Love.Law.Robots. by Ang Hou Fu

news

Feature image

In 2021, I discovered something exciting — an application of machine learning that was both mind-blowing and practical.

The premise was simple. Type a description of the code you want in your editor, and GitHub Copilot will generate the code. It was terrific, and many people, including myself, were excited to use it.

🚀 I just got access to @github Copilot and it's super amazing!!! This is going to save me so much time!! Check out the short video below! #GitHubCopilot I think I'll spend more time writing function descriptions now than the code itself :D pic.twitter.com/HKXJVtGffm

— abhishek (@abhi1thakur) June 30, 2021

The idea that you can prompt a machine to generate code for you is obviously interesting for contract lawyers. I believe we are getting closer every day. I am waiting for my early access to Spellbook.

As a poorly trained and very busy programmer, it feels like I am a target of Github Copilot. The costs was also not so ridiculous. (Spellbook Legal costs $89 a month compared to Copilot's $10 a month) Even so, I haven't tried it for over a year. I wasn’t comfortable enough with the idea and I wasn’t sure how to express it.

Now I can. I recently came across a website proposing to investigate Github Copilot. The main author is Matthew Butterick. He’s the author of Typography for Lawyers and this site proudly uses the Equity typeface.

GitHub Copilot investigation · Joseph Saveri Law Firm & Matthew ButterickGitHub Copilot investigation

In short, the training of GitHub Copilot on open source repositories it hosts probably raises questions on whether such use complies with its copyright licenses. Is it fair use to use publicly accessible code for computational analysis? You might recall that Singapore recently passed an amendment to the Copyright Act providing an exception for computational data analysis. If GitHub Copilot is right that it is fair use, any code anywhere is game to be consumed by the learning machine.

Of course, the idea that it might be illegal hasn’t exactly stopped me from trying.

The key objection to GitHub Copilot is that it is not open source. By packaging the world’s open-source code in an AI model, and spitting it out to its user with no context, a user only interacts with Github Copilot. It is, in essence, a coding walled garden.

Copi­lot intro­duces what we might call a more self­ish inter­face to open-source soft­ware: just give me what I want! With Copi­lot, open-source users never have to know who made their soft­ware. They never have to inter­act with a com­mu­nity. They never have to con­tribute.

For someone who wants to learn to code, this enticing idea is probably a double-edged sword. You could probably swim around using prompts with your AI pair programmer, but without any context, you are not learning much. If I wanted to know how something works, I would like to run it, read its code and interact with its community. I am a member of a group of people with shared goals, not someone who just wants to consume other people’s work.

Matthew Butterick might end up with enough material to sue Microsoft, and the legal issues raised will be interesting for the open-source community. For now, though, I am going to stick to programming the hard way.

#OpenSource #Programming #GitHubCopilot #DataMining #Copyright #MachineLearning #News #Newsletter #tech #TechnologyLaw

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

One can have a variety of opinions about the pandemic but I will insist on this one. It made everyone treat online not as a cute sideshow, but as an essential part of working life.

While stuck at home, I made it a point to attend any conference or talk online that seemed adjacent to my interests. I attended talks on machine learning and AI. I even learnt a bit of linguistics.

One of the more life-changing seminars I attended was the first Bucerius Legal Tech Essentials in 2020. In short, I highly recommend it for someone who doesn't have much time but needs to dive deep and swim wide in this field. They lived up to their taglines: “ Curated. Intense. Remote.

You swim wide because they cover a wide gamut of speakers, from academics, thought leaders and entrepreneurs with their own LegalTech companies.

You dive deep mainly because the speakers are talking about their expertise (this isn't a panel show). I recalled that many speakers took questions, so you can engage with them.

The only bad thing was that since all the speakers were based on both sides of the Atlantic, the timing was horrendous for the other side of the world. I remember falling asleep in front of my desk, trying to figure out the Six Sigma rule around 1 in the morning.

Nevertheless, I didn't think I was the only person from South East Asia attending the talks. During the customary roll call of various attendees at the start of each session, you would get a taste of how global interest in LegalTech was.

People in Singapore would also get a taste of Bucerius Legal Tech Essentials when Prof Daniel Katz, one of the “hosts” of Legal Tech Essentials, gave a lecture in 2021 at SMU, Singapore. It was a whirlwind of 500 slides in 60 minutes. Note that there are no certifications or brownie points for attending or interacting. These people stayed up late for the LegalTech.

It seems that being in Singapore has borne other fruit. 2022's Legal Tech Essentials would feature timings more convenient for this part of the world. This means 8:30 pm here... which I reckon is a marked improvement over 1 am.

Legal Tech Essentials 2022Curated, Intense, Remote.You can sign up for updates at their site.

So if you're interested in the field but don't know where to start, I strongly recommend this. I didn't enjoy it as much in 2021 since I found most topics less effective a second time. Maybe I will give this another try.

At the end of 2021, I repeatedly feared that online seminars would be buried and in-person conferences would be back in vogue. I'm glad that Legal Tech Essentials is back and still remote. It was a light in a very dark time of the pandemic, but now I hope it will still light a few light bulbs to anyone interested in Legal and Technology.

#Newsletter #LegalTech #Lawyers #News #tech #TechnologyLaw #Training #Presentation

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

Like most people, I hate to be wrong. But if I got things right all the time, I’d be a judge, not a blog writer.

More than a year ago, I highlighted the only case on the Personal Data Protection Act I am aware of that has reached the High Court. It was a “rare sighting” of a private action under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).

In the post, I concluded that the right of private action was “meaningless” because the High Court held that you cannot claim “distress and loss of control”. That was, after all, what most people face when their privacy is breached. Even so, I thought that individuals going after companies for a breach was too much for one person to bear. That case, after all, concerned a rich, disgruntled data subject facing an intransigent data controller.

The case had gone on appeal to the Court of Appeal, which is understandable, given that the PDPA has never been before the highest court of the land, so clearly there are interesting and novel legal questions to be heard.

Furthermore, the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) also participated in the appeal. This is noteworthy because it intervened in essentially a private action. However, as mentioned above, the questions are novel, so the drafters of the PDPA should have a say.

The AGC's submissions largely echoed what I accepted in my previous post. This was essentially how we expected to read the legislation. This included accepting the general belief that emotional distress is not claimable under law.

Well, the Court of Appeal has spoken, and I was wrong.

The Court of Appeal held that “distress and loss of control” can be the subject of a right to private action. This was different from the common law, which generally does not regard emotional distress as actionable. (You can’t make a claim against another person for making you feel sad; such is “the vicissitudes of life”.)

What do I read from this? The Court probably abhors meaningless rights. As noted in my previous article, following the lines of the Government and the High Court’s judgement, the private action was not useful to anyone who had their privacy breached.

With the Court of Appeal’s pronouncement, the right to private action has more life in it. However, it’s still probably impracticable to exercise. Not only does a claimant have to bear the costs and stress of litigation, but it also depends on the actions of the respondent. In the instant case, the respondent explicitly (and inexplicably) refused to undertake not to use data without consent. The private action would be wholly unnecessary if everyone acted reasonably.

It was surprising to me that the Government’s position was not accepted by the Court of Appeal. The big picture is that there will always be some uncertainty about how the Court would read a piece of legislation in a dispute. This might make the Government’s recent insistence that only Parliament can decide what is marriage more understandable.

For now, until the Court of Appeal says so, maybe we shouldn’t be too confident when we make predictions on what the law is.

#Law #Singapore #SupremeCourtSingapore #AGC #ConsentObligation #Enforcement #Government #Judgements #Lawyers #Legislation #News #PersonalDataProtectionAct #Undertakings

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

I was shocked when Mailgun informed me that they would charge me $35 a month to send emails. $35 for sending 150 emails a month is a tad ridiculous. In the end, I managed to switch to a more suitable plan. Since I switched from Ghost(Pro) to a self-hosted install, these costs seem to keep popping out.

It reminds me that this blog is still a modest operation, and every little development is a blessing to me.

How much does it cost to run Love.Law.Robots?I code. I law. I am a unicorn.Love.Law.Robots.HoufuFind out more about the costs involved in running a blog.

New Features for Members

Since I started blogging in 2017, this blog has gone through several guises. WordPress on OpenLiteSpeed, Hugo/Jekyll and now Ghost.

I was drawn to Ghost last year because of its newsletter and membership features. Writing a newsletter was a new frontier then. It also solved my concern about knowing how to write more personally and professionally simultaneously.

SubscriptionWhy you should subscribe to Love.Law.Robots. This is my quirky little blog detailing my journeys in the world of tech and law. Subscribing to this blog gives you lots of nice things: 1. Analysis: Bringing my unique vantage as a coder, a lawyer, and someone from a differentLove.Law.Robots.HoufuSome of my motivations for doing a newsletter are also mentioned here.

