Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Abort, Retry, Fail: Scoping Techno-Regulation and Other Techno-Effects

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Human Law and Computer Law: Comparative Perspectives

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 25))

Abstract

Technology affects behaviour. Speed bumps, for instance, provide an effective way to enforce speed limits imposed by the legislator. In cases such as these, technology is instrumental to the enforcement of legal norms. This kind of regulation by technology, techno-regulation, or ‘code as code’ has become part of the contemporary regulator’s toolbox. The idea underlying this kind of influencing behaviour by means of technology is relatively straightforward. Norms can be transformed into computer code or architecture in a way that affords certain actions or functions and inhibits others. What is less clear is what the boundaries of techno-­regulation are. In this paper we analyse how technology affects human behaviour and we present a typology of techno-effects in order to provide a clear boundary of techno-regulation vis-à-vis other normative and functional aspects of technology. We survey topics such as nudging, affordance, scripts embedded in technological designs, and anthropomorphization. The paper draws from legal philosophy, STS, human computer interaction and regulation theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I.e. the use of speed bumps to regulate driving speeds, entry gates to exclude travel(lers) without a valid ticket, and region codes on DVD players.

  2. 2.

    Note that merely automating procedures to prevent or detect violations of rules and regulations does not necessarily entail that these rules become obfuscated, nor that proper procedures cannot be developed to ensure that citizens have a possibility to contest these rules or their application. Think, for example of the use of speed cameras in traffic, for which there are proper procedures to ‘seek redress in the courts if [citizens] disagree with the content of the decision or the procedural aspects of the decision-making. All this has become part of the routine of the rule of law in our democracies’ (Dommering 2006: 8). The difference between merely automating (instances of) crime prevention and detection and techno-regulation is twofold: (1) systems of the former deliver ex post punishment for violations of the law and (hence) leave room for disobeying the rules, whereas in techno-regulation the technology delivers ex ante prevention and there is no room for violating the law; and (2) the technologies used for the former, e.g. cameras that detect flows of traffic, generally provide cues that a rule is being enforced in a certain location, and what rule this could possibly be. In the case of techno-regulation oftentimes this clarity is lacking – think of the example of entry gates to the Underground: many people will undoubtedly be unaware of the fact that this barrier enforces a rule regarding the contractual relationship between a traveller and a transport company. Both differences contribute to the claim that it is more difficult for citizens to contest norms and rules when they are implemented by means of techno-regulation.

  3. 3.

    In philosophy of technology this has been called ‘animation’. See for example Ihde (1990: 98 ff.); Verbeek (2005: 126–127).

  4. 4.

    Computer users could ‘communicate’ with ELIZA using natural language. The program used a number of quite simple techniques to convert their input into follow-up questions or observations, thus creating the illusion of a real conversation and, what is more, leaving users with the impression that ELIZA actually had the ability to understand them.

  5. 5.

    Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abort,_Retry,_Fail, last accessed on April 10th 2012.

