Thirty years ago, when the internet was still a wild frontier, it was hard to fathom how technology would help advance the delivery of legal services and at the same time threaten the fundamental right to privacy. This special issue titled “Technology and the Law” was created as a retrospective to assess the challenges and benefits that technology offers, especially as it relates to social justice and equality. What is clear more than ever is that, through collaboration, we can harness the power of technology and rein in potential abuses. The subjects covered in this issue are vast. And, as in many things, there is good news and there is bad news.
Emily Bergeron writes about the continuing need to bridge the digital divide in rural America. She suggests that governments, policymakers, and private organizations must commit to digital inclusion so that no one is left behind in the ever-evolving digital landscape. Gary Rhoades describes how the technology used to screen tenants—including algorithms that mine data and make predictions—threatens to circumvent the Fair Housing Act’s protections against discrimination based on race, religion, and national origin. He proposes that we work collectively to find ways to combine the use of objective data with our common sense. Sanho Steele-Louchart, a blind attorney, describes the continued dearth of standards around making websites accessible for the disabled but notes that there is proposed legislation that promises to drastically improve access. H.R. 5813 and S. 2984, known collectively as the Websites and Software Applications Accessibility Act, would explicitly codify our right to digital accessibility into federal law.
Mayze Teitler and Carrie DeCell describe how commercial spyware gives attackers and repressive regimes access to private information, allowing them to surveil and intimidate dissidents, activists, and even journalists. They go on to examine how victims are suing commercial spyware companies to hold them accountable and how spyware companies have raised a litany of procedural defenses, from foreign sovereign immunity to a lack of personal jurisdiction. In a similar vein, Suzanne Bernstein describes tech’s threat to privacy in the realm of reproductive health care, especially considering the Dobbs decision. She worries that the tracking and data collection used to target advertising will be used by law enforcement to investigate women seeking health care and argues that it is critical for regulatory or legislative bodies to adopt strong data privacy protections.
