{"title":"Digital ecology: Artificial intelligence impact on legal and environmental sphere","authors":"A. Vasiliev, Y. Pechatnova, A. Mamychev","doi":"10.15421/2020_222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"and cannot be performed by even advanced artificial intelligence relying on deep-learning techniques. In addition, lawyer employment and wages have grown steadily over the last twenty years, evincing that the legal profession has benefited from new technologies, as it has throughout its history. Lastly, were large-scale automation of legal work possible, core societal values would counsel against it (Markovic, 2019). Ying Hu discusses the responsibility of robots, when a robot harms humans. He suggest that there are any grounds for holding it criminally liable for its misconduct, provided that the robot is capable of making, acting on, and communicating the reasons behind its moral decisions (Hu, 2019). If such a robot fails to observe the minimum moral standards that society requires of it, labeling it as a criminal can effectively fulfill criminal law’s function of censuring wrongful conduct and alleviating the emotional harm that may be inflicted on human victims. Imposing criminal liability on robots does not absolve robot manufacturers, trainers, or owners of their individual criminal liability. The former is not rendered redundant by the latter. It is possible that no human is sufficiently at fault in causing a robot to commit a particular morally wrongful action. Additionally, imposing criminal liability on robots might sometimes have significant instrumental value, such as helping to identify culpable individuals and serving as a self-policing device for individuals who interact with robots. Finally, treating robots that satisfy the above-mentioned conditions as moral agents appears much more plausible if we adopt a less human-centric account of moral agency. R.G. Wright also considers that most of the existing discussions of advanced robots as potential rights-bearers focus on the idea of some degree of consciousness, or at best, of self-consciousness with or without a capacity for sentient experience (Wright, 2019). Secondly, the legal regulation of cryptocurrencies is unanimously received by the scientific community. So, at less than a decade old, Bitcoin and other virtual currencies have had the major societal impact, and proven to be the unique payment systems challenge for law enforcement, financial regulatory authorities worldwide, and the investment community. Rapid introduction and diffusion of technological changes throughout society, such as the blockchain that serves as Bitcoin’s crypto-foundation, continue to exceed the ability of law and regulation to keep pace. During 2017 alone, the market price of Bitcoin rose 1,735%, from about $970 to $14,292, causing an investor feeding frenzy. As of September 11, 2018, a total of 1,935 cryptocurrencies are reported, having an approximate market capitalization of $191.54 billion at that date. A brief history of the fast moving adoption of blockchain-based technology is provided, along with a look at the efforts of regulators to keep up with the staggering worldwide growth in the usage of virtual currencies (Bitcoin, 2018). By the why, there are lots of cases, when market participants engage in fraud under the guise of offering digital instruments, especially with the use of virtual currencies. Though, the law enforcement has no opportunity to stop and prevent fraud in the offer and sale of digital instruments. Nima Zahadat points that despite the phenomenal growth in the digital world and crimes committed using digital techniques and tools, there are literally no foundational requirements to perform digital forensic investigations. While there are several private and mostly for-profit organizations that “sell” training and certifications regarding digital forensics credentials, at the international and state level, there seem to be nothing of the kind. However, digital forensic investigation is one of the prominent fields emerging from the broad discipline of forensic science [24]. Thirdly, smart contracts may prove the powerful Ukrainian Journal of Ecology Ukrainian Journal of Ecology, 10(5), 2020 way to license copyright material and to provide higher levels of transparency in financial flows to creators. However, these achievements and the promise they hold are largely dependent on blockchain technologies achieving a degree of development, scalability, reliability and market adoption difficult to foresee at this stage. Still, should blockchain technology reach its market potential, it may have significant—perhaps transformative—impact on copyright in the digital environment (Blockchain, 2018). Also smart contracts suppose the specific procedure of personal identification. That is why, Lauren Stewart insists on that biometric identification technology is playing an increasingly significant role in the lives of consumers all over the world today. However, despite the benefits of increased data security and ease of consumer access to businesses’ services, lack of widespread biometric data regulation creates the potential for commercial misuse. Although some states of the United States of America, such as Illinois, Texas, and Washington, have adopted comprehensive biometric data regulation statutes, the statutes do not offer the consistent approach. Therefore, as more states are going to regulate businesses’ collection and use of biometric data, they should enact statutes that seek to balance protecting consumers’ biometric data from discriminatory use and businesses’ use of biometric data to enhance security and provide improved products and services.","PeriodicalId":23422,"journal":{"name":"Ukrainian Journal of Ecology","volume":"10 1","pages":"150-154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ukrainian Journal of Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15421/2020_222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
