Is the assumption that technology has never replaced humans?
https://thenextweb.com/news/china-court-ai-layoffs-illegal-labor-law
China has decided that firing a worker because an AI can do their job is illegal. No Western country has done the same.
Dealing with AI as evidence…
https://jurnalius.ac.id/ojs/index.php/jurnalIUS/article/view/1880
Admissibility of Artificial Intelligence as Electronic Evidence: Comparative Perspectives from Indonesia, the United States, and Japan
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into digital forensic and evidentiary processes, raising unresolved doctrinal questions in criminal procedure law. In Indonesia, although electronic evidence is formally recognized, the law does not yet provide specific admissibility standards for AI-based materials, particularly regarding authenticity, methodological reliability, process traceability, explainability, and accountability. This study examines the admissibility of AI as electronic evidence in Indonesia and compares it with legal approaches in the United States and Japan. This study employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches to analyze the evidentiary frameworks of the three jurisdictions. The findings show that the United States emphasizes expert gatekeeping and digital authentication, while Japan adopts a softer regulatory model centered on traceability, documentation, and actor accountability. By contrast, Indonesia, still lacks specific procedural standards for assessing AI-generated outputs beyond the general recognition of electronic evidence. This article argues that the key legal issue is no longer whether electronic evidence is admissible in general, but how AI-based evidence should be evaluated in a legally reliable and accountable manner. The scientific contribution of this study lies in proposing a five-parameter evaluative model for AI admissibility—covering authenticity and integrity, process traceability, model performance, identity verification, and accountability. This model is offered as a normative reference for future reform of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, while safeguarding legal certainty and justice.
Too much data? Trust AI to find the interesting bits?
https://ijlr.iledu.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/V6I555.pdf
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS A TOOL FOR EVIDENCE AND INVESTIGATION IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing how international criminal investigators collect, sort, authenticate, and present evidence. The shift is driven by the digital turn in atrocity documentation: conflicts now generate enormous volumes of user-generated videos, social-media posts, satellite images, geolocation data, intercepted communications, and sensor-derived material. International criminal law (ICL), however, remains anchored in fair-trial guarantees, adversarial testing, and cautious evidentiary assessment. This article examines AI as a practical investigative tool rather than as a substitute decision-maker. It argues that AI is most valuable in five functions: triage of large datasets, pattern detection, linkage analysis, authenticity checks, and courtroom visualization. Drawing on recent ICC practice, open-source investigation standards, and contemporary scholarship, the article shows that AI can strengthen accountability when deployed inside a rigorous legal framework. Yet it also identifies serious risks: bias in training data, black-box outputs, synthetic media, privacy intrusions, chain-of-custody gaps, and unequal technological capacities between prosecution and defense. [Isn’t that always the case? Bob] The central claim is that AI should be used as an assistive layer under strong human oversight. In ICL, the measure of success is not whether AI is impressive, but whether it produces evidence that is reliable, explainable, contestable, and consistent with the rights of the accused and the interests of victims.
Feel the heat?
US judge says senior lawyers must pay for mistakes by subordinates using AI tools
A federal judge has sanctioned the manager of a California law firm over a junior attorney's artificial intelligence-assisted court brief that contained a false case citation, saying the responsibility for such errors extends to supervising lawyers.
, opens new tab
U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter Kang in San Francisco in an order on Tuesday said the attorney, Lenden Webb, should have exercised greater oversight of a lawyer in his small law office who said she used AI to help craft the brief.
No comments:
Post a Comment