Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How Will Criminal Law Enforcement Be Able to Police the Improper Use of AI?
The evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) continues at a torrid pace, with each new iteration exponentially more powerful than the last. What is now clear is that AI is much more than just another new technology, but is, instead, a transformative tool that promises fundamentally to change the way people live and work. Not wanting to be left behind, companies from across a wide range of industries are racing to find ways to adopt AI to make their businesses more productive, more efficient, and more profitable. At the same time, government regulators have taken note of not only the great potential benefits of AI, but also the tremendous damage that AI can cause. Several U.S. regulators have already started issuing policies and rules governing the safe use of AI to help prevent these potential negative consequences, such as fraud, discrimination, and data intrusions.
Questions remain, however, on how criminal law enforcement will be able to police the improper use of AI. That task will be particularly challenging where the legal violations result from AI-driven decision-making rather than intentional human actions.
The Department of Justice's Focus on Artificial Intelligence
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has already begun discussing how it will approach crimes committed with AI. In a February 2024 speech at Oxford University, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa Monaco explained that AI "may well be the most transformational technology we've confronted yet," but stated this did not mean that the DOJ needed to change its approach to investigating and prosecuting such crimes. As she explained, "new technologies don't necessarily demand new structures." The DAG analogized the current threats posed by AI to those associated with the arrival of the Internet, explaining that as criminals adopted the Internet, prosecutors had "evolved with the threat, applied and adjusted existing legal tools, and added needed technology and expertise."
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.