发展智慧农业问题研究——以广西为例

智慧农业是一种新型农业发展模式,其主要特征是农业思想认识的智慧化,农业生产过程的精细化,农业发展环境的审美化,农业生产运行的系统化,农业产品质量的优质化,农业发展资源的持续化。文章结合广西智慧农业发展的实践经验,探讨我国智慧农业发展的思路,对转变农业经济发展方式,实现农业的持续、稳定、和谐发展具有重要的意义。     

移动互联网背景下电子数据的取证审查初探

因电子数据有客观、稳定等特点,在刑事证据中扮演着重要角色。随着新刑事诉讼法将电子数据单独归类,在司法实践中,电子数据越来越得到刑事办案人员的重视。但不可否认的是,电子数据具有变化快、种类多、科技化等特点,尤其在当今的移动互联网时代,移动设备产生的电子数据越来越呈现出这种特点,并给取证方法、审查标准、采信规则等刑事司法实务带来困惑与矛盾,因而需要尽快加以解决和规范方法。     

2004‘中国国际智能交通论坛“核心论点“综述

文章从"安全与畅通"的角度评述了2004'中国国际智能交通论坛的核心观点,全面介绍了多位中外专家的最新理论研究成果,并简述了智能交通在中国的发展历史和应用情况.     

2008奥运与数字北京

北京将举办 2 0 0 8年奥运会 ,为中国提供了难得的发展机遇和重大挑战。结合中国的实际 ,针对实现“绿色、科技、人文、可持续发展”北京奥运目标 ,阐述了城市数字化和建筑智能化是历史发展的必然     

构建智能环路监管机制——基于数字金融监管的新挑战

面对金融科技的创新与发展,传统监管机制显现出监管滞后、监管失效等方面的无力和脱节。数字金融监管在风险控制、监管方式、监管模式上面临新挑战,应以科技化监管为核心,借助大数据、人工智能等新型科技手段,实现风险的综合动态监测,推动监管向科技型、统筹型转变。在金融智能监管系统的基础上,构建由事前准入及测试、事中实时动态监测、事后风险处置反馈系统组成的智能环路监管机制。     

智能理财行业风险的法律应对

以智能理财为代表的金融创新行为值得鼓励,该行业对社会和经济产生了巨大的推动力,使得各国政府都愈发重视。由于智能理财业务模式的创新,其区别于传统投资顾问的新特征也随之出现,这种变化必将给金融行业传统的风险规制带来新的课题:监管者如何区配新的风险规制路径?要让智能理财行业实现良性发展,首先需要清楚地认识到其所具有的金融风险、技术风险和法律风险,并明确其规制路径予,让监管主体有效发挥职能。具体来说,首先需要完善信息披露制度、强化风险提示机制,完善信用体系等资本市场相关制度;其次需要强化市场准入与牌照管理,健全合格投资者制度等准入门槛;最后还需要将穿透式监管、全过程监管、科技监管等新型监管模式贯穿其中。     

“智慧工会”的特征、问题与对策研究

“智慧工会”不仅是党和国家信息化建设的重要组成部分，也是工会自身发展的内在要求。“智 慧工会”必须具备高度智能化、高度信息化、深度融合性和服务普惠性等特点。目前，“智慧工会”建设还存 在着思想认识不到位、专业人才缺乏、内容不充分、功能设置不人性化、资源缺乏有效整合和“以职工为中心” 的服务宗旨体现不突出等问题。要从统一思想、凝聚共识，做好顶层设计、加强系统规划，突出服务的宗旨和 整合资源、实现共享等方面着手，推动“智慧工会”建设健康发展。     

智慧司法背景下辅助性人工智能困境之破解

智慧司法背景下的人工智能,为促进我国公正裁判与提升司法效率发挥了重要作用。鉴于当前人工智能技术尚存在算法逻辑、审理程序、道德伦理等方面的不足,加之智能技术渗透到司法领域导致司法系统主要职能的削解,应当将人工智能定位于智慧司法的辅助角色。由于技术的不可预知性难以避免,辅助性人工智能在司法环境下的成长同样面临诸多困境,亟需相关机制予以解决。应当通过培养复合型法官、优化算法审查监督、加强社会公众宣传力度等措施,为我国智慧司法的长远发展奠定基础。     

Constructing Legal Order in an Intelligent Society

Legal order originated in a land-centered agricultural society, having now gone through a market-centered industrial society and a network-centered information society. With the rise of the intelligent society, it is transforming into an algorithmcentered legal order of an intelligent society. The “digital” “networking” “intelligent” revolution brought by the intelligent technologies including big data, cloud computing, the Internet, blockchain, and artificial intelligence (AI), has been causing critical challenges to the current legal order, and has generated powerful momentum for construction of fresh legal order featuring scientificness, people centeredness, justice, inclusiveness and co-governance. Construction of such a new jurisprudential legal order to solve this intelligent society’s “governance deficit” is an urgent task. There is a need to set up a new foundation on which an intelligent society can build steady and lasting progress.     

Jurisprudential Foundation of the Alogithmic Enforcement and Regulation of Law in an Intelligent Society: Taking the Automated Copyright Infringement Monitoring of the Online Content Sharing Platform as an Example

As cyber-space has become increasingly important for human activities, and intelligent algorithms are widely used in cyber-space, we are rapidly entering an intelligent society. Now, algorithmic enforcement and regulations of law have posed non-negligible issues. As algorithmic enforcement of copyright law was introduced earlier than that of other laws, it provides a helpful observation perspective. The worldwide practice of copyright enforcement has gradually departed from traditional “safe harbor provisions, ” and has emphasized prior examination of shared contents uploaded by Internet service providers’ (ISPs) users through the following three dimensions: automated infringement detection algorithms voluntarily used by the ISPs, heavier judicial liability of ISPs, and updated legislation principles. Thus, innovations and development have stimulated new mechanisms and regulations for enforcing copyright in cyberspace. Algorithmic enforcement of copyright law in an intelligent society is essential and meaningful. The copyright regulation mechanisms should be guided by jurisprudential principles and concepts featuring the principles of (a) legitimate and efficient flow of information, (b) balance between and among algorithmic power, public power and private rights, (c) boosting the sharing economy and the new gig economy, and (d) promoting social governance philosophy of “coconstruction, co-governance and sharing.” These principles are meaningful for creation of a new mechanism for balancing interests between ISPs and their users, and for introducing the pluralistic co-governance mechanism beyond simply practicing “filtering obligations.” In addition, these principles are significant for improving a certification with credibility of copyright status and ownership, and for advancing a mechanism for online collegiate-panel dispute resolution.