
Data Defense Agents For People
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA - MARCH 18: A
In a world where AI agents are everywhere, how do we ensure that people still have agency?
One idea that's surfacing, albeit in sort of a vague way, is similar to the concept of a service dog or emotional support animal: that a person would have a dedicated personal AI entity that works as their guardian angel in a world of peril.
Think about trying to navigate all of the AI stuff coming your way as a human: all of the scams, all of the drama of other people's communications, not to mention government and business messaging churned out in automated ways.
'Consumers are out there trying to navigate a really complex marketplace, and as AI is injected into the marketplace by many companies, it's probably going to become even harder for consumers to understand if they're getting a good deal, to understand the different options out there when they're making a purchase,' said Ginny Fahs of Consumer Reports in a recent panel aimed at an idea very much like this, the idea of personal defense AI. 'And so an AI that is loyal to the consumer, loyal to us as individuals, first and foremost, is really going to be essential for building trust in these AI systems, and for … migrating to a more authentic economy.'
Fahs was among a set of expert panelists at Imagination in Action in April, and I found this to be one of the more compelling talks, not least because of past interviews I've seen in the last two years. Take data rights advocate Will.i.am, who famously coined the term 'idatity' to talk about the intersection of personal data and technology. Anyway, my colleague Sandy Pentland moderated this group discussion, which covered a lot of thoughts on just how this kind of AI advocacy would work.
'There was a need to reform laws to keep up, to have electronic signatures, electronic contracts, automated transactions,' said panelist Dazza Greenwood of the Internet age, relating that to today's efforts. 'And I helped to write those laws as a young lawyer and technologist.'
Panelist Amir Sarhangi spoke about the value of trust and familiarity with a person's AI advocate.
'Having that trust being established there, and having the ability to know who the agent is and who the enterprise is, becomes very important,' he said.
'Part of it is this general problem of, how do you make sure that agents don't break laws, introduce unexpected liabilities, and (that they) represent the authentic interest of the consumer, and (that they can) actually be loyal, by design?' said panelist Tobin South, who got his PhD at MIT.
How It Might Work
Panelists also discussed some of the procedural elements of such technology.
'In collaboration with the Open ID Foundation, who kind of leads all the standards and protocols keeping our internet safe, we are pushing forward standards that can help make agents safe and reliable in this kind of new digital age,' South said.
Fahs talked about something her company developed called a 'permission slip.'
'You could go to a company through the agent, and the agent would say to the company, 'please delete this person's data,' or 'please opt out of the sale of this person's data,'' she said. 'It was a version of an agentic interaction that was (prior to the explosion of AI), but where we really were getting an authorization from a user for a specific purpose to help them manage their data, and then going out to a company and managing that transaction, and then reporting back to the customer on how it went.'
On privacy, Greenwood discussed how systems would deal with laws like California's CCPA, which he called a 'mini-GDPR,' and encouraged people to use the term 'fiduciary' to describe the agent's responsibilities to the user.
Sarhangi talked about the history of building KYA.
'One of the things we started talking about is KYA which is, 'know your agent,' and 'know your agent' really is about understanding who's behind the agent,' he said. 'These agents will have wallets, basically on the internet, so you know what transactions are being conducted by the agent. And that's really powerful, because when they do something that's not good, then you have a good way of understanding what the history of that agent has been, and that will go as part of their … reputation.'
Crowdsourcing Consumer Information
Another aspect of this that came up is the ability of the agents to put together their people's experiences, and share them, to automate word of mouth.
'A really key type of a thing I'm excited about is what Consumer Reports does without thinking about it,' said Pentland, 'which is compiling all the experiences of all your millions of members to know that 'these blenders are good' and 'those blenders are bad,' and 'don't buy that' and 'you don't trust that dude over there.' So once an agent is representing you, you can begin doing this automatically, where all the agents sort of talk about how these blenders are no good, right?'
Fahs agreed.
'I can so casually mention to my AI agent, 'oh, this purchase, I don't like that one feature'' she said. 'And if that agent has a memory, and has the ability to coordinate and communicate with other agents, that becomes kind of known in the network, and it means that future consumers can purchase better, or future consumers have more awareness of that feature.'
South added some thoughts on data tools.
'There are many really cool cryptographic tools you can build to make the sharing of data really safe, right?' he said. 'You don't need to trust Google, to just own all your data, promise not to do anything wrong with it. There are real security tools you can build into this, and we're seeing this explosion right now.'
South also mentioned NANDA, a protocol being developed by people like my colleague Ramesh Raskar at MIT. NANDA is a way to build a decentralized Internet with AI, and it seems likely to blossom into one of the supporting pillars of tomorrow's global interface.
Agents and Agency
The panel also talked about some of the logistics, for instance: how will the agent really know what you want?
'You want the user to feel like they can provide very, very fine-grained permissions, but you also don't want to be bugging them all the time saying, 'Do I have permission for this? Do I have permission for that?'' Fahs said. 'And so … what the interface is to articulate those preferences, and to, even, as the agent, have real awareness of the consumer's intent, and where that can be extended, and where there really does need to be special additional permission granted, I think is, is a challenge that product managers and designers and many of us are going to be trying to thread the needle on.'
