Could any evaluation of an attack happen before the attack.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15027570.2025.2569130

Robocop Reimagined: Harnessing the Power of AI for LOAC Compliance

This article is intended as a contribution to the growing literature on the potential benefits of military applications of AI to ensure compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict. Drawing on foundational notions of the philosophy of mind and legal philosophy, the article proposes the introduction of a secondary LOAC-compliance software, the “e-JAG”, in order to police the results offered by primary targeting software, while at the same time remaining always under human control, as what can overall be considered a positive redundancy in the sense of being an additional guard rail to strengthen the precautions in attack that militaries are legally obligated to implement.

Perhaps we are not ready for an automated legal system.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5585290

Law, Justice, and Artificial Intelligence

Judges, physicians, human resources managers, and other decision-makers often face a tension between adhering to rules and taking into account the specific circumstances of the case at hand. Increasingly, such decisions are supported by—and soon may even be made by—artificial intelligence, including large language models (LLMs). How LLMs resolve these tensions is therefore of paramount importance.

Specifically, little is known about how LLMs navigate the tension between applying legal rules and accounting for justice. This study compares the decisions of GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4, and Gemini 2.5 Flash with those of laypersons and legal professionals, including judges, across six vignette-based experiments comprising about 50,000 decisions.

We find that, unlike humans, LLMs do not balance law and equity: when instructed to follow the law, they largely ignore justice in both their decisions and reasoning; when instructed to decide based on justice, they disregard legal rules. Moreover, in contrast to humans, requiring reasons or providing precedents has little effect on their responses. Prompting LLMs to consider litigant sympathy, or asking them to predict judicial decisions rather than make them, somewhat reduce their formalism, but they remain far more rigid than humans.

Beyond their formalism, LLMs exhibit far less variability ("noise") than humans. While greater consistency is generally a virtue in decision-making, the article discusses its shortcomings as well. The study introduces a methodology for evaluating current and future LLMs where no demonstrably single correct answer exists.

Prosecuting the Terminator?

https://www.pzhfars.ir/article_231761_en.html?lang=fa

Civil Liability for Robots and Artificial Intelligence: Legal Challenges and Solutions in the Age of New Technologies

New technologies, especially robots and artificial intelligence, have created extensive transformations in social, economic, and industrial life. However, the rapid development of these technologies has created numerous challenges in the field of civil liability, which traditional legal systems cannot easily adapt to. The main question is how to explain and regulate civil liability arising from damages or injuries attributed to robots and artificial intelligence systems based on current civil law. This research aims to investigate the legal challenges of civil liability for robots and artificial intelligence and to provide innovative legal solutions. The research method was descriptive-analytical and comparative, and the topic was analyzed by reviewing legal sources, international documents, and comparative studies. The research findings show that ambiguities related to determining the culprit, proving fault, and direct liability of robots are among the most important legal issues in this field and require the development of specific rules and regulations based on the characteristics of intelligent technologies. The innovation aspect of this research is in providing a comparative framework and proposing native solutions appropriate to technological developments and the country's legal system. Finally, to guarantee the rights of individuals and protect the public interest, it is necessary to amend and update civil liability laws, and legal and judicial institutions must do their utmost in this regard.

Searching for evidence of a specific crime or anything that look suspicious?

https://www.cnet.com/home/security/amazons-ring-cameras-push-deeper-into-police-and-government-surveillance/

Amazon's Ring Cameras Push Deeper Into Police and Government Surveillance

Less than two years after removing a feature that made it easier for law enforcement agencies to request footage from owners of Ring doorbells and other security products, Amazon has partnered with two companies that will help facilitate the same kinds of requests.

Two weeks after rolling out a new product line for 2025, Ring, owned by Amazon, announced a partnership with Flock Safety, as part of its expansion of the Community Requests feature in the Ring Neighbors app. Atlanta-based Flock is a police technology company that sells surveillance technology, including drones, license-plate reading systems and other tools. The announcement follows a partnership Ring entered into with Axon, previously Taser International, which also builds tools for police and military applications.

