Sneak Peek at What's Next: A Briefing on Law, Technology and the Future
Reporter Ben Hancock peers around the corner at the courtroom clashes and policy choices that loom over emerging technologies like AI, digital currency and facial recognition.
November 30, 2017 at 02:20 PM
5 minute read
“This is our world now … the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud.”
Those words were written in 1986, well before the modern internet, in what became known as the “Hacker Manifesto.” The essay not only articulated the ethos of sometimes mischievous computer tinkerers, but underscored how technology was upending the old order of things.
More than three decades later, technology has revolutionized the world in ways that would have been hard to anticipate then. We walk around with computers in our pocket that recognize our faces and broadcast our location. Energy-sucking server farms solve complex math problems and create hundreds of millions of dollars in value—that can be erased in a blink.
All of this change has brought enormous challenges to the law. The same year the manifesto was written, Congress passed the Stored Communications Act, a statute courts have struggled to interpret in the context of this newfangled thing called the “cloud.” The result has been a topsy-turvy landscape for companies and law enforcement—one that maybe, maybe, will get smoothed out by the Supreme Court.
In this environment, keeping up with how the law is evolving is not an easy thing either. That's why we've decided to launch What's Next, a weekly email news briefing on law, technology and the future to keep you ahead of the curve.
|
➤➤ Click here to sign up.
The “future,” of course, is an inherently nebulous thing to try and define. So what will What's Next cover, and who is it for?
The subject areas I'll be following come under two broad headings: 1) How the law is coping (or not) with technology; and 2) How technology is changing the practice of law. In the first category, for example, I would examine how regulators and courts might approach the problem of bias in AI. In the latter category, I would look at how lawyers are using AI to build more efficient litigation practices.
That answer should have tipped you off as to who this briefing is for: lawyers, obviously—but more specifically litigators and other attorneys who advise technology clients or practice in the fields of cybersecurity, international data privacy, internet law and fintech.
I'm also hoping this will be a stimulating read for legal academics, activists, regulators and researchers who work on digital rights and surveillance issues, as well as in-house counsel at technology and fintech companies. In addition, I'm writing for legal tech company executives and law firm IT experts who are their customers.
That's a broad group, I recognize, and I don't anticipate every item I cover will be directly relevant to everyone. But I think there's enough of an overlap in that Venn Diagram such that each item will at least be interesting to most readers.
With that principle in mind, I'll add that while the core of what I'll be covering includes technologies like digital surveillance and cryptocurrency, I may occasionally veer into other innovations affecting the law that aren't directly related to tech, such as litigation finance. That's in part because I find the area fascinating. But it also falls into this broader theme of the future of law and—I posit—is relevant to the same audience. Don't believe me? Take a look at how DreamHost Inc. and hiQ turned to the online litigation funding platform CrowdJustice to help bankroll their suits against the Department of Justice and LinkedIn, respectively, and rally public support.
A main feature of the briefing—in fact, all of the great new briefings that my colleagues are putting out—is that it will be skimmable and quick to digest.
I know you're busy. I know you're overloaded reading too many emails and news items. That's why throughout the briefing, I'll be calling out key points that you need to know so you can move on. And for those prone to thinking darkly every now and then, the briefing will also include a regular “dose of dystopia” about the legal aspects of tech going awry. (Think “The Hunger Games,” but for lawyers.)
At the end of the Hacker Manifesto, its author confesses his crime—“that of curiosity.” Attorneys specializing in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act might see more shades of gray there. But in an age where information is everything and technology is always changing, it's hard to debate the value of staying curious and thinking ahead.
I hope you'll sign up for a free trial here and read to see What's Next.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Path in the Multiverse: Rethinking Client Engagement Through Gamification
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250