Ralph Losey. Published June 12, 2023.
Here is my recent EDRM program with David Lewis, as Scientist, me as Lawyer, and Mary Mack as the Bartender.
Ralph Losey. Published June 12, 2023.
Here is my recent EDRM program with David Lewis, as Scientist, me as Lawyer, and Mary Mack as the Bartender.
Ralph Losey. Published June 7, 2023.

Favorite Quotes from Schumer’s Speech
I have studied the speech carefully and begin this article by sharing a few of my personal favorite quotes.
Change is the law of life, more so now than ever. Because of AI, change is happening to our world as we speak in ways both wondrous and startling.
It was America that revolutionized the automobile. We were the first to split the atom, to land on the moon, to unleash the internet, and create the microchip that made AI possible. AI could be our most spectacular innovation yet, a force that could ignite a new era of technological advancement, scientific discovery, and industrial might. So we must come up with a plan that encourages, not stifles, innovation in this new world of AI. And that means asking some very important questions.
AI promises to transform life on earth for the better. It will shape how we fight disease, how we tackle hunger, manage our lives, enrich our minds, and ensure peace. But there are real dangers too – job displacement, misinformation, a new age of weaponry, the risk of being unable to manage this technology altogether.
Even if many developers have good intentions there will always be rogue actors, unscrupulous companies, foreign adversaries, that will seek to harm us. Companies may not be willing to insert guardrails on their own, certainly not if their competitors won’t be forced to do so.
If we don’t program these algorithms to align with our values, they could be used to undermine our democratic foundations, especially our electoral processes.
Senator Schumer, 6/21/23

Proposed Legislative Initiative
Senator Schumer’s speech was based on a five point outline for proposed legislation, called SAFE, an acronym for “Security, Accountability, Foundations, Explain.” This is further set out in Senator Schumer’s press release, which summarizes the points as follows:
1. Security: Safeguard our national security with AI and determine how adversaries use it, and ensure economic security for workers by mitigating and responding to job loss;
2. Accountability: Support the deployment of responsible systems to address concerns around misinformation and bias, support our creators by addressing copyright concerns, protect intellectual property, and address liability;
3. Foundations: Require that AI systems align with our democratic values at their core, protect our elections, promote AI’s societal benefits while avoiding the potential harms, and stop the Chinese Government from writing the rules of the road on AI;
4. Explain: Determine what information the federal government needs from AI developers and deployers to be a better steward of the public good, and what information the public needs to know about an AI system, data, or content.
5. Innovation: Support US-led innovation in AI technologies – including innovation in security, transparency and accountability – that focuses on unlocking the immense potential of AI and maintaining U.S. leadership in the technology.
In elaborating on Security, a key issue for any government to focus on, Schumer said in his speech:
First comes security – for our country, for American leadership, and for our workforce. We do not know what artificial intelligence will be capable of two years from now, 50 years from now, 100 years from now, in the hands of foreign adversaries, especially autocracies, or domestic rebel groups interested in extortionist financial gain or political upheaval. The dangers of AI could be extreme. We need to do everything we can to instill guardrails that make sure these groups cannot use our advances in AI for illicit and bad purpose. But we also need security for America’s workforce, because AI, particularly generative AI, is already disrupting the ways tens of millions of people make a living.
Schumer 6/21/23
Summary of Senator Schumer’s Speech
Here is a short summary made by ChatGPT-4 of all of the key points of Senator Schumer’s long speech. I checked the GPT output for accuracy and no mistakes were found, but, sorry to say baby chatbot, I did have to make several edits to bring the writing quality up to an acceptable level.

Senator Chuck Schumer’s speech at the CSIS focused on the significance and impact of artificial intelligence (AI) in contemporary society. He drew parallels between the ongoing AI revolution and the historical industrial revolution, emphasizing the potential for transformative effects on various aspects of life, such as healthcare, lifestyle management, and cognitive enhancement. However, he also highlighted the associated risks, including job displacement, misinformation, and the development of advanced weaponry.
To address these challenges, Senator Schumer advocated for proactive involvement by the US government and Congress in regulating AI. He proposed the SAFE Innovation Framework for AI Policy, which aims to balance the benefits and risks of AI while prioritizing innovation. The framework consists of two main components: a structured action plan and a collaborative policy formulation process involving AI experts.

