Federal Judicial Center reports that the extent of social media profiling employed during voir dire is unknown

According to “Jurors’ and Attorneys’ Use of Social Media During Voir Dire, Trials, and Deliberations,” A Report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management prepared by Meghan Dunn, Research Associate, Federal Judicial Center and released May 1, 2014:

 “Attorneys’ use of social media to research prospective jurors during voir dire is difficult to both detect and quantify; most judges do not know whether attorneys are accessing potential jurors’ social media profiles during voir dire, and most do not address the issue with attorneys.”

To access the entire report, and to see how infrequently judges report juror misuse of social media during trials, click here. 

Congressmember Schiff is giving “serious consideration” to a U.S. Senate run in 2016

A spokesperson for the potential campaign of U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) today issued this statement to Etopia News:

"Since Senator Boxer announced her retirement, I have been encouraged by many Californians to run for her seat in 2016.  As the opportunity to run for a California senate seat comes around very seldom and I would relish the chance to serve the entire state, I am giving the matter serious consideration.

"Last week, I was named to the top Democratic position on the intelligence committee, and I am deeply grateful for the confidence that my House colleagues have placed in me. The demands and responsibilities of this new position are considerable, and I hope to reach a decision in the near future after consulting with my family, friends and constituents."

Up until now, this race has been dominated by the presence in it of California Attorney General Kamala Harris and the decision not to contest the seat by billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer.

Lack of interest by government in regulating runaway AI exposed

So far, efforts by Etopia News to determine the views of elected California officials on the issue of regulating the development and implementation of advanced artificial intelligence systems have only revealed this is a subject not yet on the radar of those charged with protecting the public from possible negative side-effects from building software that can outperform humans at most jobs and get into all manner of other mischief, even if it doesn’t evolve into Skynet or the Matrix.

From newly-elected California State Senator Bob Hertzberg, came this reply to an inquiry about what the state legislature might be considering by way of regulating powerful computer systems capable of simulating human-level intelligence, or self-evolving into systems much more intelligent than humans:

“As for high-level intelligence, frankly, that’s not an issue that’s come up during the seven days we’ve been in session. Maybe someday soon but for now we’re tryin’ like heck to get our heads around tax reform, energy, local guvment, etc. “

Aurelio Rojas, a spokesperson for California State Senator Jerry Hill, who represents a large swathe of Silicon Valley, shared by phone the general proposition that the slowness of the legislative process, being more cumbersome than the process of technological innovation, results in some problems not being addressed until after they manifest themselves acutely.  In the case of a self-aware computer system, waiting until after it’s operational might mean it’s too late to do anything about it.

Rojas also pointed out that electeds tend to respond more actively to issues that are raised by organized groups of their constituents, and that no one has yet come to Senator Hill asking that he look into the questions of regulating super-intelligent computers or preventing a runaway AI.  No one is asking for public hearings on the subject or asking for specific safeguards against powerful AI systems that could and might routinely violate personal and commercial privacy and cause other negative effects.

There is massive public concern about privacy violations via computer-based surveillance, but the opposition to this surveillance is based on worries about the privacy violations, not the existence of the AI systems that make them possible.  This is only one of the things that powerful AI can get up to.  Greater interest from electeds could go some way towards igniting the effort to regulate runaway AI, even if they haven’t yet received calls and e-mails from constituents urging them to look into this emerging threat. 

It is, in short, a tremendous opportunity to demonstrate exactly those qualities of foresight, understanding, and action that constitute true leadership. .

U.S. DoJ message to U.S. Attorneys concerning enforcement of anti-cannabis laws on tribal land--the "Wilkinson Memorandum"

On October 28, 2014, Monty Wilkinson, Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys in the United States Department of Justice, sent a memorandum whose subject line was “Policy Statement Regarding Marijuana Issues in Indian Country” to all United States Attorneys, all Tribal Liaisons, and others in the Department.  You can read this memo here.  

It begins by acknowledging the progress made towards the legalization of cannabis and the impetus coming from the tribes for more information:

“With a number of states legalizing marijuana for use and production, some tribes have requested guidance on the enforcement of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) on tribal lands by the United States Attorneys’ offices.”

Director Wilkinson continues:

“With these requests in mind, the Attorney General’s Native American Issues Subcommittee has reviewed the Memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General, dated August 29, 2013, regarding marijuana enforcement (“Cole Memorandum”) and considered its impact on Indian Country.”

He next enumerates the Eight Priorities that the Cole Memorandum enshrines (for now) as the criteria according to which U.S. Attorneys should determine whether or not to prosecute individuals and institutions complying with their respective state laws regarding the production, distribution, sale, and use of cannabis, even if they are still in violation of the Federal prohibition against cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug along with heroin and LSD.

 He goes on to say that:

“The eight priorities in the Cole Memorandum will guide United States Attorneys’ marijuana enforcement efforts in Indian Country, including in the event that sovereign Indian Nations seek to legalize the cultivation or use of marijuana in Indian Country.”

The final paragraph is an instruction to the U.S. Attorneys to keep the home office fully-informed about any matters relating to the enforcement of anti-cannabis laws in Indian Country, “in order to keep the Department’s leadership apprised of significant issues and to maintain consistency throughout the Department.”

DoJ Supervisory Public Affairs Specialist Wyn Hornbuckle today also provided this additional statement to Etopia News:

“The Justice Department is committed to dealing with tribes on a government-to-government basis.  This policy statement recognizes that Indian country is incredibly diverse, and different tribes will have different perspectives on enforcement priorities that are in the best interest of their community’s public safety. Some tribes are very concerned with public safety implications, such as the impact on youth, and the use of tribal lands for the cultivation or transport of marijuana, while others have explored decriminalization and other approaches. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and nothing in the Cole memorandum or this policy statement alters the authority or jurisdiction of the United States to enforce federal law in Indian Country or elsewhere. Each U.S. Attorney will assess the threats and circumstances in his or her district, and consult closely with tribal partners and the Justice Department when significant issues or enforcement decisions arise in this area.” 

He also provided some additional background for context:

“The August 29, 2013 ‘Cole Memorandum’ states that ‘The Department’s guidance in this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health, and other law enforcement interests.’   The memorandum goes on to note such jurisdictions ‘must provide the necessary resources and demonstrate the willingness to enforce their laws and regulations in a manner that ensures they do not undermine federal enforcement priorities.’ One such effective measure is ‘to prevent diversion of marijuana outside of the regulated system and to other states.’”

This move by the administration is echoed in a similar provision in the recently-passed 1.1 trillion spending bill, which, according to the Huffington Post,

“includes an amendment that prohibits the Department of Justice from using funds to go after state-legal medical cannabis programs. If the bill is signed into law, it will bring the federal government one step closer to ending raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, as well as stopping arrests of individuals involved with pot businesses that are complying with state law.”  

Wyn Hornbuckle at DoJ also recommended these additional pieces of coverage of this issue:

Could legal pot sales be coming to Seneca’s reservations?

DOJ Says Indian Tribes Can Grow and Sell Marijuana