Some concepts worthy of adoption?

https://ijitc.com/index.php/my/article/view/97

AI SURVEILLANCE, PRIVACY (ḤIFẒ AL-ʿIRḌ), AND HUMAN DIGNITY IN ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE

The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) surveillance technologies presents unprecedented challenges to privacy and human dignity, necessitating examination through the lens of Islamic jurisprudence. This study explores the intersection of AI-enabled surveillance systems with the Islamic principle of Ḥifẓ al-ʿIrḍ (protection of honor and privacy), which constitutes a fundamental objective (maqṣid) of Shariah. Through a comprehensive analysis of classical Islamic legal texts, contemporary fatwas, and current AI surveillance practices, this research investigates how Islamic ethical frameworks can address modern surveillance challenges while preserving human dignity (karāmah al-insān). The study employs a qualitative methodology integrating classical Islamic legal theory (uṣūl al-fiqh) with contemporary technology ethics literature. Findings reveal that while Islam permits certain forms of surveillance for legitimate purposes (maṣlaḥah), AI surveillance systems often violate fundamental Islamic principles of privacy, consent, and human dignity through mass data collection, algorithmic bias, and unwarranted intrusion into private spaces. The research concludes that Islamic jurisprudence offers robust ethical guidelines for regulating AI surveillance, emphasizing the inviolability of private life, the requirement of legitimate necessity, proportionality in monitoring, and accountability mechanisms. This study contributes to the emerging discourse on Islamic digital ethics and provides practical recommendations for developing Shariah-compliant AI surveillance governance frameworks.

Will AI have my interests at heart?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6173424

The Privacy Veil

Privacy law rests on a failed premise. The notice-and-consent paradigm assumes users will read privacy policies, understand them, and make informed choices. They cannot. Reading the policies an average American encounters would require thirty working days per year. Nearly half of American adults lack the literacy to comprehend them. Even informed users cannot negotiate take-it-or-leave-it terms with entities holding asymmetric power. The problem is structural, not remediable through clearer disclosures or stronger enforcement.

This Article proposes the Autonomous Virtual Identity Agent, a legally recognized AI intermediary that acts on users' behalf in the digital environment. The AVIA reads privacy policies, negotiates terms, monitors compliance, and exercises user rights at a scale no individual could achieve. Drawing on the jurisprudence of legal fictions, the Article develops a complete legal architecture including registration requirements, fiduciary duties, and veil-piercing standards, offering a model statute for legislative adoption.

Interesting approach. (Roman law?)

https://feqh.semnan.ac.ir/article_10456_en.html

Explanation of the smart slave theory in artificial intelligence contracts

Many jurists have defined the relationship between artificial intelligence and principal in the form of the theory of smart tools. Due to the tremendous progress of artificial intelligence, some objections have been noticed in this theory and it has led to the emergence of other hypotheses, one of which is the theory of intelligent slave. Based on this hypothesis, considering the similarities of "permissive slave in business" with "learning artificial intelligence system", the nature of artificial intelligence contracts can be considered the same as permissive slave contracts in jurisprudence and law and this is while the pillars of the validity of the contract; It means that there is capacity, intention and consent in these contracts. In this article, after explaining the technology of artificial intelligence contracts and explaining the nature of slave contracts with permission, the intelligent slave theory has been analyzed and investigated with a descriptive-analytical method, and as a result, this theory has been preferred over the popular theory of smart tools.

The AI lawyer?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6164388

The Dead Law Theory: The Perils of Simulated Interpretation

Judges now consult ChatGPT about what statutes mean. The scholarly response treats this as a reliability problem. Reliability is beside the point. LLMs generate text by predicting probable token sequences, manipulating symbols without accessing what those symbols mean. But syntax cannot generate semantics. Computational legal interpretation does not fail because the technology is immature. It fails because it is a category error. A theory that fixes meaning in historical usage and treats interpretation as empirical recovery cannot resist algorithms that measure historical usage patterns. The progression from dictionaries to corpus databases to generative models follows originalism's empirical commitments to their logical end. AI-generated content saturates the corpora on which future models train, and the resulting degradation eliminates marginal claims first; those upon which life and liberty depend. Computational methods did not contaminate originalist interpretation. Originalism was already a jurisprudence that simulated meaning while discarding the semantic content that interpretation requires. The machines simply made the method hyperreal.