legislatures / government / legal

Reflections on “Facial recognition has to be regulated to protect the public, says AI report” [Knight]

On 12/31/2018, in 21st century, 24x7x365 access, A/V -- audio/visual, Artificial Intelligence/Agents/LLMs/and Related, Asia, Australia, Canada, corporate / business world, dangers of the status quo, Daniel S. Christian, digital photography, digital video, emerging technologies, ethics, Europe, future, game-changing environment, generational differences, global / globalization, human-computer interaction (HCI), ideas, India, intelligent systems, internet, law schools, leadership, legislatures / government / legal, machine-to-machine communications, Michigan, morals/values, pace of change, platforms, society, sociology, technologies for your home, technology (general), the downsides of how people use tech, tools, trends, UK, United States, vendors, by Daniel Christian

Facial recognition has to be regulated to protect the public, says AI report — from technologyreview.com by Will Knight
The research institute AI Now has identified facial recognition as a key challenge for society and policymakers—but is it too late?

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

Artificial intelligence has made major strides in the past few years, but those rapid advances are now raising some big ethical conundrums.

Chief among them is the way machine learning can identify people’s faces in photos and video footage with great accuracy. This might let you unlock your phone with a smile, but it also means that governments and big corporations have been given a powerful new surveillance tool.

A new report from the AI Now Institute (large PDF), an influential research institute based in New York, has just identified facial recognition as a key challenge for society and policymakers.

Also see:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the core of the cascading scandals around AI in 2018 are questions of accountability: who is responsible when AI systems harm us? How do we understand these harms, and how do we remedy them? Where are the points of intervention, and what additional research and regulation is needed to ensure those interventions are effective? Currently there are few answers to these questions, and the frameworks presently governing AI are not capable of ensuring accountability. As the pervasiveness, complexity, and scale of these systems grow, the lack of meaningful accountability and oversight – including basic safeguards of responsibility, liability, and due process – is an increasingly urgent concern.

Building on our 2016 and 2017 reports, the AI Now 2018 Report contends with this central
problem and addresses the following key issues:

The growing accountability gap in AI, which favors those who create and deploy these
technologies at the expense of those most affected
The use of AI to maximize and amplify surveillance, especially in conjunction with facial
and affect recognition, increasing the potential for centralized control and oppression
Increasing government use of automated decision systems that directly impact individuals and communities without established accountability structures
Unregulated and unmonitored forms of AI experimentation on human populations
The limits of technological solutions to problems of fairness, bias, and discrimination

Within each topic, we identify emerging challenges and new research, and provide recommendations regarding AI development, deployment, and regulation. We offer practical pathways informed by research so that policymakers, the public, and technologists can better understand and mitigate risks. Given that the AI Now Institute’s location and regional expertise is concentrated in the U.S., this report will focus primarily on the U.S. context, which is also where several of the world’s largest AI companies are based.

From DSC:
As I said in this posting, we need to be aware of the emerging technologies around us. Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. People need to be aware of — and involved with — which emerging technologies get rolled out (or not) and/or which features are beneficial to roll out (or not).

One of the things that’s beginning to alarm me these days is how the United States has turned over the keys to the Maserati — i.e., think an expensive, powerful thing — to youth who lack the life experiences to know how to handle such power and, often, the proper respect for such power. Many of these youthful members of our society don’t own the responsibility for the positive and negative influences and impacts that such powerful technologies can have (and the more senior execs have not taken enough responsibility either)!

If you owned the car below, would you turn the keys of this ~$137,000+ car over to your 16-25 year old? Yet that’s what America has been doing for years. And, in some areas, we’re now paying the price.

The corporate world continues to discard the hard-earned experience that age brings…as they shove older people out of the workforce. (I hesitate to use the word wisdom…but in some cases, that’s also relevant/involved here.) Then we, as a society, sit back and wonder how did we get to this place?

Even technologists and programmers in their 20’s and 30’s are beginning to step back and ask…WHY did we develop this application or that feature? Was it — is it — good for society? Is it beneficial? Or should it be tabled or revised into something else?