I didn't realise that I was growing up with the platform too. Ghost has introduced several new features since I joined. Here are a few which popped up in recent weeks.

You can now comment on posts:

Interact with the post. Give it a go!

I've long been sceptical of comments on blog posts. (I still remember reading weird offers on my WordPress blog. The name Akismet still rings bells in my head.) I reckon they are an exciting way to interact with my writing.

Whatever my feelings about blog comments, you can be sure that I will read the comment you post almost immediately.

To post a comment, scroll to the bottom of the post, right before the related post section. Click on a box and start a conversation!

Oh, you have to be a member too. Subscribing is free!

If you receive this newsletter via email, you always have the option of replying to the email to talk to me directly.

0:00

/

Search is hard to do, but thanks to Ghost, I finally have it.

Now you can access all the posts in my 4-year archive by searching for keywords. The search also allows you to access content by tags to see groups of posts under specific themes.

Check out the video to find the magnifying glass button and give it a try!

Features – Love.Law.Robots.Love.Law.Robots.On the other hand, I tried having these headline posts so that you can find additional content in the archives. Several posts are members only!

Premium Member newsletters?!

I now can make paid subscriber-only previews. (Previously, the only way I can make paid subscriber content is to mark them as paid only)

As the months go by, I have come up with an easy separation. I publish all my tutorials and lengthy posts on the blog and send out personal, direct communications via the newsletter. (I am betting that if you subscribe, you are interested to know more about me and my projects)

It's unclear how to do this exclusive paid subscriber-only content. The suggestion is to create a content funnel by getting readers to want more. I am still figuring out what's the best way.

Conclusion

I am always excited to try new features and bring them to you. Hopefully with these recent changes, I can get more value to you. How else do you think I can improve the experience on this blog? Use the comments!

#blog #News #Newsletter

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

I wrote this “emergency” post to note that after what seemed to be a lifetime of debate, the government has given the most unambiguous indication that section 377A of the Penal Code will be repealed.

Section 377A is a provision inherited from our colonial masters criminalising sex between men, including in private.

Although this is a hot topic and has something to do with law and love, I've stayed away from it on this blog mainly because you can find other places with better write-ups on it. In case anyone wants my opinion on it, I don't know why it's taken so long and become so hard.

e-Archive | SAcLJ | AP Journals Onlinee-First MenuEven the former Chief Justice waded in.

Section 377A is ridiculous because it's straightforward why it should be repealed. Simply stated, we don't put men who have sex with each other in jail. However, the repeal of section 377A has become an apocalyptic symbol of the downfall of society for some.

This brings me to the uneasy compromise: I wouldn't accept having a constitutional amendment to “enshrine” marriage between a man and a woman for the repeal of section 377A. It's like we decided to recognise the dignity of gay couples only to take it away at the same time.

Not just vanilla illegal, but constitutionally illegal. They're going to amend the supreme law of the land—the one that all other laws have to align with—to say that we, Singapore, as a country, do not and will not recognise same-sex couples as a legal family unit. https://t.co/MwTPijlzvO

— Kirsten Han 韩俐颖 (@kixes) August 21, 2022

I am not sure this constitutional amendment makes sense politically. Section 377A is inherited, so we can't blame the government of the day for it. On the other hand, they will own a constitutional provision which apparently can't be challenged in court, so they can't pass off its effects to the courts as they do for the death penalty.

Constitutional amendments are easy now because the government has had a supermajority forever. It's not clear whether this will be the case in the future. If for some reason, we are stuck with something more challenging to change than section 377A, we now risk splintering society even further with no easy way out.

I feel that this “compromise” was meant to end the debate on LGBTQ issues by giving these weird people whatever they were clamouring for in the first place.

Bigger fights are on the way: workplace discrimination is among the most interesting ones for me. Marriage for all sorts of couples? That's another big one that we've never debated (but is now going to be constitutionally enshrined?).

Will Singapore’s new workplace discrimination law be a win for equality?By conflating protectionism with traditional workplace discrimination, we risk creating a watered-down law that fails to address the real discrimination faced by people from from marginalised groups.JomDaryl Yang

So, I honestly think this compromise is a trojan horse, and I would never have accepted it if it was up to me. However, that's my principles, and I think the current situation demands we take what the government of the day has given us.