The proposed framework seeks to address crucial questions related to collaboration and competition among AI developers, the necessary level of federal intervention, the balance between private and open AI systems, and ensuring accessibility and fair competition for innovation. Schumer outlined the SAFE (Security, Accountability, Foundations, Explainability) Innovation Framework as a means to ensure national and workforce security, accountability for the impact of AI on jobs and income distribution, and explainability of AI systems. He warned against potential disruptions similar to those caused by globalization, emphasizing the need for proper management to prevent job losses.
Schumer stressed the importance of shaping AI development and deployment in a manner that upholds democracy and individual rights. He cautioned against the misuse of AI technology, such as tracking individuals, exploiting vulnerable populations, and interfering with electoral processes through fabricated content. The senator emphasized the necessity of establishing accountability in AI practices and protecting intellectual property rights. Unregulated AI development, he warned, could jeopardize the foundations of liberty, civil rights, and justice in the United States.
Transparency and user understanding of AI decisions were identified as key factors in maintaining accountability. Schumer called on companies to develop mechanisms that allow users to comprehend how AI algorithms arrive at specific answers while respecting intellectual property. To facilitate discussions and consensus-building on AI challenges, he proposed organizing ‘AI insight forums’ with top AI developers, executives, scientists, advocates, community leaders, workers, and national-security experts. The insights gained from these forums would inform legislative action and lay the groundwork for AI policy.

In conclusion, Schumer urged Congress, the federal government, and AI experts to adopt a proactive and inclusive approach in shaping the future of AI in the United States. He emphasized the necessity of embracing AI and ensuring its safe development for the benefit of society as a whole. This will require bipartisan cooperation, that sets aside ideological differences and self-interest, to tackle the complex, rapidly evolving field of AI. This collective effort, he asserted, would ensure that AI innovation serves humanity’s best interests while upholding the nation’s democratic principles.
Personal Analysis
This proposal is a good start for AI regulation. I especially like the linkage between innovation and regulation. I only hope enough politicians will put partisan bickering aside to unite on this key issue. For the sake of coming generations, we need to get this right the first time.

Ai will soon make the Internet look like small potatoes. We screwed up development and regulation of the early Internet, big time. It was completely unregulated. Few could see the potential. Our blinders are off now. We all see the potential of Ai and we must not get fooled again.
As a long time BBS user, including the big, pre-Internet online services like CompuServe and The Source, I was one of the first lawyers on the Internet. I even had my website challenged by the Florida Bar because they thought it was an unapproved television advertisement. I was able to get the Florida Bar to change its rules, then was invited to lecture all around Florida where I encouraged lawyers and judges to get into computers and try the Internet.

The World Wide Web then was still a wonderful. interlinked place of learning, academic resources and friendly discussions, with just a few flames (rude, angry comments) that online communities quickly put out. Then the commercial exploitations began and it exploded in size. It went from a technical community BBS mentality, to big business. Then we allowed our privacy to become the product. The end result is the mess you see today. If Ai regulation is ignored, there are far greater dangers ahead.

