I wish to express my deep appreciation to Carolina Rossini, Director of Public Interest Technology (PIT) Programs and Professor of Practice at te University of Massachusetts Amherst, as well as Lecturer at Boston University in the IP & Information Privacy LL.M. program, for taking the time to address my inquiries. CY

 

This interview was conducted via video conference in Boston, Massachusetts, on November 7, 2024.

 

CY: Professor Rossini, as a lecturer at Boston University School of Law, could you please share your insights on the “LL.M. Seminar on Technology & Law and Policy” course, which is designed for students who seek to deepen their understanding of cutting-edge issues, including technological advancements and artificial intelligence (AI)?

 

CR: Thank you so much for the invitation. It’s crucial for students to understand technology and its societal implications. When I began in the late 1990s, we were still exploring the Internet’s benefits and impacts, with a strong belief in techno-solutionism – the idea that technology could provide equitable solutions for all.

Over time, we’ve learned this isn’t always true. Recognizing the harms and inequities of technology is where policy and law play a vital role, helping us ask, how can we fine-tune the process to benefit everyone? This is evident in areas like AI and digital platform regulation. For example, biased AI algorithms or poorly designed data collection can harm individuals or marginalized groups, underscoring the need for careful oversight and innovation.

We are currently grappling with how to address these challenges as a society. One incredibly complex question concerns the fairness of AI input data. For instance, a significant issue arises regarding data on race. Various laws in U.S. states prohibit the use of race as a data point in areas like insurance or housing algorithms. But does excluding this data help or harm marginalized populations? Truthfully, we have yet to figure out the answer to that question.

We are now seeing policy and legal efforts, particularly in the European Union (which is more advanced than the U.S. in this regard), attempting to address these tough questions. My course strives to explore these issues in depth. One challenge, though, is that as technology evolves, law and policy often struggle to keep up. This means my course needs to evolve constantly – annually, if not more frequently – because the examples change, the harms shift, and our understanding deepens. I aim to create a dynamic and lively learning environment in response to this.

 

CY: Your lectures cover a wide range of topics from various legal jurisdictions, including the regulations and guiding rules of the European Union (EU), the United States (U.S.), and China. This pluralistic approach enables students to compare different legal regulations simultaneously. Could you please share your thoughts on the seminar format of your lectures? How does this affect the quality of the outcomes?

 

CR: My approach emphasizes the importance of analyzing technology policy and law through a global lens. I primarily teach graduate-level courses attended by professionals from diverse international backgrounds alongside U.S.-based scholars pursuing advanced studies. These courses provide an introductory survey of key debates in technology and policy, designed to evolve with emerging trends. For instance, while cryptocurrencies were once a central focus, the emphasis has shifted to other pressing issues as their relevance changes. The goal is to help students engage with current issues and interpret the headlines they encounter meaningfully.

The class is structured around the concept of technology stacks and layers, which helps students think critically about how technologies build upon existing infrastructure. This approach is essential because it is applicable regardless of the specific technology being discussed.

Teaching at the graduate level is especially rewarding because of the diversity of perspectives in the classroom. My students often come from Asia, the MENA region, Latin America, Europe, and beyond. They are typically young or mid-career professionals and their experiences bring incredible depth to our discussions. For example, we might discuss how technology and policy issues unfold in Turkey, the European Union, or India. I encourage students to share insights from their countries, making the discussions more concrete and relevant to their realities.

In my view, technology policy and law development are inherently geopolitical issues. Countries often react not just to the technology itself but also to how other nations respond to it or the market dominance of a particular country in each technology. Having students worldwide allows us to explore these dynamics richly and meaningfully, grounding the discussions in real-world contexts.

 

CY: The field of technology policy and law covers many types of technologies. Given the constant changes in this field, lawyers must be ready to tackle future legal challenges. As the Director of Public Interest Technology Programs at the UMASS and an experienced advisor and lawyer in technology policy and law, what advice would you give young lawyers considering a career in this field?

