The Saudi Data and Artificial Intelligence Authority of Saudi Arabia (SDAIA) issued AI Ethics and Principles 2.0 in October 2023. This framework lays down comprehensive guidelines regulating AI systems. Its objective is to display KSA’s commitment to human rights and its cultural values and align with international standards and recommendations on the ethics of Artificial Intelligence.
The Seven Underlying Principles
The framework rests on seven foundational pillars: Fairness, Privacy and Security, Humanity, Social and Environmental Benefits, Reliability and Safety, Transparency and Expandability, and Accountability and Responsibility. Not only are these principles explained comprehensively, but their plan and design, preparation of input data, building and validation, and deployment and monitoring of the data are also laid down in great detail. These principles and controls must be applied throughout an AI project’s entire lifecycle.
Scope and Application
The AI Principles apply equally to all public, private, and non-profit AI stakeholders within the Kingdom, whether they are developers, designers, users, or individuals affected by AI systems. However, there is some ambiguity in terms of application, as the scope of application seems to be obligatory in some instances and optional in others.
Risk Categorization System
The new system introduces a tiered AI risk categorization system. The categorization is based on the associated risks associated with developing and using AI systems and technologies. The categorization is done as follows:
(a) Little or no risk: No restrictions are placed
(b) Limited risk: They are subject to the application of AI ethics
(c) High risk: They are required to undergo pre-and post-conformity assessments
(d) Unacceptable risk: They are not allowed
Compliance Requirements
The AI Principles provide several self-assessment tools for assessing and mapping AI risks against them. Adopting entities are primarily responsible for ensuring their own compliance with the AI Principles and are required to appoint certain key roles for assessing and monitoring compliance, including a Responsible AI Officer (RAIO) and an AI System Assessor.
In addition to the self-assessment tools, adopting entities are encouraged to register with SDAIA under an optional registration scheme. Registered entities will be motivated to ensure high levels of compliance through a ‘badge’ system that reflects their commitment to compliance. This system seems intended to influence end users to identify trustworthy AI tools and technologies.
Relevant Authorities
The key regulator is SDAIA. SDAIA is the competent authority in the Kingdom that is concerned with data and AI, including big data. SDAIA is also the national reference in all matters related to the organization, development, and handling of data and AI; in addition, it has the original competence in all matters related to operation, research, and innovation in the field of data and AI. SDAIA was established by Royal Order No. (A/471) and is headquartered in Riyadh. SDAIA is directly linked to the Prime Minister; its sub-entities are the National Data Management Office (NDMO), National Center for AI (NCAI), and National Information Center (NIC), all of which are organizationally linked.
Conclusion
The SDAIA’s AI Ethics and Principles 2.0 framework signifies Saudi Arabia’s commitment to ethical AI development, aligning with global standards while promoting human rights and cultural values. Its comprehensive guidelines, risk categorization, and compliance mechanisms aim to ensure responsible AI practices across all sectors within the Kingdom.
If you’re an organization dealing with copious amounts of data, do visit www.tsaaro.com.
News of the Week
1. Halliburton Reports Cyberattack on Company Systems
U.S. oilfield services company Halliburton (HAL.N) experienced a cyberattack on Wednesday, as confirmed by an insider. The company acknowledged the problem, stating that certain systems were affected, and it is currently investigating the cause and impact. Halliburton is collaborating with “leading external experts” to resolve the issue, according to a spokesperson’s email statement.
2. U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Injunction Against California Child Protection Law
On Friday, a U.S. appeals court maintained a crucial portion of an injunction against a California law designed to protect children from potentially harmful online content. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco indicated that NetChoice, a trade group representing online businesses, would likely succeed in demonstrating that the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act infringed on its members’ free speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
3. Massachusetts Air National Guard Member Arraigned for Leaking Classified Documents
Jack Teixeira, a 22-year-old member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard, was arraigned on Friday at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, on charges related to the alleged leak of classified U.S. national security documents online. During the brief court appearance, Teixeira deferred entering a plea to charges of obstructing justice and disobeying a lawful order until closer to the start of his court-martial, which is scheduled for March 10, 2024.
4. T-Mobile Fined $60 Million by U.S. Committee for Data Security Failures
A prominent U.S. committee responsible for assessing foreign investments for national security risks has fined T-Mobile (TMUS.O) $60 million, marking the largest penalty it has ever imposed. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) levied the fine due to T-Mobile’s failure to prevent and report unauthorized access to sensitive data. This penalty relates to violations of a mitigation agreement that T-Mobile, which is German-controlled, entered into with CFIUS as part of its $23 billion acquisition of Sprint Corp in 2020.
5. Judge Skeptical of $217 Million Legal Fee Request in Google Consumer Lawsuit
On Wednesday, a U.S. judge expressed reservations about granting the full $217 million in legal fees requested by Boies Schiller Flexner and other law firms involved in a consumer lawsuit against Google. The case, which initially aimed for billions in damages, ultimately settled without Google paying any money. During a hearing in Oakland, California, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers questioned veteran litigator David Boies, who represented the consumers, as well as attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, who opposed the fee request.