and cannot be performed by even advanced artificial intelligence relying on deep-learning techniques. In addition, lawyer employment and wages have grown steadily over the last twenty years, evincing that the legal profession has benefited from new technologies, as it has throughout its history. Lastly, were large-scale automation of legal work possible, core societal values would counsel against it (Markovic, 2019). Ying Hu discusses the responsibility of robots, when a robot harms humans. He suggest that there are any grounds for holding it criminally liable for its misconduct, provided that the robot is capable of making, acting on, and communicating the reasons behind its moral decisions (Hu, 2019). If such a robot fails to observe the minimum moral standards that society requires of it, labeling it as a criminal can effectively fulfill criminal law’s function of censuring wrongful conduct and alleviating the emotional harm that may be inflicted on human victims. Imposing criminal liability on robots does not absolve robot manufacturers, trainers, or owners of their individual criminal liability. The former is not rendered redundant by the latter. It is possible that no human is sufficiently at fault in causing a robot to commit a particular morally wrongful action. Additionally, imposing criminal liability on robots might sometimes have significant instrumental value, such as helping to identify culpable individuals and serving as a self-policing device for individuals who interact with robots. Finally, treating robots that satisfy the above-mentioned conditions as moral agents appears much more plausible if we adopt a less human-centric account of moral agency. R.G. Wright also considers that most of the existing discussions of advanced robots as potential rights-bearers focus on the idea of some degree of consciousness, or at best, of self-consciousness with or without a capacity for sentient experience (Wright, 2019). Secondly, the legal regulation of cryptocurrencies is unanimously received by the scientific community. So, at less than a decade old, Bitcoin and other virtual currencies have had the major societal impact, and proven to be the unique payment systems challenge for law enforcement, financial regulatory authorities worldwide, and the investment community. Rapid introduction and diffusion of technological changes throughout society, such as the blockchain that serves as Bitcoin’s crypto-foundation, continue to exceed the ability of law and regulation to keep pace. During 2017 alone, the market price of Bitcoin rose 1,735%, from about $970 to $14,292, causing an investor feeding frenzy. As of September 11, 2018, a total of 1,935 cryptocurrencies are reported, having an approximate market capitalization of $191.54 billion at that date. A brief history of the fast moving adoption of blockchain-based technology is provided, along with a look at the efforts of regulators to keep up with the staggering worldwide growth in the usage of virtual currencies (Bitcoin, 2018). By the why, there are lots of cases, when market participants engage in fraud under the guise of offering digital instruments, especially with the use of virtual currencies. Though, the law enforcement has no opportunity to stop and prevent fraud in the offer and sale of digital instruments. Nima Zahadat points that despite the phenomenal growth in the digital world and crimes committed using digital techniques and tools, there are literally no foundational requirements to perform digital forensic investigations. While there are several private and mostly for-profit organizations that “sell” training and certifications regarding digital forensics credentials, at the international and state level, there seem to be nothing of the kind. However, digital forensic investigation is one of the prominent fields emerging from the broad discipline of forensic science [24]. Thirdly, smart contracts may prove the powerful Ukrainian Journal of Ecology Ukrainian Journal of Ecology, 10(5), 2020 way to license copyright material and to provide higher levels of transparency in financial flows to creators. However, these achievements and the promise they hold are largely dependent on blockchain technologies achieving a degree of development, scalability, reliability and market adoption difficult to foresee at this stage. Still, should blockchain technology reach its market potential, it may have significant—perhaps transformative—impact on copyright in the digital environment (Blockchain, 2018). Also smart contracts suppose the specific procedure of personal identification. That is why, Lauren Stewart insists on that biometric identification technology is playing an increasingly significant role in the lives of consumers all over the world today. However, despite the benefits of increased data security and ease of consumer access to businesses’ services, lack of widespread biometric data regulation creates the potential for commercial misuse. Although some states of the United States of America, such as Illinois, Texas, and Washington, have adopted comprehensive biometric data regulation statutes, the statutes do not offer the consistent approach. Therefore, as more states are going to regulate businesses’ collection and use of biometric data, they should enact statutes that seek to balance protecting consumers’ biometric data from discriminatory use and businesses’ use of biometric data to enhance security and provide improved products and services.