Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Regulating New Technologies in Uncertain Times pp 3–17Cite as

Regulating New Technologies in Times of Change

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Information Technology and Law Series ((ITLS,volume 32))

Abstract

This chapter provides an introduction to the overarching topic and question of this volume on how and whether to regulate new technologies in times of change. It introduces the regulating technology (development) model.

This is an extended and adapted version of the keynote presented at the Ph.D. symposium at Tilburg University on 14 June 2019.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   99.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Not only students struggled with the fit of the normative framework to changing reality, also legislators around the globe pondered whether the online world requires new law (urgently). For The Netherlands, see Ministerie van Justitie 1997–1998. See also Koops et al. 2006.

  2. 2.

    This may be a result of the engineering mindset of my students who had enrolled in a technical university.

  3. 3.

    I had read Frank Easterbrook’s lecture at the 1996 Cyberlaw conference entitled ‘Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse’, 1996 U Chi Legal F 207, which conveys the message that “the best way to learn the law applicable to specialized endeavors is to study general rules”.

  4. 4.

    So much for the hypothesis that the engineering mindset of students at a technical university was the cause of their legal solutionism. The term Solutionism was introduced by Morozov 2013a.

  5. 5.

    Brownsword 2008.

  6. 6.

    See, for instance, http://www.drivingsales.com/news/google-and-auto-executives-urge-congress-to-develop-national-self-driving-car-regulations/; http://nhv.us/content/16024540-uber-urges-nh-lawmakers-introduce-statewide-regulations-ride. Last accessed 23 October 2018.

  7. 7.

    Leenes et al. 2017 for an exploration of this phenomenon in the field of robotics.

  8. 8.

    See for calls in the US for instance, http://www.drivingsales.com/news/google-and-auto-executives-urge-congress-to-develop-national-self-driving-car-regulations/. Last accessed 23 October 2018; https://collisionweek.com/2018/09/10/vehicle-manufacturers-suppliers-call-senate-passage-autonomous-vehicle-legislation/. Last accessed 23 October 2018.

  9. 9.

    See, for instance, http://nhv.us/content/16024540-uber-urges-nh-lawmakers-introduce-statewide-regulations-ride. Last accessed 23 October 2018.

  10. 10.

    See, for instance, http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/201412_Robo-Wars. Last accessed 23 October 2018.

  11. 11.

    For an overview of the 3132 amendments, see https://lobbyplag.eu/map/amendments/libe/. Last accessed 23 October 2018.

  12. 12.

    The first COM proposal of the GDPR (2016/679) was published on 25 January 2012, it entered into force on 24 May 2016 and became directly applicable in all EU Member States on 25 May 2018.

  13. 13.

    See, for instance, https://edri.org/edrigramnumber10-22facebook-doesnt-like-eu-regulation/. Last accessed 23 October 2018.

  14. 14.

    Consider the cases launched by Max Schrems, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems. Last accessed 23 October 2018. See also http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/01/eu-privacy-rules-may-hit-internet-giants-hard.html. Last accessed 23 October 2018.

  15. 15.

    E.g., Ranchordás 2014.

  16. 16.

    With this, Easterbrook started a long line of debate about Cyberlaw. One should in this line at least mention Lessig’s response, Lessig 1999; and Andrew Murray’s wonderful 2013 Bileta keynote: Murray 2013.

  17. 17.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse. Last accessed 23 October 2018.

  18. 18.

    Fuller 1969.

  19. 19.

    David Collingridge quoted in Morozov 2013b, p. 255.

  20. 20.

    See Leenes et al. 2017, p. 7.

  21. 21.

    One extreme example of a claim that rules are in the way of innovation is Consumer Technology Association President Gary Shapiro’s statement at a House Oversight Committee hearing on artificial intelligence that the GDPR is “going to kill people, because if you can’t transfer, for example, medical information from one hospital to another in the same region, that has life consequences.” https://www.axios.com/gary-shapiro-gdpr-kill-people-1524083132-e3d317c0-7952-4a55-9c2d-c84d82dc03e7.html. Last accessed 16 October 2018.

  22. 22.

    See the excellent Guardian dossier “the Cambridge Analytica Files” https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/cambridge-analytica-files. Last accessed 16 October 2018.

  23. 23.

    This is one of the models that inspires our work at TILT.

  24. 24.

    Boczkowski 2004, pp. 255–267.

  25. 25.

    See n. 22.

  26. 26.

    Of course I know that regulation can be changed and gravity cannot, but still.

  27. 27.

    See https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/tesla-autopilot-death-self-driving-car-elon-musk for an account of the first time it became clear that the Tesla Autopilot was not ready in this respect, yet. Last accessed 17 October 2018.

  28. 28.

    For more on regulating self-driving vehicles, see Leenes and Lucivero 2014.

  29. 29.

    Article 1(v) of the Vienna Convention defines “driver as (v) “Driver” means any person who drives a motor vehicle or other vehicle (including a cycle), or who guides cattle, singly or in herds, or flocks, or draught, pack or saddle animals on a road”.

  30. 30.

    See Stigler 1971, pp. 3–21.

  31. 31.

    See https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/13/comma-ai-will-ship-a-999-autonomous-driving-add-on-by-the-end-of-this-year/. Last accessed 17 October 2018.

  32. 32.

    See https://www.scribd.com/document/329218929/2016-10-27-Special-Order-Directed-to-Comma-ai. Last accessed 17 October 2018.

  33. 33.