It was the best of reasons, it was the worst of reasons…

https://pogowasright.org/claro-and-town-of-dover-nj-launch-ai-video-analytics-to-transform-public-safety/

Claro and Town of Dover, NJ Launch AI Video Analytics to Transform Public Safety

From a press release by Claro:

The Town of Dover has taken a bold step forward in public safety by partnering with Claro to deploy advanced AI-driven surveillance technology across its municipal buildings. This initiative, which enhances both security and operational efficiency, is already being recognized as a model for smart city innovation.

With the help of Claro’s expertise, the Town of Dover was able to integrate AI Video Analytics use cases, such as visible weapons detection and facial recognition, into its existing camera system – avoiding the significant cost and disruption of a full infrastructure overhaul.

“As a small municipality, we don’t have the budget for constant law enforcement presence,” said Mayor James Dodd. “Claro gave us the ability to enhance safety with cutting-edge technology that works with what we already have.”

Read more of the press release.

Claro and the town obviously think this is a good thing, but those of us who appreciate the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment may not agree. Here’s the version of their headline Joe Cadillic sent us:

“Town of Dover NJ to use Claro facial recognition in libraries, municipal buildings and to ID people in crowds”

Libraries? Privacy in libraries is especially sensitive so as not to observe what books people are reading or checking out. How will Claro be used in libraries?

Yes, there is supposedly no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, but in the day and age of citizens and immigrants being rounded up by ICE or at risk of violation of civil liberties, do we really need MORE surveillance? Will immigrants need to be fearful if they try to read up on immigration law in the Dover library? We hope not.

If you’re a writer, learn to write right.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-free-google-ai-course-could-transform-how-you-research-and-write-but-act-fast/

This free Google AI course could transform how you research and write - but act fast

… take a free 4-module course that begins next week.

The course is called "Google AI Tools for Journalists: Optimizing Editorial Workflow, Content Creation, and Audience Engagement." It's obviously intended for journalists, but it could also be valuable to bloggers, influencers, teachers, students, YouTubers, or any other communicator.

Concern. AI is now based on AI, which is at least partly hallucinogenic...

https://www.zdnet.com/article/more-than-half-of-new-content-is-ai-generated-now-report-finds/

More than half of new content is AI-generated now, report finds

You aren't imagining it: There is more AI slop on the internet. In fact, half of the articles you're coming across are AI-generated according to SEO firm Graphite, which found that over half of the written content on the internet is produced by AI. 

Fall Privacy Foundation Lunch/Seminar.

Sturm College of Law

Friday, October 17^th from 12:00 to 2:00

Topic: Identity Theft

To register contact:

Kristen Dermyer. Kristen.dermyer@du.edu, Academic Programs Coordinator, 303-871-6487

Perspective.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/10/15/how-people-around-the-world-view-ai/

How People Around the World View AI

More are concerned than excited about its use, and more trust their own country and the EU to regulate it than trust the U.S. or China

… A median of 34% of adults across these countries have heard or read a lot about AI, while 47% have heard a little and 14% say they’ve heard nothing at all, according to a spring 2025 Pew Research Center survey.

But many are worried about AI’s effects on daily life. A median of 34% of adults say they are more concerned than excited about the increased use of AI, while 42% are equally concerned and excited. A median of 16% are more excited than concerned.

Another perspective.

https://www.bespacific.com/ai-is-not-popular-and-ai-users-are-unpleasant-asshats/

AI is not popular, and AI users are unpleasant asshats

Pivot to AI  – It can’t be that stupid, you must be prompting it wrong: “Some AI papers have a finding so good you just want to quote it everywhere. But many turn out to be trash. They’ve got bad statistics, they’ve got bad methodology, they’re really sales pieces, or they just don’t prove their claimed result. If you see a finding you love, you can’t skip reading the paper before you post about it. Today’s is “Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Use and Its Psychological Correlates via Months of Web-Browsing Data.” It’s a peer-reviewed journal article, published in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, September 2025. [Liebert; archive, PDF] The researchers measured 14 million website visits by 499 students and 455 members of the general public over a 90-day period. Firstly, nobody used AI very much — 1% of student web-browsing was AI, 0.44% of the general public study. Secondly, the AI users were not very nice people:

The most consistent predictors of AI use across studies were aversive personality traits (e.g., Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy).

