RSS FeedHumans only
If you read Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey or saw the film, you must know who Hal is. Good. Keep that in mind while reading this. So… South Korea “deploys robots to detect and kill intruders.” I don’t want to be a scaremonger by just waving Hal in your face. Let me give you two reasons why robocops, or battle robots, or judge robots for that matter are bad from the legal standpoint.
First, robots follow programs that cannot predict all real-life possibilities. Robots lack that uniquely human ability of discretion. The best a machine can do to emulate discretion is to generate a random number. A grenade-launching machine exercising discretion would be like you loading one round in a revolver, spinning the cylinder, and pulling the trigger. Yes, it is called the Russian roulette. Especially, if you point the gun at your own head or at an “intruder.”
Second, a robot is not accountable. It doesn’t care if you appeal and have its decision overturned. If the reviewing body sends the case to a human for reconsideration why use the machine in the first place? And sometimes, the case will be moot, especially if the robot’s decision involved using live fire.
Law assumes human actors. Our entire legal system and tradition is based on this premise. Law doesn’t micromanage because it routinely delegates to human discretion. Sometimes it doesn’t strike the right balance—as with the law of street protest in Canada, but I’ll go for unsophisticated humans in uniforms over armed robots any day. Human discretion rests on a thick layer of experience, learning, feelings, values, and responsibility. If the state is to make decisions affecting our fundamental rights and freedoms, only its human agents should have this power. No robocops, please.
(Post sponsored by AdviceScene)
Beyond democracy
Most people think they know what democracy is or, at least, they know democracy when they see it. But try calling something undemocratic, and debates break out about the definition of democracy. Of course, I am talking about mildly hard cases rather than obvious ones; about, say, allegations against a provincial government, not Kim Jon Il.
Take the jury vetting case that’s rattling editorial pages. Is it undemocratic for the Crown to use police databases for secret jury screening? It depends. On what? On your definition of democracy. Here we go again. Unless we are philosophers, we probably don’t want to debate what democracy is in this case. Perhaps, there is a more useful and easier way to understand the issue.
Two things are wrong with the kind of jury vetting that happened in Windsor and Barrie (and who knows in how many other places in Ontario). First, the Crown concealed material information from the defence. This is unfair to the accused. And if that doesn’t impress you, let me say that it’s horribly unfair. Second, the Crown pried into prospective jurors’ lives with forceps and a magnifying glass.
It is this second transgression that I’d like to focus on. Instead of pondering whether it is undemocratic, let’s use more granular and unambiguous terms. Did the government take something from those prospective jurors that they didn’t intend to part with? If yes, does this unduly acquired possession increase government’s power relative to the jurors? Theft and power balance should be more straightforward to understand than democracy.
One newspaper editorial lists some personal tidbits kept in the depths of government databases: “dislike[d] police,” “family issues,” “criminal associates,” “fraud (dismissed),” “criminal record peace bond entered,” “[teacher] accused of assaulting student,” “suicidal in 2001,” [o]ngoing neighbour dispute — neighbour shot his cat,” and “[w]itness to parent’s domestic dispute. Dad is a drinker and assaulted her mother.”
Of course, the only allowed ground of ineligibility under the Juries Act that would require a police check is a history of indictable offences. But that is not the point. The really important revelation is the extent of personal information collected by state agents during their interaction with citizens. Examples above clearly come from police notes jotted during lawful investigations. But did you know they would put it in a database?
Imagine a police visit in response to your neighbours’ complaint about noise a hundred years from now. The officers are standing outside while you’re propping the front door with your feet and talking to them. Future technology will easily enable the following without your awareness:
1. Your DNA sample will be obtained.
2. Screenshots of computer screens will be taken.
3. If anyone is using electronic devices, data input will be intercepted.
4. Your vitals, including viral/bacterial presence, will be recorded.
5. Everything will be instantly transmitted to a central database.
After all, you opened the door. No one forced you.
