Since Ryan Calo joined University of Washington School of Law in 2012, he has become a leading expert on the law and emerging technology.
Calo believes that few interesting questions — especially around technology — can be resolved by reference to a single discipline.
Calo is a co-founder of the Center for an Informed Public, Society + Technology at UW and the Tech Policy Lab. He is also a professor in the Information School and an adjunct in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering.
Calo’s newest book, “Law and Technology: A Methodical Approach,” published late last year, is a guide to a legal analysis of regulation and technology. Nearly a decade ago, Calo realized that the most recent book on the topic was published in the 1970s. He decided it was time for an updated resource reflecting current, rapidly evolving technology and the present regulatory environment.
UW News spoke with Calo about the book and the current legal and policy climate in the United States.
Who is the intended audience for “Law and Technology”?
Ryan Calo: I wrote it primarily for new entrants to the field, be they junior scholars or students. I also hoped that the themes would resonate with more senior scholars and that it would be useful outside of academia for either analysis or instruction. Because ultimately, what the book does is proposes a methodology for analyzing technology from a legal perspective.
I spent a lot of time interacting with policymakers, staffers on Capitol Hill, people who work for senators and members of Congress. A legislator might come to a staffer and say, “Hey, my constituents are really worried about augmented reality or AI. They’re really worried about deep fakes.” That staff member doesn’t really have a place to start, and they end up just calling up experts, reading New York Times articles, talking to industry, but not in any kind of methodical way. This book is designed to help them figure out what’s going on.
I also hope that this book would be of use to people who are in practice and want to be more methodical about analyzing a given technology.
Technology evolves fast. How should the legal system and policymakers prepare to navigate the relationship between law and emerging technologies?
RC: Many of us have an expectation that technology is just going to change. It’s just going to evolve, and our job as lawyers or judges or policymakers, is to kind of scramble and accommodate the resulting disruption, and perhaps try to restore the status quo. Part of what I hope to see is legal scholars and policymakers acknowledging that the disruption isn’t inevitable.
We need to empower independent researchers to figure out what’s going on with new technology. Right now researchers are disempowered because they don’t have access to the relevant data and platforms. And many times when they try to get that data, they get served with a cease and desist letter.
We need to protect whistleblowers and make sure there’s adequate, truly top-notch expertise within government. If you have those things, then you’re much more likely to be able to figure out what could go wrong with these technologies without having to observe the harm unfold over a long period of time, as we have with the internet and now with AI.
You mentioned the School of Law’s leadership in tech policy. How is the UW positioned nationally in this space?
RC: We are really among the leaders in this area.
The School of Law has a lot of tech policy offerings, including a Technology Law and Public Policy Clinic. Many faculty have contributed to scholarship over the years. We have lots of faculty writing about law and technology.
We also have been really a model for impactful interdisciplinary collaboration. Law students can work in the clinic or the Tech Policy Lab. I’m one of the founders of the Center for an Informed Public, which bridges human centered and design engineering as well as the Information School and dozens of other departments including psychology, education and even geography.
A third important example is the Society + Technology Initiative. We did a whole year of work mapping out who was doing work in the space — all the centers, all the labs, all the initiatives — all the people on the three campuses identified as working at this intersection.
We’re leaders across the country at the law school in terms of our student offerings in our research, but we are also part of that interstitial glue. People think of the iSchool, which they should. They think of computer science, which they should. But they also should think about who else is in the center of this, who else is at the heart of it, and the School of Law is a big part of that.
There’s been a lot of news lately about states trying to regulate AI and the federal government pushing back. What’s your perspective?
RC: If I were trying to sabotage the innovation edge of the United States, I would do at least two things, maybe three.
First, I would divest in basic research. The United States has had an innovation edge over the rest of the world in large part because of decisions made in the 1950s and beyond to invest in basic research. I would dismantle that, and I would try to make it really hard for universities to do research, either by spending less, disrupting the relationships, or messing with overhead in ways that makes research impossible.
The second thing I would do is make it really hostile for outside innovators to come in and participate in knowledge production here. I would, whether xenophobically or not, try to make it really hard for people with ideas and talent and knowledge to come here to the United States to work on teams with other Americans, to stay here and teach in our schools, to found companies. The second enormous advantage the United States has had is that the country has become attractive because of its commitment to the rule of law and its robust higher ed system, and that’s built on its innovation and investment in research. People from all over the world come here to try and make the next Google and Amazon, or are teaching in our schools and contributing to our ecosystem.
The third thing I would do in this hypothetical situation is remove non-existent hurdles to transformative technologies like AI. What do I mean? Federal leaders are currently talking about getting out of the way of AI, but there aren’t any regulations about AI, really. There are some state laws that have a kind of European flavor of risk management, like Colorado and Texas. There are specific things that states are worried about, including deep fakes and labeling online social media accounts that are automated. There’s almost nothing standing in the way of AI innovation in terms of regulation.
The way that our system is structured is that the individual states, under our concept of federalism, are supposed to be laboratories of ideas, experimenting with legislation, and showing that it works or it doesn’t. Pretending that you’re pro-innovation because you’re trying to stamp out the very few regulatory hurdles that companies have to have to abide by all in the name of competing with China, which has AI laws, is just senseless. We’re much better off following the wisdom of the founders, who said, “Hey, if you have something new in society, let the states serve as laboratories for different laws, and we can all learn from each other about how that’s going.” That’s classic federalism and it used to be a pillar of conservative thinking.
The President doesn’t have the power to boss the states around in terms of their legislative capacities. And Congress has taken up the question of whether to try to preempt AI laws, and they resignedly declined. I just want to comment that the overall strategy of the administration has been deeply anti-innovation in its impact, even though it is vociferously proinnovation in its rhetoric.
Any final thoughts?
RC: We have an environment in the U.S. that promotes innovation, sometimes through laws, such as laws that protect intellectual property, and laws that make people feel safe enough to use products and services that companies can sell them to us. There’s not, and never has been, a one-to-one correlation between regulation and promoting innovation. It’s really important that we acknowledge, as a society and community, that sometimes laws are written in the service of innovation. What you want is a favorable regulatory environment, not a complete absence of the rule of law.
For more information, contact Calo at rcalo@uw.edu.