This briefing examines how standalone generative AI systems, based on unlawful web scraping, are in conflict with international human rights law (IHRL) and standards through their design, development and deployment. While these technologies promise sophisticated automation and efficiency, they rely on data collection and model training practices that abuse privacy rights, enable discrimination, and threaten […]
Automated Justice: Issues, Benefits and Risks in the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Its Algorithms in Access to Justice and Law Enforcement
The use of artificial intelligenceArtificial Intelligence (AI) (AI) in the field of law has generated many hopes. Some have seen it as a way of relieving courts’ congestion, facilitating investigations, and making sentences for certain offences more consistent—and therefore fairer. But while it is true that the work of investigators and judges can be facilitated by these tools, particularly in terms of finding evidenceEvidence during the investigative process, or preparing legal summaries, the panorama of current uses is far from rosy, as it often clashes with the reality of field usage and raises serious questions regarding human rightsHuman rights. This chapter will use the RobodebtRobodebt Case to explore some of the problems with introducing automationAutomation into legal systems with little human oversight. AI—especially if it is poorly designed—has biases in its data and learning pathways which need to be corrected. The infrastructures that carry these tools may fail, introducing novel bias. All these elements are poorly understood by the legal world and can lead to misuse. In this context, there is a need to identify both the users of AIArtificial Intelligence (AI) in the area of law and the uses made of it, as well as a need for transparencyTransparency, the rules and contours of which have yet to be established.
Automated Justice: Issues, Benefits and Risks in the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Its Algorithms in Access to Justice and Law Enforcement
The use of artificial intelligenceArtificial Intelligence (AI) (AI) in the field of law has generated many hopes. Some have seen it as a way of relieving courts’ congestion, facilitating investigations, and making sentences for certain offences more consistent—and therefore fairer. But while it is true that the work of investigators and judges can be facilitated by these tools, particularly in terms of finding evidenceEvidence during the investigative process, or preparing legal summaries, the panorama of current uses is far from rosy, as it often clashes with the reality of field usage and raises serious questions regarding human rightsHuman rights. This chapter will use the RobodebtRobodebt Case to explore some of the problems with introducing automationAutomation into legal systems with little human oversight. AI—especially if it is poorly designed—has biases in its data and learning pathways which need to be corrected. The infrastructures that carry these tools may fail, introducing novel bias. All these elements are poorly understood by the legal world and can lead to misuse. In this context, there is a need to identify both the users of AIArtificial Intelligence (AI) in the area of law and the uses made of it, as well as a need for transparencyTransparency, the rules and contours of which have yet to be established.
AI Therapy Bots Are Conducting 'Illegal Behavior,' Digital Rights Organizations Say
Exclusive: An FTC complaint led by the Consumer Federation of America outlines how therapy bots on Meta and Character.AI have claimed to be qualified, licensed therapists to users, and why that may be breaking the law.
Exclusive: Multiple AI companies bypassing web standard to scrape publisher sites, licensing firm says
Multiple artificial intelligence companies are circumventing a common web standard used by publishers to block the scraping of their content for use in generative AI systems, content licensing startup TollBit has told publishers.
Privacy Considerations with AI Tools
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools come in all sorts of flavors. There are notetaking and transcription tools, chatbots, device-wide agentic AI features, grammar and writing tools, translation assistants, AI summaries, and research tools, among others. As a term, “AI” may refer to features in apps, apps themselves, third-party plug-ins, or a...
Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools
Legal practice has witnessed a sharp rise in products incorporating artificial intelligence (AI). Such tools are designed to assist with a wide range of core legal tasks, from search and summarization of caselaw to document drafting. But the large language models used in these tools are prone to "hallucinate," or make up false information, making their use risky in high-stakes domains. Recently, certain legal research providers have touted methods such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) as "eliminating" (Casetext, 2023) or "avoid[ing]" hallucinations (Thomson Reuters, 2023), or guaranteeing "hallucination-free" legal citations (LexisNexis, 2023). Because of the closed nature of these systems, systematically assessing these claims is challenging. In this article, we design and report on the first preregistered empirical evaluation of AI-driven legal research tools. We demonstrate that the providers' claims are overstated. While hallucinations are reduced relative to general-purpose chatbots (GPT-4), we find that the AI research tools made by LexisNexis (Lexis+ AI) and Thomson Reuters (Westlaw AI-Assisted Research and Ask Practical Law AI) each hallucinate between 17% and 33% of the time. We also document substantial differences between systems in responsiveness and accuracy. Our article makes four key contributions. It is the first to assess and report the performance of RAG-based proprietary legal AI tools. Second, it introduces a comprehensive, preregistered dataset for identifying and understanding vulnerabilities in these systems. Third, it proposes a clear typology for differentiating between hallucinations and accurate legal responses. Last, it provides evidence to inform the responsibilities of legal professionals in supervising and verifying AI outputs, which remains a central open question for the responsible integration of AI into law.
