More or less personal…

https://fpf.org/blog/rethinking-personal-data-the-cjeus-contextual-turn-in-edps-vs-srb/

Rethinking Personal Data: The CJEU’s Contextual Turn in EDPS vs. SRB

On 4 September 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in EDPS v SRB (C-413/23), which is a ground-breaking judgment regarding the interpretation of the concept of “personal data” under EU data protection law. This concept is central to the EU data protection legal framework and holds considerable importance for its implementation in practice. The SRB judgment is remarkable as it clearly departs from the long-standing position of data protection authorities, which have treated pseudonymized data as invariably personal data.

… In its decision, the Court provided three critical clarifications: 

• Opinions or personal views are “personal data” since they are inherently linked to their author (para. 60). 

• The concept of “personal data” is relative. Pseudonymized data are not always personal; their classification depends on the perspective of the actor processing them (paras. 76–77, 86). 

• The controller’s duty to provide notice applies ex ante at the time of collection, before the data have undergone pseudonymization, and must be assessed from the controller’s standpoint, regardless of whether the recipient can re-identify it (paras. 102, 112). 

Good thing or bad thing, it’s a thing.

https://www.bespacific.com/ai-drones-are-americas-newest-cops/

AI drones are America’s newest cops

Axios: “Police and sheriff’s departments across America are using AI-powered drones for pursuits, investigations and emergencies — even delivering Narcan to stop overdose deaths.  Local law enforcement agencies are facing chronic staffing shortages amid pressures to reduce violent crime. AI-powered drones can do some police work — but using them raises new questions about surveillance and privacy. Some 1,500 police and sheriff’s departments were flying drones by late 2024 — a 150% jump since 2018, per Police1.com, a law enforcement news site.  An Axios analysis found that almost every major metropolitan area in the U.S. has a law enforcement agency with a drone system, even if the largest city has yet to adopt the technology or publicly announce its use.”

Except when you praise the King?

https://www.bespacific.com/labor-unions-eff-sue-trump-administration-to-stop-ideological-surveillance-of-free-speech-online/

Labor Unions, EFF Sue Trump Administration to Stop Ideological Surveillance of Free Speech Online

EFF: Viewpoint-based Online Surveillance of Permanent Residents and Visa Holders Violates First Amendment, Lawsuit Argues. The United Automobile Workers (UAW), Communications Workers of America (CWA), and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) filed a lawsuit today against the Departments of State and Homeland Security for their viewpoint-based surveillance and suppression of protected expression online.  The complaint asks a federal court to stop this unconstitutional surveillance program, which has silenced and frightened both citizens and noncitizens, and hampered the ability of the unions to associate with their members and potential members. The case is titled UAW v. State Department. Since taking power, the Trump administration has created a mass surveillance program to monitor constitutionally protected speech by noncitizens lawfully present in the U.S. Using AI and other automated technologies, the program surveils the social media accounts of visa holders with the goal of identifying and punishing those who express viewpoints the government doesn’t like. This has been paired with a public intimidation campaign, silencing not just noncitizens with immigration status, but also the families, coworkers, and friends with whom their lives are integrated. As detailed in the complaint, when asked in a survey if they had changed their social media activity as a result of the Trump administration’s ideological online surveillance program, over 60 percent of responding UAW members and over 30 percent of responding CWA members who were aware of the program said they had. Among noncitizens, these numbers were even higher. Of respondents aware of the program, over 80 percent of UAW members who were not U.S. citizens and over 40 percent of CWA members who were not U.S. citizens said they had changed their activity online… For more about the litigation: https://eff.org/cases/united-auto-workers-v-us-department-state

• “Free speech is the foundation of democracy in America,” said AFT President Randi Weingarten. “The Trump administration has rejected that core constitutional right and now says only speech it agrees with is permitted—and that it will silence those who disagree. This suit exposes the online surveillance tools and other cyber tactics never envisioned by the founders to enforce compliance with the administration’s views. It details the direct harms on both the target of these attacks and the chilling effect on all those we represent and teach.”…