So AI is not actually popular, and AI users are unpleasant assholes. Now you might go “yeah, figures.” But let’s dive in and see how well it backs it up. The first thing the researchers did was not trust the users to self-report. They measured their web browsing by getting 90 days of browser history from Chrome on a desktop — so no mobile or app usage. They did collect the users’ self-reports, which were just incorrect:

we observed that self-reported AI use and actual AI use were only moderately correlated (ρ = 0.329).

If the users went to a chatbot site, that’s obviously AI. For other sites, the researchers picked the Interactive Advertising Bureau category by … running the addresses through a chatbot, GPT-4o. That’s not so great, though they tested GPT-4o against a random 200 of the addresses and it was correct on all but one. So they figured it’d do. The researchers were surprised how low AI usage actually was. The lead author, Emily McKinley, said: [PsyPost]

We were genuinely surprised by how infrequent AI use was, even among students who typically serve as early adopters of emerging technologies.

My AI made me double down? (Note that opposing counsel did take the time to check.)

https://www.bespacific.com/lawyer-caught-using-ai-while-explaining-to-court-why-he-used-ai/

Lawyer Caught Using AI While Explaining to Court Why He Used AI

404 Media [no paywall]: “An attorney in a New York Supreme Court commercial case got caught using AI in his filings, and then got caught using AI again in the brief where he had to explain why he used AI, according to court documents filed earlier this month. New York Supreme Court Judge Joel Cohen wrote in a decision granting the plaintiff’s attorneys’ request for sanctions that the defendant’s counsel, Michael Fourte’s law offices, not only submitted AI-hallucinated citations and quotations in the summary judgment brief that led to the filing of the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, but also included “multiple new AI-hallucinated citations and quotations” in the process of opposing the motion.  “In other words,” the judge wrote, “counsel relied upon unvetted AI — in his telling, via inadequately supervised colleagues — to defend his use of unvetted AI.” The case itself centers on a dispute between family members and a defaulted loan. The details of the case involve a fairly run-of-the-mill domestic money beef, but Fourte’s office allegedly using AI that generated fake citations, and then inserting nonexistent citations into the opposition brief, has become the bigger story. The plaintiff and their lawyers discovered “inaccurate citations and quotations in Defendants’ opposition brief that appeared to be ‘hallucinated’ by an AI tool,” the judge wrote in his decision to sanction Fourte. After the plaintiffs brought this issue to the Court’s attention, the judge wrote, Fourte submitted a response where the attorney “without admitting or denying the use of AI, ‘acknowledge[d] that several passages were inadvertently enclosed in quotation’ and ‘clarif[ied] that these passages were intended as paraphrases or summarized statements of the legal principles established in the cited authorities.’”…

Perspective.

https://theconversation.com/russias-permanent-test-is-pushing-europe-to-the-brink-of-war-heres-what-moscow-actually-wants-266826

Russia’s ‘permanent test’ is pushing Europe to the brink of war – here’s what Moscow actually wants

The scenes have become grimly familiar: Russian tanks rolling into Georgia in 2008, the seizure of Crimea in 2014, the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russian military jets violating European airspace, and now mysterious drone sightings closing airports across Europe.

While these may seem like disconnected events, in reality they are but chapters in a singular, focused and evolving strategy. Russia’s aim is to wield military power when necessary, engage in “grey-zone” war tactics when possible, and exert political pressure everywhere. Moscow has been doing all this for decades, with one objective in mind: to redraw Europe’s security map without triggering direct war with Nato.

Just a “heads up” for the Fall Privacy Foundation Lunch/Seminar.

Sturm College of Law

Friday, October 17^th from 12:00 to 2:00

Topic: Identity Theft

Being social is a health risk?

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/13/california-health-warning-labels-social-media-00606066?utm_campaign=mb&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=morning_brew

Social media must warn users of ‘profound’ health risks under new California law

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed a law mandating health warning labels for social media, making California the latest U.S. state to wield a rule originally designed to curb tobacco addiction as a digital safety feature.

The new law is part of a national push to combat social media’s potential health risks that has grown since former President Joe Biden’s surgeon general first advocated the labels. Recent research has linked the technology to increased anxiety, body dysmorphia and sleep interruption in children, among other impacts.

