• Informatization Policy
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2024

This paper summarizes the legal problems and issues raised in relation to generative AI. In addition, we looked at what regulatory discussions individual countries or international organizations have in order to solve or respond to these issues or to minimize the risks posed by generative AI. Infringement of individual basic rights raised by generative AI, the emergence and control of new crimes, monopolization of specific markets and environmental issues are mainly discussed, and although there are some differences in the necessity and direction of regulation, most countries seem to have similar views. Regarding AI, the issues that are currently being raised have been discussed continuously from the beginning of its appearance. Although certain issues have been discussed relatively much, there are some differences between countries, and situations that require consideration of phenomena different from the past are emerging. It seems that regulations and policies are being refined according to the situation of individual countries. In a situation where various issues are rapidly emerging and changing, measures to minimize the risk of AI and to enjoy the utility and benefits of AI through the use of safe AI should be sought. It will be necessary to continuously identify and analyze international trends and reorganize AI-related regulations and detailed policies suitable for Korea.

• Journal of forensic and investigative science
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.5-19
• /
• 2006

Data mining is an information extraction activity to discover hidden facts contained in databases. Using a combination of machine learning, statistical analysis, modeling techniques and database technology, data mining finds patterns and subtle relationships in data and infers rules that allow the prediction of future results. Typical applications include market segmentation, customer profiling, fraud detection, evaluation of retail promotions, and credit risk analysis. Law enforcement agencies deal with mass data to investigate the crime and its amount is increasing due to the development of processing the data by using computer. Now new challenge to discover knowledge in that data is confronted to us. It can be applied in criminal investigation to find offenders by analysis of complex and relational data structures and free texts using their criminal records or statement texts. This study was aimed to evaluate possibile application of data mining and its limitation in practical criminal investigation. Clustering of the criminal cases will be possible in habitual crimes such as fraud and burglary when using data mining to identify the crime pattern. Neural network modelling, one of tools in data mining, can be applied to differentiating suspect's photograph or handwriting with that of convict or criminal profiling. A case study of in practical insurance fraud showed that data mining was useful in organized crimes such as gang, terrorism and money laundering. But the products of data mining in criminal investigation should be cautious for evaluating because data mining just offer a clue instead of conclusion. The legal regulation is needed to control the abuse of law enforcement agencies and to protect personal privacy or human rights.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.311-336
• /
• 2015

This article surveys the current international law with respect to RPAS from both the public air law and private air law perspectives. It then reviews current and proposed Australian domestic RPAS regulation while emphasizing the peculiar risks in operation of RPAS; and how they affect concepts of liability, safety and privacy. While RPAS operations still constitute only a small portion of total operations within commercial aviation, international pilotless flight for commercial air transport remains a future reality. As the industry is developing so quickly the earlier the pursuit of the right policy solutions begins, the better the law will be able to cope with the technological realities when the inevitable risks manifest in accidents. The paper acknowledges that a domestic or regional approach to RPAS, typified by the legislative success of the Australian experience, is and continues to be the principal measure to deal with RPAS issues globally. Furthermore, safety remains the foremost factor in present and revised Australian RPAS regulation. This has an analogue to the international situation. Creating safety-related rules is imperative and must precede the creation or adoption of liability rules because the former mitigates the risk of accidents which trigger the application of the latter. The flipside of a lack of binding airworthiness standards for RPAS operators is potentially a strong argument that the liability regime (and particularly strict liability of operators) is unfair and unsuited to pilotless flight. The potential solutions the authors raise include the need for revised ICAO guidance and, in particular, SARPs with respect to RPAS air safety, airworthiness, and potentially liability issues for participants/passengers, and those on the ground. Such guidance could then be adapted swiftly for appropriate incorporation into domestic laws bypassing the need for or administrative burden and time it would take to activate the treaty process to deal with an arm of aviation that states know all too well is in need of safety regulation and monitoring.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.225-285
• /
• 2017

In regard to the regulations related to the RPA(Remotely Piloted Aircraft), which is sometimes called in other countries as UA(Unmanned Aircraft), ICAO stipulates the regulations in the 'RPAS manual (2015)' in detail based on the 'Chicago Convention' in 1944, and enacts provisions for the Rules of UAS or RPAS. Other contries stipulates them such as the Federal Airline Rules (14 CFR), Public Law (112-95) in the United States, the Air Transport Act, Air Transport Order, Air Transport Authorization Order (through revision in "Regulations to operating Rules on unmanned aerial System") based on EASA Regulation (EC) No.216/2008 in the case of unmanned aircaft under 150kg in Germany, and Civil Aviation Act (CAA 1998), Civil Aviation Act 101 (CASR Part 101) in Australia. Commonly, these laws exclude the model aircraft for leisure purpose and require pilots on the ground, not onboard aricraft, capable of controlling RPA. The laws also require that all managements necessary to operate RPA and pilots safely and efficiently under the structure of the unmanned aircraft system within the scope of the regulations. Each country classifies the RPA as an aircraft less than 25kg. Australia and Germany further break down the RPA at a lower weight. ICAO stipulates all general aviation operations, including commercial operation, in accordance with Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention, and it also applies to RPAs operations. However, passenger transportation using RPAs is excluded. If the operational scope of the RPAs includes the airspace of another country, the special permission of the relevant country shall be required 7 days before the flight date with detail flight plan submitted. In accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation 107 in the United States, a small non-leisure RPA may be operated within line-of-sight of a responsible navigator or observer during the day in the speed range up to 161 km/hr (87 knots) and to the height up to 122 m (400 ft) from surface or water. RPA must yield flight path to other aircraft, and is prohibited to load dangerous materials or to operate more than two RPAs at the same time. In Germany, the regulations on UAS except for leisure and sports provide duty to avoidance of airborne collisions and other provisions related to ground safety and individual privacy. Although commercial UAS of 5 kg or less can be freely operated without approval by relaxing the existing regulatory requirements, all the UAS regardless of the weight must be operated below an altitude of 100 meters with continuous monitoring and pilot control. Australia was the first country to regulate unmanned aircraft in 2001, and its regulations have impacts on the unmanned aircraft laws of ICAO, FAA, and EASA. In order to improve the utiliity of unmanned aircraft which is considered to be low risk, the regulation conditions were relaxed through the revision in 2016 by adding the concept "Excluded RPA". In the case of excluded RPA, it can be operated without special permission even for commercial purpose. Furthermore, disscussions on a new standard manual is being conducted for further flexibility of the current regulations.