Slashdot Mirror


Creator of Chatbot that Beat 160K Parking Fines Now Tackling Homelessness (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The chatbot lawyer that overturned hundreds and thousands of parking tickets is now tackling another problem: homelessness. London-born Stanford student Joshua Browder created DoNotPay initially to help people appeal against fines for unpaid parking tickets. Dubbed "the world's first robot lawyer", Browder later programmed it to deal with a wider range of legal issues, such as claiming for delayed flights and trains and payment protection insurance (PPI). Now, Browder, 19, wants his chatbot to provide free legal aid to people facing homelessness. He said: "I never could have imagined a parking ticket bot would appeal so much to people. Then I realised: this issue is bigger than a few parking tickets." In an interview with the Washington Post, the 19-year-old said he decided to expand the bot's capabilities after DoNotPay began receiving messages about evictions and repossessions. In February this year tenant evictions reached the highest on record.

48 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. What Do You Call 100 Lawyers Replaced by a Robot? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Funny

    A Good Start.

  2. Re:What Do You Call 100 Lawyers Replaced by a Robo by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah but there are probably still immoral things that a robot won't do for money so we will still need lawyers.

  3. Humans Need Not Apply by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Or another early sign that the AI revolution may be different from earlier industrial revolutions

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Humans Need Not Apply by RicktheBrick · · Score: 2

      i am a 67 year old man who lives alone because his wife died and his children live in other states. When I look to the future I still see many needs for me. There is cleaning the house and me. There is mowing the grass in the summer and keeping the sidewalks and driveway free from snow in the winter. There is also raking the leaves in the fall. There is also cooking my food. There is maintaining the house I live in. Now I do not see any type of robots doing any of that work in the near future. I could see designing underground homes and transportation system so that there is a far less need for much of that work. For instance robots cooking meals and being delivered automatically. I think it will take more than 50 years for a lot of that to happen and I will be dead long before it does happen. But for someone born today it will be a definite problem when they are in their 50's. Since there are probably millions of people like me there will be lots of work unless someone decides to kill us all.

  4. How is this a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Non-paying tenants are the scum of the earth. They are literally taking food out of the mouths of their landlords. The landlord-tenant courts are absurdly pro-tenant as is and delay evictions for 6-12 months as a matter of course as is. Most landlords are not Donald Trumps. They are middle class people who own 1-3 units. A single non-paying tenant can and often does put them on the brink of bankruptcy. This isn't a good thing. People who cant afford their housing need to move and find cheaper housing. They shouldn't get 6-12 months at someone else's expense to do it.

    1. Re:How is this a good thing? by Tx · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't see anything in the article about the bot fighting evictions of non-paying tenants. It's talking about helping people who are already homeless to successfully apply for emergency council housing, and helping them get in touch with housing charities.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    2. Re:How is this a good thing? by beelsebob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Right, I feel really sorry for the landlord who has enough money to buy two houses, taking food out of his mouth is *terrible* compared to taking food out of the mouth of the person who can't even afford the basics of staying in some shelter somewhere.

    3. Re:How is this a good thing? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Having been a Landlord. They also need to take the ethical concerns on what service they are offering. And like many highly regulated areas, it is because there had been historical abuse in such field.
      As a landlord you are offering a key part of a person's survival and well being. Now the landlord had cases where they evict people for a bunch of stupid reasons. And without such legal reasons the person will get kicked out and the apartment will get replaced well before any legal action can happen. So the ex-tenant has already loss, even before they can go to court, so why bother.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:How is this a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right, I feel really sorry for the landlord who has enough money to buy two houses, taking food out of his mouth is *terrible* compared to taking food out of the mouth of the person who can't even afford the basics of staying in some shelter somewhere.

      1) Many landlords don't have "enough" money, they take out loans (and have to pay them back using rental income) to buy rental properties.

      2) Why should the landlord be responsible for providing rent-free housing for their tenants? Some of whom are perfectly capable of paying and are just being jerks.

      Personally I'd never buy rental property because most people are jerks and I don't want to deal with them.

    5. Re:How is this a good thing? by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The solution to this is any one of the following:
      1. only be a landlord in areas without those silly requirements
      2. charge a rent high enough to cover such eventualities

      You've basically explained exactly why rents in SF are so high. SImply not worth the hassle, try your luck in Denver or any Texas city....

