What? How and why to govern and regulate lecture 2

What is faster: law or technology?

• Law is faster → existing laws already apply to new tech.

• Example: robotics = already regulated under current law.

• Key: not whether to regulate, but how to structure regulation.

How is risk evaluated and mitigated (making the risk smaller or less harmful.)

Combine likelihood (very likely, moderate, unlikely) with impact (high, moderate, low).

• No absolute numbers → only relative categories.

• No single right answer:

  • Impact : unlikely (deaths) may not need action.

  • Impact : very likely (nuisance) may need action.

How should we evaluate the role of access providers Dutch Pirate Bay case?

• Use principles: directness, effectiveness, costs, relevance, and time.

• No obvious right or wrong → it’s about balancing pros and cons.

• Important: focus on arguments, not the speaker.

• Law becomes interesting when explained clearly with existing laws and/or data.

What rules of thumb (inspired by Kelderluik) guide when ISPs should cooperate?

• Directness → the more direct the action, the sooner ISPs may be asked.

• Effectiveness → the more effective the measure, the sooner ISPs may be asked.

• Costs → the lower the costs, the sooner ISPs may be asked.

• Relevance → the more related the ISP’s activities, the sooner ISPs may be asked.

• Preference → repressive action > preventive action (preventive must be re-evaluated regularly).

Begrijpen, niet memoriseren: Toegangproviders en samenwerking

Verschil tussen Kelderluik-principe en Dutch Pirate Bay

• Kelderluik: algemene richtlijnen voor wanneer een toegangprovider moet meewerken. Let op directheid, effectiviteit, kosten, relevantie, voorkeur (repressief > preventief). Flexibel, case-by-case.

• Dutch Pirate Bay: juridische zaak over auteursrecht. Richtlijnen lijken op Kelderluik, maar nadruk ligt op tijdigheid van actie en juridische afwegingen.

Kortom:

• Kelderluik → praktisch en flexibel.

• Pirate Bay → juridisch en formeel.

How do you apply the law to a case?

1. Case : What happened?

2. Backing: Legal rule (Act, Regulation) or ratio from case law.

3. Justification: Argue why the conclusion follows from the backing for this case.

   • You can interpret to connect facts and rule.

   • not always exact — it's about making a convincing argument.

What does Article 153 of the Civil Code of Procedure say ?

Sometimes proof mostly arguments

• Accept: Judge must accept conclusive evidence or its legal value of certain data.

• Counter: Counter-evidence allowed unless forbidden by law.

Applying Law to Technological Developments

Toepassen van recht op technologische ontwikkelingen

• Mogelijk (possible): Wat technologisch kan.

• Toegestaan (permissible): Wat wettelijk mag.

• Wenselijk (desirable): Wat maatschappelijk of ethisch verstandig is.

Kortom: Bij nieuwe technologie kijk je naar wat kan, wat mag en wat verstandig is.

How do we approach governance of emerging technology?

1. Technology emerges → decide how to respond:

   • Do nothing (for now)

   • Raise awareness, self-regulation, standards, etc.

   • Use the law (existing or new regulation)

2. Argumentation: Explain why your choice is appropriate given the technology.

3. Focus on reasoning — discuss evidence, principles, and practical considerations.

Why Current Law Struggles with Emerging Technology – Cooper & Lodder

• They should be Tech neutral: Write laws in a way that works for future technologies; use actions (verbs), not things (nouns).

• Current law tries to control the internet → works for old tech but can confuse new tech.

• Law should stay flexible and avoid being too centralized.

A model to assess regulatory intervention

Elaborating on the

  What

  Why

  How

of governance and regulation of emerging technologies

What : Status Quo of Emerging Technology

• Focus: Decide the level of detail → technology itself vs. its use/applications.

• Timing: Identify the stage of development.

• Future: Consider whether and how the technology is likely to develop further.

What do Butenko & Larouche (2015) say about emerging innovations?

• Many scholars advocate early, technology-specific legal intervention to manage new innovations.

• Key idea: addressing issues before the technology spreads widely.

Why should we think about regulating emerging technology?

• Human behavior: People can make mistakes → regulation may guide safe use.

• Economic growth: Technology can drive growth → facilitation via subsidies, sandboxes, temporary limited liability.

• Legal aims: Protect core values like human rights, privacy, equality, health, freedom.

• Impact on status quo:

  • Positive disruption → regulation can stimulate development.

  • Negative disruption → regulation can safeguard society.

  • Neutral → maybe no action needed.

• Health risks: Consider current and future potential risks.

What motivates regulation in different sectors?

• Env: Protect health

• Finance: Prevent corruption

• Overall: Regulation = mitigate risks, intervene in free market

What are the main tools and considerations for regulating technology?

• Tools:

  • Law (national, EU, international)

  • Standards

  • Social norms

  • Market mechanisms

  • Architecture (design, tech structures)

  • Spontaneous ordering (self-organization)

• Effectiveness:

  • How well does it work?

  • Consider enforcement vs. symbolic value