24 | NewScientist | 14 June 2014

For more technology stories, visit newscientist.com/technologyTECHNOLOGY

The judge is a robotIf computers set our laws, will they be fairer, asks Aviva Rutkin

NINE years ago, federal agents stuck a location tracker on a nightclub owner’s car without a warrant. The agents thought their suspect might be dealing drugs, and four weeks of GPS data ultimately proved them right. He countered that the prolonged tracking had violated his privacy, and therefore his constitutional rights. The case fell apart in the Supreme Court, where justices debated the length of time that police could tail citizens before routine investigation became all-out invasion. Was four weeks too long? What about three days, or four hours?

Last week, a high-tech solution was proposed: let algorithms set the guidelines for us. Since computers are able to unearth subtle patterns in data, the thinking goes, they could help lawmakers quantify how much or how little surveillance is fair.

“Some justices think four weeks is too much and they’ve never been able to explain why,” says Steven Bellovin at Columbia University in New York City. “I saw there was a natural way to answer some of the questions by using these techniques.”

Bellovin, along with specialists in computer science and law, analysed previous research on tracking to

learn what such data could uncover about an individual’s characteristics and daily habits. They concluded that one week of data would reveal enough information to constitute a threat to privacy, and so would be a reasonable place for the law to draw the line (NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, doi.org/s5d).

They also suggested taking the process a step further, using algorithms to set different limits for different enquiries into a suspect’s

personal life, such as their drug habits.Other legal questions could be

solved in a similar manner. Take gerrymandering, when politicians try to draw new boundaries around electoral districts to better suit their party’s goals. A trained computer program – like the one developed by software engineer Brian Olson earlier this year – could impartially divide up the population, leaving individual human interests out of the equation.

Since computers are so sensitive

to patterns in data, they can help us create more nuanced rules, says Nick Wagoner, a lawyer in Houston, Texas.

Some have even proposed making an algorithm the law itself, with tools that could automatically sniff out contract violations, problematic patents or election fraud. Lisa Shay at West Point in New York and colleagues have suggested rewriting “amenable laws” – those that deal with clear-cut cases of right and wrong – so that algorithmic law enforcement could understand them. They have already attempted to build computer systems that can issue speeding tickets.

We shouldn’t expect to see computers sitting in the judge’s chair any time soon, says Harry Surden at the University of Colorado. He warns that bringing machines into the law could imbue us with a false sense of accuracy. Two algorithms could take the same data and come up with different analyses, he says. He can even imagine a time when the prosecution and the defence pit their “expert” machines against each other.

“We have to be very cautious to not overly endow things that look technological and mathematical as objective,” Surden says. ■

“ We have to be careful not to see things that look technological and mathematical as objective”

TOM

ASZ

ZA

JDA

/ALA

MY

STEP

HEN

CR

OW

LEY/

EYEV

INE

THE internet’s favourite currency

may be up for a second job: storing

massive amounts of data.

As with all cryptocurrencies,

bitcoins are created by a process

called “mining”, which involves

setting up machines to solve a series

of mathematical problems. Such

puzzles are a waste of computing

power if they are not harnessed to

solve real-world problems, says

Andrew Miller at the University of

Maryland. So, along with colleagues

from his university and Microsoft,

Miller proposes a spin-off named

Permacoin, whose mining process

would create an enormous archive

as well as currency.

“It’s pretty clear that there is a

lot of effort being consumed,” says

Miller. “It would be nice if you could

get more from it.”

His team envisions using

Permacoin for data that is valuable

but unwieldy to store, such as the

Library of Congress, estimated to

be around 200 terabytes.

This is not the first time Bitcoin’s

processes have been put to work.

Previous spin-offs have tackled

problems such as protein folding,

but it is difficult to turn these into

meaningful puzzles that are

sufficiently difficult and still reliable

as a cryptocurrency. The team plans

to develop a Permacoin prototype

later this year. Aviva Rutkin ■

INSIGHT Justice Bitcoin puzzles tackle real-world problems

–Tracked, but for how long?–