(Related)

https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/13/california-becomes-first-state-to-regulate-ai-companion-chatbots/

California becomes first state to regulate AI companion chatbots

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a landmark bill on Monday that regulates AI companion chatbots, making it the first state in the nation to require AI chatbot operators to implement safety protocols for AI companions.

The law, SB 243, is designed to protect children and vulnerable users from some of the harms associated with AI companion chatbot use. It holds companies — from the big labs like Meta and OpenAI to more focused companion startups like Character AI and Replika — legally accountable if their chatbots fail to meet the law’s standards.

Tools & Techniques.

https://www.bespacific.com/promptlaw/

PromptLaw

Via Greg Siskind:

What is Prompt.law?  Prompt.law is an online platform where lawyers can find, create, and share AI-generated legal task prompts. Think of it as a “cookbook” of AI prompts designed specifically for legal professionals to streamline their work.

Who can use Prompt.law?  Prompt.law is designed for legal professionals, including attorneys, law firm staff, legal tech developers, and in-house counsel who want to leverage AI for legal tasks.

How does Prompt.law work?  Users can browse a library of AI prompts tailored for legal tasks, submit their own prompts, and customize prompts for specific use cases. Prompts are categorized by practice area and legal function for easy discovery.

Is Prompt.law free to use?  Yes. Prompt.law is free. However, in order to use Prompt.law, users must register for an account.

New definitions. Could they apply to all media?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5561522

The New Art Forgers

The “substantial similarity” between a copyrighted work and an unauthorized derivative has formed the bedrock of copyright infringement jurisprudence since the mid-nineteenth century. Recent technological developments, however, are destabilizing these conceptual foundations. In May, the Copyright Office suggested that the use of copyrighted works to train AI models may constitute infringement even if model outputs are not “substantially similar” to model inputs if they nevertheless “dilute the market” for similar works. One month later, Judge Chhabria of the Northern District of California argued that AI outputs do not have to be “substantially similar” to copyrighted training data in order to be infringing. The plaintiff’s incentives are sufficiently harmed, Judge Chhabria argued, when the market is flooded with “similar enough” AI-generated works.

These developments should be read as early warning signs of a disturbing doctrinal shift from “substantial similarity” to a new and dubious threshold for actionable infringement: “substitutive similarity”, where the substitutability of the defendant’s work, rather than the similarity of protected expression, provides the cause of action. This novel theory of harm, if widely adopted, would impose dangerous restrictions on downstream creativity. Any new work that was “similar enough” to existing works would be treated as potentially infringing, despite the absence of substantially similar expression. This would corrupt what is essentially a question of fact – whether the defendant copied “enough” of the plaintiff’s work to constitute unlawful appropriation – with deontic considerations of the wrongfulness of free-riding.

At the same time, artists are understandably rattled by the speed and scale of AI generation. AI models can produce “new” works in the style of established artists in a matter of seconds, dramatically undercutting the market for their work. AI style mimicry makes it difficult for artists to control their personal brands and for consumers to locate authentic works by their favorite artists. Copyright is responsible for protecting artists’ creative incentives, but its legal tests were not designed to handle the scale of imitation enabled by AI.

This Article offers a way out of this jurisprudential morass. Instead of lowering the burden of proof for infringement, Congress should strengthen the attribution rights of existing creators. Low-protectionists have long advocated for attribution rights as a way of protecting authors’ interests without expanding the scope of their economic entitlements. Proper attribution allows creators to capture the full reputational benefits of their labor without stifling downstream creativity. For example, Congress could enact an AI-specific attribution right that requires the disclosure of copyrighted training data in output metadata. This would mitigate the labor-displacing effects of generative AI by directing consumers to the original creators of a popular style or aesthetic.

Generative AI places copyright jurisprudence at a critical crossroads. Indulging Judge Chhabria’s novel theory of harm would effectively inaugurate a new standard for infringement – “substitutive similarity” – that would stifle not just AI innovation but human creativity more broadly. The stakes for protecting free expression through careful guardianship of longstanding doctrine could not be higher. This Article guides readers through this critical inflection point with new terminology for the jurisprudential lexicon as well as practical proposals for reform.