    6. Re: How is this a good thing? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It must be expensive to own a bank or a factory, too. But you assume a certain ROI. I don't think that property is any different. It's not expensive in the sense that the Porsche or Ferrari you're driving for fun on weekends is expensive.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re: How is this a good thing? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      But this means that owning multiple properties is not that expensive. It's less volatile. How do banks and insurance companies generate profit while dealing with unreliable humans? Precisely by juggling multiple accounts at once and factoring in the costs. But if you have only one tenant, that can hurt.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:How is this a good thing? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      taking food out of his mouth is *terrible* compared to taking food out of the mouth of the person who can't even afford the basics of staying in some shelter somewhere.

      It doesn't work that way. Rentals are a business, and they will be priced to make an acceptable return on investment. So if tenants have a "right" to stay in the property without paying rent, that cost will be built into the rent, and paid by the other tenants. It also means that people with poor credit will not be allowed to rent even if they have the money. If you look at jurisdictions with strong tenant rights, such as SF or NYC, they also have high rents and onerous tenant application processes. In SF it is easier to qualify as a buyer than as a renter.

    9. Re:How is this a good thing? by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      I've started using the phrase 'I FIGURATIVELY...' eg: 'Your comment is so funny I FIGURATIVELY died laughing!" I hope it catches on. If it doesn't I will literally loose my mind.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    10. Re:How is this a good thing? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Many things in SF aren't rent controlled. Among other things, anything newer than June 13, 1979, which is a lot since SF had a boom starting in the 90s of new condo-like construction.

    11. Re:How is this a good thing? by lgw · · Score: 2

      You wot mate?

      I like renting. I'm lazy, and I like problems to be someone else's. I value the service provided, not just by the property management company that that replaces the water heater and takes car of the greenery and roofing work without any effort from me, but the property owner, who provides the up-front capital so I don't have to. Sure, I could buy a condo, but I don't want the risk, so I'm glad someone else does.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:How is this a good thing? by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Note - I never said "I think it's reasonable to not pay a landlord". Instead, merely pointed out that phrasing it as "look at that bastard taking food out of the landlord's mouth" is pretty ridiculous when you've got someone too poor to pay for shelter on the other end of the equation.

  5. the problem is jackboot landlords. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    disclaimer: I work to prosecute housing discrimination. im not your attorney though.
    after the 1964 civil rights amendment landlords needed new tools to continue the systemic policy of redlined districs in light of things like equal housing policies and anti-discrimination ordinances. They largely found it in Reagans call for a "lawful" society and began instituting policies to reflect "lawfulness" in their rental applications. tenants could now be refused for prior criminal record, poor credit, no credit, lack of a drivers license, bank account, even washing their car outside or having expired tags on their car which would have it towed by a private company at a housing authorities discretion. the idea was to antagonize and outright shun poor people into a market created especially for them.

    existing tenements apartments like cabrini green did not have much in the way of requirements for housing other than section 8. Cabrini was a repository for low income black renters and designed to continue a housing segregation policy into the 21st century, but it began to fail after systemic poverty gave rise to sectarian violence and outright block warfare that chewed up a dozen or more cops a year. the solution for Cabrini was to demolish it, renovate the space, and the tenants would then be allowed to return. but it did not work that way. new landlords began instituting the same policies in Cabrini that landlords from the sixties used to prevent access to middle class neighbourhoods for upwardly mobile black families. the result was displacement, and unaccountable gentrification at the expense of a community thats been largely ignored.

    to fix the homeless crisis in america means we need to address things like systemic racism, the boom bust cycle of poverty and inequality in american capitalism, and the ability for landed gentry to impose arbitrary restriction on any number of free living conditions to police and enforce what essentially turn into their own mini cities and states. the bot proposed can help with things like overzealous prosecutors and cities that have an unwritten debtors prison policy, but it will do nothing to prevent unscrupulous lenders and collections agencies from hounding the poor and ruining credit scores required for upward mobility.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:the problem is jackboot landlords. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is wanting you to pay your rent on time, as you agreed to, racist???

