Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Eggs Benedict

Thinking of hanging it on my office door and wait for Adler to sue me.

There is resistance of putting voting booths in or near large universities.  Makes sense?  Who has a bigger stake in America's future than college students?


Eggs Benedict



Artificial intelligence predicted case outcomes with 79% accuracy by analyzing fact portrayal

Artificial intelligence brain.
Researchers were able to predict the results of human rights cases with 79 percent accuracy by using artificial intelligence to analyze the factual sections of published human rights judgments.
The study, published in PeerJ Computer Science, found that the outcomes were best predicted by analyzing the “circumstances” section of a case—which includes factual background—along with the topics covered by the case and the language used, according to a press release. Publications covering the findings include the Wall Street Journal Law BlogLaw.com (sub. req.), the Guardian andMotherboard.
The researchers examined 584 cases before the European Court of Human Rights with a machine-learning algorithm. They found that the court’s judgments were highly correlated to facts rather than legal arguments.
Ideally, the researchers said, they would use their algorithm to test applications to the court rather than published judgments, but they didn’t have access to that data. Assuming a similarity between chunks of text in published judgments and applications and briefs, the research could be used to predict outcomes before judgment, the study says.
The findings could help prioritize cases and identify which cases are most likely to be violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to the researchers. “We don’t see AI replacing judges or lawyers,” said University College London computer scientist Nikolaos Aletras in the press release. Also working on the study were academics from the University of Sheffield and the University of Pennsylvania.
The researchers acknowledge that the circumstances section of a case is not a neutral statement of the facts. The section could contain the court’s judgments about what is important, and could be tailor-made to reach a certain outcome. It’s also possible, the researchers say, that judges were reacting to the facts because the cases had been selected for their indeterminate legal issues.



Lawyer agrees to pay restitution for removing cameras outside his client's apartment

Oct 26, 2016, 7:00 am CDT



Drinks, Dinners, Junkets and Jobs: How the Insurance Industry Courts State Commissioners



Species may be called endangered based on projected climate change, 9th Circuit rules

Oct 25, 2016, 3:00 pm CDT



ABA official expressed concern but didn't ban report calling Trump 'a libel bully,' spokeswoman says

Oct 25, 2016, 1:48 pm CDT



This happened in 1985



Retired judges to hear appeal from suspended Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore

Roy Moore
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.
The fate of suspended Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is now in the hands of several retired judges.
The Associated Press reported Monday that Moore’s former brethren on the Alabama Supreme Court have recused themselves from ruling on whether the controversial chief justice’s suspension should be lifted. In a 5-3 ruling, the justices chose to defer to a panel of judges to be picked at random from a pool of retired circuit, district and appellate judges.
The Alabama Court of the Judiciary suspended Moore last month, without pay, after he urged state court judges to defy the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage.
“Because the justices have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances underlying this appeal, this appeal presents a situation in which all the justices’ impartiality might be questioned,” the majority wrote in its decision.
Associate Justice Tom Parker, who is an ally of Moore’s, dissented from the decision, saying that as elected judges, they were all accountable to the public and should rule on the matter.
Moore’s suspension came after the controversial and outspoken chief justice told state court and probate judges that a prior ban on same-sex marriage remained in effect despite Obergefell. Moore has claimed that he was merely giving state court judges a “status update” and was not ordering them to refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples.
When asked about the Alabama Supreme Court’s recusal, Moore’s lawyer, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, said: “He wants his case to be heard by an objective and fair panel of judges who will adhere to the rule of law.”
According to the AP, a panel of seven judges will be drawn from a pool of approximately 50. Acting Chief Justice Lyn Stuart and Gov. Robert Bentley will oversee the process.


Facial recognition may be unreliable, and nearly half of US adults are in databases, study finds

Facial recognition.
Facial-recognition databases used by law enforcement—which reportedly include photos of approximately 117 million Americans—have various accuracy problems, according to a report by Georgetown University Law Center’s Center on Privacy & Technology.
Driver’s license photos make up a significant amount of the data, National Public Radioreports. The larger a database is, scientists caution, the more chances there are for misidentifications, particularly if there are no legal standards for the technology. According to NPR, the FBI has stated that it uses facial recognition software for investigations, not positive identifications.
The Georgetown report, titled “The Perpetual Line-Up,” also found that the face recognition software doesn’t work well for people are dark-skinned.
“Darker skin has less color contrast. And these algorithms rely on being able to pick out little patterns and color to be able to tell people apart,” Jonathan Frankle, a computer scientist and one of the the report’s authors, told the station.
Also, security cameras are often mounted on ceilings, and their footage frequently doesn’t include good facial-recognition views.
How states take driver’s license photos is concern as well. Patrick Grother, a computer scientist with the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology, told NPR that if law enforcement is going to use driver’s license photos for a facial-recognition database, there should be photo standards for lighting, height and focus.
“Without those things, without those technical specifications, then face recognition can be undermined,” he said.
In a Los Angeles Times opinion piece written by Clare Garvie from Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy & Technology and Neema Singh Guliani of the ACLU, the authors called for legislation to regulate law enforcement use of facial-recognition software.
“Police generally cannot track your location without a court order—yet in many jurisdictions, there are no restrictions on police accomplishing these same ends using remote cameras and face recognition,” Garvie and Guliani wrote.



Posner says Supreme Court is 'awful,' top two justices are OK but not great

Richard Posner
Photo of Judge Richard A. Posner from University of Chicago.
Circuit Judge Richard Posner says he’s writing a new book calledStrengths and Weaknesses of the Legal System, and one of the weaknesses is the U.S. Supreme Court.
Posner, a judge on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, criticized the high court at a recent bookstore appearance for a new Posner biography written by William Domnarski, Above the Law reports. Here is what Posner said:
The new book is “almost entirely about the federal judiciary…. So I have about 10 pages on the strengths and about 320 pages on the weaknesses. I’m very critical. I don’t think the judges are very good. I think the Supreme Court is awful. I think it’s reached a real nadir.”
Above the Law reviewed the C-SPAN video of Posner’s remarks and published his Supreme Court criticisms.
Posner said “probably only a couple of the justices,” namely Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, “are qualified. They’re OK, they’re not great.” Those justices’ opinions, he said, are “readable, and sometimes quite eloquent. The others, I wouldn’t waste my time reading their opinions.”
The “most tedious opinion I’ve ever read,” Posner said, was the dissent by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedtwhich overturned Texas abortion-clinic regulations. The 40-page dissent said the case should have been dismissed on the basis of res judicata because the plaintiff challenging the law had filed a previous case that was dismissed. Res judicata, Posner said, is a common law rule that is “not part of the Constitution or anything, and this is an important issue we’re trying to get settled—so why should you fuss with res judicata, especially for 40 pages?”
Posner said a weak federal judiciary can be blamed on appointing politicians who are more interested in politics rather than in good judges. He also said appellate and Supreme Court law clerks—who are typically very good and smart—are part of the problem.
“So the politicians figure,” Posner said, “well, we’re appointing this person because he or she is of a particular race, or comes from a special part of the country, or this or that, or is liberal or is conservative. And this person is not particularly bright and doesn’t have much experience—never been in a trial courtroom, for example—but, there are all these brilliant law clerks working, so their opinions will be all right, because the law clerks will write them…. That’s a very serious deficiency in our system, and there are zillions more.”
Posner went on to say that appellate judges should have trial experience, and they could get it—as he does—by sometimes sitting by designation as trial judges.

No comments:

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner