Juror Influence Over Dangerous Technology?

Who will decide the limits of Chinese 5G devices and the reach of AI enabled detection and tracking technology in America?

The rapid push for new technology has revived an age-old gap in our social contract, that between technology interests and governing law.  Who will decide the limits of Chinese 5G devices and the reach of AI enabled detection and tracking technology in America?

Political decision-makers at local and national levels are frequently unqualified to comprehend the technology they are supposed to regulate.  In 2017, only eight of the 541 members of the 115th U.S. Congress were engineers, one a physicist, one a microbiologist and one a chemist.[i]

When legislators have no clear vision of the technology bills they vote on, they have no clear picture of the laws they create. As a result, the joysticks of technology regulation are abandoned to corporate lobbyists.  In 2018, five of the largest U.S. tech companies, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple poured a combined $64.2 million into federal lobbying efforts.  Their “increased influence is also a reflection of the former high-profile policymakers and regulators who many technology companies have hired in recent years.  According to Jeff Chester, the executive director for Center for Digital Democracy, there has been a ‘revolving door’ between both Republican and Democratic administrations and the technology industry lobby.”[ii]

Tech Bills

This is not the first generation during which technology has raced ahead of lawmakers.  The American automobile was invented in the early 1890s.  In short order, loud, fast moving cars and skiddish horses and nimble pedestrians were on a collision course.

Yet, It wasn’t till 1901 that the first speed limits were enacted, in Connecticut—12 mph for urban and 15 mph for rural roads.  Lawmakers were nearly ten years behind the technology curve.  By 1930, cars were pervasive yet many states still had no speed limits and over half of the states did not mandate driver’s licenses.[iii]

New York Traffic

During the horse-to-car revolution, it was the common law of American courts and the daily wisdom of jurors that bridged the gap between technology and social standards.  And importantly, the common law provided both room for geographic differences and common standards, allowing for Americans to retain their maximum liberty.

The first court decision in a lawsuit involving an automobile was issued in 1901.[iv] “Most early automobile cases involved claims that the sight or sound of a motor carriage caused a horse to take fright, resulting in injury either to the horse’s rider, the occupants of a carriage or wagon the horse had been towing, or the horse itself.”[v] “Opinions issued by judges in earlier cases and records of jury verdicts help lawsuit participants anticipate the resolution of disputes.”[vi]

Results varied by the issues and states:  in New England, cars eventually yielded to pedestrians; in Texas, fences yielded for the most part to free-range.  The upshot of these early decisions is that the courts empowered ordinary people, like technology users of today, to apply and influence legal standards.


The common law is an earthy sort of creature that understands the feel of mud on tires, hears the beat of hoofs, and in present terms jurors understand the pinch of lost privacy.

One American counterweight to stealth lobbyist influence over technology is the open courtroom and transparent justice.

A revival of common law standards, invigorating expert testimony and honoring the judgment of jurors in technology disputes will put technology to work by the people, for the people.  Yet, now, with COVID-19 related suspension of jury trials, what becomes of juror influence over technology?

The long-term challenge is for leading jurists to articulate new models for expedited handling of technology cases, to revise jury instructions with a sharp edge toward tort liability for applied technology misuse whether for invasions of privacy or outright covert theft of personal preferences, and to ensure jury trials continue in some form that meets the Constitutional mandate despite periodic health and economic challenges.

For the public’s part, the decision is whether to pay: to fund expedited technology courts, expert testimony, model rules, and continue to enlist jurors to instill grass-roots standards, or surrender our remaining influence over technology to others, leaving the pedestrians of America to suffer the cost of lost liberty.

And for those of you interested in how World Justice may be implemented in the future, Justícia 2095 reveals online justice using big-data–bringing the court of public opinion comes to Order on the world stage. Public jury trials are conducted from the comfort of home and office, in real-time. A “Ready Player One” for the courts. But the freewheeling Justícia is fed by its own set of tolls. Wyrand Stark, historian and Justícia Counselor, finds himself caught in its rapidly spinning gears and must race to save himself by proving the difference between law… and justice.

Justicia2095 -customdesign-SEPT2017-SDA-smallpreview

Justicia 2095 Available now on Amazon

[i] The John Hopkins Newsletter, Dec. 7 2017.

[ii] Washington Post, Cat Zakrzewski, January 2019.

[iii] History, Nov 13, 2009.

[iv] Mason v. West, 31 Misc. 583, 65 N.Y.S. 651 (C.C.N.Y. 1900), rev’d, 70 N.Y.S. 478 (N.Y.A.D.1901).

[v] 52 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1241, 1246.

[vi] National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Feb 2016.

