<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Law &amp; Policy — Keeping AI Honest</title>
    <link>https://keepingaihonest.com/lane/law-policy/</link>
    <description>Ethical AI news: the rolling record of what AI costs people and the planet, and who's fighting back.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 22:41:45 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <ttl>30</ttl>
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://keepingaihonest.com/lane/law-policy/rss.xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Finland orders Google to halt work at two data center sites pending environmental review</title>
      <link>https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-finland-orders-google-to-halt-work-at-two-data-center-sites-pending/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-finland-orders-google-to-halt-work-at-two-data-center-sites-pending/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 22:41:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The Finnish Supervisory Agency (LVV) ordered Google's data center subsidiary, Tuike Finland, to suspend preparatory work at planned data center sites in Muhos and Kajaani, after the clearance of more than 300 hectares of forest, the BBC reported Oct. 6. LVV said work at one site went ahead without a mandatory environmental impact assessment; the work included removing trees and topsoil and building site roads, and the suspension holds until the assessments are complete, according to Yle. Google said it had &quot;fallen short of our own high standards in this instance&quot; and would comply; the sites are part of a €13 billion investment Google announced in Finland in September, and Yle reported Oct. 8 that police had opened a preliminary inquiry into the work at Muhos after a complaint from a private individual. Why it matters: &quot;We've fallen short&quot; is the right thing to say, and it came after the trees were down. The order is the useful part: assess first, clear land second. Every country courting AI investment should hold builders to that order before the bulldozers arrive, not after. Via BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvj6jkx6g1r0o).</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Brazil electoral court orders Meta to treat Lula and Bolsonaro equally, including Meta AI</title>
      <link>https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-brazil-electoral-court-orders-meta-to-treat-lula-and-bolsonaro/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-brazil-electoral-court-orders-meta-to-treat-lula-and-bolsonaro/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 21:18:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Justice Marco Aurélio Bellizze of Brazil's Superior Electoral Court ruled Oct. 15 that Meta cannot reduce the distribution of political content, restrict searches or remove posts in a way that creates an imbalance between President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and challenger Flávio Bolsonaro before their Oct. 25 runoff, and must ensure its Meta AI tool applies identical criteria to both campaigns, on pain of a 500,000-reais daily fine, the AP reported. Lula's campaign had alleged that Meta cut the reach of its posts and that Meta AI on WhatsApp refused to generate campaign images for Lula while producing them for Bolsonaro; the ruling also requires Meta to explain the criteria the tool uses, per Valor International. Meta told the court on Oct. 11 that it rejects accusations of bias and has faced technical glitches affecting accounts beyond Brazil, the AP reported. Why it matters: When a company's AI sits inside WhatsApp days before a runoff, a glitch is not just a glitch. The court asked for equal rules and an explanation of the criteria. That disclosure should be standard wherever Meta AI runs during an election, not something a campaign has to sue for. Via The Associated Press (via NBC News) (https://www.nbcnews.com/world/south-america/brazil-lula-wins-electoral-court-challenge-meta-alleged-bolsonaro-bias-rcna603835).</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hong Kong Monetary Authority issues ART responsible AI guidance for banks</title>
      <link>https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-hong-kong-monetary-authority-issues-art-responsible-ai-guidance-for/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-hong-kong-monetary-authority-issues-art-responsible-ai-guidance-for/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 21:18:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the city's banking regulator, announced an &quot;ART&quot; framework (accountability, resilience and trust) for banks' use of AI on Oct. 15 and issued updated Supervisory Guidance for Responsible Adoption of AI, per the HKMA. The guidance sets nine principles across the three pillars and replaces the HKMA's 2019 high-level AI principles, with more detailed expectations on board-level governance, risk management, and trust and transparency, The Standard reported. The HKMA said more than 60% of the use cases in the second cohort of its generative AI sandbox explored agentic AI, and that it will publish a discussion paper on supervising AI agents covering a registry of material AI agents and intervention mechanisms. Why it matters: Name the owner, plan for failure, show your work: a regulator has put that in writing for banks whose AI is starting to act on its own. A registry of material AI agents is the idea other financial regulators should copy before agents spread, not after. Via Hong Kong Monetary Authority (https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/news-and-media/press-releases/2026/10/20261015-3/).</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Newsom signs California law requiring clinicians' own judgment when AI informs care</title>