Maybe lawyers are useful after all…

https://www.bespacific.com/the-human-advantage-professional-growth-for-lawyers-in-the-age-of-generative-ai/

The Human Advantage: Professional Growth for Lawyers in the Age of Generative AI

Legalverse Media – Sarah Glassmeyer: The Human Advantage: Professional Growth for Lawyers in the Age of Generative AI

Perspective.

https://www.bespacific.com/harvey-openai-and-the-race-to-use-ai-to-revolutionize-big-law/

Harvey, OpenAI, and the race to use AI to revolutionize Big Law

Fast Company – no paywall: “…Harvey, which is used by some 250 law firms—including 42% of The American Lawyer’s list of biggest 100 firms in the U.S.—announced in June that it raised a $300 million series D led by Sequoia, bringing its total haul to more than $800 million and driving its valuation to $5 billion. It’s now the highest valued startup in a growing field of AI companies that are all focused on overhauling how the legal profession works. The company’s annualized revenue run rate hit $100 million in August, up from $50 million earlier this year, propelled by an aggressive sales strategy targeting big law firms. Harvey now has 460 employees, 20% of whom are lawyers. The company is also hiring dozens of engineers, sales leads, and account executives as it seeks to increase the moat between itself and its competitors. Whether Harvey ultimately upends the legal procession or winds up burning a lot of cash, time, and effort could reveal that fates of industries as far afield as finance, music, and film. All these sectors—and more—are on a similar curve: exploring whether AI tools can be truly transformative and seeing just how many jobs they’ll reimagine—or disappear altogether… Despite its sizable moat, Harvey’s success is far from assured… Even Harvey’s cofounders have called OpenAI an indirect competitor. But critics also say the company could be steamrolled by OpenAI, pointing out that the LLM could simply build its own legal-focused model. “I’m hearing from more and more attorneys that OpenAI’s Deep Research is the single best research product on the market, and it’s what most attorneys use (even when it’s not a firm approved tool),” former lawyer and legaltech investor Zack Abramowitz wrote on his popular substack Legally Disrupted in June… Harvey’s customers, in the meantime, seem satisfied. “[Harvey is] totally embedded in the workday of our lawyers. It’s really become embedded throughout their daily workflows,” says Gina Lynch, chief knowledge and innovation officer at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, the white-shoe law firm with more than a thousand lawyers. As Ethan Mollick, a professor and codirector of the Generative AI Lab at Wharton, wrote on Linkedin, “There was a moment that we thought proprietary data would let organizations train specialized AIs that could compete with frontier models. It turns out that probably isn’t going to happen. The largest frontier models are just much better at most complex tasks than smaller models.”

Another concern is how long Harvey can maintain its lead, given the cost of its product. Harvey’s bespoke services cost $1,200 per seat, per month, with contracts stipulating that large companies need to purchase the service for at least 100 employees and for at least a year. The company justifies its prices by touting the productivity gains it passes onto employees. “You can arm lawyers with tools that make them enormously productive,” says Harvey’s chief business officer John Haddock, who has a law degree from Stanford. And $100,000 a month is still less expensive than the salaries of an army of paralegals and junior associates.

Tools & Techniques.

https://www.bespacific.com/3-ai-content-detectors-that-identify-ai-text-100-of-the-time/

3 AI content detectors that identify AI text 100% of the time and an even better option

ZDNet – “I’ve been testing AI content detectors for more than two years. And now there’s an equally effective option that doesn’t require a new subscription…. Before I go on, though, let’s discuss plagiarism and how it relates to our problem. Merriam-Webster defines “plagiarize” as “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own; use (another’s production) without crediting the source.” This definition fits AI-created content well. While someone using an AI tool like Notion AI or ChatGPT isn’t stealing content, if that person doesn’t credit the words as coming from an AI and claims them as their own, it still meets the dictionary definition of plagiarism. To test the AI detectors, I’m using five blocks of text. Two were written by me, and three were written by ChatGPT. To test a content detector, I feed each block to the detector separately and record the result. If the detector is correct, I consider the test passed; if it’s wrong, I consider it failed. When a detector provides a percentage, I treat anything above 70% as a strong probability — whether in favor of human-written or AI-written content — and consider that the detector’s answer.

