The depth of misunderstanding of what justice is here is utterly staggering. Contract enforcement (or just enforcement) as a service maybe, but going after a company because you feel that they wronged you is as far from justice as revenge killing (to be fair the article does specifically mention violation of consumer protection laws here). The notion that anything other than a state (read: leviathan) can administer justice is a dangerously misleading notion since unless both parties agree to abide by the system then there is no consistent notion of justice (note that accepting your citizenship is tacit agreement).
> The notion that anything other than a state (read: leviathan) can administer justice is a dangerously misleading notion since unless both parties agree to abide by the system then there is no consistent notion of justice (note that accepting your citizenship is tacit agreement).
Well, how Hobbesian! Of course, this is not the only possible conception of justice, which is, as Plato put it (in Jowett's translation), "sometimes spoken of as the virtue of an individual, and sometimes as the virtue of a State." But in either case, if we want to get all philosophical about it, I share your skepticism... if justice is a virtue, can we really have a virtue as a service (VaaS)?
Seriously, though, I don't think the OP's point is to propose administration of justice outside the state, but rather that certain tech advances can make it economically feasible for small, individual claims to be given a "fair shake" within the state system; claims which currently are too small to be worth a lawyer's---or even the claimant's---time without said tech.
I agree, and I think that it is actually pretty cool that there are some solutions that could put previously uneconomical enforcement to become economical. I do get the feeling though that this wouldn't be as much of an issue if corps were not continually trying (and succeeding) to prevent collective action against them (eg class action suits).
Is contract enforcement not a form of justice? Several of these are cases where a contract has been not only agreed upon, but done so without chance for negotiation. Working to ensure that a company follows rules that it wrote itself is hardly coopting powers from the state.
> but going after a company because you feel that they wronged you is as far from justice as revenge killing
But out desire for revenge i.e. a negative consequence to those who wronged you, is the fundamental source of our idea for justice, just formalised for a city life.
The guarantee of negative consequence of equal proportion represents a game theoretically optimal approach to discouraging others from harming you.
And if they kill one of yours, then to maintain said deterrence you have to kill one of theirs. As reflected by laws and customs for most of human societies throughout history.
"Maybe your flight got cancelled. Or your cable subscription got more expensive. Or maybe you bought something online and the day after the price dropped. Or the package arrived two days late."
Sorry, those are not injustices. Especially service price increases and "after purchase" price drops.
This makes me wonder: What if a JaaS company alters its prices? What recourse will consumers have to correct this "injustice"?
In all seriousness, however, I believe that this deserves a better name. Maybe Reimbursements as a Service (RaaS).
The author calls it "justice-as-a-service" because it fits the mnemonic.
The article is really talking about automated consumer rights services, which is something quite different. In that, helping consumers take maximum advantage of what local, state, or federal law offers them could certainly be both a helpful public service and a lucrative market.
There exist a lot of opportunities for startups to use technology to make previously high-friction experiences dealing with the bureaucracy into low-friction experiences to the mutual benefit of bureaucracy and its clients.
An example: substantially every state has a legal requirement that businesses which find themselves in possession of property which isn't theirs must hold it for a while (for the rightful owner) then escheat it. Escheating means "deposit with the state for safekeeping." This doesn't extinguish the original owner's interest in the property; in principle, you have a long or unbounded amount of time to ask for the property back. (You might be thinking "A lost hat" but think more "An abandoned bank account" or "The surrender value of a life insurance policy" or "A paycheck that was never deposited.")
Those processes typically take place on paper and are relatively high-friction. For example, you need to get a document notarized, provide various proofs of ID and previous address, etc etc. Some states have very simple CRUD apps which let you check the status of claims these days. Those CRUD apps could be much, much improved upon by e.g. making it more straightforward for people to find and claim their own property. (This is generally free under the laws of most states, and some less-scrupulous operators charge for essentially running a free search then presenting the results to you, but one could imagine a value-adding business here.)
