Legal AI is full of talk about 'explainability', but most of it is smoke and mirrors. If these systems are to be useful in law, they need more than plausible stories; they need legally sound reasoning and real-world rigour.
There are significant dangers in surveilling online communications unless the mechanisms and policies of surveillance are subject to strict and legally enforceable standards of transparency, oversight, and control.
KEYWORDS:
Surveillance, Intelligence services, Base rate fallacy, Interception, Fundamental principles, Predictive algorithms, Privacy, Security, Content data, Communications data, Bundestrojaner, National Security Agency (NSA), PRISM, Tempora, Encryption, Liability, Transparency, Cyber security, Content, Censorship, Filtering