Legal Regulation of Technology

doi:10.1017/9781316691489.005

Chapter 5 - Legal Regulation of Technology

Supporting Innovation, Managing Risk, and Respecting Values

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 November 2019

Roger Brownsword

Edited by

Todd L. Pittinsky

Show author details

Todd L. Pittinsky: Affiliation:
Stony Brook University, State University of New York

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Legal and regulatory responses to emerging technologies vary from one technology to another, from one legal system to another, and from one time to another. Although under some legal systems, the response to a particular technology might be restrictive, under others it might be permissive; even facilitative. Sometimes the regulatory focus is a novel process; at other times, it is a novel product or a particular use or application. Some regulatory cultures tend to be precautionary, others tend to be proactionary, and others respond case by case, providing no simple pattern or stock response.

Different technologies, moreover, elicit different kinds and different degrees of concern. Fukuyama (2002) famously expressed deep moral concern about millennial developments in human biotechnology (that threatened to compromise human dignity), but much less concern about the possible threats to privacy and equality presented by information technology.

Type: Chapter
Information: Science, Technology, and Society
New Perspectives and Directions
, pp. 109 - 137

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316691489.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Annas, G. J., Andrews, L. B., & Isasi, R. M. (2002). Protecting the endangered human: Toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alterations. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 28, 151–178.Google Scholar

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 US 576 (2013).Google Scholar

Beyleveld, D., & Brownsword, R. (1993). Mice, morality and patents. London, England: Common Law Institute of Intellectual Property.Google Scholar

Beyleveld, D., & Brownsword, R. (2001). Human dignity in bioethics and biolaw. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Beyleveld, D., Brownsword, R., & Llewelyn, M. (2000). The morality clauses of the Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions: Conflict, compromise, and the patent community. In Goldberg, R. & Lonbay, J. (Eds.), Pharmaceutical medicine, biotechnology and European law (pp. 157–181). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bhuta, N., Beck, S., Geiss, R., Liu, H-Y., & Kress, C. (Eds.) (2016). Autonomous weapons systems: Law, ethics, policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biobank, . (2017). About. Retrieved from www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/about-biobank-uk/Google Scholar

Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352, 1573–1576. doi:10.1126/science.aaf2654CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Brownsword, R. (2003). Bioethics today, bioethics tomorrow: Stem cell research and the dignitarian alliance. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, 17(2), 15–51. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/98ae/1999aabf0d9cec3168acebf12cef007cf120.pdf Google Scholar

Brownsword, R. (2006). Cloning, zoning, and the harm principle. In McLean, S. (Ed.), First, do no harm (pp. 527–542). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Brownsword, R. (2008). Rights, regulation and the technological revolution. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brownsword, R. (2009). Property in human tissue: Triangulating the issue. In Steinman, M., Sykora, P., & Wiesing, U. (Eds.), Altruism reconsidered: Exploring new approaches to property in human tissue (pp. 93–104). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Brownsword, R. (2010). Regulatory cosmopolitanism: Clubs, commons, and questions of coherence (TILT Working Paper No. 18). Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University.Google Scholar

Brownsword, R. (2011). Lost in translation: Legality, regulatory margins, and technological management. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 26, 1321–1365.Google Scholar

Brownsword, R. (2013). Human dignity, human rights, and simply trying to do the right thing. In McCrudden, C. (Ed.), Understanding human dignity (pp. 345–358). Oxford, England: British Academy/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brownsword, R. (2014a). Patents and intellectual property rights. In Moellendorf, D. & Widdows, H. (Eds.), The handbook of global ethics (pp. 354–367). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Brownsword, R. (2014b). Regulatory coherence—a European challenge. In Purnhagen, K. & Rott, P. (Eds.), Varieties of European economic law and regulation: Essays in honour of Hans Micklitz (pp. 235–258). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brownsword, R. (2016a). Law as a moral judgment: The domain of jurisprudence, and technological management. In Capps, P. & Pattinson, S. D. (Eds.), Ethical rationalism and the law (pp. 109–130). Oxford, England: Hart.Google Scholar

Brownsword, R. (2016b). Technological management and the rule of law. Law, Innovation and Technology, 8, 100–140. doi:10.1080/17579961.2016.1161891Google Scholar

Brownsword, R. (2017a). Field, frame and focus: Methodological issues in the new legal world. In van Gestel, R., Micklitz, H., & Rubin, E. (Eds.), Rethinking legal scholarship (pp. 112–172). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brownsword, R. (2017b) From Erewhon to Alpha Go: For the sake of human dignity should we destroy the machines? Law, Innovation and Technology, 9, 117–153. doi:10.1080/17579961.2017.1303927CrossRef Google Scholar

Brownsword, R. (2017c). Law, liberty and technology. In Brownsword, R., Scotford, E., & Yeung, K. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of law, regulation and technology (pp. 41–68). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brownsword, R. (2018). The e-commerce directive, consumer transactions, and the digital single market: Questions of regulatory fitness, regulatory disconnection and rule redirection. In Grundmann, S. & Kull, I. (Eds.), European contract law in the digital age (Vol. 3). Cambridge, England: Intersentia. Retrieved from https://oigus.ut.ee/sites/default/files/oi/brownsword.pdf Google Scholar

