Justice-as-a-Service
henrikzillmer.com
henrikzillmer.com
Well, how Hobbesian! Of course, this is not the only possible conception of justice, which is, as Plato put it (in Jowett's translation), "sometimes spoken of as the virtue of an individual, and sometimes as the virtue of a State." But in either case, if we want to get all philosophical about it, I share your skepticism... if justice is a virtue, can we really have a virtue as a service (VaaS)?
Seriously, though, I don't think the OP's point is to propose administration of justice outside the state, but rather that certain tech advances can make it economically feasible for small, individual claims to be given a "fair shake" within the state system; claims which currently are too small to be worth a lawyer's---or even the claimant's---time without said tech.
But out desire for revenge i.e. a negative consequence to those who wronged you, is the fundamental source of our idea for justice, just formalised for a city life.
The guarantee of negative consequence of equal proportion represents a game theoretically optimal approach to discouraging others from harming you.
And if they kill one of yours, then to maintain said deterrence you have to kill one of theirs. As reflected by laws and customs for most of human societies throughout history.
So objecting to the word "justice" in the context ignores long-established usage of the word.
Sorry, those are not injustices. Especially service price increases and "after purchase" price drops.
This makes me wonder: What if a JaaS company alters its prices? What recourse will consumers have to correct this "injustice"?
In all seriousness, however, I believe that this deserves a better name. Maybe Reimbursements as a Service (RaaS).
The article is really talking about automated consumer rights services, which is something quite different. In that, helping consumers take maximum advantage of what local, state, or federal law offers them could certainly be both a helpful public service and a lucrative market.
An example: substantially every state has a legal requirement that businesses which find themselves in possession of property which isn't theirs must hold it for a while (for the rightful owner) then escheat it. Escheating means "deposit with the state for safekeeping." This doesn't extinguish the original owner's interest in the property; in principle, you have a long or unbounded amount of time to ask for the property back. (You might be thinking "A lost hat" but think more "An abandoned bank account" or "The surrender value of a life insurance policy" or "A paycheck that was never deposited.")
Those processes typically take place on paper and are relatively high-friction. For example, you need to get a document notarized, provide various proofs of ID and previous address, etc etc. Some states have very simple CRUD apps which let you check the status of claims these days. Those CRUD apps could be much, much improved upon by e.g. making it more straightforward for people to find and claim their own property. (This is generally free under the laws of most states, and some less-scrupulous operators charge for essentially running a free search then presenting the results to you, but one could imagine a value-adding business here.)
The interesting issue is not so much technology (it's basically there) but how to market to customers who only intermittently have a problem that requires your product. You have to find niche market customers who experience the asymmetry on a regular basis or you have to go through channels instead of direct sales. (Example: piggy back on LinkedIn as a channel to deliver services to assert rights under prevailing labor law.)
I'm mostly talking about recruiters and salespeople emailing me direct. I'm not even sure if that's illegal though.
The real links are: Fixed: https://www.fixed.com Paribus: https://paribus.co/
So people will begin to submit every little grievance since they won't get charged if they don't 'win' on the chance that they'll get a payout if they do win. At what point does JaaS stop scaling? Perhaps this one stop on the way to fully digitized contracts?
Two things came to mind when I see this (neither of which my Search Fu is successful at finding...): 1)A short story placed in the 'near future' where people receive emails from lawyers about copyright infringement where settlement of a few cents is offered and can be paid right from the email. 2) Recent research into digital contracts for financial systems. JaaS feels like #1 developing from the consumer direction.
I've read that story and think it was by either Cory Doctorow or Charles Stross.
There is automated high-volume litigation as a plot point in Stross's Accelerando, but I think that's not the story that you're thinking of.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelera...
I think the one you're thinking of features a little girl being sued for benefiting from colonial-era crimes in the Belgian Congo (among other micro-lawsuits).
This is Paul Ford's "Nanolaw with Daughter": http://www.ftrain.com/nanolaw.html
Think about the difference between an "AI" capable of checking flight data and identifying delays greater than (X) minutes vs. "true" fully-digitized contracts (i.e., an AI that can reliably determine whether Party Y did indeed use its "reasonable best efforts" to market Product Z).
Those two things are actually more distant from each other than an "AI" capable of playing Rock-Paper-Scissors vs. an AI that can pass the Turing test.
Just because you take your case to the law firm doesn't mean they have to agree to represent you. In fact, under this model, they would have a strong incentive to not take on cases that don't have a high likelihood of resulting in a win.
on similar note - automatically hiring 12 (or more if one wants to splurge and reach specific p-value on their verdict) random persons from Mech Turk for producing a quick verdict :)
http://www.law.msu.edu/foundations/6-section-1-kalt-the-perf...
Also this: > When Fixed began faxing its submissions to SFMTA last year, the agency emailed the startup to stop using their fax machine. When Fixed pointed out that it was legal to do so, the agency simply shut off their fax.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/12/fixed-the-app-that-fixes-yo...
These emails/letters are, for the most part, only going to be as effective as corporate policy allows.
The $49 package is a firm knock on the door, some harsh words, and light intimidation to motivate the servee to make things right.
The $99 package is a everything in the $49 package, plus some unsavory physical intimidation.
And the final $299 is the "Justice Served" package. Full Stop.
One of the things we're working to fix is helping photographers overcome the vast complexity of international IP law. Artists have the right to their work in almost every country, but it's practically impossible for them to enforce this at home let alone in unknown legal systems. We currently help artists obtain compensation for the unauthorized use of their work in nearly ten countries.
Here's a perspective on image theft from one of our photographers: https://www.pixsy.com/pay-up-for-the-photo-you-stole/
I don't see how helping a photographer obtain compensation for a stolen photo is any different from helping an airline passenger collect compensation.
They will do all due diligence (requesting the full report, speeding camera photo if provided, checking every response from the DA-equivalent for any errors, etc) on the basis that, for those cases in which the ticket is dropped, the Dutch state is obligated to pay for the lawyer fees.
The process for the end-user is incredibly simple. Upload a scan of the ticket / summons, fill in a short blurb about why you think the ticket is invalid, sign a permission slip and done. It will never cost you a thing.
Right now in some venues you can buy "the right lawyer" for a lot of money and get a DUI pled down to a slap on the wrist.
That's not justice, but lowering the price to $200, and turning "the right lawyer" into an algorithm that snows the court into letting you off isn't justice either.
If I've already agreed to a stacked arbitration process as part of a contract, isn't "the legal system" mostly out of the picture? All you're left is appealing to a company's reputation, to "do the right thing".
Amazon and the shipping companies aren't, but I fully expect that if this sort of thing becomes a major cost, they'll simply adjust their policies to eliminate it. Amazon doesn't have to offer a refund for a later price drop the way that airlines have to compensate you if your flight is sufficiently delayed.
Is there any indication that this will extend to general companies? I'm guessing that there aren't legislated consumer rights in most industries.
Maybe if they rented transferable licenses.
What do you think the split between service and product is?
Consumer rebates management service
Justice that has to be bought isn't justice; justice as a service, what an absolutely terrible idea. As if we don't already have big enough problems with justice depending on the depth of your wallet.