To regulate or not
Modernity has its own issues. While modernisation has been instrumental in solving issues, it is not bereft of its own share of the same. With the advent of Artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT), the second decade of 21st Century promises a deep-integration of AI and IoT in our society. As exciting as the prospect of technology may sound, there's something within it that attracts deliberation. For years, it has been discussed if the technology is a boon or bane. From school essays to expert debates, technology has been identified as the tool of modernity with the prospect of misuse. The very concept of cyber law arises from technology and so it is fair to say that technology makes a deep scratch in our societal fabric — deep enough to attract legal consideration over the same. Unchecked propagation of technology may do both good or harm. History answers that for us with the adverse use of atomic technology that taught the world a very serious lesson. Regulation, thus, takes centre stage here for it is because of these regulations that law will be able to hold one accountable for the potential misuse as well as sought justice. Experts have reasoned that regulations are in themselves bittersweet. While necessary, too much of it may impact innovation. As Sundar Pichai — Google CEO — sparked the discussion over AI regulation with his aye to the issue, it must be understood why he felt AI can be misused, resulting in negative consequences. The facial recognition software which the London Metropolitan Police recently announced would be placed across the city is a direct example. Such systems are often racially biased and are misused by the police. With AI-run software storing individual data and capable of facial recognition, no regulation could mean extensive misuse of the same. No doubt then that the move was labelled as a serious threat to civil liberties by privacy campaigners. While we can identify the need for regularisation here, the same regularisation may prevent prospects from off-shooting due to restrictions in place. It is therefore important to deliberate over technology and regularisation as former advances to keep a healthy balance between two. Too much liberty will attract misuse as can be corroborated from cyber crimes and bank frauds that were committed once the technology was understood at the grassroots. There will be constant cases and science and legal community may have to sit together to discuss the way forward but that is necessary since we cannot ignore it.