Below is but one example — though I don’t mean to pick on Microsoft, as they likely have more older workers than the Facebooks, Googles, or Amazons of the world. I fully realize that all of these companies have some older employees. But the youth-oriented culture in American today has almost become an obsession — and not just in the tech world. Turn on the TV, check out the new releases on Netflix, go see a movie in a theater, listen to the radio, cast but a glance at the magazines in the check out lines, etc. and you’ll instantly know
what I mean.

In the workplace, there appears to be a bias against older employees as being less innovative or tech-savvy — such a perspective is often completely incorrect. Go check out LinkedIn for items re: age discrimination…it’s a very real thing. But many of us over the age of 30 know this to be true if we’ve lost a job in the last decade or two and have tried to get a job that involves technology.

Microsoft argues facial-recognition tech could violate your rights — from finance.yahoo.com by Rob Pegoraro

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

On Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union provided a good reason for us to think carefully about the evolution of facial-recognition technology. In a study, the group used Amazon’s (AMZN) Rekognition service to compare portraits of members of Congress to 25,000 arrest mugshots. The result: 28 members were mistakenly matched with 28 suspects.

The ACLU isn’t the only group raising the alarm about the technology. Earlier this month, Microsoft (MSFT) president Brad Smith posted an unusual plea on the company’s blog asking that the development of facial-recognition systems not be left up to tech companies.

Saying that the tech “raises issues that go to the heart of fundamental human rights protections like privacy and freedom of expression,” Smith called for “a government initiative to regulate the proper use of facial recognition technology, informed first by a bipartisan and expert commission.”

But we may not get new laws anytime soon.

Just because we can…

5 influencers predict AI’s impact on business in 2019 — from martechadvisor.com by Christine Crandell

Excerpt:

With Artificial Intelligence (AI) already proving its worth to adopters, it’s not surprising that an increasing number of companies will implement and leverage AI in 2019. Now, it’s no longer a question of whether AI will take off. Instead, it’s a question of which companies will keep up. Here are five predictions from five influencers on the impact AI will have on businesses in 2019, writes Christine Crandell, President, New Business Strategies.

Should we be worried about computerized facial recognition? — from newyorker.com by David Owen
The technology could revolutionize policing, medicine, even agriculture—but its applications can easily be weaponized.

Facial-recognition technology is advancing faster than the people who worry about it have been able to think of ways to manage it. Indeed, in any number of fields the gap between what scientists are up to and what nonscientists understand about it is almost certainly greater now than it has been at any time since the Manhattan Project.

From DSC:
This is why law schools, legislatures, and the federal government need to become much more responsive to emerging technologies. The pace of technological change has changed. But have other important institutions of our society adapted to this new pace of change?

Andrew Ng sees an eternal springtime for AI — from zdnet.com by Tiernan Ray
Former Google Brain leader and Baidu chief scientist Andrew Ng lays out the steps companies should take to succeed with artificial intelligence, and explains why there’s unlikely to be another “AI winter” like in times past.

Google Lens now recognizes over 1 billion products — from venturebeat.com by Kyle Wiggers with thanks to Marie Conway for her tweet on this

Excerpt:

Google Lens, Google’s AI-powered analysis tool, can now recognize over 1 billion products from Google’s retail and price comparison portal, Google Shopping. That’s four times the number of objects Lens covered in October 2017, when it made its debut.

Aparna Chennapragada, vice president of Google Lens and augmented reality at Google, revealed the tidbit in a retrospective blog post about Google Lens’ milestones.

Amazon Customer Receives 1,700 Audio Files Of A Stranger Who Used Alexa — from npr.org by Sasha Ingber

Excerpt:

When an Amazon customer in Germany contacted the company to review his archived data, he wasn’t expecting to receive recordings of a stranger speaking in the privacy of a home.

The man requested to review his data in August under a European Union data protection law, according to a German trade magazine called c’t. Amazon sent him a download link to tracked searches on the website — and 1,700 audio recordings by Alexa that were generated by another person.

“I was very surprised about that because I don’t use Amazon Alexa, let alone have an Alexa-enabled device,” the customer, who was not named, told the magazine. “So I randomly listened to some of these audio files and could not recognize any of the voices.”

A Year in Review: Privacy Law in 2018 [Thomson Reuters]

On 12/19/2018, in 21st century, Blockchain, business, cloud-based computing / apps / other cloud-related, computer science, corporate / business world, law schools, legislatures / government / legal, United States, vendors, workplace, by Daniel Christian

2018 has been a transformative year for privacy law. Due in large part to the passing of The General Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR) on May 25, 2018, the privacy law landscape in the U.S. and around the world changed forever. Many companies were left wondering what the new laws meant for their daily operations and how far-reaching the noncompliance penalties would ultimately be.

A Year in Review: Privacy Law in 2018 — from Thomson Reuters & Above the Law

Excerpt:

Privacy law has become one of the hottest practice areas in the legal industry. In partnership with our friends at Thomson Reuters, we present A Year in Review: Privacy Law in 2018. This free eBook offers a comprehensive overview of trends and developments in privacy practice, including:

Insights About GDPR Compliance
How The Cloud Act May Rain On The Privacy Of Your Data
Why Blockchain And The GDPR Collide Over Your Personal Data
Attorneys’ Duties to Protect Client Data

In addition, our Year in Review includes a look at the The ATL Top Law Firm Privacy Practices, a round-up of the most active and relevant major law firms in this complex and rapidly evolving practice area.

Also see:

Legal Tech’s Predictions for 2019 in Cybersecurity and Privacy — from law.com by Zach Warrren
From Equifax to Facebook to the GDPR, cybersecurity and privacy had a banner year in 2018. But according to attorneys and cyber experts, the cyber focus shows no sign of stopping.

As Thomson Reuters readies layoffs of 3,200, what’s it mean for customers? [Ambrogi]

On 12/17/2018, in business, corporate / business world, law schools, legislatures / government / legal, pace of change, vendors, workplace, by Daniel Christian

As Thomson Reuters readies layoffs of 3,200, what’s it mean for customers? — from lawsitesblog.com by Bob Ambrogi

Excerpts:

Thomson Reuters, the dominant provider of research and information services for the legal profession, last week announced plans to reduce its workforce by 3,200 and close 30 percent of its offices by the end of 2020. What is going on and what does it mean for the company’s customers?
…
The overall goal, the company said, is to create a leaner, more agile organization that will allow it to better serve its customers and shift its orientation from a content company to a software company.

“As the velocity of technology change increases and the iteration cycles become ever shorter, the new Thomson Reuters needs to run leaner, be faster and more effective,” Neil T. Masterson, co-COO, told the investors. TR plans to accomplish that through three “levers” which will result in a headcount reduction of 12 percent by 2020…

Google Glass wasn’t a failure. It raised crucial concerns. — from wired.com by Rose Eveleth

Excerpts:

So when Google ultimately retired Glass, it was in reaction to an important act of line drawing. It was an admission of defeat not by design, but by culture.

These kinds of skirmishes on the front lines of surveillance might seem inconsequential — but they can not only change the behavior of tech giants like Google, they can also change how we’re protected under the law. Each time we invite another device into our lives, we open up a legal conversation over how that device’s capabilities change our right to privacy. To understand why, we have to get wonky for a bit, but it’s worth it, I promise.

But where many people see Google Glass as a cautionary tale about tech adoption failure, I see a wild success. Not for Google of course, but for the rest of us. Google Glass is a story about human beings setting boundaries and pushing back against surveillance…

IN THE UNITED States, the laws that dictate when you can and cannot record someone have a several layers. But most of these laws were written when smartphones and digital home assistants weren’t even a glimmer in Google’s eye. As a result, they are mostly concerned with issues of government surveillance, not individuals surveilling each other or companies surveilling their customers. Which means that as cameras and microphones creep further into our everyday lives, there are more and more legal gray zones.

From DSC:
We need to be aware of the emerging technologies around us. Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. People need to be aware of — and involved with — which emerging technologies get rolled out (or not) and/or which features are beneficial to roll out (or not).

