Advertisement

Prefatory Remarks on Human Law and Computer Law

  • Mireille Hildebrandt
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 25)

Abstract

This chapter introduces the volume with a discussion of computer law and human law. Instead of referring to the common meaning of computer law as a field of private or public law that aims to regulate human actions that involve computing systems, this chapter introduces the idea of a law that effectively rules the interactions of non-human actors. This raises a number of questions concerning the meaning of law, human law and the comparative perspective that is at stake in this volume.

Keywords

Legal Rule Legal Norm Legal Tradition Computational Thinking Printing Press 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aarts, E., and F. Grotenhuis. 2009. Ambient intelligence 2.0: Towards synergetic prosperity. In AmI 2009, ed. M. Tscheligi, B. De Ruyter, P. Markopoulus, R. Wichert, T. Mirlacher, A. Meschtscherjakov, and W. Reitberger, 1–13. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Asimov, I. 1991. Runaround. In Robot visions, ed. I. Asimov and R. McQuarrie, 113–135. New York: ROC.Google Scholar
  3. Bench-Capon, T., and H. Prakken. 2010. Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18(2): 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourgine, P., and F.J. Varela. 1992. Towards a practice of autonomous systems. In Towards a practice of autonomous systems. Proceedings of the first European conference on artificial life, ed. F.J. Varela and P. Bourgine, xi–xviii. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Broersen, J., and L. van der Torre. 2012. Ten problems of deontic logic and normative reasoning in computer science. In: Lectures on Logic and Computation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 55–88, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Carr, N. 2010. The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  7. Chess, D.M., C.C. Palmer, and S.R. White. 2003. Security in an autonomic computing environment. IBM Systems Journal 42(1): 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Citron, D.K. 2007. Technological due process. Washington University Law Review 85: 1249–1313.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, R. 1994. Asimov’s laws of robotics: Implications for information technology. Computer 27(1): 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Floridi, L., and J.T. Sanders. 2001. Artificial evil and the foundation of computer ethics. Ethics and Information Technology 3(1): 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geertz, C. 1983. Local knowledge: Fact and law in comparative perspective. In Local knowledge. Further essays in interpretive anthropology, C. Geertz. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Gibson, J. 1986. The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Glenn, H.P. 2007. Legal traditions of the world, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. ITU. 2005. The internet of things. Geneva: International Telecommunications Union (ITU).Google Scholar
  15. Koerner, B.I. 2012. Mr. Know-it-all: Twitter followers, language learning, cell-phone bloodshed. Wired Opinion. Available at: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/06/st_kia_twitter_followers/. Last accessed 14 Oct 2012.Google Scholar
  16. Kranzberg, M. 1986. Technology and history: “Kranzberg”s laws’. Technology and Culture 27(3): 544–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Legrand, P., and R. Munday (eds.). 2003. Comparative legal studies: Traditions and transitions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lessig, L. 2006. Code version 2.0. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. McLuhan, M. 1964. Understanding media. The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Meister, M., K. Schröter, D. Urbig, E. Lettkemann, H.-D. Burckhard, and W. Rammert. 2007. Construction and evaluation of social agents in hybrid settings: Approach and experimental results of the INKA project. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 10(1). Available at: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/10/1/4.html. Last accessed 14 Oct 2012.
  21. Moore, G. 1965. Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics 38: 114–117.Google Scholar
  22. Norman, D. 1998. The design of everyday things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ong, W. 1982. Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London/New York: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Picard, R. 1997. Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Prigogine, I., and I. Stengers. 1984. Order out of chaos. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  26. Rammert, W. 2011. Distributed agency and advanced technology. Or: How to analyse constellations of collective inter-agency (Working Paper No. TUTS-WP-3-2011), Technical University Technology Studies. Berlin: Technical University Berlin.Google Scholar
  27. Russell, S., and P. Norvig. 2009. Artificial intelligence: A modern approach, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Sartor, G. 1993. A simple computational model for nonmonotonic and adversarial legal reasoning. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ed. A. Oskamp and K. Ashley, 192–201. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  29. Steels, L. 2003. Evolving grounded communication for robots. Trends in Cognitive Science 7(7): 308–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stross, R. 2012. Computer science for the rest of us. Reading, writing and – Refactoring code? New York Times, March 31. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/business/computer-­science-for-non-majors-takes-many-forms.html?_r=0. Last assessed 14 Oct 2012.
  31. Tavani, H.T. 2011. Ethics and technology: Controversies, questions, and strategies for ethical computing. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Van Hoecke, M. (ed.). 2004. Epistemology and methodology of comparative law. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  33. Velasquez, J.D. 1998. Modeling emotion-based decision making. In Emotional and intelligent: The tangled knot of cognition (Technical Report FS-98-03), ed. D. Canamero, 164–169. Menlo Park: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  34. Von Bar, C., and E. Clive (eds.). 2010. Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law: Draft common frame of reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wesel, U. 1985. Frühformen des Rechts in vorstaatlichen Gesellschaften. Umrisse einer Frühgeschichte des Rechts bei Sammlern und Jägern und akephalen Ackerbauern und Hirten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  36. White, J.B. 1990. Justice as translation, an essay in cultural and legal criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Witten, I.H., E. Frank, and M.A. Hall. 2011. Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques, 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  38. Wolf, M. 2007. Proust and the Squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  39. Zweigert, K., and H. Kötz. 1998. Introduction to comparative law. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computing and Information Sciences (iCIS)Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of JurisprudenceErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Centre for Law Science Technology and Society studies (LSTS)Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselBelgium

Personalised recommendations