Uncorruptible Justice: Computer Judge
China arguably has the fairest and tamper-proof criminal justice now. Computers decide outcome of cases, instead of biased or incompetent judges and racially divided and stupid jurors.
To a jury, you can argue that a 99% probability match in DNA is not beyond reasonable doubt proof. A computer computes like this: nothing is 100%, beyond reasonable doubt is 90%, 99% is more than that. Guilty!
I wonder what sentence the computer judge would give for O.J.
Read the comments by the people, some brits and yankees are craving for such a system, despite the report's usual bashing of China. But I can assure them that they won't get it. The US and UK laws are enacted by the rich, and US/UK legal systems are designed to be very expensive for a purpose.
If you are rich, then U.S. is a much better place. Computer judge doesn't care how much money you got.
I am sure that China will enact a law to forbid judges from using Intel's Centrino notebooks. Anyone can hack into any centrino notebook in five minutes.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 9/14/2006 07:19:00 AM
12 Comments:
No wonder the chinese ..wanted their own standards for the Wi-Max (next gen wireless)
"Anyone can hack into any centrino notebook in five minutes."
Anyone who is stupid enough to not use security patches or vastly more secure OS deserves to be hacked.
M-Dell would be a dead man.
I find this idea totally scary...
Human judges can take into account special circumstances, and special needs. A human judge might decide that going easy on some punk teenager could allow him to live a normal and productive life instead of sending him straight to jail.
We live in a world where we are all criminals. Don't think you break any laws? Think again.
Everyone who is old enough to read this post has broken many laws in their life: Crossing the street where there isn't a crosswalk? Copy a friend's CD? Shoplift? Drive home after two beers (this puts 90% of the populaiton over the legal limit)? Forget to pay any taxes, or cheated on your deductions? I really could keep adding things to this list all day long. Everyone has done something illegal at one point or another.
Again, when you live in a world where everyone is a criminal, the idea of a computer judge is very scary. The computer will not be able to make common sense decisions about what needs to be done to arrive at the judgement that is best for everyone.
In a world with imperfect laws, enforcing the laws perfectly is immoral, unjust, and IMHO, just insane.
I leave you with this to think about:
'There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with'. - Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
I think you are off base with stating US courts are geared towards the rich. Just take a look at Martha Stewart.
Yes, a good defense can be very expensive, but everyone is guaranteed a defense in the US. I don't think that is the case in China. The communist party has the ultimate say.
Subjective decision making is very difficult, if not impossible, to program a computer to do. I would not want my fate hanging on whether or not some AI programmer did a good job. I'll take my chances being judged by my peers.
I really don't think the chinese model for justice is one that we want to be following. Just remember what happened to the reporters who exposed Foxconn's iPod operation. Also, DNA evidence is such a small part of the legal system it is almost negligible.
Knowing the current IT security landscape, it's only a matter of time until a computer virus leads to a jaywalker being sentenced to death.
If such a case occurred in both the US and China, how would each government react differently, if at all? That's a more important question, I think, when comparing the two governments on this issue.
You forgot to mention that from the end of the same article:
Furthermore, Dell does not believe that AMD Opteron chips hold an advantage anymore, thanks to Intel's new Woodcrest Xeon chips. "Until very recently, AMD did have the performance and price-per-watt advantage," Hand said. However, "Intel's new designs versus AMD are very competitive."
But Dell concedes that many data center customers have already taken the AMD plunge; offering both Intel and AMD chips allows Dell to "get back to fundamentals -- are you delivering aggregate value?" Clarke said.
that's nuts... i mean use a computer to determine sentence. it's difficult to be a good judge, because justice is so many magnitudes beyond just law. nobody should expect a computer software to make such decisions.
yet we probably should read too much into the news. after all, the computer software only makes sentence recommendataion, not the real sentence. the human judge is still responsible of the final call.
I can see it now,
"Computerized judge sentences senior communist party members to death. United States CIA involvement is suspected!"
That would be a great headline.
Although, I wonder what it would spit out in response to Bush being tried for war crimes.
Yes, just what we need, (Colossus) The Forbin Project dispensing justice.
"Uncorruptible justice: Computer Judge"
Damn, Sharkie. You are a newborn babe in this world, ain't you?
You think this "computer judge" will be any more robust than these incorruptible voting machines??
"The Diebold machine -- a tablet computer-based tabletop device -- saves program and vote information on standard Flash cards whose slots are secured by a locked metal cover. The video asserted that keys fitting these locks are easily duplicable, and that -- even lacking a key -- a member of Felten's team could routinely pick the locks in less than ten seconds; or gain access to the Flash card by removing six screws from the bottom of the machine and lifting its upper shroud away completely. Once access to the Flash card is gained, the card can be briefly removed, a virus-bearing card inserted, and power cycled -- loading the malicious code into memory. The original card is then re-inserted, exposing it to infection by the virus and making its contents vulnerable to change by viral code. Felten's team was, they assert, able to develop viral code that could "steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates." And they were able to embed this functionality in viral envelopes that could propagate from machine to machine during normal pre- and post-election activities (e.g., periodic collection, backup and summary of vote-counts). By compromising just one machine, therefore, an attacker could conceiveably alter results for an entire electoral district, or in some situations, in even more far-reaching ways."
The computer is the perfect "front man" for a corrupt justice system. Because of the foolish peasant superstition that computers cannot be compromised. Logic and all that... but really just another price to pay for the lack of meaningful education of the commoners.
Remember this if nothing else:
"Every day, computers make people easier to use."
Post a Comment
<< Home