Syllabus – law for algorithms – harvard wiki anxiety neurosis meaning in hindi

Human-designed algorithms — from the digital to the genetic — reach ever more deeply into our lives, creating alternate and sometimes enhanced manifestations of social and biological processes. In doing so, algorithms yield powerful levers for good and ill amidst a sea of unforeseen consequences. nanoxia deep silence 6 This cross-cutting and interdisciplinary course investigates several aspects of algorithms and their impact on society and law. Specifically, the course connects concepts of proof, verifiability, privacy, security, and trust in computer science with legal concepts of autonomy, consent, governance, and liability, and examines interests at the evolving intersection of DNA technology and the law.

This seminar consists of weekly meetings through the Fall 2018 semester, to be attended simultaneously by faculty, students and scholars based at Harvard, Berkeley, Columbia and Boston University thanks to the IT support of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

Sessions will be held every Thursday at 3-5pm EST.

The course is open to Law students and Computer Science students. Students from other disciplines are welcome to contact the course staff in their institution and join at their discretion. Students will be expected to be present in all lectures, and to write a paper on a topic related to the course. For the purpose of writing the papers, students will be grouped into interdisciplinary (and possibly inter-institution) teams and will be expected to work together.

CS Students: This seminar will be very different than traditional Computer Science classes. Prior to class discussion, students will be given a reading list that covers the relevant technology and policy issues, and will be expected to read the material before the class. The assignment will be different than standard CS assignments and will comprise of writing a paper on a research topic that combines law and technology and is relevant to the topics covered in the class.

Prerequisites: The course is open to PhD students. Undergraduate and MSc students should contact the instructor in their institution and can be admitted at their discretion. Prior knowledge in cryptography or computer security is beneficial but not required.

Required: Executive Summary and Sections 3 (The Role of Scientific Validity in the Courts) and 4 (Scientific Criteria for Validity and Reliability of Forensic Feature-Comparison Methods) of "Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods" PCAST report

• Examples: proofs of innocence (dna not matching), proof of compliance (mathematical and physical–nuclear disarmament example), proofs of consistency, proofs of following a protocol instructions, anonymity for block chains transactions and cryptocurrency.

• If a probabilistic notion of ‘proof’ is to be adopted by courts in a variety of disputes, how does such a notion map onto the landscape of different standards of evidence (reasonable suspicion, probable cause, substantial evidence, preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or ‘beyond reasonable doubt’)?

This section will examine the problem of identity in an algorithmic world, and what it means to be a person in the eyes of the law. anoxic brain injury post cardiac arrest We will examine the rhetorical framings that infuse our conception of living subjects, legal persons, non-persons and things. The line between human and subhuman, or person and thing, is given new urgency in an era when data amalgamations overwrite traditional concepts of legal personhood, individual responsibility, agency, and personal liberty. The data bits that inform everything from our financial status to medical, genetic, political or criminal profiles are being sorted into probabilistic accounts-of-our-being in ways that may undermine heretofore settled jurisprudential assumptions of mobility, rehabilitation, forgiveness, fairness and equity. These new ontologies present urgent challenges to long-standing notions of integrity of the body, the limits of incarceration, medical experimentation, and the right to due process. When risk assessments become the overdetermined markers of “life chances,” law and policy too often treat those assessments as inevitable outcomes. We too often move from information about contingencies to the foreclosure of options based on risk-aversion. This is a problem not merely of those human engineers who build unconscious or historical biases into programs of course, but also of algorithms conversing with algorithms, building complexly abstracted taxonomic and diachronic universes from crowd-sourced signifiers and collective trends.

We will start by looking at deep-seated habits of marking, classification, and assortment buried in the diction and syntax of Anglo-American speech/thought/policy as well as computational-design-as-language. We will then move on to more cross-cultural and interdisciplinary comparisons of a.) stereotype formation and stereotype threat; b.) rumor, pseudo-science and conspiracy theories; c.) conventions of respect and modes of address; d.) transmission of affect in online contexts of hospitality, ghettoization, political franchise, gaming and machine-learning. We will end by looking at how corporeal integrity and constitutional boundary meet up with viral fear; and how that fear may be contained (or not) against the backdrop of rights to freedom of expression, radical individualism and nationalist identities. anoxic brain injury symptoms We will consider how technologies whose memory races toward the infinite might conflict with what is perhaps a human need to forgive, to forget and to reinvent oneself; and, conversely, how technologies that sweep away the long term with a flood of short-term present micro-seconds may threaten cohering practices of memorialization and never-forgetting–also perhaps necessary for a sense of self as belonging.