If you want to test a content detector yourself using the same text blocks, you can pull them from this document. To evaluate AI detectors, I reran my five-test series across 11 detectors. In other words, I cut and pasted 55 individual tests. Detectors I tested include BrandWell, Copyleaks, GPT-2 Output Detector, GPTZero, Grammarly, Monica,  Originality.ai. QuillBot, Undetectable.ai, Writer.com, and ZeroGPT.  We previously dropped Writefull from our tests because it discontinued its GPT detector. This time, we had to drop Monica from our tests. The detector would only allow 250 words to be tested, and then once we cut down our tests to fit, it reported that it had limited the testing tools without a $200 upgrade. In its place, we’re adding Pangram, a newcomer to our tests that immediately soared into the winners’ circle…”

Includes a list of recommended podcasts.

https://www.bespacific.com/case-closed-why-every-lawyer-needs-to-be-listening-to-podcasts/

Case Closed: Why Every Lawyer Needs to Be Listening to Podcasts

Via LLRX – Case Closed: Why Every Lawyer Needs to Be Listening to Podcasts – Jerry Lawson explains why podcasts belong in every lawyer’s toolkit. Lawson states that podcasts have not only helped him professionally but also added some joy to his life. They offer a rare opportunity for busy lawyers the chance to learn and grow even while doing routine tasks. It’s learning that fits into your life, not the other way around. Lawson recommends a number of legal centric as well as general interest podcasts.

Slipping down that slippery slope?

https://www.bespacific.com/ice-is-building-a-social-media-panopticon/

ICE is building a social media panopticon

The Verge – no paywall – “The agency’s latest surveillance contract is an ’assault’ on democracy and free speech. As Immigration and Customs Enforcement carries out raids across the country, the agency is working rapidly to expand an online surveillance system that could potentially track millions of users on the web. Federal records The “real-time intelligence” platform is capable of ingesting and analyzing vast amounts of publicly available data, like social media posts, The pamphlet highlights Zignal’s ability to capture geolocated images and videos while providing alerts and information to “operators.” One example states that Zignal Labs used its technology to analyze a Telegram video showing “the precise location of an ongoing operation in Gaza.” The company says its tool identified emblems and patches to “confirm the operators involved,” allowing it to notify operators on the ground. That means ICE could potentially trace someone’s location based on the location attached to a video posted on TikTok, or even a picture on Facebook. ICE procured the Surveillance on social media isn’t anything new. In 2016, the American Civil Liberties Union found that “With billions of dollars to spend on spyware, it’s extremely alarming to think how far ICE will go in surveilling social media,” Owen says. “ICE is a lawless agency that will use AI-driven social media monitoring not only to terrorize immigrant families, but also to target activists fighting back against their abuses. This is an assault on our democracy and right to free speech, powered by the algorithm and paid for with our tax dollars.”…

• Earlier this month, a report from Wired revealed that ICE plans to hire almost 30 workers to comb through content on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, and other social platforms to “locate individuals who pose a danger to national security, public safety, and/or otherwise meet ICE’s law enforcement mission.” A document seen by Wired shows that ICE is requesting information from contractors who could help the agency carry out the initiative, which may even require workers to search for data about a target’s family members, friends, or coworkers to pinpoint their whereabouts for ICE officers. The document notes that ICE would place around 12 contractors in a monitoring facility in Vermont, while 16 staff members would work in California, with some required to be available “at all times.”