 

CR: That is an interesting point because when I started my career in the 1990s, the advice you’re receiving now simply didn’t exist. Technology law was an emerging field then, and no clear job descriptions or positions were advertised for privacy compliance lawyers or cybersecurity specialists. I had to create my path—building my job descriptions, defining my roles, and essentially carving out my own opportunities.

Today, you have the advantage of entering a more defined field with widespread recognition of the importance of technology law and policy. However, you are also facing more competition, as there are more professionals in the field and additional barriers like AI systems filtering your resumes.

I would offer two key pieces of advice for those looking to work in technology law and policy.

First, it is essential to develop technology competencies. In Public Interest Technology (PIT) Programs, for example, we focus not on the technologies themselves but on the processes of designing, managing, using, and deploying technologies in ways that serve the public good. This aligns with values like inclusion, sustainability, equity, fairness, transparency, and accountability. This doesn’t mean you need to become an engineer. For most of us, it is about having a foundational understanding of technology. Today, you might need to understand concepts like open-source versus proprietary AI, licensing issues, or even why certain technologies – like the design of self-driving cars- can fail to meet inclusivity and equity goals, such as by not considering the needs of women users.

Thankfully, there are now plenty of resources to build tech competency.  For example, at UMass, we’re developing a certificate program to address exactly these skills. Beyond formal education, excellent podcasts, webinars, and articles are available for lawyers. If you want to work in a rapidly evolving field like this, you must commit to being a lifelong learner.

Second, it is vital to understand how the market views you and how technology influences that perception. You need to be familiar with discussions about the future of work and how to position yourself effectively for today’s tech-enabled hiring processes. This includes developing personal branding skills aligning with how technology screens applicants and the market defines opportunities. Working on these skills will make you more prepared to navigate this competitive, ever-changing field.

 

CY: Which technology will likely pose significant legal challenges in the coming years?

 

CR: I think a lot of technology is being developed around neuroscience, and that’s an area to watch. Specifically, implant technology has great potential even though we’re not there yet. For example, implants are being developed for people with diabetes that could be placed inside the body to monitor health. Similarly, consider implant technology related to the metaverse or tracking technology for refugees, where individuals could be tagged for surveillance. These technologies raise serious ethical and privacy concerns. However, with the proper safeguards, it will be important to see how they unfold.

These trends will spark discussions on everything my seminar covers, from privacy to other human rights, such as the right to assembly. Imagine being tracked through an implant or even something as simple as a mobile device. While you can turn off your mobile, can you do the same with an implant? These are the kinds of dilemmas we will face as these technologies evolve.

On a more practical level, I also think we should pay attention to digital public infrastructures (DPIs). There are two critical perspectives on this issue. One emphasizes the need for more public spaces that are accessible to all, as large platforms have monopolized many. Professors like Ethan Zuckerman, who was at MIT and Harvard and now teaches at UMass, discuss the importance of social, community-driven platforms as part of DPIs. The other, which is more in my wheelhouse, focuses on the digital transformation of governments. This includes things like digital ID systems, financial inclusion infrastructure, and data exchange frameworks.

We already have much of the technology needed for these digital infrastructures, but there are still challenges, particularly regarding safeguards and interoperability. For instance, if I’m a citizen of Brazil, I want to be able to travel freely across Uruguay and other Mercosur countries. Similarly, in Africa, regional trade agreements allow for the free movement of people, and digital infrastructure is needed to support this movement in a digital or technological context. While we have aspirational technologies, especially biology and health, we also need government-backed solid digital public infrastructures to ensure better digital inclusion.

 

CY: Do you think that the LL.M. in Intellectual Property and Information Law Program at Boston University will meet the expectations of students and better prepare them for the demands of the legal profession in the future?