    See https://www.slashgear.com/comma-ai-self-driving-agent-open-sourced-after-comma-one-fail-01465892/ and https://github.com/commaai/openpilot. Last accessed 17 October 2018.

  34. 34.

    Or take the other grand technologies of fame, such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, neurotechnology, etc.

  35. 35.

    For instance, in the US the focus in developing self-driving vehicles seems to be on the autonomy of the car based on sensors in the car. In Europe there is much more attention for collaboration between the vehicle and its environment to establish the intended autonomy. See Leenes and Lucivero 2014 for more information on these differences in approach.

  36. 36.

    Bennett Moses 2013.

  37. 37.

    Think of Applied Trolley Problem here.

  38. 38.

    Black 2002.

  39. 39.

    Black 2002, p. 26; Black 2005.

  40. 40.

    Prosser 2010, pp. 11–20.

  41. 41.

    Leenes and Kosta 2015; Leenes 2015.

  42. 42.

    Of course any regulation can be adapted, but it if the regulation itself contains conditions for its review and change, actual adaptation is much easier because the review is automatically triggered, rather than requiring some actor to initiate it.

  43. 43.

    See Ranchordás 2014 for an extensive account of the various concepts in this space.

  44. 44.

    These are also called standards, which is kind of confusing because standards in the context of certification are actually quite precise. On regulation by rules and principles see Braithwaite 2002.

  45. 45.

    Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

  46. 46.

    In Dutch: “Het telegraafgeheim is onschendbaar.”

  47. 47.

    See Koops 2006.

  48. 48.

    https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/editienl/bellen-of-appen-op-de-fiets-het-zou-verboden-moeten-worden. Last accessed 17 October 2018.

  49. 49.

    See, for instance, https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/net-neutrality-a-lobbying-bonanza-115385. Last accessed 17 October 2018.

  50. 50.

    See http://www.bodyshopbusiness.com/consumer-watchdog-group-urges-california-dmv-to-ignore-pressure-from-google/. Last accessed 17 October 2018.

  51. 51.

    Kagan and Scholtz 1984, p. 494.

  52. 52.

    See http://www.thedrive.com/tech/6491/when-the-mobility-bubble-bursts-which-companies-go-pop. Last accessed 14 November 2018.

References

  • Bennett Moses L (2013) How to Think about Law, Regulation and Technology: Problems with ‘Technology’ as a Regulatory Target. Law Innovation and Technology 5:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Black J (2002) Critical reflections on regulation. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 27:1–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Black J (2005) What is Regulatory Innovation? In: Black J, Lodge M, Thatcher M (eds) Regulatory Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Boczkowski PJ (2004) The mutual shaping of technology and society in Videotex newspapers: Beyond the diffusion and social shaping perspectives. The Information Society 20:255–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite J (2002) Rules and Principles: A Theory of Legal Certainty. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 27:47–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownsword R (2008) Rights, Regulation and the Technological Revolution. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller L (1969) The Morality of Law. Yale University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan R, Scholtz J (1984) The criminology of the corporation and regulatory enforcement strategies. In: Hawkins J, Thomas J (eds) Enforcing Regulation. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 67–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Koops B-J (2006) Should ICT Regulation be Technology-Neutral? In: Koops B-J, Lips M, Prins C, Schellekens M (eds) Starting Points for ICT Regulation - Deconstructing Prevalent Policy One-Liners. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 77–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Koops B-J, Lips M, Prins C, Schellekens M (eds) (2006) Starting Points for ICT Regulation - Deconstructing Prevalent Policy One-Liners. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Leenes R (2015) The Cookiewars – From regulatory failure to user empowerment? In: van Lieshout M, Hoepman J-H (eds) The Privacy & Identity Lab; 4 years later. Privacy & Identity Lab, Nijmegen, pp 31–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Leenes R, Kosta E (2015) Taming the Cookie Monster with Dutch Law – A Tale of Regulatory Failure. Computer Law & Security Review 31:317–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Leenes R, Lucivero F (2014) Laws on Robots, Laws by Robots, Laws in Robots: Regulating Robot Behaviour by Design. Law, Innovation, and Technology 6:194–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Leenes R, Palmerini E, Koops B-J, Bertolini A, Salvini P, Lucivero F (2017) Regulatory Challenges of Robotics: Some Guidelines for Addressing Legal and Ethical Issues. Law, Innovation and Technology 9:1, 1–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig L (1999) The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach. Harvard Law Review 113:501–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministerie van Justitie (1997–1998) Nota Wetgeving voor de elektronische snelweg, Kamerstukken II 25 880 1997–1998

    Google Scholar 

  • Morozov E (2013a) ‘To Save Everything, Click Here’ - Technology, Solutionism and the Urge to Fix Problems That Don’t Exist. Allen Lane, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Morozov E (2013b) The Collingridge Dilemma. In: Brockman J (ed) This explains everything. Harper Perennial, New York, p 255

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray A (2013) Looking Back at the Law of the Horse: Why Cyberlaw and the Rule of Law are Important. SCRIPTed 10:310

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser T (2010) The Regulatory Enterprise: Government Regulation and Legitimacy. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranchordás S (2014) Constitutional Sunsets and Experimental Legislation: A Comparative Perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler G (1971) The Theory of Economic Regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2:3–21

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Ronald Leenes

Authors
  1. Ronald Leenes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald Leenes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Leonie Reins

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Leenes, R. (2019). Regulating New Technologies in Times of Change. In: Reins, L. (eds) Regulating New Technologies in Uncertain Times. Information Technology and Law Series, vol 32. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-279-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-279-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-278-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-279-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation