BLUF: The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is advocating for the restriction of complex technology, specifically Apple’s proprietary location algorithm, as courtroom evidence unless its reliability is proven and it adheres to constitutional rights.
OSINT: A Tuesday saw the EFF appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, arguing that a person unfamiliar with the workings of an unknown technical algorithm isn’t fit to testify on its reliability. This plea, supported by several legal and civil freedoms organizations, is in context of Commonwealth v. Arrington, a case involving the use of Apple’s “frequent location history” (FLH) feature for legal evidence.
Apple’s FLH, never before used in Massachusetts courts, is primarily under scrutiny for its breakthrough application as evidence. It’s generally accepted that newly introduced technology used for litigation purposes must demonstrate a certain level of reliability. With the government’s witness having scant experience with FLH and admittedly ignorant of its operations, the EFF asserts that the witness is unqualified, and the government has failed to establish FLH’s reliability as evidence against the accused.
From a constitutional standpoint, the EFF stands against the use of “black box” technology that fails to prove its reliability. Courts are urged to adhere to their ‘gatekeeper’ role, allowing only reliable and relevant evidence to be showcased for juries. The recurring usage of flawed new technologies by prosecutors poses potential risks to constitutional rights and the credibility of legal proceedings, thereby requiring robust standards for acceptance.
In light of these potential risks, EFF has actively fought against the government’s use of secretive and complex technology, hoping the Supreme Judicial Court affirms the need for transparency and access to proprietary technology used in the criminal justice system.
RIGHT: While the efficient use of technological advancements can streamline several legal workflows, the constitutional rights and liberties of the individual should take precedence. Any application of proprietary algorithms should be clear-cut, transparent, and promote fair trials rather than complicate or mystify proceedings. The EFF’s stance against using unproven black-box technology parallels our devotion for maintaining constitutional sanctity.
LEFT: Holding onto the principles of justice, we support the EFF’s petition to ensure only reliable and understandable technology is used in legal proceedings. Transparency in technology used, especially proprietary algorithms, is pivotal to uphold constitutional rights and avoid unleashing a slippery slope where opaque technological ‘evidence’ could disadvantage certain communities.
AI: In a time marked by rapid technological advancements, the intersection with legal proceedings necessitates careful balance. On one side are the potentials of technology assisting in fact-finding and dispensing faster justice. On the other, the opacity of some proprietary technology potentially undermines the rights of the accused. Strict reliability standards, transparency, and understandability have to be maintained to ensure technology serves the justice system, not confounds it.