Hi-Tech Crime CRIM30375

Who’s to blame when driverless cars have an accident? Raja Jurdak , CSIRO and Salil S. Kanhere , UNSW The news that an Uber self-driving vehicle has killed a pedestrian in the US has made headlines around the world. It’s a reminder that the era of self-driving cars is fast approaching. Decades of research into advanced sensors, mapping, navigation and control methods have now come to fruition and autonomous cars are starting to hit the roads in pilot trials . But partial or full autonomy raises the question of who is to blame in the case of an accident involving a self-driving car? In conventional (human-driven) cars, the answer is simple: the driver is responsible because they are in control. When it comes to autonomous vehicles, it isn’t so clear cut. We propose a blockchain-based framework that uses sensor data to ascertain liability in accidents involving self-driving cars. Read more: We must plan the driverless city to avoid being hostage to t

AI profiling: the social and moral hazards of 'predictive' policing Shutterstock/tana888 Mike Rowe , Northumbria University, Newcastle A UK police force which was using an algorithm designed to help it make custody decisions has been forced to alter it amid concerns that it could discriminate against poor people. Durham Constabulary has been developing an algorithm to better predict the risk posed by offenders and to ensure that only the most “suitable” are granted police bail. But the programme has also highlighted potential social inequalities that can be maintained through the use of these big data strategies. This might seem surprising, since an apparent feature of such programmes is that they are apparently neutral: technocratic evaluations of risk based on information that is “value-free” (based on objective calculation, eschewing subjective bias). In practice, the apparent neutrality of the data is questionable. It

Sexting: a modern 'crime' that could be on a child’s police record for life Shutterstock/NongMars Michelle McManus , University of Central Lancashire and Louise Almond , University of Liverpool Criminalising children and young people for life for “sexting” is an injustice. It is an overreaction to a modern day problem that legislation and the criminal justice system is yet to catch up with. Although some advances have been made when dealing with young people sexting, under the new “no formal action” response (also called Outcome 21 ), this discretionary guidance is still recorded on police systems and could potentially hang over that young person for the rest of their life . There are a number of key offences that might be committed by both children involved in a sexting scenario, such as the one below. A 15-year-old girl receives a text from a boy in her class, who is the same age and she finds attractive. The photo shows a