Laying Down the Law to Robots

This Article discusses the nature of the challenges to the law posed by the rapidly developing field of computer technology. The author argues that, if the law is to retain vitality as the framework within which society operates, it must respond to technological forces that threaten the law with obsolescence. The author focuses on robots as symbols of machines performing functions usually reserved to human beings. The author identifies several specific legal areas in which the use of computers raises novel, and as yet unanswered questions, and surveys the legal and ethical issues surrounding the expanded use of computer technology, including criminal procedure, copyright of computer-generated works, and liability for computer-produced catastrophes

Computers and the Law: The Impact of Technology on Prevailing Legal Principles

Computers present difficult problems for the legal system. Because the subject matter is technically complex, many lawyers regard computer law as an esoteric, highly specialized area in which only the prescient and foolhardy dare enter. The authors in this section vigorously dispute this assumption. They suggest that the real problems presented by computers in our society—i.e., the invasions of privacy and absence of accountability of computer designers and users-result from the legal profession’s failure to direct computer development. When lawyers become knowledgeable in the fundamentals of computer technology, they will realize that traditional legal principles are sufficiently flexible to accommodate it. Only then will the legal profession be able to reflect upon the nature of the computer, consider its role in society, and determine the appropriate legal norms and institutions to control its development. In the following four Articles, the authors urge lawyers to undertake this exciting, essential work and suggest some preliminary steps in this effort

Column: File Cabinet Forensics

Researchers can spend their time reverse engineering, performing reverse analysis, or making substantive contributions to digital forensics science. Although work in all of these areas is important, it is the scientific breakthroughs that are the most critical for addressing the challenges that we face. Reverse Engineering is the traditional bread-and-butter of digital forensics research. Companies like Microsoft and Apple deliver computational artifacts (operating systems, applications and phones) to the commercial market. These artifacts are bought and used by billions. Some have evil intent, and (if society is lucky), the computers end up in the hands of law enforcement. Unfortunately the original vendors rarely provide digital forensics tools that make their systems amenable to analysis by law enforcement. Hence the need for reverse engineering

The fusion of law and information technology

In information society, legal norm communications have been never established in certain fields for a long time. That is, a few legal norms have never obeyed in the fields. Above all, legal norms which relate to data protection, information contents and information security, would often infringed. Most violation would be conducted by using information technologies. Information technologies would often be used in these infringing incidents. It can be said that these infringing incidents would have never been conducted without information technology. These infringing incidents include hacking actions, personal data abuse, personal information disclosure, unauthorized access, infringing copyrights, infringing privacy rights, and so on. A way of preventing those infringements is to raise the level of punishment against the violators. But, it will prove to be disappointing. Furthermore, it would be an ex post facto measure to the last. It would be needed to invent an ex ante measure, if it is possible. As the ex ante measure, the author proposes a fusion of law and information technology. An information technology will lead people to a lawful deed when they conduct actions in using computers and networks. They say that information technology cures information technology. After all, the fusion will aim at realizing laws, and it will contribute to recover a social justice

Cybersecurity Management in the States: The Emerging Role of Chief Information Security Officers

Publisher final versionThe importance of safeguarding information created and shared on computers and the Internet has increased significantly in recent years, as society has become increasingly dependent on information technology in government, business, and in their personal lives. Both corporations and government have responded by creating a new role in their organizations to lead the safeguarding efforts—chief information security officers (CISOs). The role of these officers is still under development. Do they safeguard best by using law enforcement techniques and technological tools? Or are they more effective if they serve as educators and try to influence the behaviors of technology users?IBM Center for the Business of Governmen

Research Freedom for University Scholars

Professor Mark Perry is jointly appointed to the Faculty of Science, Computer Science, and the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario, London, Canada where he is Associate Dean of Research, Graduate Programs and Operations. He is a Faculty Fellow at IBM\u27s Center for Advanced Studies, a Barrister and Solicitor of the Law Society of Upper Canada, a member of the International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property, the IEEE, the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, and the ACM. He is a member of the College of Reviewers of the Canada Research Chairs, a reviewer for Canadian Foundation for Innovation, a member in the Selden Society and the Computer Research Association, on the executive committee for the ACM Special Interest Group on Computers and Society, in the Rotman Institute of Science and Values, a reviewer for Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Professor Perry\u27s research is focused on the nexus of science and law, and in the area of autonomic computing system development. He holds grants to pursue his research in both law and science, including Genome Canada, and has supervised numerous graduate and undergraduate theses. He has been invited by universities in Australia, India, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States, and Canada to speak at research-intensive colloquia and classes. He regularly contributes to the media on technology and law issues. A selection of papers can be found at http://ssrn.com/author=10510 . Professor Perry is an expert on the nexus of legal issues and leading technologies. His science and legal backgrounds have led him to a unique approach to both disciplines that brings together the scientific approach and legal analysis. This has been expressed through modeling the legal relationships in computer and biological systems. His current focus has been on copyright, patent and trademark (as well as other intellectual property rights) in technology systems, and also the regulation of cutting edge technologies

Research Freedom for University Scholars

Professor Mark Perry is jointly appointed to the Faculty of Science, Computer Science, and the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario, London, Canada where he is Associate Dean of Research, Graduate Programs and Operations. He is a Faculty Fellow at IBM\u27s Center for Advanced Studies, a Barrister and Solicitor of the Law Society of Upper Canada, a member of the International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property, the IEEE, the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, and the ACM. He is a member of the College of Reviewers of the Canada Research Chairs, a reviewer for Canadian Foundation for Innovation, a member in the Selden Society and the Computer Research Association, on the executive committee for the ACM Special Interest Group on Computers and Society, in the Rotman Institute of Science and Values, a reviewer for Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Professor Perry\u27s research is focused on the nexus of science and law, and in the area of autonomic computing system development. He holds grants to pursue his research in both law and science, including Genome Canada, and has supervised numerous graduate and undergraduate theses. He has been invited by universities in Australia, India, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States, and Canada to speak at research-intensive colloquia and classes. He regularly contributes to the media on technology and law issues. A selection of papers can be found at http://ssrn.com/author=10510 . Professor Perry is an expert on the nexus of legal issues and leading technologies. His science and legal backgrounds have led him to a unique approach to both disciplines that brings together the scientific approach and legal analysis. This has been expressed through modeling the legal relationships in computer and biological systems. His current focus has been on copyright, patent and trademark (as well as other intellectual property rights) in technology systems, and also the regulation of cutting edge technologies

Security Hazards when Law is Code.