      If renters cannot pay the rent, buh-bye. Just like if you cannot afford an iPhone, you don't get one because you a not white. You don't get one because you don't pay.

    2. Re:the problem is jackboot landlords. by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I'm normally fairly civil on the internet but if you support Section 8 then I can only hope that you die and soon. Section 8 is an insult to every hard working American and supports generational poverty while simultaneously enriching the already rich. In short just about everything bad is embodied in Section 8. The rich get guaranteed government checks, the poor get free housing and spread more crime (citation below) and the middle class just gets the shaft as usual.

      Citation: http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...

    3. Re:the problem is jackboot landlords. by Zak3056 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Section 8, as designed, is a welfare program that anyone (conservative, liberal, whatever) can get behind. It was the proverbial "hand up, not a hand out" that was designed to move people out of projects, where opportunity was low (at best) and into situations where they could truly benefit themselves. The original participants were chosen very carefully, and were tightly screened. They looked for people who wanted to work. People who kept neat houses and took care of their kids. When they were enrolled in the program, they were followed up on to check their progress and ensure they were doing their part. The program was a massive success--the people it helped had overwhelmingly positive outcomes.

      What we have today is a result of it being a victim of its own success. Because it was so successful, scads of money was thrown at the program in an attempt to expand it to more people. Today, just about ANYONE who meets the income requirements can get on section 8 (it is awarded typically by lottery), there is no screening, no followup, or anything else. Its use has (as your citations notes) exported crime from the high crime areas to the low crime areas, all under the guise of "equality" (where everyone lives an equally shitty life, I guess?) it's basically the inverse of the "villas at Kenny's House" gag on South Park, with predictable results.

      I (strongly!) support section 8, but as it was originally designed and implemented, and not the gigantic mess we have today. If you still want me to die as a result, then (with equal civility) I suggest that you go fuck yourself.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    4. Re:the problem is jackboot landlords. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Citation: http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...

      I clicked on the link. I didn't get beyond the first line: "Why is crime rising in so many American cities?" An article that starts with a line that, while it may be true, is highly misleading and intended to deceive, or perhaps just pander to existing biases is not an article that can be taken as a reliable citation.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:the problem is jackboot landlords. by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Poor reading or just want to maintain your bubble? Being exposed to different viewpoints is how you might learn something. Or you can cover your ears and run away. Let me guess, you support "Safe Spaces" too ;-)

    6. Re:the problem is jackboot landlords. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Poor reading or just want to maintain your bubble? Being exposed to different viewpoints is how you might learn something.

      No, I just don't want to be bothered reading an article that starts with what is effectively a falsehood: that crime is rising. It isn't. I don't want to be bothered reading an article that is obviously not based on reality.

      There may be some cities where crime is rising (hence justifying the misleading claim), but overall it is falling.

      When you make a disingenuous claim in your first article, the rest is likely to be fact free.

      I am not going to learn anything from someone else's falsehoods.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:the problem is jackboot landlords. by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a bubble. What you'll find if you bother to actually look further is that you're confusing national crime rates with regional crime rates. For example crime can be going up in some areas why down in others. The question then would be why is crime going up in the areas where it is rising. That's what the article dealt with. You should read it, it really is quite interesting and is not disingenuous nor fact free.

    8. Re:the problem is jackboot landlords. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      to fix the homeless crisis in america means we need to address things like systemic racism, the boom bust cycle of poverty and inequality in american capitalism, and the ability for landed gentry to impose arbitrary restriction on any number of free living conditions to police and enforce what essentially turn into their own mini cities and states.

      No. What we have to fix is the political process. The majority of states can legally use eminent domain to seize empty homes from banks and give them to the homeless, which is precisely what should be done when (as now) the banks refuse to sell the properties for what the market will bear. We know that's what they are doing beyond any shadow of a doubt because there are literally multiple empty homes for every homeless man, woman, and child in this nation.

      Many of our state governments have the power to address this situation, but our elected officials lack the will to improve our lot at the expense of angering the banks. Traitors, all.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:the problem is jackboot landlords. by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      One other comment - I am sorry I suggested that you die. That is uncalled for. I'll change that to "... if you support Section 8 then I can only hope that you stop and soon."