Interesting idea.

https://www.proquest.com/openview/f49bcfbaea46db396599409c08492adf/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

The Upcoming Moral Crisis in Primitive Artificial Intelligence

As we continue to develop artificially intelligent systems, there is an increasingly high chance that we will develop a system that is both conscious and capable of suffering. Furthermore, it is likely that the development of this conscious machine will be entirely unintentional. While this machine will have moral status, identifying it will be extremely difficult, leading to it being treated the same as its inert predecessors. For these reasons I believe that a crisis in ethics is looming. This paper aims to argue that it is possible for a machine to have moral status, that the first such machine will likely be produced unintentionally, and that identifying this machine will involve significant difficulties.

At least they are thinking about it…

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/new-york-court-system-sets-rules-ai-use-by-judges-staff-2025-10-10/

New York court system sets rules for AI use by judges, staff

The New York state court system on Friday set out a new policy on the use of artificial intelligence by judges and other court staff, joining at least four other U.S. states that have adopted similar rules in the past year.

, opens new tab

The interim policy, which applies to all judges, justices and nonjudicial employees in the New York Unified Court System, limits the use of generative AI to approved products and mandates AI training.

Perspective.

https://pogowasright.org/article-the-great-scrape-the-clash-between-scraping-and-privacy-2/

Article: The Great Scrape: The Clash Between Scraping and Privacy

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems depend on massive quantities of data, often gathered by “scraping”—the automated extraction of large amounts of data from the internet. A great deal of scraped data contains people’s personal information. This personal data provides the grist for AI tools such as facial recognition, deep fakes, and generative AI. Although scraping enables web searching, archiving of records, and meaningful scientific research, scraping for AI can also be objectionable and even harmful to individuals and society.

Organizations are scraping at an escalating pace and scale, even though many privacy laws are seemingly incongruous with the practice. In this Article, we contend that scraping must undergo a serious reckoning with privacy law. Scraping violates nearly all of the key principles of privacy laws, including fairness, individual rights and control, transparency, consent, purpose specification and secondary use restrictions, data minimization, onward transfer, and data security. Scraping ignores the data protection laws built around these requirements.

Scraping has evaded a reckoning with privacy law largely because scrapers act as if all publicly available data were free for the taking. But the public availability of scraped data shouldn’t give scrapers a free pass. Privacy law regularly protects publicly available data, and privacy principles are implicated even when personal data is accessible to others.

This Article explores the fundamental tension between scraping and privacy law. With the zealous pursuit and astronomical growth of AI, we are in the midst of what we call the “great scrape.” There must now be a great reconciliation.

Citation and Free Download of Article at:

Solove, Daniel J. and Hartzog, Woodrow, The Great Scrape: The Clash Between Scraping and Privacy (July 03, 2024). 113 California Law Review 1521 (2025), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4884485 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4884485

Make the raw materials more expensive and limit who we can sell to. Do I have that right?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/10/trump-trade-tariffs-china-software.html

Trump puts extra 100% tariff on China imports, adds export controls on ‘critical software’

President Donald Trump on Friday said the United States would impose new tariffs of 100% on imports from China “over and above any Tariff that they are currently paying,” starting on Nov. 1.

Trump also said that the U.S., on that same date, would also impose export controls on “any and all critical software.”

Tools & Techniques. (A couple with forensic applications.)

https://www.makeuseof.com/make-windows-better-with-these-free-microsoft-store-apps/

8 free Microsoft Store apps that make Windows better

Resistance is futile…

https://www.jalopnik.com/1982690/police-flock-cameras-sued-for-tracking-man-526-times/

Police Used Flock Cameras To Track One Driver Over 500 Times. Now They're Being Sued

… Yet a Flock Safety spokesperson told NBC News, "Fourth Amendment case law overwhelmingly shows that LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual." This sounds like a lovely little linguistic loophole: The cameras don't continuously track people's movements, they're stationary! But they "capture detailed data about license plates," which enables "quick and efficient action." That sounds a lot like tracking.

… Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed a law in May limiting the circumstances where license plate data can be accessed, and it goes into effect in January 2026. Under the law, authorities will only be able to obtain data during active criminal investigations, missing and endangered persons cases, and in cases where a car or license plate has been stolen. 

You may notice that this means the cameras will still be recording. All this law does is tell law enforcement when they can access the footage. The Schmidt-Arrington case is about being recorded at all, and as the Kansas police chief case shows, that's the crux of the issue. Taking the pictures but restricting access for the moment is like requiring everyone to get a mug shot in case they commit a crime someday.

Tools & Techniques.

https://www.bespacific.com/the-art-of-ai-prompting-in-law-and-dispute-resolution-practice/

The Art of AI Prompting in Law and Dispute Resolution Practice

Lande, John, The Art of AI Prompting in Law and Dispute Resolution Practice (September 29, 2025). University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2025-46, 43 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation (forthcoming November 2025), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5544018 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5544018

This short article offers a practical guide for using AI tools to improve the judgment and efficiency of lawyers, mediators, and arbitrators. It cites ABA Ethics Opinion 512, which describes lawyers’ ethical duty of technological competence under the ABA Model Rules. The article encourages practitioners to begin by selecting AI tools appropriate to their tasks such as general-purpose platforms or specialized tools listed in the article. It explains how to write effective prompts, use follow-up questions to refine outputs, and apply professional judgment when reviewing results. It includes a list of suggested follow-up prompts. Getting useful results from AI tools requires similar skills used in legal and dispute resolution work – skills that people can improve with practice. The article includes numerous examples of AI prompts that can be used throughout the life of a case, from preparation to post-session reflection. It cautions that AI tools can produce inaccurate, misleading, or fabricated content, and urges users to exercise human oversight and to independently verify results.

Unstoppable. Probably.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/07/gen_ai_shadow_it_secrets/

Employees regularly paste company secrets into ChatGPT

Employees could be opening up to OpenAI in ways that put sensitive data at risk. According to a study by security biz LayerX, a large number of corporate users paste Personally Identifiable Information (PII) or Payment Card Industry (PCI) numbers right into ChatGPT, even if they're using the bot without permission.

In its Enterprise AI and SaaS Data Security Report 2025, LayerX blames the growing, largely uncontrolled usage of generative AI tools for exfiltrating personal and payment data from enterprise environments.

With 45 percent of enterprise employees now using generative AI tools, 77 percent of these AI users have been copying and pasting data into their chatbot queries, the LayerX study says. A bit more than a fifth (22 percent) of these copy and paste operations include PII/PCI.

"With 82 percent of pastes coming from unmanaged personal accounts, enterprises have little to no visibility into what data is being shared, creating a massive blind spot for data leakage and compliance risks," the report says.

Perspective.

https://www.bespacific.com/consumer-reports-study-finds-surge-in-texting-and-messaging-scams/

Consumer Reports study finds surge in texting and messaging scams

Consumer Reports “(CR) along with Aspen Digital and the Global Cyber Alliance, released the fourth annual Consumer Cyber Readiness Report today, marking the beginning of Cybersecurity Awareness Month. The report examines American consumer attitudes on digital privacy and security and steps they are taking to protect themselves from potential threats.  The report found that over the past year, consumers have seen a significant increase in text messaging-based scams, especially for younger American consumers aged between 18 – 29 years old. In addition to revealing disparities based on age, this year’s data showed stark inequities regarding the groups most vulnerable to digital scams. For example, while the percentage of Americans who reported losing money from a digital scam remains the same as last year, at 1 in 10, this year’s report revealed for the first time that, among those who had encountered a scam attempt, people with the lowest household incomes were three times as likely to report financial losses due to scams as people in the highest income households (29 percent compared to 10 percent). The report also found continued racial disparity in financial losses related to scams: 37 percent of Black Americans who encountered a scam lost money, compared to only 15 percent of white Americans. These figures were similar to those reported last year. This echoes similar findings that have been made by other organizations in the recent past, including the Federal Trade Commission…”

It’s not just a lawyer problem…

https://www.pcmag.com/news/deloitte-refunds-portion-of-440k-report-over-ai-hallucinations

Deloitte Refunds Portion of $440K Report Over AI Hallucinations

Deloitte recently signed a deal with Anthropic to give all of its employees access to the Claude chatbot and dramatically expand the use of AI across its business, but the consulting firm might want to keep a close eye on what Claude is churning out.