One of the things that’s beginning to alarm me these days is how the United States has turned over the keys to the Maserati — i.e., think an expensive, powerful thing — to youth who lack the life experiences to know how to handle such power and, often, the proper respect for such power. Many of these youthful members of our society don’t own the responsibility for the positive and negative influences and impacts that such powerful technologies can have.

If you owned the car below, would you turn the keys of this ~$137,000+ car over to your 16-25 year old? Yet that’s what America has been doing for years. And, in some areas, we’re now paying the price.

The corporate world continues to discard the hard-earned experience that age brings…as they shove older people out of the workforce. (I hesitate to use the word wisdom…but in some cases, that’s also relevant/involved here.) Then we, as a society, sit back and wonder how did we get to this place?

Even technologists and programmers in their 20’s and 30’s are beginning to step back and ask…WHY did we develop this application or that feature? Was it — is it — good for society? Is it beneficial? Or should it be tabled or revised into something else?

Below is but one example — though I don’t mean to pick on Microsoft, as they likely have more older workers than the Facebooks, Googles, or Amazons of the world. I fully realize that all of these companies have some older employees. But the youth-oriented culture in American today has almost become an obsession — and not just in the tech world. Turn on the TV, check out the new releases on Netflix, go see a movie in a theater, listen to the radio, cast but a glance at the magazines in the check out lines, etc. and you’ll instantly know what I mean.

In the workplace, there appears to be a bias against older employees as being less innovative or tech-savvy — such a perspective is often completely incorrect. Go check out LinkedIn for items re: age discrimination…it’s a very real thing. But many of us over the age of 30 know this to be true if we’ve lost a job in the last decade or two and have tried to get a job that involves technology.

Microsoft argues facial-recognition tech could violate your rights — from finance.yahoo.com by Rob Pegoraro

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

On Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union provided a good reason for us to think carefully about the evolution of facial-recognition technology. In a study, the group used Amazon’s (AMZN) Rekognition service to compare portraits of members of Congress to 25,000 arrest mugshots. The result: 28 members were mistakenly matched with 28 suspects.

The ACLU isn’t the only group raising the alarm about the technology. Earlier this month, Microsoft (MSFT) president Brad Smith posted an unusual plea on the company’s blog asking that the development of facial-recognition systems not be left up to tech companies.

Saying that the tech “raises issues that go to the heart of fundamental human rights protections like privacy and freedom of expression,” Smith called for “a government initiative to regulate the proper use of facial recognition technology, informed first by a bipartisan and expert commission.”

But we may not get new laws anytime soon.

Just because we can…

Addendum on 12/27/18: — also related/see:

‘We’ve hit an inflection point’: Big Tech failed big-time in 2018 — from finance.yahoo.com by JP Mangalindan

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

2018 will be remembered as the year the public’s big soft-hearted love affair with Big Tech came to a screeching halt.

For years, lawmakers and the public let massive companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon run largely unchecked. Billions of people handed them their data — photos, locations, and other status-rich updates — with little scrutiny or question. Then came revelations around several high-profile data breaches from Facebook: a back-to-back series of rude awakenings that taught casual web-surfing, smartphone-toting citizens that uploading their data into the digital ether could have consequences. Google reignited the conversation around sexual harassment, spurring thousands of employees to walk out, while Facebook reminded some corners of the U.S. that racial bias, even in supposedly egalitarian Silicon Valley, remained alive and well. And Amazon courted well over 200 U.S. cities in its gaudy and protracted search for a second headquarters.

“I think 2018 was the year that people really called tech companies on the carpet about the way that they’ve been behaving conducting their business,” explained Susan Etlinger, an analyst at the San Francisco-based Altimeter Group. “We’ve hit an inflection point where people no longer feel comfortable with the ways businesses are conducting themselves. At the same time, we’re also at a point, historically, where there’s just so much more willingness to call out businesses and institutions on bigotry, racism, sexism and other kinds of bias.”

