Comments for The Law Lab http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab extending the conversation Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:15:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 Comment on A Reflection on Leslie Zebrowitz’s talk, by Judith Donath by Tina de Vries http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2010/03/05/a-reflection-on-leslie-zebrowitzs-talk-by-judith-donath-2/comment-page-1/#comment-554 Tina de Vries Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:15:14 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/?p=92#comment-554 Thoughts: 1. intercultural impact. Compare the outcome of different perception of baby-faces/non to a jury trial/non jury trial (with only professional judges) as in most european systems. Maybe in the 2. alt. we only need to school the judges with Your ideas, to bring the consitutionallies principle of equality to a better outcome. 2. In my opinion, it should be a strong demand, that any judgement has to take place by the principle of speech, and personal appearance. I think this principle should in general apply also to internet Court- Proceedings. As easy as the internet makes it to communicate with each other around the globe, as easy it is already at the moment to come together to settle conflicts via airplane. Internet space is not a world, that is departed from the "real world" as such, You can always trace anybody on the internet. Any comment in the internet is made by "real" people. so than, the same rules shoud apply, Thoughts:

1. intercultural impact. Compare the outcome of different perception of baby-faces/non to a jury trial/non jury trial (with only professional judges) as in most european systems. Maybe in the 2. alt. we only need to school the judges with Your ideas, to bring the consitutionallies principle of equality to a better outcome.

2. In my opinion, it should be a strong demand, that any judgement has to take place by the principle of speech, and personal appearance. I think this principle should in general apply also to internet Court- Proceedings.

As easy as the internet makes it to communicate with each other around the globe, as easy it is already at the moment to come together to settle conflicts via airplane.

Internet space is not a world, that is departed from the “real world” as such, You can always trace anybody on the internet. Any comment in the internet is made by “real” people.

so than, the same rules shoud apply,

]]> Comment on A Reflection on Jeremy Bailenson’s talk, from Judith Donath by Bailenson on Transformed Social Interaction in Virtual Reality « Legal Informatics Blog http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2010/02/10/a-reflection-on-jeremy-bailenson%e2%80%99s-talk-from-judith-donath/comment-page-1/#comment-388 Bailenson on Transformed Social Interaction in Virtual Reality « Legal Informatics Blog Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:17:01 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/?p=83#comment-388 [...] The following was added on 13 February 2010:] Click here for Professor Judith Donath’s post about the presentation. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Segovia & Bailenson on Children’s [...] [...] The following was added on 13 February 2010:] Click here for Professor Judith Donath’s post about the presentation. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Segovia & Bailenson on Children’s [...]

]]> Comment on A Reflection on Stephen Kosslyn’s talk, from Judith Donath by Kosslyn on Brain Bases of Deception: Why We Probably Will Never Have a Perfect Lie Detector « Legal Informatics Blog http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2010/02/01/a-reflection-on-stephen-kosslyn%e2%80%99s-talk-judith-donath/comment-page-1/#comment-387 Kosslyn on Brain Bases of Deception: Why We Probably Will Never Have a Perfect Lie Detector « Legal Informatics Blog Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:15:06 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/?p=64#comment-387 [...] [NOTE: The following was added on 13 February 2010:] Click here for Professor Judith Donath’s post about the presentation. [...] [...] [NOTE: The following was added on 13 February 2010:] Click here for Professor Judith Donath’s post about the presentation. [...]

]]> Comment on Meta-currency: a step towards the Rheonomy By Eric Harris-Braun by Hazel Henderson http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2009/07/01/meta-currency-a-step-towards-the-rheonomy-by-eric-harris-braun/comment-page-1/#comment-222 Hazel Henderson Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:41:42 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/?p=46#comment-222 Eric Harris Braun is right on and I can't believe our paths haven't crossed yet ! We wissed Eric here at Ethical Markets back in February 2009 with Susan Witt of the Schumacher Society . We are now cataloging our Library to share with Schumacher's in Great Barrington , with a huge shelf on complementary currencies , alternatives to economics and the wealth of networks ...all ways to bypass Wall Street. Eric Harris Braun is right on and I can’t believe our paths haven’t crossed yet ! We wissed Eric here at Ethical Markets back in February 2009 with Susan Witt of the Schumacher Society . We are now cataloging our Library to share with Schumacher’s in Great Barrington , with a huge shelf on complementary currencies , alternatives to economics and the wealth of networks …all ways to bypass Wall Street.

