VIRGINIA CODE 19.2-11.14 IS NOT ONLY VAGUE IN ITS DEFINITION OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (VADOC) USE OF A.I. (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE), BUT IT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN TESTED IN COURT By William Thorpe

Pictures are taken from the internet and are used for illustrative purposes only

The Virginia Prison Official and The Virginia Department of Corrections have been using and applying A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) or Machine Learning in its various forms for a while now. But that is not the prompt for this work. What I want to simply stress is without the focus and attention of the People of Virginia on how every and anything are done by the various forces of the States Organized-Violence arrayed in their name claiming and alleging to be functioning in their interest, including the use of A.I., we will once again be confronted with another emergence of Contradictions and Antagonisms to be resolved, even as we are still contending with antagonisms form the 19th Century. So before this baby A.I. grows into that proverbial behemoth 1000 Ib Gorilla, we should compel the necessary transparency of its use by the Virginia Prison Official while there is National attention on it. As it currently stands, the Virginia Department of Corrections has established OPERATING PROCEDURE 435.5--ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY SUPERVISION PROGRAM/A.I. ADJACENT SYSTEMS and it has been updated from 2024-2026,having as authority VIRGINIA CODE 19.2-11.14 USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-BASED TOOL. The law has the typical verbiage, when Politicians are not too keen on saying what they supposedly are. Which will then need and require Judges in Courts to flesh it out based on actions presented. But most importantly it is an issue to be elevated by the People by making it into a Campaign issue beyond the formulations of the anti-Data Center Speech (and when I say Speech, what I mean is that motive of positive work or "Political Action"). So VADOC's O.P.435.5: Governs ELECTRONIC MONITORING (EM), GPS SATELLITE TRACKING, VOICE RECOGNITION MONITORING, ELECTRONIC MONITORING SOFTWARE ON PERSONAL ELECTRONIC DEVICES (PEDs), [VADOC doesn't describe this capability as A.I., but are Algorithmic surveillance systems, that (a) TRACK MOVEMENT (b) TRIGGER AUTOMATED ALERTS (c) IDENTITY VERIFICATION (d) ENFORCE INCLUSION/EXCLUSION ZONES (e) AUTOMATED SCHEDULE COMPLIANT CHECKS. VADOC's--APPLICATION:1.1 EM- [Telephone based or Transmitter based devices continuously 24/7 monitoring via private vendor systems. Automated alerts for violations (curfew, schedules, zone breaches). Alerts are algorithmically generated by vendor software]. 1.2 GPS MONITORING- [For High Risk cases (see HAMLET v. IRVIN 2024 U.S.DIST. LEXIS 81233 for analysis of VADOC's description of High Risk), Real time satellite tracking, Automated Geofencing (inclusion/exclusion zones) (see CHATERIE v. UNITED STATES 146 S. Ct. 2193 for precedent setting ruling on Geofencing under 4th amendment construction, but isn't necessarily applicable to prison), Automated violation notification-Algorithmic location surveillance, not human].1.3 VOICE RECOGNITION MONITORING--[This is closest to A.I within VADOC's Documented Procedure, Uses voice biometrics to verify identity, compares prisoner, probationer, parolees voice sample to stored templates, Automated compliance checks, Voice biometrics are machine-learning based, even though VADOC does not label it such].1.4 MONITORING SOFTWARE ON PERSONAL ELECTRONIC DEVICES (PED's)--[VADOC can install monitoring software on Phones, Tablets, Computers. Tracking use, log communications, enforce restrictions, generate automated alerts. This is algorithmic surveillance not human]. NOTE: VIRGINIA CODE 19.2-11.14 [USE OF A.I.] Purports to define VADOC's use and application of A.I., however there isn't any transparent, verifiable proof that VADOC is complying. VADOC may use A.I.. or algorithmic tools but cannot make decisions solely based on A.I. outputs. A.I, recommendations must be reviewed, validated by a Human and A.I. outputs can be challenged just as one would evidence in court proceedings.[NOTE: but to what extent does the typical Virginia prisoner, Family, Ally and Friend have the necessary resources to engage in the sort of struggle with the Virginia prison official, if and when it comes to light that the prison official has violated Virginia Code 19.2-11.14 and Operating Procedure 435.5 ?. This conclusion begins to show why the politicization of the issue of the transparency of A.I. use by the Virginia prison official is primarily an electoral and campaign issue and the People of Virginia must compel its relative framing as such by prospective Politicians seeking leadership Speech in the Commonwealth.] Secondly there has been a proposed expansion of Va. Code 19.2-11.14 by HB 1170 presuming a more defined oversight, but to date, the Bill is yet to develop. Thirdly, there hasn't been a clear evidence and indication that the Virginia prison official is deploying A.I.in the prohibited ways of (1) PREDICTIVE RISK ASSESSEMENT, (2) RECIDIVISM PREDICTION [NOTE: There is circumstantial and logical inference, that the infamous and obsequious to reactionary suppositions and politics, former Director of The Virginia Department of Corrections Harold Clarke revealed such a violation, to the Virginia Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee on May 17,2022 with the proffer that "54% of [Virginia] prisoners scheduled for release due to the Earned Sentence Credit law have a medium to high risk of violent recidivism", (my comments on Clarke's assertions are in the work HAROLD CLARKE,DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THE 54%,which a net search will produce)] (3) PRISONER CLASSIFICATION, (4) DISCIPLINARY SYSTEMS, (5) FACIAL RECOGNITION INSIDE PRISONS, (6) BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS, (7) CONTRABAND DETECTION, (8) EMAIL e.t.c SCANNING [NOTE: more information can be found at HTTPS://VADOC.GOV./FILES/OPERATING PROCEDURES/400].

THE VIRGINIA PRISON OFFICIAL USE OF A.I. (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE) and ADJACENT SYSTEMS MUST BE TRANSPARENT TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA The case KECK v. COMMONWEALTH 2011 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 115795, revealed what the edge of the probable and possible gratuitous violations of the imprisoned Virginian, as it relates to its opportunity always being present for the Prison employee, whom the People of Virginia have accorded the privilege of performing their wishes of imprisoning their fellow socio-person looks like. Because Donald P. Keck, employed as a Psychology Associate by the Virginia Department of Corrections at its Powhatan Correctional Center, was caught concealing Virginia prisoner information on his work computer. Keck as a human being and socio-person is irrelevant to our work, save to show, evidence and embody our Speech, that the Virginia prison official and the Virginia Department of Corrections as it concerns the application of A.I and it corollaries cannot be allowed to continue on in the antiquated vein of self-policing, because our sensibilities are comprehensively strafed with facts upon facts, not conjecture but events. From Harold Clarke agitating against the Earned Sentence Credits law and the Virginia Peoples wishes, with the enfeebled fear mongering, highly probably generated A.I. hallucinations that 54% of released prisoners would violently reoffend, to the sordid incident of Donald P. Keck malfeasantly squirreling data of the life existence of imprisoned Virginians on a computer through the dehumanization of the Virginia Prisoner by the prison official.

By William Thorpe

William Thorpe Virginia exiled me to the Texas prison system. I'm solitary confined at the Wainwright Unit and if you feel any kinda way about this work contact me by Securus email using the Texas prison number #2261982 .