The public’s love affair with Facebook hit its first major rough patch in 2016 when Russian trolls attempted to meddle with the 2016 U.S. presidential election using the social media platform. But it was the Cambridge Analytica controversy that may go down in internet history as the start of a series of back-to-back, bruising controversies for the social network, which for years, served as the Silicon Valley poster child of the nouveau American Dream.

AI Now Report 2018: 10 Recommendations for AI [AI Now Institute]

On 12/07/2018, in 21st century, Amazon, Apple, Artificial Intelligence/Agents/LLMs/and Related, bots, business, career development, change, colleges, community colleges, computer science, corporate / business world, emerging technologies, ethics, Facebook / Meta Platforms, future, game-changing environment, Google, higher education, human-computer interaction (HCI), IBM, ideas, innovation, intelligent systems, internet, law schools, legislatures / government / legal, machine-to-machine communications, Microsoft, morals/values, pace of change, platforms, programming, society, sociology, surviving, technologies for your home, technology (general), the downsides of how people use tech, tools, trends, United States, universities, vendors, vision/possibilities, workplace, by Daniel Christian

AI Now Report 2018 | December 2018 — from ainowinstitute.org

Meredith Whittaker , AI Now Institute, New York University, Google Open Research
Kate Crawford , AI Now Institute, New York University, Microsoft Research
Roel Dobbe , AI Now Institute, New York University
Genevieve Fried , AI Now Institute, New York University
Elizabeth Kaziunas , AI Now Institute, New York University
Varoon Mathur , AI Now Institute, New York University
Sarah Myers West , AI Now Institute, New York University
Rashida Richardson , AI Now Institute, New York University
Jason Schultz , AI Now Institute, New York University School of Law
Oscar Schwartz , AI Now Institute, New York University

With research assistance from Alex Campolo and Gretchen Krueger (AI Now Institute, New York University)

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

Building on our 2016 and 2017 reports, the AI Now 2018 Report contends with this central problem, and provides 10 practical recommendations that can help create accountability frameworks capable of governing these powerful technologies.

Governments need to regulate AI by expanding the powers of sector-specific agencies to oversee, audit, and monitor these technologies by domain.
Facial recognition and affect recognition need stringent regulation to protect the public interest.
The AI industry urgently needs new approaches to governance. As this report demonstrates, internal governance structures at most technology companies are failing to ensure accountability for AI systems.
AI companies should waive trade secrecy and other legal claims that stand in the way of accountability in the public sector.
Technology companies should provide protections for conscientious objectors, employee organizing, and ethical whistleblowers.
Consumer protection agencies should apply “truth-in-advertising” laws to AI products and services.
Technology companies must go beyond the “pipeline model” and commit to addressing the practices of exclusion and discrimination in their workplaces.
Fairness, accountability, and transparency in AI require a detailed account of the “full stack supply chain.”
More funding and support are needed for litigation, labor organizing, and community participation on AI accountability issues.
University AI programs should expand beyond computer science and engineering disciplines. AI began as an interdisciplinary field, but over the decades has narrowed to become a technical discipline. With the increasing application of AI systems to social domains, it needs to expand its disciplinary orientation. That means centering forms of expertise from the social and humanistic disciplines. AI efforts that genuinely wish to address social implications cannot stay solely within computer science and engineering departments, where faculty and students are not trained to research the social world. Expanding the disciplinary orientation of AI research will ensure deeper attention to social contexts, and more focus on potential hazards when these systems are applied to human populations.

Also see:

After a Year of Tech Scandals, Our 10 Recommendations for AI — from medium.com by the AI Now Institute
Let’s begin with better regulation, protecting workers, and applying “truth in advertising” rules to AI

Also see:

Excerpt:

As we discussed, this technology brings important and even exciting societal benefits but also the potential for abuse. We noted the need for broader study and discussion of these issues. In the ensuing months, we’ve been pursuing these issues further, talking with technologists, companies, civil society groups, academics and public officials around the world. We’ve learned more and tested new ideas. Based on this work, we believe it’s important to move beyond study and discussion. The time for action has arrived.