When the Internet was still young, 1996, Macmillan found me on the Internet and asked me to write a chapter on the law of the Internet. It was for a new edition of a then best selling book explaining everything about the Internet. The very thick book even came with a CD. Your Cyber Rights and Responsibilities: The Law and Etiquette of the Internet, Chapter 2 of Que’s Special Edition Using the Internet, (McMillian 3rd Ed, 1996). The subheadings of my lengthy chapter, that included numerous case links, should be familiar: “free speech and association on the Internet; the libel and slander limitation; the important distinction between Internet publisher and distributor; obscenity limitations, privacy, copyright, and fair trade on the Internet; and, protecting yourself from crime on the Internet.” Id.
I kept with my script and encouraged readers in 1996 to try the Internet, just like I am encouraging readers today to try generative Ai. I assured readers then that it was safe, that: “You have important legal rights and responsibilities in cyberspace, just like anywhere else.” My big warning concerned the dangers of computer viruses. Like most “computer lawyers” back then (that’s what we were called), I expected the Internet to continue to be a reasonable place of intellectual discourse. In retrospect, I realize my naïveté and unrealistic optimism. Today my Ai tech encouragement comes with warnings and calls for regulation.
Most online lawyers in the mid-nineties thought that the pre-cyberspace laws on the books would be adequate; individual citizens could self-regulate the Internet and prevent its exploitation. Lawyers would help. We did not want the help of Big Brother government. We were wrong. The Internet without regulation quickly became a dangerous, crass, commercial mess where billions of people were tricked into trading their personal privacy for cheap thrills.
Older now, I am still optimistic. That part is hard wired in. But I am no longer naive. We must regulate Ai and do it now. If the U.S. abdicates its legal leadership role, the E.U. will step in, or worse, the People’s Republic of China. The E.U., whom I greatly admire in many respects, seems likely to over-regulate, make everything a bureaucratic mess and stifle innovation. We do not want that.
If no government does anything to regulate, which is essentially what happened when the Internet was born with the WWW in the early 90s, the hustlers will take over again. So will the dictators of the world. Only this time, it will be worse, far worse, because now the tyrannical foreign powers, and the criminals and terrorists everywhere, know and understand the power of Ai. Few in the 90s realized the impact of the Internet. The 21st Century evil-doers have already started to use Ai for their self-serving greed and attempts of world domination. I agree with this quote from the Schumer Speech.
What if foreign adversaries embrace this technology to interfere in our elections? This is not about imposing one viewpoint, but it’s about ensuring people can engage in democracy without outside interference. This is one of the reasons we must move quickly. We should develop the guardrails that align with democracy and encourage the nations of the world to use them. Without taking steps to make sure AI preserves our country’s foundations, we risk the survival of our democracy.
Senator Schumer, 6/21/23
Fear the people who misuse the Ai – the terrorists, criminals and foreign agents – and not the Ai itself. That is why the U.S. needs to prepare good Ai regs now and follow-up with vigorous enforcement. Our democratic way of life hangs in the balance. We should not fall into the “paralysis by analysis” trap. We should not put off taking action based on the escape that things are moving too fast now to regulate. This is Congressman Ted Lieu’s current approach, a politician with a background in computer science whom I otherwise admire.

Congressman Lieu on June 20, 2023 said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”:
“I’m not even sure we would know what we’re regulating at this point because it’s moving so quickly. . . . And so, some of these harms may in fact happen, but maybe they don’t happen. Or maybe we see some new harm.”
This sounds like dangerous procrastination to me. It is not going to slow down and stop changing so you can leisurely study it more. The danger is real and it’s happening now. Congress needs to start actually doing something. If need be, we can always revise or enact more laws later. Remember, perfect is the enemy of good. Senator Schumer’s technical advisors and speech writers have it right. We need to convene the expert Forums now and get down to the details of legislation that implements the SAFE ideas.

Still, I do have a coupe of criticisms. All of the goals of the SAFE policy are good, but, in my view, one goal not emphasized enough by SAFE, is the need for the government to ensure the availability of free unbiased education for all. Retraining and quality GPT based tutoring must be open-sourced and freely available.
Another point that should be emphasized is fairness in the distribution of new wealth that will arise from Ai. The recent McKinsey Report predicts a $4.4 Trillion increase in the economy from generative Ai. See: McKinsey Predicts Generative AI Will Create More Employment and Add 4.4 Trillion Dollars to the Economy. This new wealth must be more fairly distributed than in the last economic boom triggered by the Internet and globalism.

Conclusion
Senator Schumer’s next step to advance the proposed regulation is to refine the SAFE Innovation plan and build consensus. He is asking for help from “creators, innovators, and experts in the field.” That means the politically well-connected or famous. The Senator said that he will soon “invite top AI experts to come to Congress and convene a series of first ever AI insight forums for a new and unique approach to developing AI legislation.” Senator Schumer Speech, 6/21/23. If you have friends in high places and get an invite to a forum, I hope you will go and be heard.

