of the European Commission over the essential use concept around the same time. In the history of the EU, the PPWR has been the most heavily lobbied political procedure.<\/a> \"Ahead of a pivotal vote in the Parliament in November, MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the restroom or entering their offices without permission,\" Politico said. Lobbyists must abide by a code of conduct that includes a registry of people who are permitted; the persons may be struck from the register based on the findings of the inquiry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How EU businesses lobbying influences sustainability policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-eu-businesses-lobbying-influences-sustainability-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7306","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Sustainability goals in the EU<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How businesses shape policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industries at the forefront of lobbying efforts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The clash between profit and environmental responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n