JVN: Delta Electronics製COMMGRにおける暗号論的強度が不十分なPRNGの使用の脆弱性
「週刊金曜日」ニュース:子どもも大人も「学校が苦しい」
アリの一言:「戦後復興」で朝鮮を無視したNHK「映像の世紀」
自動運転時代の”次世代のITS通信”研究会(第3期第1回)配布資料
利用者情報に関するワーキンググループ(第31回) 開催案内
情報通信審議会 情報通信技術分科会 電波有効利用委員会無線設備の認証の在り方検討作業班(第2回)
Beyond 5G時代に向けた新ビジネス戦略セミナー(第24回) 〜「AI時代の知財・標準化戦略−業界関係者が語る変革の最前線」開催の御案内〜
情報通信審議会 電気通信事業政策部会 電気通信番号政策委員会(第43回) 開催案内
携帯電話端末の販売価格に関する注意喚起
令和7年度「救急の日」及び「救急医療週間」
第25回日韓内政関係者セミナーの開催
村上総務大臣閣議後記者会見の概要
令和7年台風第12号による被害に係る普通交付税(11月定例交付分)の繰上げ交付
利用者情報に関するワーキンググループ(第30回)
家計調査報告(二人以上の世帯)2025年(令和7年)7月分
情報通信審議会 情報通信技術分科会 新世代モバイル通信システム委員会(第36回)
令和7年度震災復興特別交付税の9月交付額の決定
California Lawmakers: Support S.B. 524 to Rein in AI Written Police Reports
EFF urges California state lawmakers to pass S.B. 524, authored by Sen. Jesse Arreguín. This bill is an important first step in regaining control over police using generative AI to write their narrative police reports.
This bill does several important things: It mandates that police reports written by AI include disclaimers on every page or within the body of the text that make it clear that this report was written in part or in total by a computer. It also says that any reports written by AI must retain their first draft. That way, it should be easier for defense attorneys, judges, police supervisors, or any other auditing entity to see which portions of the final report were written by AI and which parts were written by the officer. Further, the bill requires officers to sign and verify that they read the report and its facts are correct. And it bans AI vendors from selling or sharing the information a police agency provided to the AI.
These common-sense, first-step reforms are important: watchdogs are struggling to figure out where and how AI is being used in a police context. In fact, a popular AI police report writing tool, Axon’s Draft One, would be out of compliance with this bill, which would require them to redesign their tool to make it more transparent.
This bill is an important first step in regaining control over police using generative AI to write their narrative police reports.
Draft One takes audio from an officer’s body-worn camera, and uses AI to turn that dialogue into a narrative police report. Because independent researchers have been unable to test it, there are important questions about how the system handles things like sarcasm, out of context comments, or interactions with members of the public that speak languages other than English. Another major concern is Draft One’s inability to keep track of which parts of a report were written by people and which parts were written by AI. By design, their product does not retain different iterations of the draft—making it easy for an officer to say, “I didn’t lie in my police report, the AI wrote that part.”
All lawmakers should pass regulations of AI written police reports. This technology could be nearly everywhere, and soon. Axon is a top supplier of body-worn cameras in the United States, which means they have a massive ready-made customer base. Through the bundling of products, AI-written police reports could be at a vast percentage of police departments.
AI-written police reports are unproven in terms of their accuracy, and their overall effects on the criminal justice system. Vendors still have a long way to go to prove this technology can be transparent and auditable. While it would not solve all of the many problems of AI encroaching on the criminal justice system, S.B. 524 is a good first step to rein in an unaccountable piece of technology.
We urge California lawmakers to pass S.B. 524.