We believe it’s important for governments in 2019 to start adopting laws to regulate this technology. The facial recognition genie, so to speak, is just emerging from the bottle. Unless we act, we risk waking up five years from now to find that facial recognition services have spread in ways that exacerbate societal issues. By that time, these challenges will be much more difficult to bottle back up.

In particular, we don’t believe that the world will be best served by a commercial race to the bottom, with tech companies forced to choose between social responsibility and market success. We believe that the only way to protect against this race to the bottom is to build a floor of responsibility that supports healthy market competition. And a solid floor requires that we ensure that this technology, and the organizations that develop and use it, are governed by the rule of law.

From DSC:
This is a major heads up to the American Bar Association (ABA), law schools, governments, legislatures around the country, the courts, the corporate world, as well as for colleges, universities, and community colleges. The pace of emerging technologies is much faster than society’s ability to deal with them!

The ABA and law schools need to majorly pick up their pace — for the benefit of all within our society.

The Insecurity of Things: a Brief History of US IoT Cybersecurity Legislation [Lawrence]

On 11/29/2018, in 21st century, emerging technologies, history, internet, law schools, legislatures / government / legal, machine-to-machine communications, platforms, society, technology (general), the downsides of how people use tech, tools, by Daniel Christian

The Insecurity of Things: a Brief History of US IoT Cybersecurity Legislation (Part 2) — from zone.com by Cate Lawrence
Check out these national attempts to legislate IoT security.

Excerpt:

There’s been a number of efforts over the last few years to legislate or provide a legal response to matters of cybersecurity. Part 1 of this article takes a look at recent efforts by California. This article examines the national attempts to legislate these poorly secured connected devices.

Beijing to judge every resident based on behavior by end of 2020 — from bloomberg.com

On 11/23/2018, in Artificial Intelligence/Agents/LLMs/and Related, Asia, ethics, future, game-changing environment, law schools, legislatures / government / legal, morals/values, platforms, society, by Daniel Christian

Beijing to judge every resident based on behavior by end of 2020 — from bloomberg.com

China capital plans ‘social credit’ system by end of 2020
Citizens with poor scores will be ‘unable to move’ a step

Excerpt:

China’s plan to judge each of its 1.3 billion people based on their social behavior is moving a step closer to reality, with Beijing set to adopt a lifelong points program by 2021 that assigns personalized ratings for each resident.

The capital city will pool data from several departments to reward and punish some 22 million citizens based on their actions and reputations by the end of 2020, according to a plan posted on the Beijing municipal government’s website on Monday. Those with better so-called social credit will get “green channel” benefits while those who violate laws will find life more difficult.

The Beijing project will improve blacklist systems so that those deemed untrustworthy will be “unable to move even a single step,” according to the government’s plan.

From DSC:
Matthew 18:21-35 comes to mind big time here! I’m glad the LORD isn’t like this…we would all be in trouble.

Mama Mia It’s Sophia: A Show Robot Or Dangerous Platform To Mislead? — from forbes.com by Noel Sharkey

Excerpts:

A collective eyebrow was raised by the AI and robotics community when the robot Sophia was given Saudia citizenship in 2017 The AI sharks were already circling as Sophia’s fame spread with worldwide media attention. Were they just jealous buzz-kills or is something deeper going on? Sophia has gripped the public imagination with its interesting and fun appearances on TV and on high-profile conference platforms.

Sophia is not the first show robot to attain celebrity status. Yet accusations of hype and deception have proliferated about the misrepresentation of AI to public and policymakers alike. In an AI-hungry world where decisions about the application of the technologies will impact significantly on our lives, Sophia’s creators may have crossed a line. What might the negative consequences be? To get answers, we need to place Sophia in the context of earlier show robots.

A dangerous path for our rights and security
For me, the biggest problem with the hype surrounding Sophia is that we have entered a critical moment in the history of AI where informed decisions need to be made. AI is sweeping through the business world and being delegated decisions that impact significantly on peoples lives from mortgage and loan applications to job interviews, to prison sentences and bail guidance, to transport and delivery services to medicine and care.

