Chatbot that Overturned 160,000 Parking Fines Now Helping Refugees Claim Asylum (theguardian.com) 90
Elena Cresci, writing for The Guardian: The creator of a chatbot which overturned more than 160,000 parking fines and helped vulnerable people apply for emergency housing is now turning the bot to helping refugees claim asylum. The original DoNotPay, created by Stanford student Joshua Browder, describes itself as "the world's first robot lawyer", giving free legal aid to users through a simple-to-use chat interface. The chatbot, using Facebook Messenger, can now help refugees fill in an immigration application in the US and Canada. For those in the UK, it helps them apply for asylum support. The London-born developer worked with lawyers in each country, as well as speaking to asylum seekers whose applications have been successful. Browder says this new functionality for his robot lawyer is "long overdue". He told the Guardian: "I've been trying to launch this for about six months -- I initially wanted to do it in the summer. But I wanted to make sure I got it right because it's such a complicated issue. I kept showing it to lawyers throughout the process and I'd go back and tweak it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Here we have another alt-right snowflake triggered by the fact brown people exist in this world and sometimes have kids with white women.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
"Are you in danger" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Past performance does not guarantee future performance,
It applies to immigration very well also in the past it could be said we were more picky about those invested in and those that really did escape year ago were smarter as they got out early just like the rich who sell their shares at the top of the market and could see everything going downhill
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Are you in danger" (Score:4, Informative)
Asylum applicants without attorneys are four times as likely to be rejected, so knowing the process is important. People that represent themselves tend to talk about how much they like and appreciate America/Canada/UK, that they are grateful for the opportunities, and how they are working hard to contribute. In an asylum hearing, that is pretty much the opposite of what you should say.
Re:"Are you in danger" (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, the focus has to be on proving that you are at risk where you came from. So proving you were a resident of Alepo, getting medical reports on scars from torture/beatings, that kind of thing.
It's actually quite similar to the parking fine challenge process. Most of what you think is important isn't, it's really about making very specific points and demonstrating specific things that are well established.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right we hate America because we espouse political views contrary to your own! Forget freedom of thought, if you disagree with conservatives then you hate America!
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like the reasoning being used by the DNC during the election to accuse Trump of being a racist sexist bigot.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there's plenty of evidence to support a claim about Trump like that as opposed to stuff like "Gun control!? You hate America!", "Social programs to help the poor!? You hate America!" "(Insert non conservative view)!? You hate America!" There are elements of the Right that love playing the "You hate America" card when people express contrary political views to their own as if we're North Korea and not a free nation.
Dont get me wrong, there are jerks on the Left that want to be mind police too. I wa
Re: (Score:1)
Re:"Are you in danger" (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I understand of the current asylum interview process, the key question is "is your life in danger" followed by variations on "prove it." (Sometimes the proof is as simple as pointing to death threats on Facebook.) Does anyone know if coaching this process is what this bot is doing?
Yes...but using that reductive approach, you can say that this is how almost any compliance/vetting process works.
PCI DSS: "Do you handle payment card information securely," followed by variations on "prove it." Yet, accomplishing this is expensive and challenging.
Tax audit: "Have you paid what you owe for taxes," followed by variations on "prove it." The visceral reaction of anyone who has been through a tax audit makes my point here.
Security clearance interview: "Can we trust you with state secrets," followed by variation on "prove it." This gets even more interesting if you get a polygraph exam...which is essentially nothing more than a twisted, mind-fucky variation of the same.
The trick is in the "prove it" part...or more specifically, the overlap between what actual means are feasible for providing proof combined with what the questioning entity defines as acceptable proof. In different situations, this overlap may be subject to negotiation as well (or not), and that is its own area of expertise unto itself in some cases. Almost all of these processes also involve setting legal precedents during their early days as well.
In short: sure, you can use a verbal metaphor to represent the process in an oversimplified manner. But that doesn't make the actual process...as required by anyone who engages with it...simple or easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Process is oft times more important in legal situations than the facts... or the law. The single biggest reason to retain an attorney is to get someone who can navigate the process on your behalf.