    10. Re:the problem is jackboot landlords. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      But Apple is greedy in lots of ways, just consider how much they collect from premium games, they could have avoided that, but they didn't, and there's a lot of people who don't have the nerve to fight their gambits.

      You are profoundly confused about the nature of the world. The goal of a business is to make money. They will maximize profits however they can within the law. Doing anything else is a poorly managed business. Apple can't be "greedy" any more than a grizzly bear can be a murderer.

    11. Re:the problem is jackboot landlords. by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1
      If cutting Section 8 back to a much smaller and more tightly managed program is your goal then I'm fine with that as a starting point. Ultimately I see it as a case of "give a man a fish" vs teaching him to fish. Section 8 distorts the economics and people might think that they are making it but really they are not. I'm reminded of an article that I read about long term rent control renters who have a harsh shock when for whatever reason their situation changes and they must pay the full market rate.

      As for being a victim of its own success, who wouldn't want to only pay 30% of their bills. Obviously everyone wants a deal like that. It's a deal that's too good to be true or sustained. Moreover it creates resentment with the neighbors who don't get the easy ride. Final note - good luck getting an apology out of another person on the Internet :-)

    12. Re: the problem is jackboot landlords. by lgw · · Score: 1

      My ex-wife and two of her siblings range between 27 and 35 years old and are all in section 8 housing.

      None do crime or are on drugs. They are, however, in a town where the jobs don't pay enough to match real estate prices

      Funny how supply and demand work out, isn't it. And by funny I mean "entirely predictable". Without the government prop, something would have to give - you can't have housing that no one can afford for long (see: 2008).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:the problem is jackboot landlords. by Zak3056 · · Score: 2

      Thank you for your return to civility.

      To reply to something you said upthread: I agree teaching people to fish that far, far preferable to providing them daily fish rations. Sometimes, though, you're faced with people who live in the middle of a desert, where teaching them to fish just isn't feasible, and is never going to be. At that point, you can either feed them on the journey out of the desert, or just leave them to die. To me, there is no choice between the two.

      To goal of all welfare programs should be self-obsolecence--that people enrolled in those programs transition out of them as soon as possible. Section 8, as originally structured, was designed to do just that. We need to go back to it and come up with more programs like it.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  6. Lawyers don’t want to deal with this crap, t by Theovon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This isn’t putting any layers out of work. How many do you think want to deal with minor parking and traffic violations? The more interesting cases are personal injury, criminal, IP, and other things where somebody has deep pockets. Heck, most of the time, people don’t involve lawyers in small claims, because it’s not cost-effective.

    Who besides the ticket-writers and land lords wouldn’t be chearing for some online legal help? Actually, all the information you’d need to handle these cases was already online; all this does is automate it for you. Not to downplay this, though. Lots of apps have complicated interfaces to do things, but sometimes it’s really nice to have one of those “wizard” dialogues to help you get it started by asking all the right questions.

  7. Definitely need this in the US by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Civil asset forfeiture, foreclosure fraud, drug offenses, IRS, no fly lists, Our 100 mile "constitution free zone", for almost any non responsive government bureaucracy, the list goes on...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. Re:What Do You Call 100 Lawyers Replaced by a Robo by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

    You forgot the the most important part, within the confines of the law. A robot can only break the law if programmed to do so a a lawyer can break the law as they see fit.

    --
    Knowledge = Power
    P= W/t
    t=Money
    Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
  9. the problem is lawlessness by tomhath · · Score: 1

    All people have rights.

    Do I have the right to live in a safe and quiet neighborhood? It seems from your argument the answer is no, that it should be illegal to try and keep "sectarian violence and outright block warfare" away.

    1. Re:the problem is lawlessness by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      If you have that right, then so do the people living in those neighborhoods you look down on. But sounds like you already got yours.

      How is it the posters responsibility to fix neighborhoods? You can't exactly go door to door and shoot gang members even when you know full well who they are. The best that an individual can do is leave. I'm not clear why you criticize him for wanting to lead a peaceful life. How would you propose the poster fix things?

  10. Re:Leftists at it again by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The US Legal system has a few issues.
    1. Most of the law makers are also lawyers. Just as I am a Computer Scientist and I think things can get better if you just fix the process, a trained Lawyer will think to just adding new laws or changing a law will fix all of the problems.

    2. Many fines are a source of revenue for the government. While they may give an impassioned speech on how such laws are protecting people. While they are just filling the point of bringing in additional revenue.

    3. Laws to help the poor are so complex that only the rich can take advantage of them. Lets put being PC aside for a bit. Often the reason why Poor people are poor is because their actions are not ideal. Such as taking drugs, getting into trouble, or just being lazy. So many of these laws are written for the mythical angle who just seemed to not be able to make it. And when social services are given to people don't seem to deserve it, it gets a lot of heat. So they put a lot of hooks in these laws to prevent abuse that it is nearly impossible for people to take advantage of them.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  11. Re:What Do You Call 100 Lawyers Replaced by a Robo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Only the innocent need a lawyer, the guilty can lie for themselves.
                                                                                                            Abraham Lincoln

  12. Re:What Do You Call 100 Lawyers Replaced by a Robo by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    Look forward to the letters from the law office of Dewey, Cheatem and HAL.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  13. It's an equalizer by drew_kime · · Score: 2

    The people writing tickets - and prosecuting them - do it thousands of time a year. Most people defending against them do it once a year or less. Apps like this just put defendants on a more even footing with prosecutors in terms of knowing the law.

    Prosecutors may complain, but if your argument is that you prefer when people don't know the law, you deserve to lose.

    --
    Nope, no sig
  14. Re:What Do You Call 100 Lawyers Replaced by a Robo by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Just my thought. I mean it is not as if they could do a much worse job or be more expensive.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  15. Re: Leftists at it again by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't say that. Just yesterday I was downtown for jury duty and noticed a guy holding up a sign that says "need food", presumably under the premise of getting handouts from jurors routinely passing through.

    The thing is, just around the corner is one of those shelters that freely give out all of the food and clothing you could ask for. I guarantee you that this guy knows that, and if you were to offer him a choice of money or food, which do you think he'd opt for?

    And the reason for that is he doesn't want food; instead he wants one or more of booze, cigarettes, or to get high. Oh and did I mention he was smoking? If you know how expensive cigarettes are these days, you can see the disconnect.

    The best way to help homeless people, in my opinion, is to only give them food and clothing and nothing else, with money absolutely being off limits. Seriously, why would any sane person want to feed the habits that keep them there to begin with?

  16. Foolish Notions by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    It is convenient and wards of personal fears to believe that the poor are lazy, have some defect, or behave poorly. But it is a false belief. Mother Teresa spent her life in poverty as did Ghandi, Christ and the Buddha. Many of the best and most worthy people suffer poverty. Ask Mozart! Recently I learned some new ebonics. Getting hemmed was the first term. A hem controls the height of a garment from the ground as well as how far the garment can expand. The trap was the next term. The ghetto is called the trap. Essentially if you are born in the trap you will stay in the trap. Hey, it's only true 95% of the time. The trap is also the area surrounded with cops and in which cops are free to break the law as they know that people who are in the trap can not afford lawyers. So individuals consider themselves as hemmed in the trap. They can only rise off the ground to the regulated degree. They can only expand to the regulated degree. So what happens when people are hemmed in the trap? All too often the city declares the trap a blighted area, pushes the people out, with no place to go and levels the trap. Think of it like it was 150 years ago and the Indian Reservation became an issue for white folks. Boom ! No more reservation, treaties be damned.

  17. Chatbot for landlords by manoweb · · Score: 1

    If I were the author of this chatbot I'd make a version for landlords to help them with quick evictions and tenants that do not pay, not the other way around.

  18. Re: Leftists at it again by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    The best way to help homeless people, in my opinion, is to only give them food and clothing and nothing else

    Except they already have access to food from shelters or other places. They do not need (or like you said want) food from you. The best thing you can do is give them nothing, and instead support the agencies whose job it is to help them by providing job and housing placement assistance (among many other things).

  19. Re:What Do You Call 100 Lawyers Replaced by a Robo by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    uuuuuhhhh.... WOOOSH?

  20. Re: Leftists at it again by Gorobei · · Score: 1

    You sound like a Dalek middle manager overseeing the human concentration camps.

  21. Re: Leftists at it again by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    I already know that's not true for this particular place because it's a church organization that will give to just anybody who asks.