It is vitally important that our governments and policymakers are strongly grounded in the reality of AI at this time and are not misled by hype, speculation, and fantasy. It is not clear how much the Hanson Robotics team are aware of the dangers that they are creating by appearing on international platforms with government ministers and policymakers in the audience.

Cool idea: Veterans can get benefits assistance at the local Starbucks [Sloan]

On 11/14/2018, in business, corporate / business world, ideas, innovation, law schools, legislatures / government / legal, real-world assignments, society, student-related, surviving, United States, vendors, by Daniel Christian

Ahead of the Curve: Coffee Shop Clinic — from law.com by Karen Sloan (sorry…an account/sign-in is required with this article)
At William and Mary Law School’s Military Mondays program, veterans can get benefits assistance at the local Starbucks

Excerpt:

Thus far, Military Mondays has helped 369 veterans with benefit claims, with five or six sessions each semester. It has become more comprehensive as well. A representative from the Virginia Department of Veterans Services typically attends now, meaning veterans can often file benefit claims on the spot. The state veterans services workers can also look through a veterans’ file to find necessary information, Stone told me.“It has gone really well,” he said. “It has not only helped a lot of veterans, but it has provided students a great educational experience by allowing them to meet face-to-face with veterans.

The full corpus of published U.S. case law is now online for anyone to access for free [Library Innovation Lab]

On 11/05/2018, in higher education, history, innovation, IT in HE, law schools, legislatures / government / legal, library / librarians, open courseware and systems, society, United States, by Daniel Christian

Caselaw Access Project (CAP) Launches API and Bulk Data Service — from the Library Innovation Lab at the Harvard Law School Library by Kelly Fitzpatrick

Excerpt:

[On 10/29/18] the Library Innovation Lab at the Harvard Law School Library is excited to announce the launch of its Caselaw Access Project (CAP) API and bulk data service, which puts the full corpus of published U.S. case law online for anyone to access for free.

Between 2013 and 2018, the Library digitized over 40 million pages of U.S. court decisions, transforming them into a dataset covering almost 6.5 million individual cases. The CAP API and bulk data service puts this important dataset within easy reach of researchers, members of the legal community and the general public.

To learn more about the project, the data and how to use the API and bulk data service, please visit case.law.

Also see:

Harvard Law Gives Public Free Access to Four Centuries of U.S. Court Cases — from thecrimson.com by Laura Espinoza and Katherine Li

Teaching technology today: One law school’s innovative offerings [Lat]

On 10/29/2018, in 21st century, education technology, higher education, human-computer interaction (HCI), ideas, innovation, law schools, legislatures / government / legal, society, tools, by Daniel Christian

Teaching technology today: One law school’s innovative offerings — from abovethelaw.com by David Lat
Lawyers of the future, regardless of practice area, need to be proficient in legal technology.

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

Technology is transforming the practice and profession of law — and legal education must evolve accordingly. Across the country, law schools are launching and expanding research centers, clinics, and course offerings focused on legal technology.
…
Earlier this month, I spoke with Judge Prudenti again, to check in on her efforts. I asked her: Why is legal-tech proficiency so important today?

“I’m a true believer,” Judge Prudenti told me. “I have seen, up close and personal, how technology has changed the legal marketplace and the practice of law — in the private sector, in the public sector, and in the courtroom.”

In private law firms, large or small, lawyers are engaged in e-discovery, e-filing, and e-billing — as a necessity. In the public sector, technology is being used to bridge the justice gap, helping to deliver legal services to the unrepresented. And in the courtroom, Judge Prudenti’s former domain, technology has been revolutionary, with touch-screen monitors, iPads, and video screens being used to present and review evidence.

“Lawyers of the future, regardless of practice area, need to be proficient in legal technology,” Judge Prudenti said — which is why Hofstra Law has been focusing so intensely on its technology offerings.