China’s “Cuckoo Land” & Law’s Rule of Completeness

The Communist Party of China has entered the “Gray Zone” of warfare by mobilizing their media operation against America. China’s outrageous turn-table claim that blames America for COVID-19 is the latest attack.  But China’s mass-media projectiles have been dropping for years.  These include paid ads and good news stories planted in major media that hope to lull America into terminal sleep.China_Xi

Take for example, a Chinese paid supplement in the Des Moines Register in September, 2018. The four-page propaganda piece “touted the mutual benefits of U.S.-China trade, built on concern about long-term market losses, and highlighted President Xi Jinping’s three-decades-long relationship with Iowa.”  According to David Skidmore, a political science professor at Drake University, “I think it’s trying to maximize pressure on the administration to change its trade policies toward China by attempting to show White House and Republicans that they’re going to pay a price with the mid-terms.” Aside from the politics, Chinese propaganda has the potential to destabilize democratic institutions. (Des Moines Register, Sep. 26, 2018)

In Washington DC, a TV station run by China’s Communist Party employs 180 journalists and streams to 30 million households. It serves as part of what Mr. Xi has called Beijing’s “publicity front.”  It broadcasts forced confessions to American audiences. In 2013, it broadcast the confession of Peter Humphrey, a British private investigator who was imprisoned in China and accused of illegally selling Chinese citizens’ data. Mr. Humphrey, who has since been released, said he had been drugged, chained to a chair, locked in a cage and then made to read out a statement written by the police in front of the cameras. The station avoids subjects that displease Beijing. During a 2014 visit by Mr. Xi to Greece, a clip that showed him getting off the plane with unruly hair was eradicated from broadcasts. (NY Times, Feb 28 2019 By Paul Mozur)

The sophistication of China’s media war is a fundamental step-up from previous propaganda attacks on western civilization. This is evident when we compare China’s influence operations to Nazi Germany’s battle plans against Great Britain in WWII.

Hitler, “[h]oping for a bloodless victory, yet confronted with the daunting challenge of defeating a nation separated by a formidable sea barrier, prophesied that ‘our real wars will in fact all be fought before military operations begin.  I can quite imagine that we might control Britain in this way.  Or America.’”  According to Hitler, “to produce unrest and revolt in the United States, so that these gentry will have their hands full of their own affairs…One strategy is to destroy the enemy from within, to conquer him through himself.” After the war, some reported Hitler’s strategy as “Cuckoo Land” for lack of effectiveness. (Fleming, Operation Sea Lion, 1957).

China_Hitler CuckooLand

Maybe the Nazi influence operations against Great Britain in WWII were Cuckoo.  Operations were largely visible if one was to look carefully:  pamphlets dropped behind allied lines sought to create public unrest, radio programs by German-accented personalities stirred anti-government sentiment, and the shadowy threat of ‘Fifth Column’ saboteurs sought to poke holes in Britain’s social fabric.  In hindsight, some of the Nazi tactics seem quaint, having “much the same effect which a matador’s scarlet cape has upon a wearying bull.” (Id. p. 306).

One would be remiss to not acknowledge that the Russian cyber threat, to fair elections for example, is also real and has teeth.  Yet it is the Chinese media war, embedding its propaganda campaign in established channels threatens to still the democratic pulse. China has learned from the Cuckoos of history.  Publications such as China Daily and Chinawatch ads in American newspapers exemplify China’s sophisticated propaganda campaign at its best.

China’s media war runs parallel to their logistics power projection.  The Pentagon has reported on China’s ambitions in the Arctic and the threat presented by Beijing’s media campaign.  “China conducts influence operations against cultural institutions, media organizations and the business, academic, and policy communities of the United States, other countries and international institutions to achieve outcomes favorable to its security and military strategy objectives.”


Other sources highlight the expansion of China’s extension of operations with Russia in the Arctic.  Across Latin America and Mexico, China is pouring money into port facilities which provide logistics access to America’s underbelly.  If this two-pronged north-south strategy sounds familiar, it should. China, with Russian support, much like Mussolini’s support to Hitler, has created strategic ‘fronts’ on America’s Arctic and Southern flanks.

The deadly artfulness of Chinese propaganda is evidenced by what goes unsaid.  Anti-Chinese sentiment in Taiwan, violent suppression in Hong Kong, and interference with free expression throughout the Pacific region go unreported.  Day-in-the-life good news stories, divorced from ground truth, impersonate real news.  This is what totalitarian governments do, they suppress all that is disruptive to their communist chokehold on individual liberty.  A businessman lured into their web articulated the Chinese strategy, “[to] earn [Taiwanese] trust first and then their identity.” (US News, Pro-China Groups Step up Offensive, June 25, 2019)

Why, we should ask, have so many good news economic stories out of China–even when tempered by references to the Chinese people who remain desperately poor–been replayed, open-arms, by America’s media mainstream.  Newsroom stakeholders must see China’s shell-game propaganda as contrary to American free press and more humane economic model.  Yet, the lauding of China’s economic success—tempered only for now by outrage over COVID-19–continues to mask China’s horrific domestic failures.

