Cyberlaw-One Key Takeaway (Idea/Lesson) From Paper Write One Takeaway or Discovery about Cyberlaw from the Article attached 200 words no references. no c

Cyberlaw-One Key Takeaway (Idea/Lesson) From Paper Write One Takeaway or Discovery about Cyberlaw from the Article attached

200 words

no references. no c

Click here to Order a Custom answer to this Question from our writers. It’s fast and plagiarism-free.

Cyberlaw-One Key Takeaway (Idea/Lesson) From Paper Write One Takeaway or Discovery about Cyberlaw from the Article attached

200 words

no references. no citations. one learning from record based on Cyberlaw | About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2021 LexisNexis

Date and Time: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 8:27:00 PM EST

Job Number: 159402156

Document (1)

1. ARTICLE: Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw

Client/Matter: -None-

Search Terms: Title(Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw)

Search Type: Terms and Connectors

Narrowed by:

Content Type Narrowed by
Secondary Materials Source: California Law Review & Online

ARTICLE: Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw

June, 2015

103 Calif. L. Rev. 513 *

Length: 10357 words

Author: Ryan Calo *

Copyright (C) 2015 Ryan Calo.

* Assistant Professor, University of Washington School of Law. Faculty Director, University of Washington Tech
Policy Lab. Affiliate Scholar, Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society. This paper benefited from
presentations at Yale Law School and University of Washington seminars, workshops at Fordham Law School and
the University of Miami School of Law, and computer science and engineering colloquia at the University of
Washington and the University of California, Berkeley. Thank you to Jack Balkin, Kate Darling, Michael Froomkin,
Woodrow Hartzog, Margot Kaminski, Ian Kerr, Mark Lemley, David Post, Joel Reidenberg, Zahr Said, and other
participants in the above events for their helpful comments. Justin Hughes, Sean O’Connor, Lisa Larrimore
Ouellette, and Daniel Siciliano helped generate several of the hypotheticals I explore in Part II. Thank you also to
Grace Feldman and Elena Ponte for excellent research.


Two decades of analysis have produced a rich set of insights as to how the law should apply to the Internet’s
peculiar characteristics. But, in the meantime, technology has not stood still. The same public and private
institutions that developed the Internet, from the armed forces to search engines, have initiated a significant
shift toward developing robotics and artificial intelligence.

This Article is the first to examine what the introduction of a new, equally transformative technology means for
cyberlaw and policy. Robotics has a different set of essential qualities than the Internet and accordingly will
raise distinct legal issues. Robotics combines, for the first time, the promiscuity of data with the capacity to do
physical harm; robotic systems accomplish tasks in ways that cannot be anticipated in advance; and robots
increasingly blur the line between person and instrument.

Page 2 of 52

Robotics will prove “exceptional” in the sense of occasioning systematic changes to law, institutions, and the
legal academy. But we will not be writing on a clean slate: many of the core insights and methods of cyberlaw
will prove crucial in integrating robotics and perhaps whatever technology follows.



The law found the Internet unsettling. That a buyer in one location could access the website of a seller in any other

forced courts to revisit basic questions of jurisdiction and federalism. 1 The potential to share and edit software

and other digital objects introduced novel questions of ownership and control. 2 In the mid-1990s, a movement

arose among legal academics to address these and similar challenges. Known by the name cyberlaw, its central
tensions flow from the essential qualities of the Internet, by which I mean the characteristics that distinguish the
Internet from prior or constituent technology such as computers or phones.

Some early cyberlaw questions have seen a kind of resolution in the twenty years since the rise of cyberlaw.

Legislatures and courts have weighed in, 3 and the vigorous debate has continued–around “net neutrality,” for

instance, and the impossible puzzle that is privacy. 4 But even here, participants have at least a sense of the basic

positions and arguments.

[*515] Law, in other words, is catching up. But technology has not stood still. The same military that funded the

early network that became the Internet now funds robotics competitions. 5 The same household-name Internet

companies that brought us search engines and social networks have begun a large-scale pivot toward robotics and

1 See infra Part I.B.

2 See infra Part I.B.

3 See, e.g., Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998) (codified as amended in scattered
sections of 17 U.S.C.); Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (holding that free speech protection extends to the Internet and
invalidating, in part, the Communications Decency Act of 1996).

4 E.g., Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (invalidating the antidiscrimination and antiblocking rules under FCC’s
Open Internet Order); Daniel J. Solove, Introduction: Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma, 126 HARV. L. REV.
1880 (2013) (canvassing contemporary issues in privacy).

5 See infra Part II.

103 Calif. L. Rev. 513, *513

Page 3 of 52

artificial intelligence. 6 State and federal lawmakers are authoring laws around the domestic use of drones and

issuing license plates to cars without drivers. 7

Robotics is shaping up to be the next transformative technology of our time. And robotics has a different set of
essential qualities than the Internet. Robotics combines, arguably for the first time, the promiscuity of information

with the capacity to do physical harm. 8 Robots display increasingly emergent behavior, permitting the technology

to accomplish both useful and unfortunate tasks in unexpected ways. 9 And robots, more so than any technology

in history, feel to us like social actors–a tendency so strong that soldiers sometimes jeopardize themselves to

preserve the “lives” of military robots in the field. 10

The essential qualities of robotics will drive a distinct conversation. We think of the Internet as a powerful tool for
people to communicate. Robotics blurs the very line between people and instrument. If the United States does not
maintain sufficient control over its autonomous submarines, perhaps the submarines are not “vessels” entitled to

passage through Chinese waters under international law. 11 If a defendant injures a person while trying to

vandalize an anthropomorphic robot rather than a wall, transferring intent arguably furthers the purposes of criminal
and tort law. These are not scenarios about which cyberlaw has much to teach.

6 See infra Part II.

7 E.g., S.B. 1298, 2012 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2012) (authorizing autonomous vehicles); A.B. 511, 2011 Leg., 76th Sess. (Nev.
2011) (same); S.B. 313, 2013 Leg., 77th Sess. (Nev. 2013) (regulating autonomous vehicles); S.B. 1134, 62nd Leg., 1st Reg.
Sess. (Idaho 2013) (placing limits on domestic use of drones); S.B. 1587, 98th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ill. 2013) (same); see
also John Bacon, Google This: Nevada Issues License for Driverless Car, USA TODAY (May 8, 2012, 1:35 PM),
car/1#.VOVPHEKpI9x .

8 See infra Part II.B.1.

9 See infra Part II.B.2.

CENTURY 337-43 (2009); M. Ryan Calo, The Drone As Privacy Catalyst, 64 STAN. L. REV. ONLINE 29 (2011), ;see also Julie Carpenter, Just Doesn’t Look Right: Exploring the
Impact of Humanoid Robot Integration into Explosive Ordnance Disposal Teams, in II HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH ON


Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by one of our experts, guaranteeing you an A result.

Need an Essay Written?

This sample is available to anyone. If you want a unique paper order it from one of our professional writers.

Get help with your academic paper right away

Quality & Timely Delivery

Free Editing & Plagiarism Check

Security, Privacy & Confidentiality