If you, like me, feel a bit discouraged that this debate has ended this way, I would remind myself of this: There is one difference between the people who would like marriage equality and those who don't. Only one of these groups has real victims who are hurt by the policies we chose as a society. When we recognise them, there is only one answer to these questions.

So, have faith that love conquers all. Good night.

#blog #News #Newsletter #Government #Law #Singapore

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

It’s going to be a busy week! I’ll be attending the conferences below:

Here are the sessions that I am looking forward to:

SCCE Singapore Regional 2022

Of all the conferences, this is probably the one with the most practical topics I can apply to my work. So, although maintaining those Continuing Education Units for my certification is a serious challenge (40 points in 2 years?! Video conference at 1am?! 🤮), membership is still very useful to me.

Compared to last year’s regional, I think this one has far more breadth and indeed some depth into hot topics like ESG and Digital Data Management. Hot favourites like compliance training and supply chain management make an appearance too.

I am particularly curious about the finale: “Are robots running the compliance program?” Automation in compliance is that small victory that I think cash- and human resource-strapped compliance departments should look into. From the handout, the “automation” is Microsoft Power Automate, which while simple to understand and used in many corporate environments, is not as widely applicable compared to something like Zapier. Let’s see what new ideas I will get!

Automate Boring Stuff: Get Python and your Web Browser to download your judgementsThis post is part of a series on my Data Science journey with PDPC Decisions. Check it out for more posts on visualisations, natural languge processing, data extraction and processing! Update 13 June 2020: “At least until the PDPC breaks its website.” How prescient… about three months after I wroteLove.Law.Robots.HoufuIt's always important to automate the boring stuff.

IAPP Asia Privacy Forum

They took a long time to flesh this out — back when I bought the early bird ticket in early June, half of the programme was labelled to be confirmed. I’m glad they managed to flesh this out. It’d be my first IAPP Conference even though I have been a member and am CIPP/A-certified since 2019.

I am a pretty practical person, so I am going to list things that have meaning to me.

  • Building Privacy Technology Into Your Privacy Programme ” — Privacy by Design is one of those revolutionary concepts introduced by the GDPR that you probably don’t hear enough about. Privacy engineering has always been very fascinating to me too.
  • Towards Innovative and Global Solutions for Trans-Border Flow ” — The biggest challenges in Singapore isn’t really complying with the PDPA here but dealing with the implications of having an open economy. In my context, a regional HQ is a hub for data flows so having an interesting way to handle them will be useful.
  • Implementing Privacy in Yet-to-Mature Geographies ” — Related to the previous point, we are in a region where jurisdictions have not had much experience in privacy. Thailand recently made its GDPR-like law effective. Indonesia is still toying with the idea. India’s comprehensive data protection law appears to be trapped in legislative purgatory. Coping strategies will be very appreciated.

Alongside IAPP Asia Privacy Forum, the Singapore PDPC also organise the Singapore version of a conference. Topics seem quite interesting, but given my decreasing focus on data privacy in recent years, I am going to give it a pass.

TechLaw.Fest

It’s my third TechLaw.Fest and my first in person!

Actually. I don't know whether this is an in-person event. Something about the metaverse.

I count myself as a sceptic of the metaverse and was actually profoundly upset that the programme focuses almost entirely on this topic. Compared to last year where there was an even spread, this year looks like an advertorial to convince you that there is something special.

Three Things: TechLawFest 2021I debrief on the TechLawFest in Singapore which ended recently with three key takeaways.Love.Law.Robots.HoufuCompared to last year...

Anyway, I am still sorting out my registration because, frankly, the organisation of this event is messy this year.

I will be hiding out in the Tech Talks section this year. I don’t want to hear a big talk about a fad which no one will care about in a year or two. The metaverse is like cryptocurrency and NFTs; somebody is pouring lots of money into it but nobody honestly has high hopes about it.

Live by the Code… Die by the Code?The excitement about Cryptocurrency and NFTs has turned to panic and loss. Will something different take its place?Love.Law.Robots.HoufuIn an earlier post, I wondered whether the fallout from cryptocurrency will bring forth something good.

