Interesting.
It should be very easy to find victims who are genuinely afraid.
How much is fear worth?
https://www.databreaches.net/court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-rules-that-fear-may-constitute-damage-under-the-gdpr/
Court
of Justice of the European Union Rules That Fear May Constitute
Damage Under the GDPR
Hunton
Andrews Kurth writes:
On
December 14, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union
(“CJEU”) issued its judgment in the case of VB
v. Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (C-340/21),
in which it
clarified, among other things, the concept of non-material damage
under Article 82 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation
(“GDPR”) and the rules governing burden of proof under the GDPR.
Background
Following a cyber attack against the
Bulgarian National Revenue Agency (the “Agency”), one of the more
than six million affected individuals brought an action before the
Administrative Court of Sofia claiming compensation. In support of
that claim, the affected individual argued that they had suffered
non-material damage as a result of a personal data breach caused by
the Agency’s failure to fulfill its obligations under, inter alia,
Articles 5(1)(f), 24 and 32 of the GDPR. The non-material damage
claimed consisted of the fear that their personal data, having been
published without their consent, might be misused in the future, or
that they might be blackmailed, assaulted or even kidnapped.
Read
more at Privacy
& Information Security Law Blog.
A
slippery slope. Who gets to define ‘concerning behavior’ and who
will they mention that definition to? (I can think of several ways
to ‘game’ this system for my own amusement.)
https://www.bespacific.com/lawrence-school-district-using-ai-to-look-for-concerning-behavior-in-students-activity/
Lawrence
school district using AI to look for ‘concerning behavior’ in
students’ activity
LJworld.com
(read
free ):
“The Lawrence [Kansas] school district has purchased a new system
that uses artificial intelligence to look
for warning signs of “concerning behavior” in the things students
type, send and search for
on their district-issued computers and other such devices. The
purchase of the software system, called Gaggle, comes at a time when
questions are growing about how artificial intelligence will affect
people’s privacy. But school district leaders are emphasizing that
the software’s main
purpose [but
not sole purpose? Bob]
will be to help protect K-12 students against self-harm, bullying,
and threats of violence. “First and foremost, we have an
obligation to protect the safety of our students,” Lawrence school
board member Ronald “G.R.” Gordon-Ross told the Journal-World.
“It’s another layer of security in our quest to stay ahead of
some of these issues.” Gordon-Ross, who is a longtime software
developer, said that he respects the “privacy piece” of the
question surrounding the use of monitoring systems. But he also said
it’s important to keep in mind that the iPads and other devices
that the software will monitor are the district’s property, even
though they’re issued to students — “we’re still talking
about the fact that they’re using devices and resources that don’t
belong to them.”
See
also from
LJ World [read free] – New
security system that monitors students’ computer use has
‘inundated’ district with alerts;
leader apologizes to staff… “According to information obtained
from the district on Friday, there have been 408 “detections” of
concerning behavior since Gaggle’s districtwide launch on Nov. 20.
Of those, 188 have resulted in actual “alerts.” District
spokesperson Julie Boyle said that there are three different priority
levels that Gaggle uses to classify the concerning information it
detects. The lowest level, “violations,” includes minor offenses
like the use of profanity. Those do not trigger alerts, but the
system collects data on them “in case future review is necessary.”
Next is a level called “Questionable Content,” which triggers a
“non-urgent alert to the building administrators for review and
follow-up as necessary.” Finally, Boyle said, there is the most
urgent level: “Potential Student Situations.” This level
includes warning signs of suicide, violence, drug abuse, harassment
and other serious behavioral or safety problems, and it triggers
“urgent alerts involving an immediate phone call, text, and email
to the building administrators.” An alert of this kind is assigned
to a staff member for investigation and follow-up.”
Seriously?
90%? How could they claim this tool is an improvement?
https://www.pogowasright.org/humana-also-using-ai-tool-with-90-error-rate-to-deny-care-lawsuit-claims/
Humana
also using AI tool with 90% error rate to deny care, lawsuit claims
Beth
Mole reports:
Humana, one the nation’s largest health
insurance providers, is allegedly using an artificial intelligence
model with a 90 percent error rate to override doctors’ medical
judgment and wrongfully deny care to elderly people on the company’s
Medicare Advantage plans.
According
to a
lawsuit filed
Tuesday, Humana’s use of the AI model constitutes a “fraudulent
scheme” that leaves elderly beneficiaries with either overwhelming
medical debt or without needed care that is covered by their plans.
Meanwhile, the insurance behemoth reaps a “financial windfall.”
Read
more at Ars
Technica.
Not
(yet) a full replacement for lawyers, but clearly heading in that
direction. I hope lawyers verify the results rather than accept
bogus citations.
https://www.lawnext.com/2023/12/lexisnexis-expands-access-to-its-lexis-ai-to-law-school-students.html
LexisNexis
Expands Access to its Lexis+ AI to Law School Students
In
October, LexisNexis released its generative AI research tool, Lexis+
AI, for general availability for U.S. customers, along with limited
release in law schools to select faculty, librarians and students.
Now, the company is further expanding access to the tool, making it
available to 100,000 second- and third-year law students starting in
the spring semester, with some getting access as soon as this week.
Lexis+
AI uses large language models (LLMs) to answer legal research
questions, summarize legal issues, and generate legal document
drafts. LexisNexis says
the product delivers trusted results with “hallucination-free”
linked legal citations, combining the power of generative
AI with proprietary LexisNexis search technology, Shepard’s
Citations functionality, and authoritative content.
There
is some danger in being the first to use AI. Is there more danger in
being second?
https://www.ft.com/content/f1aff4d0-b2c5-4266-aa0a-604ef14894bb
Allen
& Overy rolls out AI contract negotiation tool in challenge to
legal industry
Allen
& Overy has created an artificial intelligence contract
negotiation tool, as the magic circle law firm pushes forward with
technology that threatens to disrupt the traditional practices of the
legal profession.
The
UK-headquartered group, in partnership with Microsoft and legal AI
start-up Harvey, has developed the service which draws on existing
templates for contracts, such as non-disclosure agreements and merger
and acquisition terms, to draft new agreements that lawyers can then
amend or accept.
The
tool, known as ContractMatrix, is being rolled out to clients in an
attempt to drive new revenues, attract more business and save time
for in-house lawyers. A&O estimated it would save up to seven
hours in contract negotiations.
… But
David Wakeling, A&O partner and head of the firm’s markets
innovation group, which developed ContractMatrix, said the firm’s
goal was to “disrupt the
legal market before someone disrupts us”.
Perspective.
https://www.thecollector.com/philosophy-of-artificial-intelligence-descartes-turing/
What
Is the Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence? From Descartes to
Turing
Tools &
Techniques.
https://www.bespacific.com/is-your-search-experience-leaving-you-a-little-unsatisfied/
Is
your search experience leaving you a little unsatisfied?
“Give
these Search
Tweaks a
try. This site has sixteen tools for enhancing Google search in four
categories — Query
Builders,
News-Related
Search,
Time-Related
Search,
and Search
Utilities.
Some tools, like Back
that Ask Up,
make existing Google features easier to use. Others, like Marion’s
Monocle,
add search functionality. Hold your mouse over each menu button to
see a popup explainer of what a tool does. If you like what you see,
give the button a click. Using this site requires JavaScript. It’s
designed to work on desktop. It should work on your phone but the
design does not anticipate that. This site uses Simple
Analytics because
privacy, it’s a great idea. None of these tools use the Google
API. Nor do they use scraping. Where’s the fun in that?”