The nine circles of hell for Computer Science and the Law

Nine Circles of Hell for Computer Science...
in the dock, with apologies to Dante

These are (in order):

1. Cloud (jurisdiction)
2. Things (liability)
3. ML (explicability)
4. Blockchain (privacy)
5. Compliance (cybersecurity)
6. Robots (safety)
7. Singularity (upload)
8. Legol(*) (sustainability)
9. QC (probable cause)


* as with John Cleese interviews with his therapist, where moving house is more traumatic than divorce
and only just after loss of a loved one and losing a limb, I think explaining computer science for law
is almost as hard as explaining law to computer scientists, and only marginally easier than
explaining Quantum Computing...

1. Cloud (jurisdiction)

I don't think we're in Kansas any more...

2. Things (liability)

The thing is, this is all your fault.

3. Machine Learning (explicability)

I told you so

4. Blockchain (privacy)

"You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus"

5. Compliance (cybersecurity)

You can't prove a system secure, only that it is (now) insecure,
so how do you claim compliance (see 1,2,3,4,9)

New angle - Privacy Enhancing Technologies are pretty hard to explain, too - if they are used as part of compliance, how can you tell?

6. Robots (safety)

"I thought you said 'a robot shall not inure a human being or allow one to come to arms through inaction".

7. Singularity (upload)

"where have all the people gone, today"

8. Legol(*) (sustainability)

see also
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jac22/emergence.pdf

9. Quantum Computing  (probable cause)

you are trying to persuade a jury
that someone is guilty
beyond a shadow of a doubt

here are four possible Quantum  Computational examples of algorithms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Jury
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)