Emerging technology continues to present the law with many challenges. In particular, robots now intervene in more and more tasks previously undertaken by humans, such as policing and driving. The response of the law in these distinct contexts forms the focus of this special section of the journal arising from papers presented at the Socio-Legal Studies Association Annual Conference in Newcastle in 2017. What has become apparent to us is that the role of law is not some simple facilitator of technological change. If anything, law injects into this ‘new world’ of technological innovation the hope that human values will both enhance yet constrain the fears that artificial intelligence seems to evoke within society. Many of these fears revolve around the loss of human control and hence a concern with a lack of accountability for the actions of computers. While the legal process is seen by some as a barrier to the introduction of new technologies (the ‘law falling behind’ narrative) we can also see a counter narrative that suggests that law must act to restrain the excesses of such technologies. In a final twist, as new technologies offer the promise of machines doing much of our work, the law offers the assurance that the injection of human values into those processes must still take place. Yet the tension even here is that humans bring both values and prejudice to the table. This latter point is evident in the article by Marion Oswald, Jamie Grace, Sheena Urwin and Geoffrey Barnes titled ‘Algorithmic risk assessment policing models: Lessons from the Durham HART model and “Experimental” proportionality’. Using Durham Constabulary’s Harm Assessment Risk Tool (HART) as a case-study, this article explores some of the ethical, legal, policy and practical issues of applying ‘algorithmic analysis’ in the context of UK police intelligence. This type of intelligence analysis is thought to facilitate accurate and ‘predictive’ policing, strategy and tactics because it allows for a more consistent, evidence-based decision-making profile. However, as the authors articulate, whilst the use of this technology has the ability to enhance a more efficient use of police resources, this also opens up a myriad of sociolegal implications that are dealt with consecutively within the article. This article also determines that there are areas of police intelligence in which the use of this emerging technology would not be universally welcomed because the impact upon society and upon the welfare of individuals would be too great. This stance mirrors that of Lisa Collingwood’s article ‘Autonomous trucks: an affront to masculinity?’ in which she argues that the use of emerging technology in the traditional maledominated truck driving industry would not be universally welcomed because the long-established gender stereotypes inherent within the industry would ultimately need to be consigned to history. In suggesting that the law may not represent an adequate facilitator in this context, she also questions whether society is ready to step up to such a change. While some members of society may regard the demise of ‘trucking culture’ as of minimal concern, for those directly affected it represents a loss of identity and meaning which will be profound. In that context, if the automation of many aspects of work is supposed to enable us to focus on the more creative aspects of our workspace, then one challenge will be how to address such impacts. Creative law and legal practice may well have to be part of that discussion. As a consequence, a unifying theme throughout these articles is the ongoing debate about the legal regulation of technology and cyberspace given the use of new information

中文翻译：

---

法律、自动化和价值转移

新兴技术继续给法律带来许多挑战。特别是，机器人现在介入越来越多以前由人类承担的任务，例如警务和驾驶。2017 年在纽卡斯尔举行的社会法律研究协会年会上发表的论文中，法律在这些不同背景下的反应构成了该杂志这一特别部分的重点。对我们来说，显而易见的是，法律的作用是不是技术变革的简单推动者。如果有的话，法律为这个技术创新的“新世界”注入了希望，即人类价值观既会增强又会抑制人工智能似乎在社会中引起的恐惧。这些担忧中的许多都围绕着失去人类控制，因此担心对计算机的行为缺乏责任感。虽然法律程序被一些人视为引入新技术的障碍（“法律落后”的说法），但我们也可以看到相反的说法，认为法律必须采取行动限制此类技术的过度使用。最后，由于新技术为机器完成我们的大部分工作提供了希望，法律提供了将人类价值注入这些过程的保证。然而，即使在这里也存在紧张局势，人类将价值观和偏见都带到了桌面上。后一点在 Marion Oswald、Jamie Grace、Sheena Urwin 和 Geoffrey Barnes 题为“算法风险评估警务模型”的文章中很明显：来自达勒姆 HART 模型和“实验性”比例性的经验教训。本文使用 Durham Constabulary 的危害评估风险工具 (HART) 作为案例研究，探讨了在英国警察情报背景下应用“算法分析”的一些伦理、法律、政策和实践问题。这种类型的情报分析被认为有助于促进准确和“预测性”的警务、战略和战术，因为它允许更一致的、基于证据的决策概况。然而，正如作者所阐明的那样，虽然使用这项技术能够提高警察资源的更有效利用，但这也开启了文章中连续处理的无数社会法律影响。本文还确定，在某些警察情报领域，这种新兴技术的使用不会受到普遍欢迎，因为它对社会和个人福利的影响太大。这种立场反映了丽莎·科林伍德 (Lisa Collingwood) 的文章“自主卡车：对男子气概的侮辱？” 她认为，在传统的男性主导的卡车驾驶行业中使用新兴技术不会受到普遍欢迎，因为行业内固有的长期存在的性别刻板印象最终需要成为历史。在暗示法律在这种情况下可能不能代表适当的推动者时，她还质疑社会是否准备好迎接这种变化。虽然社会的一些成员可能认为“卡车文化”的消亡是最不关心的，但对于那些直接受到影响的人来说，它代表着身份和意义的丧失，这将是深刻的。在这种情况下，如果工作的许多方面的自动化应该使我们能够专注于我们工作空间的更具创造性的方面，那么一个挑战将是如何解决这些影响。创造性法律和法律实践很可能必须成为讨论的一部分。因此，贯穿这些文章的一个统一主题是在使用新信息的情况下关于技术和网络空间的法律监管的持续辩论 如果工作的许多方面的自动化应该使我们能够专注于我们工作空间的更具创造性的方面，那么一个挑战将是如何解决这些影响。创造性法律和法律实践很可能必须成为讨论的一部分。因此，贯穿这些文章的一个统一主题是在使用新信息的情况下关于技术和网络空间的法律监管的持续辩论 如果工作的许多方面的自动化应该使我们能够专注于我们工作空间的更具创造性的方面，那么一个挑战将是如何解决这些影响。创造性法律和法律实践很可能必须成为讨论的一部分。因此，贯穿这些文章的一个统一主题是在使用新信息的情况下关于技术和网络空间的法律监管的持续辩论