For a long time, much has been written about artificial intelligence in the legal profession. We discussed various types of solutions in this area on our blog. One is predictive analytics, i.e. using algorithms to anticipate the judgments that will be issued by a given judge under a given state of facts. Such tools rely mainly on an analysis of rulings issued in the past and draw various types of conclusions from them, e.g. with respect to the chances for prevailing in a dispute.
Along with a recent reform of the justice system in France, a ban was recently introduced against using data concerning the identity of judges to evaluate, analyse, compare or predict their actual or supposed professional practices. Violation of this ban can lead to up to five years in prison.
Continue reading “AI must not predict how judges in France will rule”
Recently counsel, arbitrators and potential parties to proceedings have been examining with interest attempts to streamline arbitration using blockchain technology. We mentioned this in our 2018 report for Rzeczpospolita (in Polish), but in the industry so much is happening around “blockchain arbitration” that the issue deserves more attention.
Currently there are at least ten projects around the world, at various phases of realisation, using blockchain to automate alternative dispute resolution at least to some degree. There isn’t room here to describe them all in detail, but Kleros, CodeLegit (discussed also in our earlier publication), Juris and Oath seem particularly noteworthy. We examined what problems they may entail from a legal perspective. All of the comments below are based on publicly accessible materials (such as project websites and whitepapers), but are limited as these projects have not yet been thoroughly tested by end users (tests of beta versions are underway for some of them).
Continue reading ““On-chain” and “off-chain” arbitration: Using smart contracts to amicably resolve disputes”
We recently wrote about the first fine for noncompliance with the General Data Protection Regulation imposed by the president of Poland’s Personal Data Protection Office. Data protection authorities in other EU member states are also displaying notable initiative in conducting inspections and imposing fines. A few days ago the Information Commissioner’s Office in the UK imposed a fine of GBP 120,000 on a television production company for failing to provide adequate information to subjects who were filmed and recorded by devices at a healthcare facility, and failing to obtain their consent to film and record them. The case involved occurrences between July and November 2017—before the GDPR entered into force—but may nonetheless prove relevant for interpreting the obligations imposed on data controllers under the GDPR.
Continue reading “British data protection authority imposes fine for recording patients without their knowledge or consent”
On 8 April 2019 the European Commission published the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, drafted by the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (HLEG AI), an independent body whose main task is to prepare these guidelines as well as recommendations on AI investment policy (work still underway). Continue reading “Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI: Key principles”
A problem faced by programmers, politicians, and ordinary users is ensuring that artificial intelligence algorithms are not used inconsistently with their original aim. This issue has been raised numerous times in national reports prepared by individual EU member states, including Poland.
Continue reading “Are licences the way to achieve responsible AI?”
On 3 April 2019 the President of Poland signed into law the GDPR Implementation Act (full name: Act Amending Certain Acts to Ensure Application of the General Data Protection Regulation). Among several issues addressed controversially in the GDPR Implementation Act are the requirement to express consent to profiling and the catalogue of types of personal data that may be processed by suppliers of online services. This catalogue is set forth in Art. 18(1) of the Electronic Services Act. The original draft of the GDPR Implementation Act provided for repeal of that section, but during the course of legislative work on the act it was decided to leave the catalogue in place. This solution may conflict with the GDPR.
Continue reading “Is Poland’s catalogue of data processed for providing electronic services consistent with the GDPR principle of data minimisation?”