By Sule Sani.
The author.
The term technology and law tracing right back from the 1980’s has always brought up curiosity especially by law students. Back in the days the chances of using computers were very low. Research was carried out manually by reading books to be able to come up with possible answers. Back in the days students took notes in exercise books and teachers could teach with the help of a chalkboard and chalk. On the other hand technology and law is advanced computers/laptops are some sort of an obligation because research is mostly carried out now electronically by carrying out research online. Professors and students who each and study law are trying to understand the link between law and technology. In this article lawyers don’t see the need for technology in Law hence they are comfortable with the old habits they advance reasons such as; the fact of students using laptops when lecture is going on to do things that aren’t course related such as being on social media. Also they think the normal educational process for lawyers is the Law of technology but surely not the technology of law. Again the fact that to get into a law school you must be skilled in words, but you don’t need to know how to do web designing or technology related things to be able to gain admission into a law school hence technology isn’t a big deal for them. Two approaches were put in place on how to sensitize law students who will be lawyers in our society tomorrow, which are the functional approach and the conceptual approach. The functional approach is mainly introducing law students to the technology of law, this simply teaching them how the modern technologies basically operate. This approach is used by a few American law universities that try to make students get used to using electronic tools. As years
go by its noticed that such courses are important because it exposes students to modernity which will be of great importance to them throughout their careers. Notwithstanding it has limitation such as this approach could get really technical at times making it difficult for students who got just basic training in technology to be able to operate it. According to the conceptual approach it’s seen like the short form of internet literacy. It’s the ability to gain exposure and comfort in the cyberspace. The term Neteracy gained its popularity in 2008 with the help of Professor Aaron Barlow. Teaching internet literacy here required a number of skills which can basically change our mindset which are; the ability to read, write and think according to the online world. Online reading involves looking in the right places for the right documents to read. The next skill is knowing how to write. The most important skill which complements the two first skills is thinking. Teaching student’s neteracy is building up better legal minds to secure our future rather than teaching them Law in the old schooled manner. In concluding terms it is true that as years go by we turn to loss so many of our traditional values or traditional way of doing things that are always thought as being the best. Notwithstanding I strongly stand for the promotion of modernity and technology. We turn to live in a world and century defined by technology which facilitates so many things for us. I think technology and its advancement shows that we are moving forward and not lagging behind and it’s only natural for us to embrace it because it makes learning easier. Also reading documentation from the web widens our way of thinking and approach. According to our traditional values of keeping laws in books one day those books may get missen but once that information on Law finds itself on the internet it will always remain there for decades. So I stand for the fact that we should be able to embrace technology in Law.
REFERENCES
Australian Privacy, Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Digital Signature But Were Afraid To Ask (1997). Available at http;//www.privacy.com.au/digsig1.htm J H Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History (3rd ed) (1990: Butterworths, London) Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England vol 3 (1768) 373. Stephen Colbran et al, Civil Procedure: Commentary and Materials (1998: Butterworths, Sydney) Evatt, ‘Family Law’ in The Australian Press Council, To Name or Not To Name (1980: The Australian Press Council, Sydney) Susan Friewald, ‘Uncertain Privacy: Communication Attributes After the Digital Telephony Act’ (1996) 69 S Cal LR 949. Michael Froomkin, ‘The Essential Role of Trusted Third Parties in Electronic Commerce; (1996) 76 Oregon LR 49 Robert L Jones, Client Confidentiality: A Lawyer’s Duties With Regard to Internet E-Mail, (August, 1995) http://www.gsu.edu/%7Elawppw/lawand.papers/bjones.html. Ian D Leader-Elliott, ‘Legislation Comment: Suppression Orders in South Australia: The Legislature Steps In’ (1990) 14 CrimLJ 86. Ian J Lloyd, ‘Detecting and Prosecuting Computer Crime’, Information Technology Law, 186- 196. Morag McDowell, ‘The Principle of Open Justice in a Civil Context’ (1995) NZLR 214. Meagher, Gummow and Lehane, Equity Doctrines and Remedies (3rd ed) (1992: Butterworths, Sydney). Scott Optican, ‘Secret Law’ (1997) NZLJ 77. Rick Sarre, ‘HIV/AIDS and Suppression Orders’ (1995) 17(3) Law Society Bulletin of SA 11 Geoffrey Sawer ‘Privilege’ in the Australian Press Council, To Name or Not To Name (1980: The Australian Press Council, Sydney)
Chuck Semeria Internet Firewalls and Security: A Technology Overview. Available at http://www.3com.com/nsc/500619.html Greg Taylor ‘No guarantee’ in The Australian Press Council, To Name or Not To Name (1980: The Australian Press Council, Sydney) Lex Watson ‘Discrimination’ in Australian Press Council, To Name or Not To Name (1980: The Australian Press Council, Sydney)
