Tag Archives: Civil Liberties

AI Whispering Digital Co-Counsel for Any Litigation

Are you adequately prepared for your next litigation?  Going into court with an army of Co-Counsel making you feel more confident, more prepared?  Make sure you bring along the AI Whispering Digital Co-Counsel.  Co-Counsel that doesn’t break a sweat, get nervous, and is always prepared.  He even takes the opportunity to learn while on the job, machine learning.

The whispering digital agent for advising litigators “just-in-time” rebuttal citing historical precedence, for example.  Digital Co-Counsel analyzes the dialog within the courtroom to identify ‘goals’, the intent of the conversation(s).  The Digital Co-Counsel identifies the current workflow, which may be identified as Cross or Direct examination, Opening Statement, and Closing Argument.

Realtime observation of a court case and advice based on:
  • Observed dialog interactions between all parties involved in the case, such as opposing counsel,  witnesses, subject matter experts, may trigger “guidance” from the Digital Co-Counsel based on a compound of utterances, and identified workflow.
  • Court case evidence submitted may be digitized, and analyzed based on a [predetermined]combination of identified attributes of submitted evidence.  This evidence, in turn, may be rebutted, by counter arguments, alternate ‘perspectives’ or present “evidence” to rebut
  • The introduction of ‘bias’ toward the opposing council.**

Implementation of the Digital Co-Council may be through a Smartphone application, and use a bluetooth throughout the case.

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s viewpoint.

China’s Baidu Digital Eyewear Targeted Solely for Government

China’s Baidu developing digital eyewear similar to Google Glass | Reuters.

Three paragraphs are extremely interesting, and imply military applications as well as policing their own people.

Kuo said the device will be mounted on a headset with a small LCD screen and will allow users to make image and voice searches as well as conduct facial recognition matches.

 

“What you are doing with your camera, for example, taking a picture of a celebrity and then checking on our database to see if we have a facial image match, you could do the same thing with a wearable visual device,” Kuo said.

 

We haven’t decided whether it is going to be released in any commercial form right now, but we experiment with every kind of technology that is related to search,” Kuo said. Kuo declined to comment on the other functions of the Baidu Eye or whether Baidu is working on other forms of wearable technology.

It implyies that targeted people who are targeted for ‘crimes’ such as civil disobedience, may be tracked in a database.  The last paragraph implies that the technology may be targeted for the ‘public’ / government sector use.  In addition, all governments may use this technologies at their borders easier recognition of targeted individuals.  I could also visualize other highly policed states, where terrorism is very active, to provide these glasses to transportation gatekeepers, such as bus drivers, or train conductor, where at the point of collecting tickets, they may be able to perform retinal recognition, and allow the collection of fees, depending on the accuracy of the technology, as well as identify them for any outstanding warrents for arrest.  A person may board a bus, and by identifying the person through facial, retinal, and/or voice recognition, if cleared a security check, the bus driver may ask automatically, would you like this fare deducted from your linked checking, or which credit card, ending in the last for digits.

This technology might eventually be mandated by the states within the EU.  That’s a thought, as well as the requirements to connect each border check to cross reference with Interpol, the World Health Organization (WHO) for the spread of possible infectious disease control, as well as local government warrents.

Brave New World.

Press regulation in the U.K.: Royal Charter Applies to Internet

BBC News – Press regulation: How royal charter applies to internet.

In this article, I find it extremely interesting, and I see both sides of the coin.  On one side, we have a regulated press, where approved concepts and ideas are allowed to be expressed, even by the common blogger.  In the U.K. you need a license for a T.V., however, some of the rationale for this may be specifically for news or stories that are accurate comes back from a long history at the Associated Press, where news needed to be confirmed by three sources.  In addition, the history of the Assiociated Press is an interesting one.  If there was a ship from England entering the bay, people would take row boats out, and compete to get the news from the ship, so it was agreed to send one ship and share the news.

In essence, regulated news, maybe for political reasons, maybe to not ensure a panic to maintain a society in case of an emergency, after all, a thought, a single idea, as they say on the Internet can be believed to be true if articulated well, and go ‘virual’ as they say, and pass for believable, and something that was not true, may cause societal breakdown, to the extreme.  One case of this is the broadcast in the United States that caused a mild panic, because people thought it was a plausable story, it was 1938, and it was the War of the Worlds, appropriately coined a few years before world war.

An argument can be made to the contrary, which is one person may report a factual story, but yet, without government sanction, the story would have legal precident to be blocked, recended, and the person may be fined or jailed, depending on the story.  Is this good, is this a removal of such liberties as the United States has the freedom of speech, which this country was founded upon?  Is this now an archaic principle?  Only time will tell.