Butenko, A., & Larouche, P. (2015). Regulation for innovativeness or regulation of innovation? Law, Innovation and Technology, 7, 52–82. doi:10.1080/17579961.2015.1052643CrossRef Google Scholar

Carr, N. (2015). The glass cage. London, England: Vintage.Google Scholar

Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York, NY: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar

Dau-Schmidt, K. G. (2017). Trade, commerce, and employment: The evolution of the form and regulation of the employment relationship in response to the new information technology. In Brownsword, R., Scotford, E., & Yeung, K. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of law, regulation and technology (Chapter 43). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199680832.013.64Google Scholar

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980).Google Scholar

Drahos, P. (2002). Information feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy? London, England: Earthscan.Google Scholar

Duwell, M., Braavig, J., Brownsword, R., & Mieth, D. (Eds.) (2014). Cambridge handbook of human dignity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ellickson, R. C. (1991). Order without law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

European Commission (2016). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Online platforms and the digital single market: Opportunities and challenges for Europe. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0288 Google Scholar

European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (2007). Opinion on the ethical aspects of nanomedicine (Opinion No. 21). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar

Ezrachi, A., & Stucke, M. E. (2016). Virtual competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Friberg, S., & Dufwa, B. W. (2010). The development of traffic liability in Sweden. In Martin-Casals, M. (Ed.), The development of liability in relation to technological change (pp. 190–227). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fukuyama, F. (2002). Our posthuman future. London, England: Profile Books.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. L. (1969). The morality of law (Rev. ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Heald, P. (2014). How copyright keeps works disappeared. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11, 829–866. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2290181CrossRef Google Scholar

Hildebrandt, M. (2015). Smart technologies and the end(s) of law. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hubbard, F. P. (2014). “Sophisticated robots”: Balancing liability, regulation, and innovation. Florida Law Review, 66, 1803–1872. Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2027&context=law_facpub Google Scholar

Huxley, A. (2007). Brave new world. London, England: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1932.)Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (2016). The ethics of invention. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Keen, A. (2015). The Internet is not the answer. London, England: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar

Lee, M. (2009). Beyond safety? The broadening scope of risk regulation. Current Legal Problems, 62, 242–285. doi:10.1093/clp.62.1.242Google Scholar

Lee, R. (2005). GM resistant: Europe and the WTO Panel dispute on biotech products. In Gunning, J. & Holm, S. (Eds.), Ethics, law and society (Vol. 1, pp. 131–140). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Mandel, G. N. (2009). Regulating emerging technologies. Law, Innovation and Technology, 1, 75–92. doi:10.1080/17579961.2009.11428365Google Scholar

Moon, A., Calisgan, E., Bassani, C., Ferreira, F., Operto, F., Veruggio, G. … Van der Loos, H. F. M. (2016). The open roboethics initiative and the elevator-riding robot. In Calo, R., Froomkin, A. M., & Kerr, I. (Eds.), Robot law (pp. 131–162). Cheltenham, England: Elgar.Google Scholar

Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here. London, England: Allen Lane.Google Scholar

Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002a). The ethics of patenting DNA. London, England: Author.Google Scholar

Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002b). Genetics and human behaviour: The ethical context. London, England: Author.Google Scholar

Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2012). Emerging biotechnologies: Technology, choice and the public good. London, England: Author.Google Scholar

Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace eV, ECJ C-34/10 (2011).Google Scholar

Orwell, G. (1954). 1984. London, England: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1949.)Google Scholar

Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Plomer, A. (2012). After Brüstle: EU Accession to the ECHR and the future of European patent law. Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 2, 110–135. doi:10.4337/qmjip.2012.02.01CrossRef Google Scholar

Plomer, A. (2015). Patents, human rights and access to science. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.CrossRef Google Scholar

Porter, G. (2009). The drafting history of the European biotechnology directive. In Plomer, A. & Torremans, P. (Eds.), Embryonic stem cell patents (pp. 3–26). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics. London, England: Random House Business Books.Google Scholar

Reidenberg, J. R. (1997–1998) Lex informatica: The formulation of information policy rules through technology. Texas Law Review, 76, 553–593. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7f22/c171859ac1885ae9afa3afc3373f197aa133.pdf Google Scholar

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., III, Lambin, E., … Foley, J. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14, 32. Retrieved from www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/Google Scholar

Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties (RS Policy Document No. 19/04). London, England: Author.Google Scholar

Sayre, F. B. (1933). Public welfare offences. Columbia Law Review, 33, 55–88.Google Scholar

Swire, P., & Litan, R. (1998). None of your business: World data flows, electronic commerce and the European privacy directive. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar

Tran, J. L. (2015). To bioprint or not to bioprint. North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, 17, 123–178. Retrieved from http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Tran_Final.pdf Google Scholar

Wachter, R. (2015). The digital doctor. New York, NY: Mc-Graw Hill Education.Google Scholar

Wallach, W. (2015). A dangerous master. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Weaver, J. F. (2014). Robots are people too. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. (2015). Genetics, crime and justice. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Wolff, J. (2010). Five types of risky situation. Law, Innovation and Technology, 2, 151–163. doi:10.5235/175799610794046177Google Scholar

Zittrain, J. (2008). The future of the Internet. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30, 75–89. doi:10.1057/jit.2015.5CrossRef Google Scholar