As software continues to eat the world, there is an increasing pressure to automate every aspect of society, from self-driving cars, to algorithmic trading on the stock market. As this pressure manifests into software implementations of everything, there are security concerns to be addressed across many areas. But are there some domains and fields that are distinctly susceptible to attacks, making them difficult to secure? My dissertation argues that one domain in particular—public policy and law— is inherently difficult to automate securely using computers. This is in large part because law and policy are written in a manner that expects them to be flexibly interpreted to be fair or just. Traditionally, this interpreting is done by judges and regulators who are capable of understanding the intent of the laws they are enforcing. However, when these laws are instead written in code, and interpreted by a machine, this capability to understand goes away. Because they blindly fol- low written rules, computers can be tricked to perform actions counter to their intended behavior. This dissertation covers three case studies of law and policy being implemented in code and security vulnerabilities that they introduce in practice. The first study analyzes the security of a previously deployed Internet voting system, showing how attackers could change the outcome of elections carried out online. The second study looks at airport security, investigating how full-body scanners can be defeated in practice, allowing attackers to conceal contraband such as weapons or high explosives past airport checkpoints. Finally, this dissertation also studies how an Internet censorship system such as China’s Great Firewall can be circumvented by techniques that exploit the methods employed by the censors themselves. To address these concerns of securing software implementations of law, a hybrid human-computer approach can be used. In addition, systems should be designed to allow for attacks or mistakes to be retroactively undone or inspected by human auditors. By combining the strengths of computers (speed and cost) and humans (ability to interpret and understand), systems can be made more secure and more efficient than a method employing either alone.PhDComputer Science and EngineeringUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/120795/1/ewust_1.pd

I\u27m Telling: A Quantitative Analysis of Reporting Cyberbullying versus Reporting of Traditional Bullying in a School Setting

Bullying is a widely used, familiar term for aggressive behavior traditionally perceived as a customary rite of passage, particularly during a child\u27s early middle school and high school years (Lusk, 2012). The old adage, kids will be kids, is a common misperception based on lack of knowledge about the impact of bullying exhibited by parents, educators, and community members. Bullying in all forms has become a larger issue for law enforcement, educators, and society as a whole. An increasingly growing phenomenon, cyberbullying, has become a new form of this aggressive behavior in society. Bullies have essentially moved beyond the school\u27s hallways, classrooms, and playgrounds and into cyberspace. Cyberbullying is a trend of deviancy in which juveniles use technology, such as cellphones, tablets, computers, and electronic devices as a means to target peers for harassment. It is expected that the incidence of cyberbullying will continue to significantly increase over the next few years, thereby creating a completely unique social problem similar to that of cyberstalking and other crimes of the Internet (Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross, 2009)

New Technology, the Death of BigLaw Monopoly and the Evolution of the Computer Professional

Much has been written recently about new technology disrupting the traditional law firm model of providing legal services. Susskind and Susskind predicted the failure of professions, including the legal profession, due in large part to the external pressure of disruptive technology. However, concentrating blame on the technology is misguided; it blames the tool used to disrupt rather than the root causes of the disruption. In short, computers do not kill lawyers. Neither is the disruption aimed at the profession as such, but rather at the business models of modern day legal practices that have developed under the auspices of the profession. Under the guise of a profession, the legal profession has established the barriers to entry that have allowed lawyers to hold a monopoly on providing legal services. The monopoly has allowed law firms to develop business models through which they have been able to charge high, sometimes extravagant, prices for their services. It has also produced barriers to innovation. Clients have begun to react to perceived consistent overcharging and inefficient services of the BigLaw firms that benefit from the monopoly at the same time that technologies are becoming more powerful and effective. Meanwhile, new and hungry legal service providers who provide alternative business models to law firms are also using new technologies to open access to law and erode the monopoly. Lawyers are facing increasing competition that is set to destroy the BigLaw firm model. The disruption, though, will not be limited to BigLaw, and will also impact smaller law firms and sole practitioners. As the dynamic between clients and lawyers changes, the next generation of lawyers will be required to perform a vast number of roles to satisfy client demands while all the while being asked to maintain their professional responsibilities. Lawyers, as humans, will be incapable of, or disinterested in, managing the demands of this multi-faceted role, and the professional aspect of the role will further recede. However, computers have vast technical knowledge, they do not seek financial reward, and they can be programmed to work ceaselessly and to put the client’s interests ahead of their own. It is computers, therefore, that will be in a much better position to display “professional” characteristics than humans in the future. If it is desirable to have a legal profession, then it is in the interests of our society to allow computers to take the role of legal services providers. It will be necessary to take the profession out of the hands of self-interested humans and to develop a technological profession that would provide legal services, initially with the assistance of lawyers, but then, as with the introduction of autonomous vehicles, in a five-staged deployment, develop a fully autonomous legal profession. This new technological profession would also subordinate “personal aims and ambitions to the service of . . . [the law] discipline and the promotion of its function in the community” and begin to regain the trust so lacking in the legal profession today