In American law, we have a tool to reveal evidence of China’s propaganda and respond to the threat.  In court, there is something called the “Rule of Completeness.”  This rule dates back at least to English common law.  When evidence is introduced, the other party may require the ‘whole story’ (i.e. the “rest of the story” as Paul Harvey would say) be admitted into evidence. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, this rule allows one party to admit evidence that they might not otherwise have been able to reveal.  The rule is based on fairness.

In the Chinese media war, the propaganda of ‘missing facts,’ can only be won by news editors, our gatekeepers of truth, who must rigorously apply the Rule of Completeness to their editorial decisions.  Investigative reporters must gather the whole story, tell the whole story—at the time of publication, or in legal parlance at the time of trial—contemporaneous with the propaganda of Chinese story-time.  Only in this way can China’s “Cuckoo Land” be thwarted.

And for those interested in how World Justice may be implemented in the future, Justícia 2095 reveals online justice using big-data–bringing the court of public opinion comes to Order on the world stage. Public jury trials are conducted from the comfort of home and office, in real-time. A “Ready Player One” for the courts. But the freewheeling Justícia is fed by its own set of tolls. Wyrand Stark, historian and Justícia Counselor, finds himself caught in its rapidly spinning gears and must race to save himself by proving the difference between law… and justice.

Justicia2095 -customdesign-SEPT2017-SDA-smallpreview

Order Justicia 2095 HERE

Big Data & Justice at War

We are confronted almost daily with braggadocio on the topic of war. Mastery of big data, we are told, is a safeguard against destruction of our civilization, a nuclear deterrent in microchip form, some say—no need for missile silos and lasers when computer denial and attack are unsheathed. Others argue that big data innovations lead us down a different path, beyond human control, and that we are being marched double-time into another stone age. New age or stone age, who knows?

What we do know is that now or later, we are destined to consider and judge more than the technologic tools of war. There will come a day when we again judge the corpus of war leaders, both winners and losers. How are we to judge the faces of war, the deciders, in the era of big data? And who among us, that remains, will sit to judge the accused?

Face of WarIn a future when those blamed are on public trial for unleashing the rabid dogs of war, will civilized people honor something like the Sixth Amendment criminal defendant’s right to “public trial?” If so, then what of the devilish detail—the jury­­?  In America, we do have a Constitution to consider after all; Article III prescribes that the trial of all crimes “shall be by Jury…. ”

To date, no public jury has held the reigns of post-war justice. We had the Nuremberg Tribunal (eight judges, four prosecutors, and a slew of defense attorneys) for the elite criminal gang in WWII. America now has the Military Commissions Act to try “alien unlawful enemy combatants,” true, but the Act does not define due process for state-sponsored warfare. And the future of the International Criminal Court is said to be in question, and that’s “bad news for women.” The future of justice for “lawful” state-sponsored ringleaders, then, is unknown.

How then will the Tribunals of future warfare apply Big Data to impose public justice?  What process will be followed? What questions will be asked? Will War Tribunals be limited to judges who decide law and fact, or will there be a public jury panel? If a jury is to decide, then armed with big data should the decision-pool be limited to twelve jurors, twelve-times-twelve, or beyond counting, to an infinite on-line audience, the mob?

Nuremberg Justice Case.jpgAs counterpoint to this future dilemma, we may reflect back on the old-world challenges faced by the Nuremburg Tribunal.  At its inception, the Tribunal’s proof could be ticked off on a stack of three-by-five cards. Eventually, just 1,900 documents would prove key elements of the case. (See, Conot, Robert E., Justice at Nuremberg, pp. 24, 38 (1983)).  The entire body of evidence, trial testimony, and decades-long struggle to render justice for Holocaust atrocities, might today be stored on a lone thumb drive.

When the guns of a future war cease, the mountains of virtual-evidence from every side will quickly exceed herculean proportions. Thumb drives will have been replaced by invisible fists squeezing out gobs of big data. Are we to presume that a small group of judges and prosecutors will sort through these oceans of big data archives as one would finger through index cards?

Now is the time for us to have the discussion. The Court of Public Opinion has already co-opted a vast swath of the judicial function—Multiple Social Media platforms dole out collateral justice, unrestrained consequences, in the blink of a lie.

Our culture is tweaked like a refresh button almost daily by decades-old social media posts. Employers hire and fire based upon silly on-line selfies. We fear future consequences from the virtual breadcrumb trail to those little mistakes of our long-forgotten past.

Is it to be expected that a socially synchronized public beaten and torn by the ravages of war will regress and allow a covey of judges and lawyers to decide the fate of war criminals?

Sooner than later, it may be judicious for us to deliberate like a jury of old, with an eye toward reaching agreement, just how to evaluate and decide future Justice at War.

What questions would you ask in a future War Tribunal?

Justicia2095 -customdesign-SEPT2017-SDA-smallpreview

Amazon Link: https://amzn.to/2Lx1Fcy