 

CR: I also graduated from this LL.M. program in 2007 and really enjoyed it. But what excites me most now is how much the program has evolved to offer more disciplines within the sphere of technology, law, and policy. I’m glad to see that. I also believe that some incredible professors are now involved. For example, as you mentioned, there’s the information privacy law course, and I know there’s a class with faculty from the Data Science School specifically focusing on AI. It’s amazing to see the integration of different fields, especially with some professors teaching both at the law school and in the Computer Science and Data Science (CDS) faculty. That wasn’t the case when I was in the program.

As we are learning in my seminar, things are becoming more specialized, making it crucial to focus on interdisciplinary learning and knowledge. A law professor might not have the time or the bandwidth to learn every detail about how a particular system works. However, the solution is to collaborate with colleagues from other fields. And I think Boston University is doing that – there’s been a great effort over the years to bring that interdisciplinary approach. I hope to see even more of this collaboration going forward. It’s clear that students benefit from it, and I think it’s something we should all prioritize when looking for an LL.M. program – find programs that promote interdisciplinary work.

At UMass, the Public Interest Technology team is also very interdisciplinary. We have people from the Computer and Data Science School (CICS), the IT program, the Public Policy School, and even the Communication School. We also have fellows from diverse faculties, ranging from health to business. So, I really believe that interdisciplinarity is key, and I’m thrilled that after so many years, we’re finally breaking down silos and working together in interdisciplinary teams.

 

CY: We are witnessing the implementation of AI regulations by various countries, organizations, and governmental bodies to govern this uncharted area of law. In some cases, governments have taken the initiative of promoting the employment of AI experts or relaxing strict immigration regulations for them. In light of these developments, it is worth considering whether young lawyers with a passion for AI governance have an opportunity to be recognized on a global scale. Why is this opportunity important for foreign lawyers?

 

CR: On one hand, yes, this is an opportunity. Now, some programs help facilitate relocation to other countries. It’s almost like an arms race. To be the first to win this race and land an opportunity, it’s important to focus on your training and build a strong network in the country where you want to stay. You need to position yourself in a way that sets you apart from the competition. Maybe you can write articles or adopt strategies that help your name rise above the noise because there’s a lot of noise out there.

On the other hand, it’s a challenge. Changing countries to look for a job is never easy because you’re competing with people from both the country you’re trying to move to and from other countries as well. So, what skills are you already possess that are being sought after?

A couple of weeks ago, I was teaching some students at UMass in a nonprofit strategy and management class. I went over the SWOT analysis, which is a tool that helps identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. While it’s typically used for organizations, we can all use this matrix to assess our personal skills and what we have to offer. It’s about understanding your strengths and identifying areas for improvement. For example, how can you bridge the gap if a job requires 10 skills and you have 6? Do you need to take a course or boot camp?

Not everyone can afford extra training, and some tech courses may be too advanced for those with a humanities background. In that case, look for accessible options, the “low-hanging fruit.” The key is doing a SWOT analysis to identify opportunities and challenges and then working to address them. With AI filtering resumes, this will give you an edge, but networking remains crucial to standing out.

It’s also important to remain open-minded about where you want to go. Often, it’s just as important to return to your home country and work with the government on AI initiatives, as many governments view AI as a tool for digital transformation in public services. However, there are opportunities in other countries as well, not just in the U.S. The U.S. is hiring a lot, but many other countries are too – especially since countries like China and other parts of Asia have built “AI armies,” if you will.

So, you have this advantage in the context of a global geopolitical arms race, but you must stay flexible. Don’t fixate on just one country. If you’re open to moving and have the resources, you can explore opportunities in multiple countries. You might have to start at lower levels in some places, but that’s okay – it’s all about building your experience and network to reach the top levels eventually. But success will always demand skills and networking, no matter where you go. 

 

END OF PART I… 

Part II of this interview will explore how legal professionals can adapt and thrive in an increasingly tech-driven world. While AI continues to reshape industries, Professor Rossini explores its limitations in the legal field, the ethical challenges it poses, and what the future holds for lawyers navigating this technological shift—insights that set the stage for this deeper dive.