]]> Comment on Meta-currency: a step towards the Rheonomy By Eric Harris-Braun by ReputationCurrents » Rheonomy – Flow Management http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2009/07/01/meta-currency-a-step-towards-the-rheonomy-by-eric-harris-braun/comment-page-1/#comment-46 ReputationCurrents » Rheonomy – Flow Management Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:37:53 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/?p=46#comment-46 [...] core participant in the open money project, and board member of the E. F. Schumacher Society posted to the Berkman Center Law Lab: Eric Harris BraunMoney, as a medium of exchange, a unit of measure, and a store of value is the [...] [...] core participant in the open money project, and board member of the E. F. Schumacher Society posted to the Berkman Center Law Lab: Eric Harris BraunMoney, as a medium of exchange, a unit of measure, and a store of value is the [...]

]]> Comment on Cloud Law- Can it be Engineered? By Ray Garcia by J-P Voilleque http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2009/06/23/cloud-law-can-it-be-engineered-by-ray-garcia/comment-page-1/#comment-29 J-P Voilleque Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:46:57 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/?p=24#comment-29 The conundrum in my view is that the two communities are so divergent in their "traditional" (read: socially expected) modes that it will take a series of summits to even define terms. This is worthwhile work, however, and can itself utilize the cloud. Case in point: My own fumble-bumble discussion of "law as code" can be found <a href="http://voilleque.com/2009/01/drafting-as-coding/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The much more provocative and useful <a href="http://positivelyglorious.com/software-media/drafting-as-coding-jpv-pdx/" rel="nofollow">response </a> this elicited from John Metta, programmer par excellence, gave me great hope. This is brilliant. Can't believe I'm the first to comment. The conundrum in my view is that the two communities are so divergent in their “traditional” (read: socially expected) modes that it will take a series of summits to even define terms. This is worthwhile work, however, and can itself utilize the cloud.

Case in point: My own fumble-bumble discussion of “law as code” can be found here. The much more provocative and useful response this elicited from John Metta, programmer par excellence, gave me great hope.

This is brilliant. Can’t believe I’m the first to comment.

]]> Comment on Some scenes from the robots-vs.-lawyers future by Daniel Collis-Puro http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2009/05/13/some-scenes-from-the-robots-vs-lawyers-future/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Daniel Collis-Puro Fri, 15 May 2009 22:04:39 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2009/05/13/some-scenes-from-the-robots-vs-lawyers-future/#comment-10 I'm not sure how it fits in, but I was involved in http://www.livejustice.org , an initiative designed to help pro se litigants via: * live legal help from attorneys, * through a self-serve knowledgebase and * with a form assembly system (that I wrote). I'd be happy to discuss at some point. This was back in 2004, probably a bit ahead of its time. I’m not sure how it fits in, but I was involved in http://www.livejustice.org , an initiative designed to help pro se litigants via:
* live legal help from attorneys,
* through a self-serve knowledgebase and
* with a form assembly system (that I wrote).

I’d be happy to discuss at some point. This was back in 2004, probably a bit ahead of its time.

]]> Comment on Some scenes from the robots-vs.-lawyers future by JG http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2009/05/13/some-scenes-from-the-robots-vs-lawyers-future/comment-page-1/#comment-8 JG Thu, 14 May 2009 00:59:36 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2009/05/13/some-scenes-from-the-robots-vs-lawyers-future/#comment-8 If I understand the propositions here, the first fields to be impacted will be institutions of law that people should be able to do themselves, but the legal code or emotional situation has made it necessary for lawyers as mediators to the law. I do not see the fear in this, nor do I see a sense of robots versus lawyers. The risk is when legislators and lawyers get together and unintentionally create new, even more complex laws that surreptitiously make the software difficult to manage. However, like piracy - as a form of civic rebellion - of any kind, the codes will merge and catch up with each other. These scenes of robots versus lawyers do leave one major question: accountability. Who will be responsible when the software fails to properly advise a client, who then depends upon it, and is hurt by it? Will someone who does have a license to practice law have to ultimately vouch for the software? Should the software itself have to be granted some form of legal license? If I understand the propositions here, the first fields to be impacted will be institutions of law that people should be able to do themselves, but the legal code or emotional situation has made it necessary for lawyers as mediators to the law. I do not see the fear in this, nor do I see a sense of robots versus lawyers. The risk is when legislators and lawyers get together and unintentionally create new, even more complex laws that surreptitiously make the software difficult to manage. However, like piracy – as a form of civic rebellion – of any kind, the codes will merge and catch up with each other.

These scenes of robots versus lawyers do leave one major question: accountability. Who will be responsible when the software fails to properly advise a client, who then depends upon it, and is hurt by it? Will someone who does have a license to practice law have to ultimately vouch for the software? Should the software itself have to be granted some form of legal license?

]]>