3 ms·

>> The legal system as it is currently designed can not operate without privacy, and it is hard to imagine a system that can. Actually, it's very simple. You y

by pif 8y ago

>> The legal system as it is currently designed can not operate without privacy, and it is hard to imagine a system that can. Actually, it's very simple. You yourself hinted at it: > Put me in a legal case where I (and only I) have full access... You had to specify "and only I", otherwise your argument would not make sense. Now suppose everybody has access to the same data, and voilà!, your power just vanished.

belorn 8y ago
Does it? I would image that a legal system where lawyers and prosecutors both can use machine learning and unlimited data to maximize what methods to use in order to influence judge, jury, witnesses and so on would be quite different from a legal system designed to find the truth. Through even if we assume so, how would everyone get equal access to the data, algorithms and processing power? If cases are resolved based on who owns most of those resources can we still claim to have a just legal system?
- notheguyouthink 8y ago
  I totally agree.. though to play devils advocate, I do have to wonder how different what you describe is from the traditional system. By traditional system, I mean; who is the best lawyer? One who can most effectively manipulate the jury towards their clients case. It sounds jaded, but mechanically I think it's true, no? And what makes one lawyer better at this? Perhaps training, personal talent, etc. So in the two scenarios, you have: 1. a lawyer wins because s/he's more talented/trained at manipulation. 2. a lawyer wins because s/he's obtained a better ML software suite for processing data. Is there a meaningful distinction here? Before ML, you always wanted to hire a "good" lawyer. So there were already meaningful differences between good and bad lawyers. Lawyers always tried to manipulate the jury. Lawyers always tried to sell the facts around their case in such a way as to be most effective. I'm not sure how ML will alter this. Aside from cranking the dial to 11.
  - walterbell 8y ago
    > I'm not sure how ML will alter this The feedback loop between Jury and ML algorithm can continue beyond the duration of the trial. Without privacy controls, we will commodify the targeted manipulation of all human action and human choicemaking architectures. Who benefits from an arms race on choice and decision manipulation?
    - 794CD01 8y ago
      Who benefits from the sun shining? Whoever can figure out how to harness the sunlight. The sun doesn't care either way.
      - walterbell 8y ago
        Unlike ML-mediated data, the sun is not subject to human law.
- matz1 8y ago
  Regardless, privacy or not, the one who own most of the resources will likely win the case.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  > If cases are resolved based on who owns most of those resources can we still claim to have a just legal system? That's already the case. Poor people get a public defender, which usually means taking the offer. Rich people can jam up the courts for years, and can get out of it. We already live in a moneyball court system.
iamben 8y ago
> Now suppose everybody has access to the same data, and voilà!, your power just vanished I disagree completely. People are far easier to convince or manipulate if you know just a few things about them. For someone trained in appealing to people/making arguments, it'd be all about dropping in the right words and making the right suggestions. Isn't that what we all do with advertising? It's why (some of) it works so well on Facebook. Everyone has access to the same targeting, some people understand better than others how to make their ads work.

by pif 8y ago

belorn 8y ago

Does it? I would image that a legal system where lawyers and prosecutors both can use machine learning and unlimited data to maximize what methods to use in order to influence judge, jury, witnesses and so on would be quite different from a legal system designed to find the truth. Through even if we assume so, how would everyone get equal access to the data, algorithms and processing power? If cases are resolved based on who owns most of those resources can we still claim to have a just legal system?

notheguyouthink 8y ago
I totally agree.. though to play devils advocate, I do have to wonder how different what you describe is from the traditional system. By traditional system, I mean; who is the best lawyer? One who can most effectively manipulate the jury towards their clients case. It sounds jaded, but mechanically I think it's true, no? And what makes one lawyer better at this? Perhaps training, personal talent, etc. So in the two scenarios, you have: 1. a lawyer wins because s/he's more talented/trained at manipulation. 2. a lawyer wins because s/he's obtained a better ML software suite for processing data. Is there a meaningful distinction here? Before ML, you always wanted to hire a "good" lawyer. So there were already meaningful differences between good and bad lawyers. Lawyers always tried to manipulate the jury. Lawyers always tried to sell the facts around their case in such a way as to be most effective. I'm not sure how ML will alter this. Aside from cranking the dial to 11.
- walterbell 8y ago
  > I'm not sure how ML will alter this The feedback loop between Jury and ML algorithm can continue beyond the duration of the trial. Without privacy controls, we will commodify the targeted manipulation of all human action and human choicemaking architectures. Who benefits from an arms race on choice and decision manipulation?
  - 794CD01 8y ago
    Who benefits from the sun shining? Whoever can figure out how to harness the sunlight. The sun doesn't care either way.
    - walterbell 8y ago
      Unlike ML-mediated data, the sun is not subject to human law.
matz1 8y ago
Regardless, privacy or not, the one who own most of the resources will likely win the case.
crankylinuxuser 8y ago
> If cases are resolved based on who owns most of those resources can we still claim to have a just legal system? That's already the case. Poor people get a public defender, which usually means taking the offer. Rich people can jam up the courts for years, and can get out of it. We already live in a moneyball court system.

iamben 8y ago

> Now suppose everybody has access to the same data, and voilà!, your power just vanished I disagree completely. People are far easier to convince or manipulate if you know just a few things about them. For someone trained in appealing to people/making arguments, it'd be all about dropping in the right words and making the right suggestions. Isn't that what we all do with advertising? It's why (some of) it works so well on Facebook. Everyone has access to the same targeting, some people understand better than others how to make their ads work.