• David Greene, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, tells The Verge that automated and AI-powered monitoring tools will give the government the ability to “monitor social media for viewpoints it doesn’t like on a scale that was never possible with human review alone.” Greene adds, “The scale of this spying is matched by an equally massive chilling effect on free speech.”

• Outside social media, 404 Media reports that ICE has tapped into license plate-scanning security cameras, as well as gained access to a tool that tracks the movement of millions of phones. The Trump administration’s social media surveillance plans extend beyond ICE, with Citizenship and Immigration Services proposing an initiative that would require people applying for US citizenship or personal residency to provide their social media account handles. In 2019, the State Department began requiring some visa applicants to list their social media handles on sites they’ve used within the past year, but the agency expanded it to include more kinds of nonimmigrant visas in June …”

Good news or bad news?

https://dig.watch/updates/un-cybercrime-treaty-signed-in-hanoi-amid-rights-concerns

UN cybercrime treaty signed in Hanoi amid rights concerns

Around 60 countries signed a landmark UN cybercrime convention in Hanoi, seeking faster cooperation against online crime. Leaders cited trillions in annual losses from scams, ransomware, and trafficking. The pact enters into force after 40 ratifications.

UN supporters say the treaty will streamline evidence sharing, extradition requests, and joint investigations. Provisions target phishing, ransomware, online exploitation, and hate speech. Backers frame the deal as a boost to global security.

Critics warn the text’s breadth could criminalise security research and dissent. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord called it a surveillance treaty. Activists fear expansive data sharing with weak safeguards.

AI: It’s not just for lazy lawyers any more…

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/two-federal-judges-say-use-ai-led-errors-us-court-rulings-2025-10-23/

Two federal judges say use of AI led to errors in US court rulings

Two federal judges admitted in response to an inquiry by U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley that members of their staff used artificial intelligence to help prepare recent court orders that Grassley called "error-ridden."

In letters released by Grassley's office on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate in Mississippi and U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals in New Jersey said the decisions in the unrelated cases did not go through their chambers' typical review processes before they were issued.

Both judges said they have since adopted measures to improve how rulings are reviewed.

, opens new tab

Neals, based in Newark, in his letter said a draft decision in a securities lawsuit "was released in error – human error – and withdrawn as soon as it was brought to the attention of my chambers." He said a law school intern used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research without authorization or disclosure.

Neals said his chambers has since created a written AI policy and enhanced its review process. Reuters previously reported that research produced using AI was included in the decision, citing a person familiar with the circumstances.

Perspectice.

https://perjournal.co.za/article/view/21584

Can AI think like a lawyer? Evaluating generative AI in South African law

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being explored as a tool for legal research and reasoning, yet its effectiveness in applying South African legal principles remains underexamined. This study evaluates the performance of five generative AI models—ChatGPT 4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek R1, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and Grok3 Beta—across three private law scenarios involving actio de pauperie, negotiorum gestio, and actio legis Aquiliae. Each AI model’s response was assessed against seven criteria: identification of the correct legal action, accuracy of legal requirements, application to facts, case law citation, relevance of case law, consideration of defences, and clarity of the final answer. The findings reveal that while AI models generally identify and apply South African legal principles correctly, their performance varies significantly. Claude performed the strongest overall, demonstrating structured legal reasoning and engagement with statutory provisions, while ChatGPT followed closely but was undermined by hallucinated case law. DeepSeek provided sound reasoning but occasionally misapplied legal principles. Gemini and Grok were the weakest, with incomplete legal analyses and limited case law engagement. A key limitation across all models was the unreliable retrieval and application of case law, with frequent misinterpretations and fabricated references. Additionally, most models failed to incorporate statutory law unless explicitly prompted. These results underscore the potential of AI as a supplementary legal tool while highlighting its current limitations. Future research should explore AI’s competency in broader areas of South African law, including statutory interpretation and constitutional analysis, to better understand its role in legal practice and academia. While AI can assist legal professionals, human oversight remains essential to ensure doctrinal accuracy and case law reliability.