Lawyers & Technology v. Politicians (Score 3)

This post is all about the lawyer side of this equation. Even though lawyers as a rule are technologically inept, I belive that it's the politicians who get the law wrong, and not lawyers as a class.

As a bit of background, I am a Canadian articling student with a technical background, and will be called to the bar in about a year. I worked as a mechanical engineer, designing industrial robotics and sensors prior to getting my law degree. I have been a proficient user and minor sysadmin for many years. I grew up on the BBS scene and have been using the internet ever since my university days. I am by no means a guru, and have only a minor knowledge of unix/linux. However, I understand most of the technology behind the internet, and know who to call when I need real gurus.

I work at a law firm of approximately 400 lawyers across Canada, and am specializing in IP (e.g. patents, trade-marks etc.) My department files patents and litigates technology issues every day.

Very few of the lawyers here, less than 10 of them I would say, have any idea at all about how computers or the internet work. They may be able to use the internet to send e-mail, and browse, but the technology is a mystery to them. Certain specialists may understand e-commerce issues, such as verification and cryptography and so forth, but only as ideas, not as practicalities.

When it comes to copyright issues, many lawyers will understand the basics, but will not understand the technology of the internet for example, or even the technology of a hard drive. For example, lawyers won't know how packets work, and how "copies" of packets are made by each router or whatever on their way to their destination.

And I work at a very technology-friendly law firm.

When we litigate, of course, we get experts to tell us what's what. In court, it's all about the duelling experts. It is these experts who teach the lawyers what they need to know before the court appearances, and who also educate the judge during the trial. If you're a personable guru with people skills and can tell a good story, you can make big bucks being an expert witness, let me tell you. All this to say that during a trial, the lawyers will be informed and up to speed as best they can be, as they will be prepped by the experts.

The big problem, of course, are the politicians. These are the people who make the laws. The politicians may also have experts who advise them on policy, but it isn't the same as an adversarial court case. The politicians will make decisions based on popular perception of technology, rather than on what technology actually is. Think of the V-Chip disaster or the Communications Decency Act fiasco. These measures were put into place to prevent an "evil" which is relatively impossible to police. However, even if the politicians understood the technology side of things, their consitituency would still demand that they "do something". On the other hand, if the politicians did understand the technology, they might have been able to come up with a more practical "solution".

At any rate, I know from experience there is a lot of technological ignorance, and fear of technology, with lawyers. This fear is probably ten times worse with politicians.

Just my 2 cents worth. I hope it sheds some light on my side of the fence. My apologies for the length.

Ken