References

  • Akrich, M. 1992. The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W.E. Bijker and J. Law, 205–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akrich, M. 1995. User representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment, ed. A. Rip, T.J. Misa, and J. Schot, 167–184. London/New York: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asscher, L. 2006. ‘Code’ as law: Using Fuller to assess code rules. In Coding regulation: Essays on the normative role of information technology, ed. E. Dommering and L. Asscher, 61–91. The Hague/West Nyack: TMC Asser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, R., M. Cave, and M. Lodge. 2010. Introduction: Regulation – The field and the developing agenda. In The Oxford handbook of regulation, ed. R. Baldwin, M. Cave, and M. Lodge, 3–16. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brownsword, R. 2008. So what does the world need now? Reflections on regulating technologies. In Regulating technologies: Legal futures, regulatory frames and technological fixes, ed. R. Brownsword and K. Yeung, 23–49. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownsword, R., and K. Yeung. 2008. Regulating technologies: Tools, targets and thematics. In Regulating Technologies: Legal futures, regulatory frames and technological fixes, ed. R. Brownsword and K. Yeung, 3–23. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, A. 2012. ‘Nudging’ healthy lifestyles: The UK experiments with the behavioural alternative to regulation and the market. European Journal of Risk Regulation 3(1): 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J.E. 2012. Configuring the networked self: Law, code, and the play of everyday practice. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dommering, E. 2006. Regulating technology: Code is not law. In Coding regulation: Essays on the normative role of information technology, ed. E. Dommering and L. Asscher, 1–17. The Hague/West Nyack: TMC Asser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, B.R. 2003. Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42(3–4): 177–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogg, B.J. 2003. Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Amsterdam/Boston: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B. 1997. Human values and the design of computer technology. Stanford/Cambridge, NY: CSLI Publications; Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B., and P.H. Kahn Jr. 2006. Value sensitive design and information systems. In Human-­computer interaction and management information systems: Foundations, ed. M.E. Sharpe, 348–372. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B., P.H. Kahn Jr., and A. Borning. 2002. Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. Washington, DC: University of Washington, Department of Computer Science & Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frissen, V. 1994. The domestication of the telephone. In Domestic technology and everyday life – Mutual shaping processes. Proceedings from COST A4 workshop in Trondheim, Norway, ed. A.-J. Berg and M. Aune, October 28–30, 1993. Brussel: COST.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frissen, V. 2004. De domesticatie van de digitale wereld. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaver, W.W. 1991. Technology affordances. In CHI’91 proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 79–84. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaver, W.W. 1996. Affordances for interaction: The social is material for design. Ecological Psychology 8(2): 111–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J.J. 1986. The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gjøen, H., and M. Hård. 2002. Cultural politics in actions: Developing user scripts in relation to the electric vehicle. Science, Technology & Human Values 27(2): 262–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddon, L. 2003. Domestication and mobile telephony. In Machines that become us: The social context of personal communication technology, ed. J.E. Katz, 43–55. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrandt, M. 2008. Legal and technological normativity: More (and less) than twin sisters. Technè 12(3): 169–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrandt, M. 2009. Technology and the end of law. In Facing the limits of the law, ed. E. Claes, W. Devroe, and B. Keirsbilck, 443–464. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrandt, M. 2011. Legal protection by design: Objections and refutations. Legisprudence 5(2): 223–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ihde, D. 1990. Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, I.R. 2004. Bots, babes and the Californication of commerce. University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal 1(1–2): 287–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koops, B.-J. 2010. Ten dimensions of technology regulation: Finding your bearings in the research space of an emerging discipline. In Dimensions of technology regulation, ed. M. Goodwin, B.-J. Koops, and R.E. Leenes, 309–325. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes, P., A. Light, P.E. Vermaas, and S.A. Moore. 2009. Philosophy and design: From engineering to architecture. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. 1992. Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W.E. Bijker and J. Law, 225–259. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leenes, R.E. 2010. Harde lessen: Apologie van technologie als reguleringsinstrument. Tilburg: Universiteit van Tilburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leenes, R.E. 2011. Framing techno-regulation: An exploration of state and non-state regulation by technology. Legisprudence 5(2): 143–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen, T.-K. 2003. The domestication of new technologies as a set of trials. Journal of Consumer Culture 3(3): 363–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. 2006. Code: Version 2.0. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D.A., and J. Wajcman. 1999. The social shaping of technology. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrenere, J., and W. Ho. 2000. Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In Proceedings of graphics interface 2000 May 15–17, 2000, 179–186. Montreal and Quebec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, B., and K. Yeung. 2007. Regulatory instruments and techniques. In An introduction to law and regulation: Text and materials, ed. B. Morgan and K. Yeung, 79–151. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nass, C.I., and Y. Moon. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues 56(1): 81–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nass, C.I., J. Steuer, E.R. Tauber, and H. Reeder. 1993. Anthropomorphism, agency, and ethopoeia: Computers as social actors. In CHI ’93 INTERACT ’93 and CHI ’93 conference companion on human factors in computing systems, 111–112. New York: ACM.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nass, C.I., J. Steuer, and E.R. Tauber. 1994. Computers are social actors. In CHI’94 proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 72–78. Boston/New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D.A. 1988. The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoorn, N., and T.J. Pinch. 2003. How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoorn, N., E. Rommes, and M. Stienstra. 2004. Configuring the user as everybody: Gender and design cultures in information and communication technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values 29(1): 30–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picard, R.W. 1997. Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, B., and C.I. Nass. 1996. The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford/New York: CSLI Publications/Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverstone, R., and L. Haddon. 1996. Design and domestication of information and communication technologies: Technical change and everyday life. In Communication and design: The politics of information and communication technologies, ed. R. Mansell and R. Silverstone, 44–75. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R.H., and C.R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkle, S. 1984. The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkle, S. 2007. Evocative objects: Things we think with. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berg, B. 2008. Self, script, and situation: Identity in a world of ICTs. In The future of identity in the information society: Proceedings of the third IFIP WG 9.2, 9.6/11.6, 11.7/FIDIS International Summer School on the Future of Identity in the Information Society, ed. S. Fischer-Hübner, P. Duquenoy, A. Zuccato, and L. Martucci, 63–77. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berg, B. 2010a. I-Object: Intimate technologies as ‘reference groups’ in the construction of identities. Technè 14(3): 176–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berg, B. 2010b. The situated self: Identity in a world of ambient intelligence. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berg, B. 2011. Techno-elicitation: Regulating behaviour through the design of robots. In Technologies on the stand: Legal and ethical questions in neuroscience and robotics, ed. B. van den Berg and L. Klaming, 403–422. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Oost, E. 2003. Materialized gender: How shavers configure the users’ femininity and masculinity. In How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies, ed. N. Oudshoorn and T.J. Pinch, 193–209. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, P.-P. 2005. What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weizenbaum, J. 1966. ELIZA: A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM 9(1): 36–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, K. 2008. Towards an understanding of design-based instruments. In Regulating Technologies: Legal futures, regulatory frames and technological fixes, ed. R. Brownsword and K. Yeung, 79–109. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank Martin Pekárek and Mireille Hildebrandt for their willingness to challenge and debate the ideas put forth in this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leiden Law School, eLaw, Leiden University, Steenschuur 25, Leiden, 2311 ES, The Netherlands

    Bibi van den Berg

  2. Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Ronald E. Leenes

Authors
  1. Bibi van den Berg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronald E. Leenes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bibi van den Berg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computing and, Information Sciences (iCIS), Radboud University Nijmegen, Heijendaalseweg 135, Nijmegen, 6525 AJ, Netherlands

    Mireille Hildebrandt

  2. , Department of Jurisprudentie, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 3000 DR, Netherlands

    Jeanne Gaakeer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van den Berg, B., Leenes, R.E. (2013). Abort, Retry, Fail: Scoping Techno-Regulation and Other Techno-Effects. In: Hildebrandt, M., Gaakeer, J. (eds) Human Law and Computer Law: Comparative Perspectives. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 25. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6314-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation