Law and Technology

“Today’s lawyers need to integrate technology into their practice, not just understand it in theory,” said Chris Jay Hoofnagle, professor and faculty co-director at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. “Learning to think like a lawyer in the age of AI means using machine learning, computer vision and other digital tools ethically and effectively to investigate, analyze and advocate.”

Catherine Crump, a clinical professor at Berkeley Law School in California who specializes in artificial intelligence and technology law, says that of course it’s not smart to Google or use ChatGPT to figure out how to further a crime or how to harm someone. Crump says it is important for people, especially children, to recognize that ChatGPT is a product and “not your friend.”

Andrea Roth, a professor at University of California, Berkeley Law, who proposed some changes to the committee, warned that the use of the words “simple” and “scientific” could “create mischief and unnecessary litigation.” She also said the proposed phrase “machine-learning” was “both under and over inclusive,” as it may omit complex algorithms that merit scrutiny.

“When you use works to train a model, you’re basically using them not for the expression […] but you’re using them as data,” said Pamela Samuelson, a UC Berkeley digital copyright professor who co-directs its law and technology center. When it comes to visual outputs, she said, “There’s something much more immediately expressive about graphical works, particularly characters.”

“Google will need five votes to prevail regardless of [Ginsburg’s] absence on the court,” said Pamela Samuelson, a University of California, Berkeley law professor who filed a brief backing Google. “Intellectual property is a field of law in which the usual right-left splits don’t apply. Most of the IP cases in recent years have been unanimous or nearly so.”

Catherine Crump, a clinical professor at UC Berkeley School of Law, said messaging and social media platforms have a virtual “ironclad immunity” from the content made by its users under Sec. 230. She noted that the law has long been viewed as out of date — artificial intelligence and algorithms to monitor speech or content, she noted, did not exist when it was passed — but the platforms are protected from their own content until an act of Congress makes changes.

“When you collect this data, it’s really hard to control,” said Catherine Crump, director of UC Berkeley’s Technology & Public Policy Clinic. “It’s no different from once you share your data with Meta or Google, they’re going to repackage your data and sell it to advertisers and you don’t have any idea which of the advertising companies have your data.”

“People should understand — and be alarmed — that once these data silos come down, they won’t go back up,” writes Professor Catherine Crump. “The power to track, target and punish will exist for every future administration.”

Professors Catherine Crump and Chris Hoofnagle weigh in on AI wearables and the legality of recording everything. 

“We need safeguards to ensure that this powerful technology is used in a way that advance legitimate law enforcement interests, but that stave off possibilities of abuse,” said Professor Catherine Crump.