RSS
Twitter
When Laws Can't Keep Up With Technology: Future Lawsuits To Worry About
from the well,-it'll-keep-the-lawyers-busy dept
We were just talking about how copyright law has been unable to keep up with technology changes, but that's not the only law that rapidly changing technology is already impacting. As the pace of technology innovation continues to increase, things are only going to get even more troublesome -- leading to all sorts of legal conundrums to deal with. Parker Mason alerts us to a post at Science Fiction blog io9, which tries to predict five future lawsuits that are likely to come about as a result of certain technology advances. These involve questions about things from the liability of artificial intelligence to the privacy of your thoughts due to brain scanning. If you want one sure thing, it's that there will be no shortage of work for lawyers.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Lawyers?
In the future there will be no courts,
no lawyers, no judges. Your case will
be resolved by a computer once it has
accumulated all of the facts. Fair, and
impartial... no wait! That will never
happen. There would be no free politicians
after the new justice system went on line.
I'm seeing less and less of a down side to
this and frankly I welcome our new electronic
masters.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The Myspace suicide case was a typical demonstration of how technology has far outpace our legal system. As this Assistant U.S. Attorney, cybercrime prosecutor it will required a massive co-operation of the legal system to help solve these lawsuits.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Lawyers?
in case you were serious.
the problem with computers (even AI at least the 1st few versions) they cant deal with the "new" all rules must be pre-programed and as you can imagine with time and evolution new issues arise that machines can not deal with.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Lawyers?
actually the bigger problem with this thought is that it will the judges, lawyers, politicians who will decide who writes the code for the computer, how the logic is going to work, and then hand everything off to diebold (sp?) to put into a system that is hacked by another group in a day.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
AI
"the problem with computers (even AI at least the 1st few versions) they cant deal with the "new" all rules must be pre-programed and as you can imagine with time and evolution new issues arise that machines can not deal with.
"
The human brain is nothing more than a machine with 'AI'. The only difference is that we've been programmed through evolution's geneitc algorithms. I'm sure given enough time and computational power, we can make an AI worthy of ourselves.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
don't we have enough laws? pretty soon there will just be a list of stuff you CAN do 'cause nothing else will be legal.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You could all just move to China. Then you won't have these problems. Dictatorships FTMFW!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I may be excessive...
I personally think that anyone developing tort for computer technologies must provide evidence of experience in the field of technology. I feel it is doubly true for the judges who hear such cases, IMO should more likely be engineers then lawyers.
It may be my naivety which thinks that engineers could do better then the lawyers but it is a matter of language.
Lawyers speak a language which is made so in part to exalt their position in society as it requires training to understand. Engineering is not understandable to anyone except engineers out of the very nature of the beast.
I believe the bad laws come from either an intentional or unintentional mistranslation of these languages.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'm sorry Dave
I'm afraid I can't do that
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
it had to be said
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
and really, we weren't "intercepting" your thoughts, they were clearly "stored" in the buffer
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Lawyers?
Heh, if software requirements come from politicians, it would never be built...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
@it had to be said
You forgot the zeroth law,
0. A robot may not injure humanity or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm.
Danneel and Giskard would not be happy with you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
2008 Quota Now Met
Masnick, you've been posting like a maniac. Unfortunately now only 8 months into the year, I have filled my annual quota of "dumbass" reads.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment