Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The U.S. election system was already wobbling, and now here comes AI

people voting

In some states, more than half of election officials have quit, writes Klug.

Brett Deering/Getty Images

Klug served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1999. He hosts the political podcast “ Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans.”

As we head into election season, the potential for misinformation is enormous and the ability of election officials to respond to artificial intelligence is limited.

The new technology arrives at a time when we still haven’t gotten our arms around social media threats.


“The ability to react at the pace that's being developed is almost impossible,” worries Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane, a Republican. “By design, our system is meant to be slow and methodical.”

While deep fakes get all the attention, the truth is the threat arrives at a time when election administration itself is shaky. Election officials caught the brunt of the mistrust. In some states more than half of them have quit.

“I have a little PTSD, as do my coworkers,” said Nick Lima, who heads up elections in Cranston, R.I., and who — with some reservations — decided to keep the job he loves. “During election season, you know, you really feel the pressure, you feel your heartbeat increasing a bit.”

Today everyone who works in the campaign infrastructure faces unending scrutiny. If you thought it was easier in a red state, you are mistaken.

“Just the act of standing behind you watching you work just puts you on edge,” said McGrane. “Now you start second-guessing yourself, even if you know you're doing it right. The poll workers don't know about cyber security on voting equipment, but your poll watcher is getting asked these questions. “

Deep fakes are one level of concern, but Edward Perez, who had been director of civic integrity at Twitter and is now a board member at the OSET Institute (whose mission is to re-build public confidence in our voting system), worries about the misuse of AI to disrupt the backroom of every American precinct.

“One of the most important things to understand about election administration is, it’s very, very process oriented. And there’s a tremendous number of layers,” he said. “Are we talking about voter registration? About the security of election administration? All of this technology is never deployed just in a vacuum.”

The fact that the election system is a conglomeration of different rules and regulations from 50 different states with 50 different voting rules adds to the complexity. The challenge is serious as election officials scramble in this election-denying climate to staff 132,000 polling places with 775,000 volunteers. The clock is ticking to deploy the necessary defenses against threats that aren’t fully understood.

From hanging chads to deep fake videos, American democracy wobbles by Scott Klug

Read on Substack

Read More

Someone wrapping a gift.

As screens replace toys, childhood is being gamified. What this shift means for parents, play, development, and holiday gift-giving.

Getty Images, Oscar Wong

The Christmas When Toys Died: The Playtime Paradigm Shift Retailers Failed to See Coming

Something is changing this Christmas, and parents everywhere are feeling it. Bedrooms overflow with toys no one touches, while tablets steal the spotlight, pulling children as young as five into digital worlds that retailers are slow to recognize. The shift is quiet but unmistakable, and many parents are left wondering what toy purchases even make sense anymore.

Research shows that higher screen time correlates with significantly lower engagement in other play activities, mainly traditional, physical, unstructured play. It suggests screen-based play is displacing classic play with traditional toys. Families are experiencing in real time what experts increasingly describe as the rise of “gamified childhoods.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

US Capital with tech background

Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

Techies, activists, and academics were in Paris this month to confront the doom scenario of internet shutdowns, developing creative technology and policy solutions to break out of heavily censored environments. The event– SplinterCon– has previously been held globally, from Brussels to Taiwan. I am on the programme committee and delivered a keynote at the inaugural SplinterCon in Montreal on how internet standards must be better designed for censorship circumvention.

Censorship and digital authoritarianism were exposed in dozens of countries in the recently published Freedom on the Net report. For exampl,e Russia has pledged to provide “sovereign AI,” a strategy that will surely extend its network blocks on “a wide array of social media platforms and messaging applications, urging users to adopt government-approved alternatives.” The UK joined Vietnam, China, and a growing number of states requiring “age verification,” the use of government-issued identification cards, to access internet services, which the report calls “a crisis for online anonymity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less