Government to ease data consent rules for AI development | The Asahi Shimbun Asia & Japan Watch
To accelerate artificial intelligence development, the government plans to relax consent requirements for access to personal information while introducing tougher penalties for intentional misuse.
How AI is exacerbating technology-facilitated violence against women and girls
This paper examines how artificial intelligence is accelerating technology-facilitated violence against women and girls—from deepfakes and automated hate to sextortion, impersonation, and large-scale disinformation. It outlines emerging risks, legal and ethical challenges, and opportunities for prevention, while calling for urgent regulation, safety-by-design, and coordinated global action to ensure that AI technologies advance, rather than undermine, women’s rights and safety.
HUGE — AI Without Giving Up Your Privacy
We're building an Agentic AI Platform running on your Device that lives with YOU, isolated from the cloud, fundamentally reimagining the relationship between humans and artificial intelligence through ownership, privacy, and massive context. In an age of capture and control, HUGE sells independence and sovereignty.
Firms like Meta and A16z admit having to pay billions for training data would ruin their generative-AI plans as they fight new copyright rules
Meta, Google, Microsoft, and Andreessen Horowitz are trying to keep AI developers from having to pay for copyrighted material used in AI training.
Data Streaming for AI: From Extractive Training to Sovereign Infrastructure DWeb Camp 2026
AI systems are consuming the world's content without compensating its creators. This session explores data streaming as a new paradigm — where content flows to AI in real time, with built-in rights management, usage tracking, and fair compensation — and asks what it would take to make this infrastructure decentralized, sovereign, and governed by the communities it serves.
A large-scale audit of dataset licensing and attribution in AI
The race to train language models on vast, diverse and inconsistently documented datasets raises pressing legal and ethical concerns. To improve data transparency and understanding, we convene a multi-disciplinary effort between legal and machine learning experts to systematically audit and trace more than 1,800 text datasets. We develop tools and standards to trace the lineage of these datasets, including their source, creators, licences and subsequent use. Our landscape analysis highlights sharp divides in the composition and focus of data licenced for commercial use. Important categories including low-resource languages, creative tasks and new synthetic data all tend to be restrictively licenced. We observe frequent miscategorization of licences on popular dataset hosting sites, with licence omission rates of more than 70% and error rates of more than 50%. This highlights a crisis in misattribution and informed use of popular datasets driving many recent breakthroughs. Our analysis of data sources also explains the application of copyright law and fair use to finetuning data. As a contribution to continuing improvements in dataset transparency and responsible use, we release our audit, with an interactive user interface, the Data Provenance Explorer, to enable practitioners to trace and filter on data provenance for the most popular finetuning data collections: www.dataprovenance.org.
How Claude marks AI-generated content | Claude Help Center
Anthropic has signed the EU AI Act's Article 50(2) Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content, as a provider of both generative AI models and generative AI systems. This article describes how we’re planning to put those commitments into practice, how marking works, and what its limitations are. We’ll update this article and publish more detailed technical guidance as it becomes available.
The fight over downloadable AI is not really about a ban - Sensemaker
Companies want access, Anthropic wants testing, and Washington and Beijing are arguing over alleged copying.
AI tool will lead to more child refugees being treated as adults, charity warns
‘Racist bias’ overestimating ages in Home Office’s facial-recognition software will lead to solo children being housed with adults, says Human Rights Network
Going beyond the “common suspects”: to be presumed innocent in the era of algorithms, big data and artificial intelligence
This article explores the trend of increasing automation in law enforcement and criminal justice settings through three use cases: predictive policing, machine evidence and recidivism algorithms. The focus lies on artificial-intelligence-driven tools and technologies employed, whether at pre-investigation stages or within criminal proceedings, in order to decode human behaviour and facilitate decision-making as to whom to investigate, arrest, prosecute, and eventually punish. In this context, this article first underlines the existence of a persistent dilemma between the goal of increasing the operational efficiency of police and judicial authorities and that of safeguarding fundamental rights of the affected individuals. Subsequently, it shifts the focus onto key principles of criminal procedure and the presumption of innocence in particular. Using Article 6 ECHR and the Directive (EU) 2016/343 as a starting point, it discusses challenges relating to the protective scope of presumption of innocence, the burden of proof rule and the in dubio pro reo principle as core elements of it. Given the transformations law enforcement and criminal proceedings go through in the era of algorithms, big data and artificial intelligence, this article advocates the adoption of specific procedural safeguards that will uphold rule of law requirements, and particularly transparency, fairness and explainability. In doing so, it also takes into account EU legislative initiatives, including the reform of the EU data protection acquis, the E-evidence Proposal, and the Proposal for an EU AI Act. Additionally, it argues in favour of revisiting the protective scope of key fundamental rights, considering, inter alia, the new dimensions suspicion has acquired.
