Hacker News Reader

Comment by belorn | Hacker News Reader

In an article full of legal cases and law, I am a bit surprised to not hear one of the better argument for privacy.

Put me in a legal case where I (and only I) have full access to mobile data and Internet traffic for each of the 12 juries, judge, lawyers, prosecutor and their families and friends. Does the design of the legal system still work when one party can use data together with machine intelligence in order to figure out how to influence and manipulate the participants? I think the answer is a clear No, and I have heard a professor of legal history come to the same conclusion. The legal system as it is currently designed can not operate without privacy, and it is hard to imagine a system that can.

View on HN

>> The legal system as it is currently designed can not operate without privacy, and it is hard to imagine a system that can.

Actually, it's very simple. You yourself hinted at it:

> Put me in a legal case where I (and only I) have full access...

You had to specify "and only I", otherwise your argument would not make sense. Now suppose everybody has access to the same data, and voilà!, your power just vanished.

Does it? I would image that a legal system where lawyers and prosecutors both can use machine learning and unlimited data to maximize what methods to use in order to influence judge, jury, witnesses and so on would be quite different from a legal system designed to find the truth.

Through even if we assume so, how would everyone get equal access to the data, algorithms and processing power? If cases are resolved based on who owns most of those resources can we still claim to have a just legal system?

I totally agree.. though to play devils advocate, I do have to wonder how different what you describe is from the traditional system.

By traditional system, I mean; who is the best lawyer? One who can most effectively manipulate the jury towards their clients case. It sounds jaded, but mechanically I think it's true, no? And what makes one lawyer better at this? Perhaps training, personal talent, etc.

So in the two scenarios, you have:

1. a lawyer wins because s/he's more talented/trained at manipulation. 2. a lawyer wins because s/he's obtained a better ML software suite for processing data.

Is there a meaningful distinction here? Before ML, you always wanted to hire a "good" lawyer. So there were already meaningful differences between good and bad lawyers. Lawyers always tried to manipulate the jury. Lawyers always tried to sell the facts around their case in such a way as to be most effective.

I'm not sure how ML will alter this. Aside from cranking the dial to 11.

> I'm not sure how ML will alter this

The feedback loop between Jury and ML algorithm can continue beyond the duration of the trial.

Without privacy controls, we will commodify the targeted manipulation of all human action and human choicemaking architectures.

Who benefits from an arms race on choice and decision manipulation?

Who benefits from the sun shining? Whoever can figure out how to harness the sunlight. The sun doesn't care either way.

Unlike ML-mediated data, the sun is not subject to human law.

> If cases are resolved based on who owns most of those resources can we still claim to have a just legal system?

That's already the case. Poor people get a public defender, which usually means taking the offer. Rich people can jam up the courts for years, and can get out of it.

We already live in a moneyball court system.

Regardless, privacy or not, the one who own most of the resources will likely win the case.

> Now suppose everybody has access to the same data, and voilà!, your power just vanished

I disagree completely. People are far easier to convince or manipulate if you know just a few things about them. For someone trained in appealing to people/making arguments, it'd be all about dropping in the right words and making the right suggestions.

Isn't that what we all do with advertising? It's why (some of) it works so well on Facebook. Everyone has access to the same targeting, some people understand better than others how to make their ads work.

That's not too compelling to me. One of the principles of a jury is that it is of your peers, which implies that to some extent you do know them and they know you. A jury of perfect strangers unrelated to you is not constitutional.

> jury is that it is of your peers, which implies that to some extent you do know them and they know you

Does not follow. I'm not aware of any context where that's part of what "peer" means.

> A jury of perfect strangers unrelated to you is not constitutional.

Generally speaking, if you're not a perfect stranger, you're kicked off a jury for conflict of interest.

A "jury of one's peers" means people in the same social class as you, i.e. a jury that is not biased against you. The word "peer" is a hold-over from English society with more pronounced social classes, and is meant strictly as a counterbalance against those social classes.

Note that the Consitution itself doesn't actually contain the word "peer," but rather uses the phrase "impartial jury."

If they are in the same social class as you, then you know that about them. Not sure how that refutes my argument.

Just to be evenhanded here, I suspect that in most criminal cases the jurors are likely NOT in the same social class as the defendant.

That said, having jurors be people you know seems a little unfair too. So a jury of perfect strangers seems greatly unfair in the postulated context of asymmetric privacy, and a jury of friends seems unfair as it's possible they would let you off regardless of evidence.

Problem is, asymmetric privacy is a reality today. So, yeah, tough problem.

> to some extent you do know them and they know you

If a juror actually knew you (or you knew them) wouldn't that be grounds for their dismissal from the jury due to a possibility of bias?

Obviously if a public figure or celebrity is on trial, the jurors will usually know of the accused, but still not necessarily know them.

>A jury of perfect strangers unrelated to you is not constitutional.

Is there actually a legal case that can be won to be made there?

Batson vs Kentucky, 1986. The dismissal of all the black jurors on a black defendant's jury was ruled against.

(And if it wasn't clear earlier, when I say "unrelated" of course I'm not talking about familial relations, but social relations)

How do you plan to do this without breaking other laws? I.e. if Blackmail is not an option? I say this because Blackmail is only an option for a very small set of actors.

Nobody was proposing blackmail. They were talking about bespoking the defence/prosecution for each individual juror based on their personal information.

We're already seeing it with political ads. It isn't that crazy to imagine lawyers using every [legal] advantage available to them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com