      <link>https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-newsom-signs-california-law-requiring-clinicians-own-judgment-when-ai/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-newsom-signs-california-law-requiring-clinicians-own-judgment-when-ai/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 21:18:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>California Gov. Gavin Newsom approved AB 1979 on Sept. 30, per the Legislature's bill record; the law requires health facilities, clinics and physician offices to take reasonable steps to ensure licensed professionals retain independent judgment when clinical decision support systems inform patient care, bars deploying AI tools to independently perform clinical functions state law reserves for licensed professionals, and extends California's medical confidentiality law to records accessed through direct-to-consumer health chatbots, HCI Innovation Group reported. Newsom also signed SB 503, which requires developers and deployers of clinical decision support systems to identify tools with a risk of biased impacts, mitigate those risks and monitor the systems once deployed. He vetoed AB 2575, which sponsors say would have protected healthcare workers from retaliation for overriding AI recommendations; California Nurses Association president Sandy Reding said that after the veto, a nurse who acts against a wrong algorithm &quot;can still be disciplined or fired.&quot; Why it matters: The rule is simple and right: AI can advise, a licensed human decides. The gap is the veto. A nurse who overrides a bad algorithm still has no shield, the nurses' association says, so judgment protected on paper can still cost a job. Hospitals elsewhere should adopt the rule now, and lawmakers should finish the job. Via HCI Innovation Group (https://www.hcinnovationgroup.com/analytics-ai/ai-governance/news/55409436/new-california-laws-address-ai-integration-into-healthcare).</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>San Francisco pauses new data centers for 45 days while planners study impacts</title>
      <link>https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-san-francisco-pauses-new-data-centers-for-45-days-while-planners/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-san-francisco-pauses-new-data-centers-for-45-days-while-planners/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 21:18:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Mayor Daniel Lurie on Friday, Oct. 16, signed a moratorium authored by Supervisor Shamann Walton that pauses data center development citywide for 45 days and directs the San Francisco Planning Department to study data centers' impacts and develop controls for them, per The San Francisco Standard. The Board of Supervisors approved the measure unanimously last week. The Standard reported in September that the Planning Department did not know how many data centers exist in the city, and Walton has criticized the zoning code for lacking a definition of a data center. Why it matters: A city that can't count its data centers can't govern them. Forty-five days is a pause, not a policy; the test is whether planners come back with rules that put water, power and residents' say ahead of the permit. Via The San Francisco Standard (https://sfstandard.com/2026/10/16/mayor-lurie-data-center-moratorium/).</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Imperial County AI data center stalled by court-ordered CEQA review, Guardian reports</title>
      <link>https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-imperial-county-ai-data-center-stalled-by-court-ordered-ceqa-review/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-imperial-county-ai-data-center-stalled-by-court-ordered-ceqa-review/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 19:01:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>A county judge ruled last month that developer Sebastian Rucci's proposed AI data center in unincorporated Imperial County, California, a nearly 1 million-square-foot site planned with 330 megawatts of power and more than 130 methane-gas-fueled generators, cannot move forward until it clears a full review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, the state's environmental permitting law), the Guardian reports. The ruling came in a lawsuit by the city of Imperial, later joined by the Sierra Club, challenging the county's April approval of the project, which had sought an exemption from that review. The Imperial Irrigation District rejected the project's application for water, which Rucci puts at about 750,000 gallons a day; he denies the project will harm the area, has sued the utility, and says he will challenge the ruling. Why it matters: A fast-track exemption is a promise to skip the questions. Neighbors and a city forced them back onto the table: water, power, air. Environmental review is not obstruction; it is how a community gets a say before the ground is broken. Via The Guardian - Artificial intelligence (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/oct/17/california-datacenter-imperial).</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>