This session focuses on the impact of new technology – in particular the distributed ledger or blockchain — on the theory and practice of contract law. In the 1990s, legislators around the world came to accept that consent could be validly formed and expressed through digital media, and courts embraced, to various degrees and with different levels of qualification, the idea that consumer assent to terms drafted unilaterally by sellers and service providers could be implied even in casual one-click protocols. Scholars have since explored the consequences of the digitalization of market transactions, paying attention to questions of efficiency, equity, and distributional effects. New and more difficult issues are raised by the advent of blockchains. This session explores some of these issues, including: A. Jurisdiction (because contracts concluded on electronic platforms of global reach are by definition stateless, typical sources of state control on private autonomy such as ‘public policy’ are disabled). B. Adjudication (some scholars see arbitration as the only possible forum for the resolution of smart contracts disputes, given the complete detachment of smart contracts from any particular jurisdiction; others conceive of algorithmic – i.e. non-human – dispute resolution mechanisms); C. hypoxic ischemic brain injury recovery Social Contracting (crowd-sourced consent may enable self-governance by sub-groups of people on such public-law issues as self-imposed fiscal contribution and the pursuit of social goods, again defined in terms that are no longer state-centered or anchored to any particular geography); D. Flexibility v. Immutability (smart contracts are often advertised as ‘efficient’ because their execution leaves no room for error; yet, economic theory has identified a number of efficiencies in the possibility of renegotiation and flexibility. Could machine learning fill in the blanks of incomplete contracts, thereby reconciling the irrevocability of ex-ante consent with the need for efficient — and equitable — flexibility?). E. Delegation (Autonomous agents’ increasing ability to transact for goods and services, ranging from laundry detergent to retirement funds, on consumers’ behalf, implicates consumer protection and virtual assistant sovereignty).

• Patricia Williams, The Alchemy of Race and Rights, HUP 1991, Chapter 8, The Pain of Word Bondage,,%20%20The%20Pain%20of%20Word%20Bondage.pdf [also assigned for week 1; please review at least through p. 148].

• Top Reading Priority: Chapter 4 (Legal and Computer Science Approaches to Privacy) of National Academies of Sciences reportFederal Statistics, Multiple Data Sources, And Privacy Protection, Next Steps, available at

We will present the concept of “secure computation”—a way to perform computations on sensitive data, so that even the parties that perform the computation learn nothing except the result of the computation. hypoxic anoxic brain injury causes This means that the original data used in the computation, or any intermediate value, remain hidden. The concept breaks the traditional belief that “a piece of data cannot be used by an entity without being fully exposed to the using entity.’’ We will show some algorithmic methods, will discuss use cases, and consider the legal ramifications.

For coordination, safety, effectiveness, and fairness, norms to govern digital worlds including the Internet work across multiple systems, geographies, and modes. These include national governments, international organizations, fora, and agreements, subnational governments, private sector commercial agreements, civil society nonprofit organizations, universities, technical standards and professional organizations, and multistage-holder negotiations. Looking at historical developments and contemporary issues, we will map the complex and only partially coordinated sources and methods of governance.

This class will provide a look into the trustworthiness of computer systems. We will start with a technical overview of the challenges with making complex computer systems correct, trustworthy, and secure. We will then review the ecosystem of malware, exploits and defenses from a technical and economic points of view, and then discuss the social and political aspects. We will then discuss potential legal paths for improving the current dismal state of affair with respect to trustworthiness of computer security. Finally we will then review the challenge of electronic voting, in the context of trustworthiness of computer systems.

Online intermediaries play some role in virtually every sphere of our individual and collective lives. panic attack symptoms nausea From entertainment to social networking to travel planning to consumer purchases to political organizing, these technology providers enable and facilitate individuals’ commercial, personal, and civic engagement with other individuals, communities, and the world.

In the decades since the Internet became a feature of our daily lives, debates have raged over the desirability (from a legal and policy perspective) and feasibility (from a technological perspective) of regulating these intermediaries across different areas of substantive law. Some of these debates involve calls for intermediaries to do more to police their users’ behavior. Intellectual property rights-holders, for example, have sued intermediaries such as YouTube and eBay, claiming that they are not doing enough to prevent copyright and trademark infringement by users of their services. And Congress has recently revisited its decision to exempt intermediaries from liability for other types of torts enabled by their platforms, such as sex crimes and human trafficking.

At other times, these debates have involved calls for regulating intermediaries’ own conduct that threatens direct harm to their users, competitors, or other social or economic interests. Privacy advocates, for example, call for greater scrutiny of platforms’ use of subscriber data and browsing habits; others have contended that Google’s anticompetitive use of its search algorithms may violate antitrust and competition laws.

While the details of these debates differ, they all implicate a fundamental tension between a sort of technological libertarianism, on the one hand, and an alternative vision in which regulators can and should scrutinize intermediaries’ business models and design choices. This class session will explore these competing visions, with an eye toward legal, philosophical, and technological context.

The main assignment in the course will be writing a position paper on a topic related to the material discussed in class. (We will also have a list of suggested topics.) The paper will be written by groups of 2 or 3 students, where each group must contain at least one law student and one CS student.