Privacy Laws Should Help, Not Harm
Summary
American society urgently needs to address structural disparities in the criminal-justice system. One important disparity—which is both easily mitigated and generally unrecognized—is the asymmetry of information access granted to prosecutors and defendants. Prosecutors can easily access digital records that establish guilt. But defendants are far less empowered to access digital records that prove innocence.
Privacy laws are a key source of this disparity. The Stored Communications Act (SCA), for instance, permits law enforcement—but not defense investigators—to access certain evidence from Internet companies. Fortunately, there are two straightforward policy solutions to this problem. First, new federal privacy legislation should include language requiring symmetric information access for defendants. Second, the Department of Justice should adopt a new interpretation of the SCA to protect fairness in criminal proceedings.
AI’s high-stakes outputs directly shape American economic, industrial, and technological outcomes. They must not be accepted entirely on the basis of institutional faith rather than verifiable evidence.
The clearinghouse will also neutrally mediate the assignment of auditors to audits—strengthening independence, trust, and ethical governance across the AI ecosystem.
Soft law was never meant to be a permanent solution. Treating it as one, and letting the sandcastle stand in for the skyscraper indefinitely, is how we end up with a decade of voluntary commitments and no enforceable accountability to show for it.
Jobseekers, employees at smaller organizations, and local public workers need more than a weekend crash course in AI. They need practice choosing useful tasks, protecting data, testing outputs, and explaining where human judgment remains necessary.