Scientists and engineers accurately predicted that robots would displace human employment. Allow me to acquaint you with Cybercheck, an artificial intelligence (AI) programme with the objective of supplanting lawyers' occupations in the United States. Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors throughout the United States have progressively employed this technique to aid in the investigation and prosecution of grave offences such as homicide. The potential advantages of employing artificial intelligence in the legal system are genuinely extraordinary. The benefits encompass enhanced efficacy, expedited processing of substantial data volumes, and the capacity to discern patterns and correlations that may elude human perception. This is a hopeful advancement towards a more efficient and simplified legal system. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that the implementation of AI in the legal system also gives rise to substantial apprehensions, which we delve into in this paper.
Cybercheck is a term used to refer to a process or system that involves examining and evaluating the security of computer networks, systems, and infrastructure to identify potential vulnerabilities and protect against cyber threats.
Cybercheck, established by Adam Mosher, a distinguished AI specialist, aims to transform the legal system. Utilising sophisticated machine learning algorithms, this system analyses vast quantities of publicly available web data, including social media and email addresses, to precisely identify the whereabouts and other pertinent information of suspects. According to the company, the tool boasts a precision rate of over 90% and is capable of completing research jobs in a fraction of the time it would take humans. This effectively showcases the capacity of artificial intelligence (AI) to accelerate legal procedures.
What is the reason for discussing this topic?
Notwithstanding its extensive utilisation, defence attorneys have expressed substantial apprehensions regarding the tool's dependability and absence of transparency. They contend that the methodology of the study is ambiguous and has not undergone independent verification. In a legal matter in New York, a judge determined that the court would not include Cybercheck evidence due to the prosecutors' failure to establish its credibility. Similarly, in Ohio, a judge prohibited the use of Cybercheck analysis when Mosher declined to reveal the operational details of the system.
These concerns prompt significant inquiries into the utilisation of obscure technology as evidence and its capacity to undermine important matters. This has ignited a crucial discussion regarding the moral consequences of artificial intelligence in the judicial system, compelling us to proceed cautiously in this age of technical progress.
Legal disputes and accusations
Cybercheck assists law enforcement by scouring unindexed sections of the internet that are not accessible through search engines. The tool generates reports based on its discoveries and displays them as practical and useful information. NBC News has disclosed that several states have remunerated Global Intelligence Inc., the Canadian firm responsible for Cybercheck, with sums ranging from $11,000 to $35,000 for the provision of Cybercheck services.
During a recent legal proceeding about a deadly robbery incident in Akron, Ohio, defence attorneys representing two individuals accused of murder requested that Mosher reveal the proprietary code and algorithm. In their submissions on April 10th, they further alleged that he made false statements on his competence and the usage history of the underlying technology. The serious accusations highlight the possible legal obstacles and moral issues associated with the utilisation of AI in the legal system, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive analysis of its consequences. Mosher and Global Intelligence refrained from providing any comments regarding the pending legal proceedings.
In a separate homicide case in Ohio, Mosher declined to release Cybercheck's software to defence experts, claiming its unique characteristics. The presiding judge prohibited Cybercheck's analysis as a result of this refusal. The Akron Police Department spokeswoman did not provide any response to requests regarding the inquiry, while the County Prosecutor's Office chose not to comment due to ongoing legal proceedings. However, during a prior hearing, the prosecution accepted that Mosher possessed strong skills in software and opensource intelligence. Nevertheless, they conceded that Mosher was still in the process of refining his legal expertise. Stano, the prosecutor, argued that any problems were probably the result of misunderstandings rather than deliberate wrongdoing.
Cybercheck's Involvement in the Akron Robbery Case
Coleman and Farrey Jr. were apprehended by the authorities in July 2021, some nine months following the Akron robbery. They were accused by the prosecution of committing heinous murder and robbery. The evidence implicating them included of ballistics analysis and CCTV footage. In December 2022, Cybercheck's assessment identified the presence of both individuals at the crime site by examining more than 1 million terabytes of web data to generate cyber profiles for Coleman and Farrey. The connection between these profiles and the crime scene was established through the network address originating from a surveillance camera equipped with Wi-Fi capability.
Nevertheless, the Cybercheck report failed to provide an explanation of the method used to authenticate the connection between the defendants' devices and the crime scene. In addition, the defence experts were unable to locate the mentioned social media profiles. According to one testimony, Cybercheck's judgements were determined to be 98.2% accurate. Unfortunately, there was a lack of information regarding the specifics of this research and claim. Furthermore, Cybercheck had not been subjected to peer review. Global Intelligence later asserted that the University of Saskatchewan had conducted a thorough evaluation of the programme. Later on, the institution asserted that it had entered into a research agreement with the corporation. However, it did not generate or assess the software document, which was never subjected to peer review.
What is our current situation?
Cybercheck does actually employ numerous dubious methods. Furthermore, the tool or application does not retain the data it use for its analysis. This fundamentally hinders the defense's capacity to authenticate the findings. The developer asserts that Cybercheck carries out data processing and analysis without indexing or collecting it, based on file sizes and governance concerns. Solely from a legal standpoint, this poses a crucial inquiry. This directly hinders the defense's ability to authenticate the evidence. Preventing the verification or integrity checks of evidence hinders the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Copyright © JPV Law Associates. All rights reserved.
