Sam Rehman—a frequent voice on this podcast network and EPAM’s Chief Information Security Officer and SVP—was in the classroom recently, teaching students, and in the process was “surprised by the density of PII that's in in the system.”
This led Rehman to realize that “at least here in California,” higher education’s investment in cybersecurity is “substantially behind.”
Catching up is a theme of today’s conversation about privacy, education, and artificial intelligence.
Speaking for the (cyber)defense, with Rehman, is today’s guest on The Resonance Test, Scott Loughlin, Partner and Global Co-Lead of the Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice at the law firm Hogan Lovells.
“It took a long time to get people to understand that the easiest thing to do is not always the right thing to do to protect the company’s interest and protect the company’s data,” says Loughlin. “And that is an experience that we'll all have with respect to generative AI tools.”
Loughlin and Rehman are put through their conversational paces from questions by Brian Imholte, our Head of Education & Learning Services.
They have much to say about data governance (“Data is not by itself anymore, it's broken up in pieces, combined, massaged, and then pulled out from a model,” says Rehman), data pedigree, the laws—and lack thereof—regarding privacy and generative AI. They also kick around the role that FERPA assumes here. “You’re trying to deploy this old framework against this new technology, which is difficult,” says Loughlin, adding: “There are some key areas of tension that will come up with using generative AI with student data.”
So where might an educational publisher or school begin?
“Focus on your value first,” says Rehman. Do your experiments, but do them in small pieces, he says: "And then within those small pieces, know what you're putting into the model.”
This informative and spirited conversation is even occasionally funny. Loughlin brings up a court case about whether or not a selfie-taking monkey selfie would own the copyright to the photo. “The court said no,” notes Loughlin, adding that US Copyright laws are “designed to protect the authorship of humans, not of monkeys, and in this case not of generative AI tools.”
Download now: It’s sure to generate some new thoughts.
Host: Kenji Ross
Engineer: Kyp Pilalas
Producer: Ken Gordon
