AI Model for Predicting Legal Judgments to Improve Accuracy and Explainability of Online Privacy Invasion Cases
Source abstract
Abstract
Since there are growing concerns regarding online privacy, firms may have the risk of being involved in various privacy infringement cases resulting in legal causations. If firms are aware of consequences from possible cases of invasion of online privacy, they can more actively prevent future online privacy infringements. Thus, this study attempts to predict the probability of judgment types caused by various invasions within US judicial cases that are related to online privacy invasions. Since legal judgment results are significantly influenced by societal factors and technological development, this study tries to identify a model that can accurately predict legal judgment with explainability. To archive the study objective, it compares the prediction performance by applying five types of classification algorithms (LDA, NNET, CART, SVM, and random forest) of machine learning. We also examined the relationship between privacy infringement factors and adjudications by applying network text analysis. The results indicate that firms could have a high possibility of both civil and criminal law responsibilities if they distributed malware or spyware, intentionally or non-intentionally, to collect unauthorized data. It addresses the needs of reflecting both quantitative and qualitative approach for establishing automatic legal systems for improving its accuracy based on the socio-technical perspective.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Digital and Cyber Forensics · Artificial Intelligence in Law · Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Ewha School of Business, Ewha Womans University, 52 Ewhayeodae-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03760, Korea
References (58)
Show source-provided references
1. A Study of Personal Information Handler Based on Social Network Analysis10.14257/jse.2016.04.05 ↗
2. Kelbert, F., Shirazi, F., Simo, H., Wüchner, T., Buchmann, J., Pretschner, A., and Waidner, M. (2012). State of online privacy: A technical perspective. Internet Privacy, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-31943-3_4 ↗
3. Knowledge graphs and network text analysis10.1177/0539018403042001798 ↗
4. Computer models for legal prediction
5. Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes10.1007/s10506-009-9077-9 ↗
6. Bruninghaus, S., and Ashley, K.D. (2003, January 24–28). Predicting Outcomes of Case Based Legal Arguments. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Scotland, UK.10.1145/1047788.1047838 ↗
7. Scalable and explainable legal prediction10.1007/s10506-020-09273-1 ↗
8. Empirical characterization of random forest variable importance measures10.1016/j.csda.2007.08.015 ↗
9. Using NLP techniques to identify legal ontology components: Concepts and relations10.1007/s10506-005-4160-3 ↗
10. A Blockchain-based approach for matching desired and real privacy settings of social network users10.1016/j.ins.2021.01.004 ↗
11. Intrusion detection technology research based on apriori algorithm10.1016/j.phpro.2012.02.238 ↗
12. Hofmann, T., Lucchi, A., Lacoste-Julien, S., and McWilliams, B. (2015). Variance reduced stochastic gradient descent with neighbors. arXiv.
13. Latent dirichlet allocation
14. Hierarchical anonymization algorithms against background knowledge attack in data releasing10.1016/j.knosys.2016.03.004 ↗
15. Individual differential privacy: A utility-preserving formulation of differential privacy guarantees10.1109/TIFS.2017.2663337 ↗
16. Kotsogiannis, I., Machanavajjhala, A., Hay, M., and Miklau, G. (2017, January 14–19). Pythia: Data Dependent Differentially Private Algorithm Selection. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data, Chicago, IL, USA.10.1145/3035918.3035945 ↗
17. Lundmark, M., and Dahlman, C.-J. (2021, November 16). Differential privacy and machine learning: Calculating sensitivity with generated data sets. Comput. Sci., Available online: https://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1112478/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
18. The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy10.1561/0400000042 ↗
19. Aggarwal, C.C., and Philip, S.Y. (2008). A general survey of privacy-preserving data mining models and algorithms. Privacy-Preserving Data Mining, Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-70992-5 ↗
20. Dong, B., Liu, R., and Wang, W.H. (2014, January 3–7). Prada: Privacy-Preserving Data-Deduplication-as-a-Service. Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Shanghai, China.10.1145/2661829.2661863 ↗
21. Yi, X., Rao, F.-Y., Bertino, E., and Bouguettaya, A. (April, January 17). Privacy-Preserving Association Rule Mining in Cloud Computing. Proceedings of the 10th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security, Singapore.