Applying for asylum isn't only about proving that your life is in danger; it's about proving it the right way, in the right terms, in triplicate (except when only in duplicate), while the moon is waxing. Get one step wrong, and you may well lose your case, regardless of the facts, the law, or the truth.
After proc
Re: (Score:2)
That should be doable. Claim you're gay and that you're from some country where a religious nutjob is making the laws and your life is in danger.
Re: (Score:1)
I practiced Asylum law in lawschool. It is never simple. The judges are moody and overworked, the results are sometimes arbitrary. There are lots of rules (some unwritten), and lots of strategies. Do you want asylum, or maybe the easier-to-get CAT withholding-removal? Perhaps try for a VAWA? U visa? T visa? It is very hard for an outsider to pick the right strategy. ICE, CBP and for-profit detention facilities add another element of unpredictability. Should you request asylum at the border (probab
Re: (Score:2)
Erm no. That would be an ideal - but it really is a lot more complicated than that - how complicated varies by country. Asylum laws vary by country.
An asylum-seeker is never an illegal immigrant (contrary to how president Trump described the Australia deal) - it's legal under international law (As well as US and Australian domestic law btw) to show up at a border without a VISA or passport if you are a refugee. Of course, if your request for asylum is denied and you THEN go in you could BECOME an illegal i
Re:Overturned 160,000 parking fines? (Score:5, Informative)
Evidence please? And not "it's been used 160,000 times".
A simple search in /. for "chatbot parking" turned up this previous article [slashdot.org], which indicated that it successfully challenged 160,000 out of 250,000 tickets. So, no, not "it's been used 160,000 times". This is a "it's won 160,000 times". And that was as of June of last year. This NPR piece [npr.org] from earlier this year indicates that its up to 200,000 successful cases now in just three cities, and that its overall success rate with parking tickets stands at around 60%.
Re: (Score:1)
I just wanted to offer Internet Points for keeping one's composure when replying, and not scolding or demeaning the questioner. (Which we've all seen plenty of).
You sir, mam, bot(?) are today's coolest poster.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence please? And not "it's been used 160,000 times".
A simple search in /. for "chatbot parking" turned up this previous article [slashdot.org], which indicated that it successfully challenged 160,000 out of 250,000 tickets. So, no, not "it's been used 160,000 times". This is a "it's won 160,000 times". And that was as of June of last year. This NPR piece [npr.org] from earlier this year indicates that its up to 200,000 successful cases now in just three cities, and that its overall success rate with parking tickets stands at around 60%.
The question is, is 60% any better than any other methods. I'd say it's much lower than paying a lawyer at $400 an hour (I know a traffic lawyer who boasts a 90% sucess rate, thats where I got the $400 p/h figure from, I believe him because he doesn't take cases he's certain are going to lose). Here in the UK, the rule of thumb is, if it's issued by a local government, you need a bulletproof excuse to get out of it. If it's issued by a private corporation, just chuck it in the bin (so you don't get a fine f
Re: (Score:3)
Evidence please? And not "it's been used 160,000 times".
Also if you think the asylum process is as simple as appealing a parking fine, you're fucking high. This guy appears to have more hubris than experience, and it reminds me of the $1 laptop programmes where somehow people without shelter and electricity and maintenance shops were somehow going to benefit from Wikipedia to tell them how to re-build the civilisation that the same cultures that delivered their laptop had destroyed.
While I agree that evidence of the claim would be useful, I also see no evidence of the implied accusation that his system has been unhelpful to anyone.
I can absolutely imagine how this kind of system would be useful to an asylum seeker. Some of the biggest challenges aren't about nuance of law or understanding of precedent. Imagine showing up in an industrialized country, not able to speak the language very well (or at all). You don't know what government agencies you're about to interact with, nor do y
I think you mean (Score:1)
I think you mean "helping turn immigrants into asylum seekers"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm from Central Europe. I fail to see the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
.... we have bigots here that think Indians are Iranian and can't tell the difference between Sikhs and Muslim extremists. I would say get to know a group of people before you start hating them, but then that might make it too hard to actually hate them.