Although I like to be in the arena, I have no political contacts, nor fame; never been one to cultivate contacts and play politics. I am far too outspoken and idealistic for that. Just a Florida native living in the dangerous backwoods of the country, far from the D.C., N.Y. and Silicon Valley arenas. Still, I will keep reporting on the government activities. I hope to persuade as many decision makers as possible by these writings, right-brain graphics, and occasional talks, to take action now.

We need government to protect us from the abusers, those who would, and already are, exploiting Ai for their personal goals and not the greater good. We need to have an intelligent blueprint for regulation, one that still encourages innovation and distribution of these powerful new tools. The SAFE Innovation proposal looks like a good start.

Copyright Ralph Losey 2023 – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – (May also be Published on EDRM.net and JDSupra.com with permission.)
Ralph Losey. Published October 13, 2022.

First Amendment Principles, the Insatiable Appetite of the Press for Instant News and the Tedious Work of Privacy Protection
This case is a big win for the press media plaintiffs pushing First Amendment rights to court documents, but a significant loss and challenge to all state court clerks and others like me, concerned with litigants’ privacy rights. Florida Circuit Court Clerks must comply with this mandate for near instant access to e-filings of new cases and at the same time fulfill their duty to preserve privacy rights. Time will tell how they will meet this challenge.
Here is the First Amendment reasoning by Judge Walker behind this unusual injunction.
In Broward County Circuit Court, most civil complaints are unavailable to the public the day they are filed. Plaintiff, Courthouse News Service, argues that this state of affairs violates its First Amendment right to timely access court documents. This Court must determine whether the First Amendment encompasses such a right, and whether the current delays in access violate it.
The eighteenth-century British politician Edmund Burke apocryphally said that “there were Three Estates in the Parliament; but, in the reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a fourth estate more important far than they all.” Slavko Splichal, Principles of Publicity and Press Freedom 44 (2002). Our Nation’s founders thought as much, providing in the first amendment to the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of . . . the press.” U.S. Const. amend. I. Indeed, the press is the only profession the Constitution expressly protects.
Courthouse News, supra at pgs. 1-2.
The Eleventh Circuit has likewise resolutely enforced the “presumption of public access” to court records, finding that the common law guarantees access to judicial records. Callahan v. United Network for Organ Sharing, 17 F.4th 1356, 1359 (11th Cir. 2021). But the Eleventh Circuit has yet to decide whether the First Amendment guarantees access to newly filed, non-confidential civil complaints, “the cornerstone of every case,” to which “access . . . is almost always necessary if the public is to understand a court’s decision.” F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prods. LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 62 (11th Cir. 2013).
As explained below, the First Amendment guarantees such access, and Broward County’s current system violates that right. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.
Courthouse News, supra at pgs. 2-3.

It is interesting to note that Chief Judge Walker is same judge that is hearing the First Amendment lawsuit recently filed to try to block the “Stop WOKE” law just passed by the Florida legislature. In a hearing on October 13, 2022, where both sides presented argument on the constitutionality of the new law that restricts what teachers can say and teach in public schools, Judge Walker is reported to have said:
“You (the government) can pick and choose what viewpoint you like and, under the guise of stopping indoctrination, you promote indoctrination. Why is that not so? . . . (You say) ‘We believe in academic freedom, so long as you say what we want you to say.’ That sounds like something George Orwell wrote.”
Judge spars with lawyers at ‘Stop WOKE’ lawsuit hearing (Orlando Sentinel, 10/14/22)
Why a Spider-Man Meme is Included in a Federal Court Injunction Order

Back to the Spider-Man case on e-filing. Why is a color Spider-Man illustration placed in a serious court order like this on the First Amendment and Privacy? We will share Judge Walker’s own words to explain why he included this funny meme. He provides the express reason, but we would be remiss not to remind the reader of the obvious unstated reason, the meta-reason, that the judge does it, and we do it too, because we can. With e-filing today, and adobe format, it’s easy to include interesting color graphics like this in anything you e-file in court, even intimate cell phone photos, and, after all, media types like us love this sort of thing.
First, a quick case background to set up the meme and explain what privacy has to do with this. The two defendants in this case are the Clerk of the Court for Broward County, Clerk Forman, illustrated by the Spider-Man on the left, and the Florida E-Filing Authority, Chair Rushing (ironic name as you will soon see), illustrated by the Spider-Man on the right (or is it visa versa?).