Another way to look at it is that there are many use cases (like the one you cite) that involve information asymmetry. [1] That's usually a good place to create new markets. The legal field seems rather promising in this respect as the current delivery model of $300/hour with high minimum costs is incapable of addressing basic quick-hit problems like evaluating an offer letter to help with employment negotiation.
The interesting issue is not so much technology (it's basically there) but how to market to customers who only intermittently have a problem that requires your product. You have to find niche market customers who experience the asymmetry on a regular basis or you have to go through channels instead of direct sales. (Example: piggy back on LinkedIn as a channel to deliver services to assert rights under prevailing labor law.)
I've dreamed of this for spam. You scan my email and find people who have spammed me, violating whatever laws govern these things. Then you claim the statutory penalty on my behalf, taking a cut. Then maybe people will stop.
I'm mostly talking about recruiters and salespeople emailing me direct. I'm not even sure if that's illegal though.
So people will begin to submit every little grievance since they won't get charged if they don't 'win' on the chance that they'll get a payout if they do win. At what point does JaaS stop scaling? Perhaps this one stop on the way to fully digitized contracts?
Two things came to mind when I see this (neither of which my Search Fu is successful at finding...): 1)A short story placed in the 'near future' where people receive emails from lawyers about copyright infringement where settlement of a few cents is offered and can be paid right from the email. 2) Recent research into digital contracts for financial systems. JaaS feels like #1 developing from the consumer direction.
> A short story placed in the 'near future' where people receive emails from lawyers about copyright infringement where settlement of a few cents is offered and can be paid right from the email.
I've read that story and think it was by either Cory Doctorow or Charles Stross.
There is automated high-volume litigation as a plot point in Stross's Accelerando, but I think that's not the story that you're thinking of.
I think the one you're thinking of features a little girl being sued for benefiting from colonial-era crimes in the Belgian Congo (among other micro-lawsuits).
I think the one you're thinking of features a little girl being sued for benefiting from colonial-era crimes in the Belgian Congo (among other micro-lawsuits).
I've read the story you're talking about, and its definitely by Doctorow, but I googled around for a while without any luck, as well as searching some of the short story collections. I'd be interested if anybody could remember it!
Definitely the same story I was thinking about. Maybe Doctorow linked it somewhere? It certainly sits very squarely at the center of his interests in law, copyright, privacy, fatherhood and spec fic. Thanks!
>where people receive emails from lawyers about copyright infringement where settlement of a few cents is offered and can be paid right from the email
on similar note - automatically hiring 12 (or more if one wants to splurge and reach specific p-value on their verdict) random persons from Mech Turk for producing a quick verdict :)
Damn, that is a fantastic idea... I wonder if it's actually against the law in the US? I don't know if the law is explicit about the 12 people being physically in the same room :)
The Sixth Amendment has a geographic requirement that the defendant is entitled to be tried "by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law".
I almost forgot that there is an extremely witty law review article about the problems that this clause might cause in the strange case of a national park that crosses state lines:
> At what point does JaaS stop scaling? Perhaps this one stop on the way to fully digitized contracts?
Think about the difference between an "AI" capable of checking flight data and identifying delays greater than (X) minutes vs. "true" fully-digitized contracts (i.e., an AI that can reliably determine whether Party Y did indeed use its "reasonable best efforts" to market Product Z).
Those two things are actually more distant from each other than an "AI" capable of playing Rock-Paper-Scissors vs. an AI that can pass the Turing test.
>>So people will begin to submit every little grievance since they won't get charged if they don't 'win' on the chance that they'll get a payout if they do win.
Just because you take your case to the law firm doesn't mean they have to agree to represent you. In fact, under this model, they would have a strong incentive to not take on cases that don't have a high likelihood of resulting in a win.
But then we've returned to the current status quo. Comsumers have to be knowledgeable enough to know when they have a case, or the lawyers are overloaded evaluating frivilous cases.
I think in this area there's only so much they can really do since if they really make an impact they'll just be blocked or terms and conditions updated to prevent them from being able to operate. Fixed, for example, has been blocked by various cities, including San Francisco.
Actually looks like Fixed has pivoted away completely from parking tickets as their site doesn't even mention it. I guess there's no justice in justice-as-a-service.
