Article: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/526401/laws-and-ethics-cant-keep-pace-with-technology/
Source: MIT Technology Review by Vivek Wadhwa
This article talks about the regulatory gap in laws pertaining to technology and examples of the problems created by this lag. The gaps are getting wider as technology advances ever more rapidly. Wadhwa gives examples as to this gap and how it was plugged historically, but does not really offer a solution but instead ends with this statement: “The problem is that the human mind itself can’t keep pace with the advances that computers are enabling.”
There is a legitimate dichotomy illustrated by how employers cannot ask interviewees about their religion, political views, and relationship status but are free to use social media to glean information that might bias them. An important example is the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 that prohibits the use of genetic information in health insurance and employment. But it provides no protection from discrimination in long-term-care, disability, and life insurance.
Another example is the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that mandated that phone companies share their lines to allow long distance firms to enter local markets and vice versa — the idea being that the consumer then would have more choices. Though the act did have provisions for emerging technologies, it did not fully anticipate that cable companies would one day offer voice services, phone companies would offer video services, and that there would be Web and wireless services that offer a hybrid of both. Because of the 1996 act, the phone companies had to share their wires, whereas the cable services did not. The rates for services that are described as “telecommunications” are regulated, whereas those classified as “information” are not. Due to that uncertainty, critics say, the United States now lags behind countries such as South Korea and Japan in Internet and wireless development, where it once was the leader.
I want to discuss ways in which this lag can be improved. I propose the government to be open to a more open free-market system like the internet itself which has evolved naturally very well.
Another important area is privacy. Internet-related cases are tricky because they confront new and unaddressed areas of American law. How can society balance accountability with free speech? And if information — from private thoughts to public data — is so readily available, how do we define what constitutes privacy? This is where we debate the competing ideas of free speech and privacy. Another challenge for the law is the way the Web crosses state and international borders.
Thanks to the Internet, it’s now relatively easy to find the value of a person’s home or the extent of their political contributions and leanings. Meanwhile, people use social media applications like Twitter or Facebook to share personal details with the world. The result is a blurring of the lines between what ought to be considered private and public.
I want to explore firstly, whether even if the law were to catch up to technology, could it actually remedy these kinds of situations where there is a substantial grey area. I believe that the law can only act on societal consensus. The law is only effective at policing the most extreme and outrageous cases.