The Florida E-Filing Authority (“Authority”) is an entity created in 2010 by agreement of all Clerks of the Court in Florida, and Chair Rushing is herself a Clerk, to run the state’s e-filing system. Courthouse News Serv. v. Forman, FN1 at pg. 4. The Authority developed, owns, and governs the web Portal through which all pleadings are filed in Florida state courts. As Judge Walker explains:
Before filing a complaint, the filer must enter case information such as the relevant jurisdiction, the type of lawsuit, party details, claim amounts, remedies sought, and whether the complaint contains confidential information. Id. at 8–24. Then, before uploading the complaint, the filer is reminded of their sole responsibility to ensure the redaction of confidential information. Id. at 25. Once a complaint is received through the Portal, the Authority processes it by “stamp[ing] the filing with the official file stamp date and time” and sending “a Notice of Electronic Filing . . . to all parties selected on the E-Service list for that court case.” ECF No. 43-1 ¶ 3. After the Authority processes the complaint, it transmits the complaint “to the selected county for review and processing.” Id. ¶ 4. Despite all the information gathered during submission, the Authority only filters complaints by county and does not separate confidential filings from non-confidential filings. Id. The Authority simply transmits each complaint “in the order in which it is received.” Id. ¶ 3. “Generally speaking,” it takes “no longer than 5 minutes” to process and transmit a complaint from the Portal to the appropriate clerk of court. Id. ¶ 8.
Courthouse News Serv. v. Forman, supra at pgs. 4-5.

So the e-filings go from the Authority, who has set up a fully automated processing system, that provides no analysis, automated or human, as to filing confidentiality and privacy and the e-filers statements provided on confidentiality, sealing, and the like. The Authority simply forwards the e-filings to the various counties in Florida, including heavily populated Broward County, with Clerk Forman. The Authority does so in only five minutes for which Chair Rushing is justly proud and happy they their responsibility, at least as they conceived it, ends, and the poor clerks in the various counties begins. Then the Clerks, including Forman, have the task of trying to segregate the filings into two stacks (at least), one requiring special confidentiality treatment, and another where such special treatment has not been requested by the e-filers themselves (it used to be worse, but this is the streamlined version that went into effect in 2021 that places more confidentiality burdens on Florida lawyers, such as redactions, and less on Clerks). Courthouse News, Supra at pgs. 5-6.

The Authority does not segregate out the new filings where special treatment for confidentiality has been requested, an omission that Judge Walker found objectionable. The various clerks have to both segregate and figure that out and comply with the parties confidential requests and rules. This is not an automated process for the Clerks, but rather a tedious manual task delegated to over-worked humans working at relatively low pay in the Clerk’s office. Some offices are slower than others, and according to the ever-impatient plaintiff news organizations, Broward’s office is the slowest in the state. Slow but careful, I’m sure.

The low benchmark of Broward County and Clerk Forman for new case filings that has Courthouse News and other media companies so enraged, and is really the heart of the alleged violation of the First Amendment, is uncontested: 13% of complaints are available the day they are filed, 44% a day after filing, 14% two days after filing, and 29% three or more days after filing. The whole case is about the alleged delays in allowing their reporters to see new case filings, to look for the latest Breaking News (a statement I for one am sick of from its over-use), celebrity gossip, and sometimes, although in my experience very rarely, some important stuff.
The plaintiff’s alleged and the judge agreed that the First Amendment was threatened by the days delay (the worst in the state). As the plaintiff’s attorneys put it, its called News, not Olds, for a reason, and this kind of delay is just not acceptable. Courthouse News, Supra at pg. 7. The highly skilled plaintiff’s attorneys here argue successfully that the First Amendment guarantees that the public’s insatiable desire must be immediately met, the same day, for yet more and more court information, that “by the time Plaintiff learns of many of the civil complaints filed in Broward County, their newsworthiness has already faded.” Id.
Personally, I am not convinced. No one seems to consider what an unreliable source of information new pleadings are, for they can say just about anything, are exempt from libel, and they often include all kinds of outrageous accusations with no real basis in the facts. Furthermore, rushing around does not help anyone. It breeds mistakes. Privacy is important too and deserves to be done right. After all, once a mistake is made, and the genie is of confidential information is out of the bottle, there is no putting it back.
Now finally we get to the Spider-Man graphic, the “You!” meme. The defendants here not so cleverly decided on a defense where each blamed the other. Clerk Forman points to Chair Rushing and says she is to blame for not segregating the thousands of e-filings they get every day into two piles and otherwise providing no help on the time consuming privacy work, whereas Chair Rushing points right back and says no, Clerk Forman is to blame for not doing her job faster. The plaintiff news companies meantime just look back and smile as the gooey Spidey mess goes everywhere. Experienced trial lawyers just sigh, maybe grin a bit at the questionable circular firing squad defense.
Here is how the good Judge Mark Walker explains the use of the pointing blame defense and Spidey meme:
For the reasons articulated above, both Defendant Rushing and Defendant Forman are responsible for the delays in access in Broward County. Given the “unique” structure of Florida’s e-filing system, ECF No. 43 at 8; see also ECF No. 43-1 ¶ 11 (“Portal staff is unaware of any other state that uses an entity such as the Authority to operate an e-filing portal.”), it comes as no surprise to this Court that the Defendants’ litigation tactic is to point fingers, as illustrated below.

Neither can escape liability by shifting blame to each other, nor can they evade constitutional scrutiny by maintaining an administrative labyrinth. The way Defendant Rushing transmits complaints creates the delay, and Defendant Forman’s time-consuming review exacerbates the delay. Accordingly, both Defendants are responsible for the alleged constitutional violation.
Courthouse News, Supra at pgs. 24-25.
For more detail on the meme itself Judge Walker favored us with a footnote.
7 As one pop-culture commentator explains, “[t]he image of the two pointing Spider-Men has been captioned—and sometimes recreated—in all sorts of different ways. It’s been around since at least 2011. It’s been used by fans, celebrities and even politicians to make funny comparisons between people that either seem oddly similar or are engaged in the same activity.” Nicholas Raymond, The Origin of The Spider-Man Pointing Meme, Screen Rant (Jan. 4, 2020), https://screenrant.com/spider-man-pointing-meme-cartoon-origin/.
Courthouse News, Supra at Fn. 7, pg. 24
Conclusion

That’s right, one court clerk, Chair Rushing, points blame at another court clerk, Clerk Forman, when both clerks are super-heroes trying to do the same things. They are both trying to administer a rusty e-filing system, one severely strained by Florida’s population explosion and a pandemic, not to mention a system based on low-state-budget-technology. The Judge’s Injunction and Spider-Man graphic had a good effect. Courthouse News Serv. v. Forman, No. 4:22cv106-MW/MAF, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103771 (N.D. Fla. June 10, 2022). After the injunction was entered the two clerk Spideys started to get along and everyone entered into a settlement agreement. Hopefully, peace will last for a while and the news media wont have to wait a day for the exciting news spewing out of state court e-filings. (Yawn.) Hopefully the privacy rights of citizens will not suffer due to the increased time demands. (A much more urgent concern.)
In view of the history of the more expensive federal system’s Pacer, I am skeptical. For the latest Pacer leak impacting over 500,000 cryptocurrency owners who were not parties to the bankruptcy proceeding, see: Celsius Exchange Data Dump Is a Gift to Crypto Sleuths—and Thieves (Wired, Oct. 13. 2022); In re Celsius Network LLC, 642 B.R. 497 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022). The whole area of e-filing, state and federal, is in need of reform, including better infrastructure.

Some legislation is now in progress concern funding to update the aging Pacer system. See eg. Making PACER database free could require more money for U.S. judiciary, CBO says (Reuters, 9/28/22); Congressional Budge Office Costs Estimate, 9/26/22). For my past articles on this topic of e-filings, Pacer and privacy concerns, see:
Ralph Losey Copyright 2022 — All Rights Reserved