'One of the things that current LLMs don't do very well is recognize what a specific person wants,' Pentland added. 'In other words, values alignment for a specific person. It can do it for groups of people, sort of with big interviews, but an agent like this really wants to represent me, not necessarily you, or you. And I think one of the most interesting problems there is, how do we do that?'
'Finally, we have the tools that (resemble) something like fiduciary loyal agents,' Greenwood said.
'There's an expression going around Stanford, which is: the limiting factor on AI is context: not the size of the window, but your ability to structure information, to feed it to the AI, both for understanding consumers, but to also do preference solicitation,' South said. 'If you want the agent to act on your behalf, or an AI to do things you actually want, you need to extract that information somehow, and so both as individuals, making your data available to AI systems, but also as an organization, structuring information so that AIs can know how to work with your systems.'
The Race Toward Personal Advocacy
I think all of this is very necessary right now, in 2025, as we try to really integrate AI into our lives. This is happening, it seems, pretty much in real time, so this is the time to ask the questions, to find the answers, and to build the solutions.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP leader sets Saturday vote on Trump ‘big, beautiful bill' despite Republican pushback
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told Senate Republicans to expect to see the legislative text of the budget reconciliation package on Friday evening and then to vote at noon Saturday to begin debate on President Trump's tax and spending bill. Thune gave GOP senators the updated schedule after they met with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to discuss a tentative deal between the White House and House Republicans from New York, New Jersey and California to raise the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions from $10,000 to $40,000 for a period of five years. But Thune acknowledged after the meeting that the schedule could slip, calling the Saturday vote 'aspirational.' 'All of it depends on we got a few things we're waiting on, outcomes from the parliamentarian. If we can get some of those questions, issues landed then my expectation is at some point, yeah, tomorrow we'll be ready to go,' Thune told reporters. 'I said, again, aspirationally, that we'd try to do it at some point in the middle of the day,' he said of the plan to vote Saturday to proceed to the bill. Senate Republicans control a 53-seat majority and can afford three GOP defections on the bill and still pass it with a tiebreaking vote from Vice President Vance. Several GOP senators, however, refused to say whether they would vote to proceed to the bill, including Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Ron Johnson (Wis.). 'I don't know what we're voting on,' Cassidy told reporters when asked whether he would vote for the motion to proceed to the bill. Murkowski said, 'We have not seen text. I don't have anything more to say other than that.' Hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare spending are a major problem for several Republican senators, including Murkowski and Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Josh Hawley (Mo.) and Jerry Moran (Kan.). Johnson appeared angry over the decision to forge ahead with a vote, despite his pleas to spend more time on finding additional spending cuts. 'We'll see,' he said when asked about whether he would vote to move forward. He said before the lunch meeting that the Senate is 'not ready' to begin voting on the bill this weekend. 'We're just not ready for it, I hope that they don't do that,' he said. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told reporters after the lunch that he's not ready to vote to move forward on the bill unless he sees substantial changes to it. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he's a hard 'no' on the legislation because it includes a provision to raise the debt limit by $5 trillion. 'Some people want to spend more money, some people want to spend less money. And so they're pulling. I don't know if it rips. If they keep going in the current direction, they could rip it apart,' he said. 'I think it eventually is going to be much more of a spending bill than a bill that rectifies the debt problem.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Big Law executive orders go 0-4 after judge slaps down order against Susman Godfrey
A federal judge found the Trump administration's order against Susman Godfrey unconstitutional. Trump has so far lost all four legal challenges brought against his orders targeting Big Law firms. The rulings may be appealed to the Appeals Court. Any subsequent appeal goes to the Supreme Court. President Donald Trump faced another legal loss on Friday after a District Court judge slapped down his executive order against the Big Law firm Susman Godfrey. In her ruling, Judge Loren AliKhan wrote that the order against Susman Godfrey "was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed." "In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full," AliKhan wrote. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the US Constitution and must be permanently enjoined." Three other federal judges have already found similar executive orders against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale unconstitutional. AliKhan's ruling in the Susman Godfrey case marks a 0-4 record for the Trump administration in legal challenges regarding his executive orders targeting Big Law firms. Susman Godfrey said in a statement that the court's ruling "is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation." "We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional," the firm's statement continued. "Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day." Harrison Fields, principal White House deputy press secretary, told Business Insider in a statement that the White House opposes Judge AliKhan's ruling. "The decision to grant any individual access to this nation's secrets is a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the President," Fields said. "Weighing these factors and implementing such decisions are core executive powers, and reviewing the President's clearance decisions falls well outside the judiciary's authority." The federal government can appeal AliKhan's ruling, in which case the proceedings will be heard in the court of appeals. Any subsequent appeal would be heard by the Supreme Court. Fields did not immediately respond to Business Insider when asked if the government would appeal Judge AliKhan's decision. Judge AliKhan's ruling represents a major legal victory for the firms that have challenged the president's executive orders in court. While some other Big Law firms chose instead to strike deals with the administration to avoid or reverse punitive executive actions against them — drawing sharp criticism from industry insiders and a spate of resignations among associates and some partners — Business Insider previously reported that Susman Godfrey's decision to fight back in court took just two hours. In the original April 9 executive order against Susman Godfrey, the Trump administration accused the firm of "efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections." Judge AliKahn had granted the firm a temporary restraining order on April 15, preventing enforcement of the order against Susman Godfrey pending further proceedings. In issuing her order granting the TRO, the judge said she believed "the framers of our constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power," according to The American Lawyer. Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in its suit against Fox News after the 2020 election, which resulted in a $787.5 million settlement, and The New York Times in the publication's copyright suit against OpenAI and Microsoft, which has not yet reached a conclusion. Read the original article on Business Insider


Gizmodo
41 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Tesla's Viral ‘Autonomous' Car Delivery Video Is Splitting the Internet
Elon Musk loves a show. Tesla's marketing machine thrives on spectacle, and on June 27, the company delivered another bold display: a 30-minute video purporting to show the first-ever fully autonomous delivery of a Tesla vehicle, no driver, no remote control. 'The first fully autonomous delivery of a Tesla Model Y from factory to a customer home across town, including highways, was just completed a day ahead of schedule!!' Musk posted on X. In a follow-up, the billionaire CEO escalated the hype: 'There were no people in the car at all and no remote operators in control at any point. FULLY autonomous!' He added: 'To the best of our knowledge, this is the first fully autonomous drive with no people in the car or remotely operating the car on a public highway.' There were no people in the car at all and no remote operators in control at any point. FULLY autonomous! To the best of our knowledge, this is the first fully autonomous drive with no people in the car or remotely operating the car on a public highway. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 27, 2025 Together, the tweets and accompanying videos amassed nearly 15 million views. Tesla first posted a three-minute timelapse teaser, followed by the full 30-minute video on June 28. In it, a Model Y is seen navigating city streets, highway interchanges, and intersections, from Tesla's Gigafactory in Austin to the home of the new owner. The car stops at signs, yields at red lights, and maneuvers through real traffic, all without a human inside. The delivery ends with the new owner visibly excited as the Model Y rolls up, by itself, to his driveway. Come hang out with us & Model Y for 30 mins Full drive in 1x speed below — Tesla (@Tesla) June 28, 2025But online, the reaction wasn't unanimous awe. While Tesla fans praised the video as historic, many users on X, the platform Musk also owns, pushed back hard. 'Waymo has claimed fully autonomous drives on highways before,' one user wrote, linking to a January post from the Google-owned self-driving company. Waymo has quietly offered fully autonomous highway service to employees in select cities since earlier this year. Waymo has claimed fully autonomous drives on highways beforehttps:// — Jack Geldhart (@jackgeldhart) June 27, 2025Others mocked the presentation as a PR stunt. 'Stunning! So they've just illustrated what Robotaxi will be doing across the USA in 2026. Magnificent marketing, Tesla team!' one user quipped, pointing out that Tesla's robotaxi pilot launched days earlier in Austin, using only a dozen vehicles and a human 'supervisor' in the front seat. In contrast, Waymo and Cruise have offered public rides with no humans in the driver's seat for months. Some users even asked Grok, X's built-in chatbot, to analyze the vehicle's level of autonomy. '@grok which level of autonomous driving is that out of how many levels?' asked one user, referring to the industry-standard SAE scale, which ranks self-driving capabilities from Level 0 (no automation) to Level 5 (fully autonomous in all conditions, no human input needed). @grok which level of autonomous driving is that out of how many levels? — P. I. (@pi1_618) June 28, 2025Still others captured the polarization that defines Tesla discourse online. 'This one's for the true fans! And for the most determined haters! 😂,' someone posted, capturing the tribal divide between Musk loyalists and skeptics. This one's for the true fans! And for the most determined haterz!😂 — 𝕋𝕒𝕧𝕚 (@tavi_chocochip) June 28, 2025Tesla's status as one of the world's most polarizing tech companies is fully on display here. Enthusiasts hailed the video as the start of a new chapter in transportation. Detractors pointed to Musk's long history of broken promises around autonomy, a timeline that includes failed targets for robotaxi rollouts as far back as 2019. To be clear: Tesla has made real progress with its Full Self-Driving (FSD) software, a system that uses cameras, sensors, and neural networks to train its vehicles to respond like a human driver. But the system is still classified as Level 2 autonomy, meaning it requires driver supervision and isn't legally recognized as fully autonomous. And that's the rub: Musk's latest claim is exaggerated at best. Waymo, Cruise, and several Chinese companies have conducted similar demos. Some, like Waymo, are already running driverless vehicles in complex environments like downtown San Francisco. What Tesla pulled off here is impressive. But whether it represents a breakthrough or a carefully engineered stunt remains to be seen. The real question now: can Tesla do this again tomorrow? And the day after that? At rush hour? In rain? Without rerunning the same pre-tested route? Until those questions are answered, the skepticism will only grow.