161–170 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Weird that people assume someone who was never convicted must be a guilty "monster." I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tech has solved[0] lots of social issues: - access to general knowledge: Wikipedia - safe transport for women at night: Find My Friends / Uber+Lyft - access to government data: opendata initiatives, a plethora of cadastral map services I'm going to say the obvious thing everyone is thinking. Everyone who has ever said "this is the core issue: you're trying to solve a social issue with technology" has never solved a s…
>- safe transport for women at night This was also solved using non-tech and hundreds of years ago. It's called a firearm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think these discussions always seem focused on the ideal state of the "AI is perfect and gives correct answers" and not the current state where the "AI constructs sentences that are structured correctly, but are filled with inaccuracies and illogical nonsense."
If we want to steelman AI why shouldn’t we also steelman the court system? Assuming a perfect AI is about the same as assuming a well functioning court system. Otherwise we should be assuming a flawed, potentially racist, confidently incorrect AI vs a flawed, excessively slow, definitely racist court system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree that technology is the solution I disagree AI has anything to do with this. This "AI Lawyer" is about a traffic ticket. If we want to make things more fair while also enforcing the laws on the book it seems like the more straightforward tech solution is to improve traffic cameras/monitors such that tickets are given out more appropriately. Or, if it still goes to court, why not just have a system where…
Normative statements. You should be asking what are the incentives. > like the more straightforward tech solution is to improve traffic cameras/monitors such that tickets are given out more appropriately This is not straightforward from a bureaucratic sense. There is no strong incentive (that I can identify - humanitarian ideals do not count) to improve the functionality here to make traffic tickets and their resolut…
Either way the government is not purely incentivized to increase funds. Standard fines for traffic violations are changed up or down all the time. Sometimes cities decide their current traffic enforcement is too burdensome and they cut back on tickets. There could be political actors which have incentives to improve it. Whether or not it will ever happen is not clear but I dont think its impossible by any means.
>The ultimate goal, according to Browder, is to democratize legal representation by making it free for those who can't afford it, in some cases eliminating the need for pricey attorneys. this is the core issue I have with companies and tech like this: they try to solve social issues with technology and business. the issue of accessible defense is an issue of institutional failure that rests on the shoulders of the st…
Similarly, the the problem with representation of defendants in the legal system is technological and economic, not social. It’s expensive to have a credentialed person spend lots of time working on behalf of someone else. That’s true for everything from auto repair to law. The social and legal system is simply responding to that economic reality. The public is willing to spend so much money to protect the rights of the accused and there is only so much you can accomplish by haranguing them into wanting to spend more money. By contrast, if you dramatically reduce the cost of providing the accused with a defense, you dramatically change the landscape of the social and political issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the core issue I have with comments like this: they refuse to try solving social issues with technology. I can understand why not business, but every time a solution involving tech pops up, there's immediately people dismissing it with a comment saying you can't solve societal issues with tech, with no proposed alternative solutions either. Ok, you don't want to solve it with tech, how then?
I don't have an issue with tech let say, but how he tech serves more as a stop gap for visible flaws while the underlying core remains flawed. this tech won't solve the problem of overzealous police officers, biased judges, and other problems stemming from the institution itself
So why refuse it?
I'd rather say you can't solve social issues with tech ALONE. You need more than that, but you still need it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a) Yes it would constitute a recording. b) It is illegal because it would result in leaks to the media which would destroy the entire fabric of the judicial system.
How would it destroy the judicial system? If anything, it would strengthen it, and expose injustices in either the justice system itself or in law. Does media coverage on criminal cases destroy the fabric of criminal proceedings?
From the perspectives of both sides (defense counsel and prosecution), I believe this is undesired as it primes potential jury members' opinions outside of court evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Weird that people assume someone who was never convicted must be a guilty "monster." I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Most people don't get ticketed often enough for speeding to feel one way or another.
And most people don't feel righteous about speeding in a school zone.
Convicted/not convicted doesn't map perfectly onto guilty/not-guilty. You yourself understand this perfectly or you wouldn't be hiring a lawyer for a moving violation.
No it won't since it's illegal. "At no time at any location within the courthouse may any electronic device be used to make a photograph or recording in any fashion, whether audio, video or otherwise." https://www.lawd.uscourts.gov/possession-and-use-electronic-...
I am fairly sure I saw live, in-courtroom coverage of both the Rittenhouse (as a prominent criminal case) as well as the Depp/Heart (a prominent civil) case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the opposite of true. And I think you know that. It's absolutely insane that HN of all places is arguing against the concept of locality-of-reference. Given the Option A (letting DoJ prosecutors only have to carry around Title 18) versus Option B (letting lay people looking up a topic by subject matter see what crimes and penalties pertain to that subject matter in the title for that subject matter ), which on…
The difference is that a lay person has to follow all of the laws. The only reason this system works is because of privacy. Without it the system is just broken. But even with privacy it makes the system about luck.
That is obviously untrue. Why do you feel the need to make obviously false claims to support your position?
You need to obey the UCMJ?
You need to obey campaign finance laws?
You need to obey the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge Act?
You need to obey state law as incorporated by the Assimilative Crimes Act in jurisdictions you've never been to?
You need to obey HIPAA? The Privacy Act? The Freedom of Information Act?
A huge number of laws simply do not apply to you if you aren't engaged in a particular activity. E.g., you are not a covered entity for HIPAA unless you work for a medical provider or insurer. And a huge proportion of those criminal penalties only apply to government employees, not to average civilians at all.