Some of the things I wish they covered:

  • The fallout about Crypto Currency and NFTs: This is an awesome topic for litigators and restructuring professionals with all the news going around of bank runs, fraud and corporate dissolutions. To be fair, I have a suspicion that this is going to be covered in “ ** What Happens in the Metaverse Doesn’t Stay in the Metaverse: How Laws Apply Such That In-world Crime Could Mean Real-world Punishment** ” on the Main Stage on 22 July 2022.
  • AI Regulation — I believe there are some major advances in the field (in Europe, I think?) and this is a topic that is getting closer to law and regulation once the technology is more mainstream. The IMDA also released its own AI Governance Testing framework and toolkit in May, so I am surprised nobody wants to talk about it here.
  • I wouldn’t complain about learning more about legal operations. To be fair, “ ** The Virtual Lawyer: How Digitalisation is Changing the Business of Law** ” on the Main Stage on 21 July 2022 seems related. I am going to be rather peeved if it’s about how I can appear as an avatar to my colleagues… as if using Microsoft Teams wasn’t lame enough.

The past two years have forced a reckoning that the brick-and-mortar law office may not be as essential to lawyering as was assumed by many for a long time. In this session, we hear from a range of legal professionals wrestling with digitalisation and the business of law. #tlf22 pic.twitter.com/ShnH1DRCup

— TechLaw.Fest (@TechLawFest) July 13, 2022

Conclusion

There's going to be lots to do, and I am going to practice live tweeting this year so that I would get better at it. Last year, I tried to write a roundup but it was really tiresome, so please follow me on Twitter!

#blog #Compliance #Cryptocurrency #Ethics #Law #News #NFT #PersonalDataProtectionAct #Privacy #Singapore #TechLawFest #TechnologyLaw #IAPP #SCCE #DataProtectionOfficer

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

This is one of the most interesting legacies of the Parti Liyani case: a Public Defenders Office. I don’t know how a Public Defender would have changed this story though — the accused’s counsel worked pro bono and by all accounts, performed admirably for his client.

A very, very expensive ordealA domestic worker’s attempt to get compensation from the prosecution for a wrongful conviction shows how difficult it really is.Love.Law.Robots.HoufuParti Liyani's case has become prosaic in highlighting the accused's difficulties in Singpaore. In a post last year, I wished for more legal aid.

Whatever it is, it’s finally here. As generations of criminal law students are taught, Singapore follows a crime control model. We trust the police and prosecutors to get the case right.

A public defender’s office constituted under the Ministry of Law would provide another outlet for the accused to get legal representation and definitely improve the accused’s rights here. Does this mean ( gasp ) that we are moving to a rights-based society?

The emphasis here is [another outlet](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/how-new-public-defenders-office-differ-lawsoc-criminal-legal-aid-scheme-1866531?cid=internalinarticlelinksweb07072022tdy). There is already the CLAS scheme run by the Law Society in Singapore (and also LASCO, but the parallels are not as strong). They also serve similar functions — giving needy accused the ability to get legal representation for criminal offences. The overlap is so apparent, that some lawyers believe it may cause confusion.

Personally, I feel that there is a lot to scratch under the surface.

First, many criminal law practitioners don't start out as lawyers. They started as police officers or deputy public prosecutors. It's part of the basis of SUSS. In this area of law, knowing the internal workings of the police is great value for your clients.

Essentially, choosing to work in this area of law straight out of law school is uncommon. That makes sense: the money is modest if your client is of modest means. The pro bono spirit is not enough to feed a young family.

Criminal, family law need more practitioners to meet demand: IndraneeThe criminal and family law practice areas are seeing a “hollowing out”, and more practitioners will be needed to meet the sustained demand, said Senior Minister of State for Law Indranee Rajah.TODAYNg Jing Yng

Second, for younger folk, working for the government may be less risky than a small law firm. You can write that in your CV.

Of course, the implementation of a great idea is worth more than the idea itself. In an ideal world, there would be transfers between public defenders and deputy public prosecutors. The accused can choose to be represented by a public defender even if such assistance came from the government.

In a less ideal and plausibly realistic situation, a public defender is a dumping ground for lawyers waiting for the next assignment. Stark differences between prosecution and defence underline the government’s policy that this was always about legal aid, not the accused’s rights.

So which way would this turn out? It depends on whether we had a change of heart. Top management asserts that the prosecution acts in the public's interest (which includes treating the accused in an even-handed manner). A public defender's office is an opportunity to reinforce a change in perspective. Time will tell when actions speak louder than words.

#Law #Singapore #AccesstoJustice #AGC #Lawyers #News

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu