Forums

@Cybertan

Man cites fake case in Singapore lawsuit | The Straits Times https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/judge-calls-out-man-for-using-ai-to-cite-fictitious-case-in-singapore-lawsuit-against-wife   Here are the full details from the *Straits Times* report regarding the Singapore lawsuit where a man was called out by a judge for using AI to cite a fictitious case:   ### The Background A husband filed applications in court for a Personal Protection Order (PPO) and a domestic exclusion order against his wife, claiming that she had subjected him to extreme emotional and psychological abuse for over a decade. The couple, who have a son, were also going through divorce proceedings at the time. The husband alleged that his wife had controlled him to the point of destitution, deliberately denying him food and money. He claimed he was so severely malnourished that his bones became brittle and his teeth rotted away, forcing him to travel to India for cheaper dental care.   ### The Judge's Findings Magistrate Soh Kian Peng dismissed the husband's applications after finding his claims completely unconvincing:    * **Inconsistent Testimony:** While the husband claimed to be physically emaciated and weak due to starvation, he also testified that he routinely bought and hauled three 5kg bags of flour (15kg total) over a distance of 1.2 kilometers back to his home. The magistrate noted it was highly unlikely someone in a severely malnourished state could manage this.    * **Relationship Dynamics:** Two videos submitted to the court showed snapshots of their interactions. The magistrate noted that the husband was clearly able to "hold his ground with a clear air of defiance," countering his claims of being entirely submissive and controlled.    * **Root Cause of Destitution:** The magistrate pointed out that the husband's retrenchment in 2009 had deeply impacted him, leading to a destructive spiral because he lacked healthy coping mechanisms. The judge concluded that the husband, not the wife, was responsible for the state he was in.   ### The Use of Fake AI Cases The issue of AI arose when the husband was arguing for his wife's counselling reports to be disclosed to him. To support his argument, he cited a legal case that turned out to be completely fictitious.    * **The Husband's Defense:** When questioned by the magistrate about his use of AI tools, the man denied fabricating evidence. He claimed he only used generative AI to draft the initial versions of the legal documents and to pull standard templates for affidavits, which he then reviewed and edited.    * **The Court's Observation:** The magistrate noted the unusually fast speed at which the court statements were prepared, alongside a peculiar structure and syntax. For instance, the text constantly shifted back and forth between referring to the husband in the first person ("I") and the third person ("he").   ### The Ruling and Warning Because the claims were deemed unreliable, the magistrate dismissed the PPO application and ordered the husband to pay **$10,000 in legal costs** to his wife.   Magistrate Soh emphasized an important boundary regarding technology in the courtroom:   **Generative AI is not prohibited** for litigants in Singapore, but they must take absolute responsibility for its output. He warned against the "temptation to rely entirely on the algorithm without applying one's mind to the actual output," especially when presenting evidence to a court of law.

moar content of both slorth  no pass and engkok ball touch wire before goal incidents.   https://www.instagram.com/reel/Daq6r6zu2E_/   https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/s/j0k73nzUQL

Singapore proposes mandatory notification when firms use personal data for AI training | The Straits Times https://www.straitstimes.com/tech/singapore-proposes-ai-specific-notices-for-personal-data-used-in-ai-training   Full Details: Singapore’s Proposed AI-Specific Notification Rules for Personal Data in AI Training   Source: The Straits Times, 13 July 2026 | Issuing body: Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC)    📌 Background   - On 2 June 2026, PDPC issued Proposed Advisory Guidelines on Use of Personal Data in Generative AI, with a one-month public consultation closing on 1 July 2026 . - The initiative is led by newly appointed Commissioner Denise Wong (took office April 2026), to update Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) framework for generative AI . - Rationale: Prevent misuse of personal data for unforeseen uses (e.g., financial profiling) and address concerns over sensitive data being exposed, reconstructed, or shared via AI systems .   📋 Core Proposal: Mandatory AI-Specific Notifications   Organisations must not rely on broad privacy notices (e.g., “for new product development”). Instead, they must issue clear, standalone notifications when using personal data to train generative AI models .   Required Content   - Exact purpose and function of the AI model - Types of personal data involved (names, contact details, voice/video recordings, transaction history, location data, biometrics, etc.) - How data will be used for training - Simple, accessible ways to opt out or withdraw consent    Acceptable Formats   - In-app pop-ups, dedicated privacy pages, in-platform updates, or emails with clear links  - Example: “Your voice recordings will be used to train our text-to-speech AI to recognise speech patterns; you may opt out via [link].”    ❓ Unresolved Points for Further Clarification   - Whether explicit consent is required, or opt-out alone is sufficient - Whether rules apply to anonymised data - If service providers may deny service to users who opt out of AI training    🔍 Additional Focus: AI-Enabled Devices Risks   PDPC is also reviewing safeguards for devices like smart glasses, smartwatches, and palm-scan payment systems that collect biometric data (facial features, fingerprints, voice, vein patterns) :   - Real-world concerns: Secret recording (e.g., Ray-Ban Meta glasses linked to harassment cases in the UK), exam cheating (two candidates caught using smart glasses in South Korea, May 2026)  - PDPC is assessing whether to define acceptable use cases and standards for “meaningful consent” for such devices    ℹ️ Status   The guidelines are advisory and will be finalised after reviewing public feedback, applying to all sectors including banking, insurance, retail, and social media platforms.