22. Open access in a closed universe: Lexis, Westlaw, law schools, and the legal information market
23. E-Commerce Law and the Prospects for Uniform E-Commerce Rules on the Privacy and Security of Electronic Communications
24. Valdes, A., and Skinner, K. (2000). Adaptive, Model-Based Monitoring for Cyber Attack Detection. International Workshop on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, Springer.10.1007/3-540-39945-3_6 ↗
25. The state of research on cyberattacks against hospitals and available best practice recommendations: A scoping review10.1186/s12911-018-0724-5 ↗
26. A content analysis of journal articles using the language network analysis methods
27. Data mining methods in the prediction of Dementia: A real-data comparison of the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of linear discriminant analysis, logistic regression, neural networks, support vector machines, classification trees and random forests10.1186/1756-0500-4-299 ↗
28. Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it10.1093/esr/jcp006 ↗
29. Dynamical behavior of computer virus on Internet
30. Alpaydin, E. (2020). Introduction to Machine Learning, MIT Press.
31. Haupt, S.E., Cowie, J., Linden, S., McCandless, T., Kosovic, B., and Alessandrini, S. (November, January 29). Machine learning for applied weather prediction. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 14th International Conference on e-Science (e-Science), IEEE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.10.1109/eScience.2018.00047 ↗
32. A naive Bayes probability estimation model based on self-adaptive differential evolution10.1007/s10844-013-0279-y ↗
33. No unbiased estimator of the variance of k-fold cross-validation
34. An efficient hybrid multilayer perceptron neural network with grasshopper optimization10.1007/s00500-018-3424-2 ↗
35. Anderson, J. (1995). An Introduction to Neural Networks, MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3905.001.0001 ↗
36. Random forest classifier for remote sensing classification10.1080/01431160412331269698 ↗
37. Least squares support vector machine classifiers10.1023/A:1018628609742 ↗
38. Padmanabhan, B., Zheng, Z., and Kimbrough, S.O. (2006). An empirical analysis of the value of complete information for eCRM models. Mis Q., 247–267.10.2307/25148730 ↗
39. Padmanabhan, B., Zheng, Z., and Kimbrough, S.O. (2001, January 26–29). Personalization from incomplete data: What you don’t know can hurt. Proceedings of the Seventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/502512.502535 ↗
40. Rule-based classification systems using classification and regression tree (CART) analysis
41. A comparative predictive analysis of neural networks (NNs), nonlinear regression and classification and regression tree (CART) models10.1016/j.eswa.2005.01.006 ↗
42. Tsoi, A.C., and Pearson, R. (1991). Comparison of Three Classification Techniques: CART, C4. 5 and Multi-Layer Perceptrons. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Kaufmann.
43. A rule induction approach for determining the number of kanbans in a just-in-time production system10.1016/S0360-8352(98)00099-0 ↗
44. Support-vector networks10.1007/BF00994018 ↗
45. Pal, S.K., and Wang, P.P. (1996). Genetic Algorithms for Pattern Recognition, CRC Press.
46. Wang, C., and Jin, X. (2020, January 23–26). Study on Prediction of Legal Judgments Based on the CNN-BiGRU Model. Proceedings of the 2020 6th International Conference on Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Tianjin, China.10.1145/3404555.3404573 ↗
47. Random forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
48. Classification and regression by randomForest
49. Díaz-Uriarte, R., and De Andres, S.A. (2006). Gene selection and classification of microarray data using random forest. BMC Bioinform., 7.10.1186/1471-2105-7-3 ↗
50. Optimal number of features as a function of sample size for various classification rules10.1093/bioinformatics/bti171 ↗
51. The forest or the trees? Tackling Simpson’s paradox with classification trees10.1111/poms.12819 ↗
52. Caballé-Cervigón, N., Castillo-Sequera, J.L., Gómez-Pulido, J.A., Gómez-Pulido, J.M., and Polo-Luque, M.L. (2020). Machine learning applied to diagnosis of human diseases: A systematic review. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10155135 ↗
53. Wasserman, S., and Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815478 ↗
54. Sowa, J.F. (1984). Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc.
55. Wellman, B., and Berkowitz, S.D. (1988). Social Structures: A Network Approach, CUP Archive.
56. Network effects on cooperation in destination website development10.1016/j.tourman.2008.02.010 ↗
57. Infection in social networks: Using network analysis to identify high-risk individuals10.1093/aje/kwi308 ↗
58. Gunning, D. (2016). Broad Agency Announcement Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Technical Report.