Nino Migineishvili | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Regulating AI: Where U.S. State Policy and HCI (Mis)align

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly adopted into everyday life, with most investment and development concentrated in the U.S. In response to rapid AI integration and scant federal guidelines, U.S. states have formed AI committees charged with studying AI-related societal trade-offs. We analyzed the 18 existing state-level AI committee reports to understand how policymakers discuss AI-related benefits and risks. We then compared the risks surfaced by policymakers to an established taxonomy of AI risks aggregated from literature and examined how policymakers' concerns align, or misalign, from those of HCI scholars. These insights provide important mileposts for shaping currently ongoing policy initiatives and future research. Our findings reveal important gaps: while committees invoke responsible AI, their framings often omit broader socio-technical concerns emphasized in HCI. We discuss opportunities for HCI to support socio-technical perspectives, employ participatory design, and close the gap between research and policy.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

"The System Will Choose Security Over Humanity Every Time": Understanding Security and Privacy for U.S. Incarcerated Users

Digital devices like tablets, media players, and kiosks are increasingly deployed in U.S. prisons. These technologies can enable incarcerated people to access education, communicate with loved ones, and develop vital reentry skills. However, they can also introduce new privacy and security risks for incarcerated people who have little agency over their usage and contracts, and are currently carved out of many consumer protection safeguards. To investigate these issues, we conducted focus groups and interviews with system-impacted people (n=17), i.e., those formerly incarcerated, and their relatives, to investigate experiences with device-related security and privacy vulnerabilities and the power dynamics that affect their use. In our findings, participants describe pervasive surveillance, censorship, and usability problems with the technology available to them, including shifting and seemingly arbitrary usage policies. These policies strain relationships both inside and outside prisons and contribute to negative downstream effects for incarcerated users. We recommend ways to better balance prison security concerns with privacy-related needs of system-impacted individuals by promoting accountability for technology-related decisions, providing public oversight of digital purchasing and use policies, and designing digital tools with them -- the actual end-users -- in mind.

cs.CR↗