It usually makes it easier. Civil wars are between sides who know each other's ways very well - too well. The more I know people the less I like them in general, irrespective of race etc. I find that the majority of people are actually shits under a civilised veneer. In the UK people are now very familiar with all these different immigrant groups, thanks to SJWs' aim of "multi-culture" being rammed down our throats all the time. The more time goes on, the more that the original UK people are getting
Re: (Score:1)
You do not expect the MSM to run with that story, they have to make it sound like those military jihadi's are children and women and need help. Btw, NONE are Christians, and NONE are white. surprise!!
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem is see is that this "fix" will probably be in the veterinary sense.
Re:Great use of resources (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
No, We don't "assume" that - we have facts and evidence that PROVE that.
You assume the opposite because you will believe anything if it gives you an excuse to try and keep your neighbourhood looking like you.
Re:Great use of resources (Score:5, Insightful)
A chatbot can not get Congress to fund care for the large increase in veterans Congress decided to create.
Re: (Score:1)
Turkey has taken in 7 million refugees...I guess one could say they are swimming in refugees...
Re: (Score:2)
What's it to you who he helps? It's like you feel entitled to the fruits of his voluntary labor.
Other Uses (Score:1)
The gov should hire him (Score:5, Insightful)
Every government form should have chatbot assistance available. The purpose of the government form is to convey information accurately so that help can be delivered to the people that qualify and rule out assistance to people that should be denied - that is the government's intent after all.
If the chatbot helps imrorve the effectiveness of that process, and it seems there is evidence that it does as I have not heard that the 160,000 odd parking citations were overturned improperly, then all for the better.
Re: (Score:1)
Posting anonymously due to moderation.
I believe the value of a service like this isn't in whether at advances someone's ideals (although it may do that). The value to me is in everyone understanding the PROCESS, so that they system can best do the job it was designed to do. Why should there be secret arcane knowledge of how to interact with a process that most people don't interact with often, where the secret arcane knowledge leads those who know it to achieve better results than those who don't? In th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
All he is doing is assisting people in accessing programs that the US government has already decided to offer. If they don't want people to utilize those programs then they should cancel them. These are just immigration applications anyway. The government is free to reject those applications for any reasons it deems fit.
Socialist gov LOVE to give away money they rob from others...
Immigration is part of being a country. In fact this country was built on immigration, and American culture is like no other culture on the planet specifically because of immigration and how in most cases immigrants are fully assimilated within a generation or 2.
You act like this chatbot is handing out free money. It's not. Only if applicants are admitted for immigration to they have the opportunity to get assistance: for food stamps "Qualified immigrant children, refugees, people granted asylum or wit
Re: (Score:1)
legal advice? how's that...legal from not a lawer? (Score:3)
...and lawyers help created it? Hell must have froze over....or more likely I am missing something. Ok, I generalize, some lawyers may be good persons.
Not that I personally am against it!
Re: (Score:1)
...and lawyers help created it? Hell must have froze over....or more likely I am missing something. Ok, I generalize, some lawyers may be good persons.
Not that I personally am against it!
Of course Hell froze over; Did you NOT hear the Chicago Cubs won the World Series in baseball! Tim S.
anti-donotpay-chatbot..? (Score:2)
How come the chatbot is this good - winning 16:25 cases?
Will govs now produce their version of chatbot for enforcement or judges to use and fight back?
Re: (Score:2)
I knew robots were coming for our jobs, but I didn't expect lawyers to be replaced so early on.
More Complicated? (Score:2)
It sounds like he took a straightforward and simple solution like, a list of advice and rules, and turned it into a complicated guess the verb adventure.
I cannot imagine any situation where simply providing a list of advice would not be easier to use.
Imagine a world without lawyers (Score:2)