They shut them down because they were causing them to lose too much money.
Also this:
> When Fixed began faxing its submissions to SFMTA last year, the agency emailed the startup to stop using their fax machine. When Fixed pointed out that it was legal to do so, the agency simply shut off their fax.
This is exactly what I thought it was. In fact, my imagination flashed forward to a typical SaaS page with pricing tables and everything depending on the level of "Justice" you want served.
The $49 package is a firm knock on the door, some harsh words, and light intimidation to motivate the servee to make things right.
The $99 package is a everything in the $49 package, plus some unsavory physical intimidation.
And the final $299 is the "Justice Served" package. Full Stop.
The interesting part would be how much such a service would cost: bringing together people with "problems" and "hitmans" for an airbnb-like network/arbitrage model. Or could prices be crowdsourced, so e.g. a few houndred people collect the money to "justify" trump once and for all? Would it be that immoral to prevent all the damage he will do? Interesting questions.
One of the things we're working to fix is helping photographers overcome the vast complexity of international IP law. Artists have the right to their work in almost every country, but it's practically impossible for them to enforce this at home let alone in unknown legal systems. We currently help artists obtain compensation for the unauthorized use of their work in nearly ten countries.
In what way? Photographers work hard to make a living, and we've seen many cases of businesses (we only pursue businesses) knowingly profiting from photographers' work, and then in turn tell the photographers to go take a hike.
Online dispute resolution works b/c the disputes in question are small. You would not want to have an important civil matter (like a divorce) settled in ODR b/c the rules are so flexible. It's basically, whatever the arbitrator thinks is "fair". I'm exaggerating slightly, but in many cases (e.g., modria) I've read that the arbs are given a fairly light training on anglo-saxon legal principles then left to apply their moral intuition. That's fine if you're just arguing over an ebay return. It's not fine if you're arguing over custody of your kids. Cynically, I wonder if ODR would work just as well if the result were random (as long as the disputants don't realize this). The process gives the illusion of redress for small wrongs, a way for angry customers to vent, and a 50/50 chance at "justice" for each party.
Over here (in the Netherlands) there are already a handful of websites (backed by young lawfirms) that will challenge your traffic ticket for you (not just parking, but speeding violations, seatbelts, etc, etc.).
They will do all due diligence (requesting the full report, speeding camera photo if provided, checking every response from the DA-equivalent for any errors, etc) on the basis that, for those cases in which the ticket is dropped, the Dutch state is obligated to pay for the lawyer fees.
The process for the end-user is incredibly simple. Upload a scan of the ticket / summons, fill in a short blurb about why you think the ticket is invalid, sign a permission slip and done. It will never cost you a thing.
I also think that the effect of money on the law is corrosive, and while this kind of technology may level the playing field, that's not a universal good.
Right now in some venues you can buy "the right lawyer" for a lot of money and get a DUI pled down to a slap on the wrist.
That's not justice, but lowering the price to $200, and turning "the right lawyer" into an algorithm that snows the court into letting you off isn't justice either.
If I've already agreed to a stacked arbitration process as part of a contract, isn't "the legal system" mostly out of the picture? All you're left is appealing to a company's reputation, to "do the right thing".
I think it's only going to work in specific cases where policy or regulation demand. Note the examples: Airlines, telecommunications companies, parking tickets. Either heavily regulated industries or the government itself.
Amazon and the shipping companies aren't, but I fully expect that if this sort of thing becomes a major cost, they'll simply adjust their policies to eliminate it. Amazon doesn't have to offer a refund for a later price drop the way that airlines have to compensate you if your flight is sufficiently delayed.
Is there any indication that this will extend to general companies? I'm guessing that there aren't legislated consumer rights in most industries.
reminded USSR/Russia ~25 years ago - justice/protection/extortion/etc.-as-a-service and all at the same time by the same gang controlling given territory or business domain .
Justice that has to be bought isn't justice; justice as a service, what an absolutely terrible idea. As if we don't already have big enough problems with justice depending on the depth of your wallet.