The Australian government recently ordered Deloitte to refund a portion of the $440,000 it was paid for a compliance report after discovering several errors, The Guardian reports, most of which were phony citations.

This is how the Terminator actually works.

https://thehackernews.com/2025/10/new-research-ai-is-already-1-data.html

New Research: AI Is Already the #1 Data Exfiltration Channel in the Enterprise

For years, security leaders have treated artificial intelligence as an "emerging" technology, something to keep an eye on but not yet mission-critical. A new Enterprise AI and SaaS Data Security Report by AI & Browser Security company LayerX proves just how outdated that mindset has become. Far from a future concern, AI is already the single largest uncontrolled channel for corporate data exfiltration—bigger than shadow SaaS or unmanaged file sharing.

Oh, the horror!

https://www.techspot.com/news/109738-following-cyberattack-japan-days-away-running-out-country.html

Following cyberattack, Japan is days away from running out of country's favorite beer

Country's largest brewery suffers ransomware attack

Perspective.

https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/yale-study-ai-job-impact

New Yale Study Finds AI Has Had Essentially Zero Impact on Jobs

Ever since OpenAI’s ChatGPT was introduced in November 2022, experts and executives have been predicting that it and other AI models will eliminate untold jobs — forecasts that seem, at a first glance, to have been borne out by the plethora of tech sector layoffs in the wake of its debut.

But a new study from Yale University found quite the opposite in the United States, which should give anxious workers some relief as it goes against the hyped up prognostications of many tech CEOs.

Are we headed in this direction?

https://scindeks.ceon.rs/article.aspx?artid=0353-90082566369B&lang=en

Artificial intelligence as an instrument of political surveillance in post-conflict societies

This paper explores the profound implications of the application of artificial intelligence (AI) as an instrument of political surveillance in post-conflict societies, with a special focus on the cases of China, Israel, and the countries of the former SFRY, including the sensitive context of Kosovo and Metohija. The analysis adopts a multidisciplinary approach that combines security studies, political theory, digital ethics, and sociological perspectives to understand how AI transforms mechanisms of control, monitoring, and political decision-making. The paper argues that in post-conflict societies, AI is not merely a technological tool but a mechanism for restructuring state sovereignty, narrative control, and institutional dominance over political opponents. Special attention is given to the phenomena of digital authoritarianism, biometric surveillance expansion, algorithmic discrimination, and geopolitical use of data in the context of either stabilization or repression. Through a comparative analysis of China and Israel as leading exporters of AI-based surveillance systems and their diffusion into other parts of the world, including the Balkans, the paper highlights risks to human rights, democracy, and social cohesion. The paper concludes with recommendations for the development of ethical frameworks, regulatory policies, and international standards to curb the misuse of AI in fragile democracies and post-conflict zones.

Perspective.

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/10/05/from-swords-to-algorithms-reimagining-sun-tzu-in-the-age-of-ai/

From Swords to Algorithms: Reimagining Sun Tzu in the Age of AI

… During the times of Sun Tzu, victory depended on terrain, rivers, mountains, and fortresses. The digital terrain is the decisive one in the era of AI. The superlatives of a modern war are data. The person who determines data flows, network infrastructure, and algorithmic dominance sets the stage of the war. This change has been explicitly proclaimed by the doctrine of intelligent warfare by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). This doctrine focuses on the ability to integrate AI in all the facets of the military operations, including logistics and self-directed weapons. To China, it is better to have superiority in algorithms rather than superiority in weaponry.

This logic can be reflected in the U.S. in terms of Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2). It aims to combine the information obtained on land, sea, air, space, and cyber into a single system, but with the help of AI. JADC2 seeks to reduce the OODA loop (observe, orient, decide, act) by a factor of time and beyond the capability of adversaries to react.

The concept of terrain control in Sun Tzu has taken on a new meaning to guarantee the integrity of data, cyber dominance, and information superiority. Algorithms dictate supply lines, just as rivers did in the past. Algorithms dictate who sees, decides, and acts first.