Addendum on 10/31/18:

BYU Law Collaborates with Code180 to Offer First-of-its-Kind Legal Coding Workshop — from prnewswire.com

AI Now Law and Policy Reading List [AI Now Institute]

On 10/17/2018, in 21st century, analytics, Artificial Intelligence/Agents/LLMs/and Related, bots, data related items, emerging technologies, law schools, legislatures / government / legal, policy, by Daniel Christian

AI Now Law and Policy Reading List — from medium.com by the AI Now Institute

Excerpt:

Data-driven technologies are widely used in society to make decisions that affect many critical aspects of our lives, from health, education, employment, and criminal justice to economic, social and political norms. Their varied applications, uses, and consequences raise a number of unique and complex legal and policy concerns. As a result, it can be hard to figure out not only how these systems work but what to do about them.

As a starting point, AI Now offers this Law and Policy Reading List tailored for those interested in learning about key concepts, debates, and leading analysis on law and policy issues related to artificial intelligence and other emerging data-driven technologies.

New game lets players train AI to spot legal issues [Tashea]

On 10/17/2018, in analytics, Artificial Intelligence/Agents/LLMs/and Related, bots, computer science, design, ideas, innovation, law schools, legislatures / government / legal, by Daniel Christian

New game lets players train AI to spot legal issues — from abajournal.com by Jason Tashea

Excerpt:

Got a free minute? There’s a new game that will help train an artificial intelligence model to spot legal issues and help close the access-to-justice gap.

Called Learned Hands—yes, it’s a pun—the game takes 75,000 legal questions posted on Reddit dealing with family, consumer, criminal and other legal issues and asks the user to determine what the issue is.

While conjuring up nightmares of the first-year in law school for many lawyers, David Colarusso says it’s for a good cause.

“It’s an opportunity for attorneys to take their downtime to train machine learning algorithms to help access-to-justice issues,” says Colarusso, director of Suffolk University Law School’s Legal Innovation and Technology (LIT) Lab and partner on this project with the Stanford Legal Design Lab.

From learnedhands.law.stanford.edu/legalIssues

When you play the game, you’ll be spotting if different legal issues are present in people’s stories. Some of these issues will be high level categories, and others will be more specific issues.

Here are the high level categories:

California enacts first law regulating Internet of Things devices [Rice]

On 10/11/2018, in 21st century, internet, law schools, legislatures / government / legal, machine-to-machine communications, technologies for your home, the downsides of how people use tech, tools, United States, by Daniel Christian

California enacts first law regulating Internet of Things devices — from iplawtrends.com by David Rice with thanks to my friend Justin Wagner for posting this on LinkedIn

Excerpt:

California has enacted the nation’s first law regulating Internet of Things (IoT) devices, which was signed by Governor Jerry Brown on September 28, 2018. IoT refers to the rapidly-expanding world of internet-connected objects such as home security systems, video monitors, enterprise devices that track packages and vehicles, health monitors, connected cars, smart city devices that manage traffic congestion, and smart meters for utilities.

IoT devices promise to bring efficiencies to a broad range of industries and improve lives. But these devices also collect vast troves of information, and this raises data security and privacy concerns. In 2016, a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack on the internet infrastructure company Dyn was powered by millions of hacked IoT devices such as web cameras and connected refrigerators. Hackers have used baby monitors to view inside homes, with a prominent recent example being the widely-deployed Mi-Cam baby monitor. If hackers are able to get into critical IoT systems in first responder networks, then there could be public safety risks.

The law states that having a unique preprogrammed password for each IoT device or requiring the user to generate a new means of authentication before access to the device is granted for the first time is deemed to be a reasonable security feature.

Learning Ecosystems

A Year in Review: Privacy Law in 2018 [Thomson Reuters]

As Thomson Reuters readies layoffs of 3,200, what’s it mean for customers? [Ambrogi]

Reflections on “Google Glass wasn’t a failure. It raised crucial concerns.” [Eveleth]

Just because we can…

The Insecurity of Things: a Brief History of US IoT Cybersecurity Legislation [Lawrence]

The full corpus of published U.S. case law is now online for anyone to access for free [Library Innovation Lab]

Teaching technology today: One law school’s innovative offerings [Lat]

California enacts first law regulating Internet of Things devices [Rice]

Categories

Tags