Technology Regulation Quotes

I like technology, but 'Black Mirror' is more what the consequences are, and it doesn't tend to be about technology itself: it tends to be how we use or misuse it. We've not really thought through the consequences of it.

I do believe when there are advances in technology that it is important to balance the privacy interests affected with the investigative take that you might get from that technology.

Kamala Harris is fumbling and she's like, 'Oh, I'm going to go after Twitter because Elizabeth Warren sucked all the oxygen out of the room.' She's standing up and saying, 'I'm going to go after Facebook, I'm going to break them up, I'm going to go after all of these big technology companies.'

The technologies that raise the fewest ethical problems are those that work on a human scale, brightening the lives of individual people.

We have to take our democracy back. We cannot leave it to Facebook or Snapchat or anyone else. We have to take democracy back and renew it. Society is about people and not about technology.

We've got to make sure tech companies - all of them - aren't taking steps that will place content beyond the reach of the courts.

My children - in many dimensions they're as poorly behaved as many other children, but at least on this dimension I've got my kids brainwashed: You don't use Google, and you don't use an iPod.

Society will decide after the technology is created what we will and won't accept.

Technology can progress to an entire new generation in the time it takes one legislative committee to issue a report. Regulation of technology confronts us with two radically different time scales.

US spend more on research and development than the other countries, so we shouldn't be making the internet a more hostile, a more aggressive territory.

If we had a reliable way to label our toys good and bad, it would be easy to regulate technology wisely. But we can rarely see far enough ahead to know which road leads to damnation. Whoever concerns himself with big technology, either to push it forward or to stop it, is gambling in human lives.

Technology could benefit or hurt people, so the usage of tech is the responsibility of humanity as a whole, not just the discoverer. I am a person before I'm an AI technologist.

Consumer technology and medical tools have been created to benefit our daily lives. Without self-regulation, though, the industry could be at risk of potentially halting years of innovation and stunting growth in this field.

Since I became chairman, I've tried to turn EFF into civil liberties and responsibilities.

The danger in regulating AI too early is comparable to defining airline regulations in the early 1900’s at the time of the Wright Brothers earliest flights: all flights must be limited to 400 yards (since no plane can safely fly further), no faster than 45 mph (faster puts the pilot at too much risk), no higher than 15′ (pilots can survive a 15′ fall but not a 50′ fall), shall be in a straight line (planes are too unstable in turns), requires a catapult launch into the wind and a wind speed of no less than 15 knots (for the safety of the pilot and bystanders), and no more than one passenger is allowed (since no engine or airframe can safely support more). Any one of these then “common-sense” rules would have severely impacted the evolution of the airline industry. Jurisdictions not subject to such rules would become the industry leaders. No one has the prescience necessary to successfully regulate an early-stage technology.

Like it or not, Google and the Chinese government are stuck in a tense, long-term relationship, and can look forward to more high-stakes shadow-boxing in the netherworld of the world's most elaborate system of censorship.

The Spy Act strikes a right balance between preserving legitimate and benign uses of this technology, while still, at the same time, protecting unwitting consumers from the harm caused when it is misused and, of course, designed for nefarious purposes.

Technology is a tool, and it's a platform. Nobody gets arrested for being a blogger; people get arrested for dissent. Nobody gets arrested for putting information about themselves online; they get arrested for being an activist. I'm a strong believer in the fact that you should not blame the tools; you should blame the circumstances.

Universities ought to be aware of the degree they would want to accept funding from governments like China to work on, say, face recognition technology.

I do think we need to at least register artificial intelligence units to be able to monitor and control them. Because we want to control them and not vice versa.

Faced with the profound changes that AI technologies can produce, pressure for "more" and "tougher" regulation is inevitable. Misunderstanding about what AI is and is not, especially against a background of scare-mongering, could fuel opposition to technologies that could benefit everyone. This would be a tragic mistake. Regulation that stifles innovation, or relocates it to other jurisdictions, would be similarly counterproductive.

All of that was very closely researched. I think all we can do with drones is realize they are with us and not bury our heads in the sand about it, we should say, 'Okay, how do we regulate this?'

Technologists provide tools that can improve people's lives. But I want to be clear that I don't think technology by itself improves people's lives, since often I'm criticized for being too pro-technology. Unless there's commensurate ethical and moral improvements to go along with it, it's for naught.

I did two master's degrees - aeronautics and astronautics, and the second one was technology and policy. That taught me how to think about issues in science and technology as they relate to the general public.

What we are finding out now is that there are not only limits to growth but also to technology and that we cannot allow technology to go on without public consent.