British journalist Charlotte Peet reported missing in Brazil
A British journalist has been reported missing in Brazil, prompting concerns from an association of foreign correspondents which has urged authorities to step up search efforts.
Charlotte Peet, 32, is understood to have last contacted a friend on 8 February, saying she was in São Paulo and planned to travel to Rio de Janeiro. She has not been heard from since.
Days later, her UK-based family told the friend they had lost contact with her. They have provided authorities with details of her flight and a copy of her passport to aid the search.
The Association of Foreign Press Correspondents in Brazil (ACIE) released a statement "expressing concern over her disappearance and solidarity with her family and friends."
According to the statement, someone initially reported the case to police in Rio before transferring it to São Paulo, where she was last seen.
The statement also added that Brazil's Department of Homicides and Personal Protection (DHPP) is assisting in the case.
According to her LinkedIn profile, Ms Peet has worked as a freelance journalist in Rio and London for outlets including Al Jazeera and the Times.
"Her disappearance has sparked growing concern among colleagues and journalists in the region, with ACIE calling for intensified efforts to locate her as soon as possible", a statement on behalf of its president Edmar Figueiredo and its board of directors said.
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: "We are supporting the family of a British woman who has been reported as missing in Brazil and are in contact with the local authorities."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns
The High Court of England and Wales says lawyers need to take stronger steps to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in their work. In a ruling tying together two recent cases, Judge Victoria Sharp wrote that generative AI tools like ChatGPT 'are not capable of conducting reliable legal research." 'Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect,' Judge Sharp wrote. 'The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue.' That doesn't mean lawyers cannot use AI in their research, but she said they have a professional duty 'to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.' Judge Sharp suggested that the growing number of cases where lawyers (including, on the U.S. side, lawyers representing major AI platforms) have cited what appear to be AI-generated falsehoods suggests that 'more needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court,' and she said her ruling will be forwarded to professional bodies including the Bar Council and the Law Society. In one of the cases in question, a lawyer representing a man seeking damages against two banks submitted a filing with 45 citations — 18 of those cases did not exist, while many others 'did not contain the quotations that were attributed to them, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and did not have any relevance to the subject matter of the application,' Judge Sharp said. In the other, a lawyer representing a man who had been evicted from his London home wrote a court filing citing five cases that did not appear to exist. (The lawyer denied using AI, though she said the citations may have come from AI-generated summaries that appeared in 'Google or Safari.') Judge Sharp said that while the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings, that is 'not a precedent.' 'Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction,' she added. Both lawyers were either referred or referred themselves to professional regulators. Judge Sharp noted that when lawyers do not meet their duties to the court, the court's powers range from 'public admonition' to the imposition of costs, contempt proceedings, or even 'referral to the police.' This article originally appeared on TechCrunch at Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns
The High Court of England and Wales says lawyers need to take stronger steps to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in their work. In a ruling tying together two recent cases, Judge Victoria Sharp wrote that generative AI tools like ChatGPT 'are not capable of conducting reliable legal research." 'Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect,' Judge Sharp wrote. 'The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue.' That doesn't mean lawyers cannot use AI in their research, but she said they have a professional duty 'to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.' Judge Sharp suggested that the growing number of cases where lawyers (including, on the U.S. side, lawyers representing major AI platforms) have cited what appear to be AI-generated falsehoods suggests that 'more needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court,' and she said her ruling will be forwarded to professional bodies including the Bar Council and the Law Society. In one of the cases in question, a lawyer representing a man seeking damages against two banks submitted a filing with 45 citations — 18 of those cases did not exist, while many others 'did not contain the quotations that were attributed to them, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and did not have any relevance to the subject matter of the application,' Judge Sharp said. In the other, a lawyer representing a man who had been evicted from his London home wrote a court filing citing five cases that did not appear to exist. (The lawyer denied using AI, though she said the citations may have come from AI-generated summaries that appeared in 'Google or Safari.') Judge Sharp said that while the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings, that is 'not a precedent.' 'Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction,' she added. Both lawyers were either referred or referred themselves to professional regulators. Judge Sharp noted that when lawyers do not meet their duties to the court, the court's powers range from 'public admonition' to the imposition of costs, contempt proceedings, or even 'referral to the police.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
TechCrunch
6 hours ago
- TechCrunch
Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns
The High Court of England and Wales says lawyers need to take stronger steps to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in their work. In a ruling tying together two recent cases, Judge Victoria Sharp wrote that generative AI tools like ChatGPT 'are not capable of conducting reliable legal research.' 'Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect,' Judge Sharp wrote. 'The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue.' That doesn't mean lawyers cannot use AI in their research, but she said they have a professional duty 'to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.' Judge Sharp suggested that the growing number of cases where lawyers (including, on the U.S. side, lawyers representing major AI platforms) have cited what appear to be AI-generated falsehoods suggests that 'more needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court,' and she said her ruling will be forwarded to professional bodies including the Bar Council and the Law Society. In one of the cases in question, a lawyer representing a man seeking damages against two banks submitted a filing with 45 citations — 18 of those cases did not exist, while many others 'did not contain the quotations that were attributed to them, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and did not have any relevance to the subject matter of the application,' Judge Sharp said. In the other, a lawyer representing a man who had been evicted from his London home wrote a court filing citing five cases that did not appear to exist. (The lawyer denied using AI, though she said the citations may have come from AI-generated summaries that appeared in 'Google or Safari.') Judge Sharp said that while the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings, that is 'not a precedent.' Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW 'Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction,' she added. Both lawyers were either referred or referred themselves to professional regulators. Judge Sharp noted that when lawyers do not meet their duties to the court, the court's powers range from 'public admonition' to the imposition of costs, contempt proceedings, or even 'referral to the police.'
