Rebecca Crootof

@crootof.bsky.social

I tend to write about #TechLaw (check out www.techlawbook.com), war (especially #WarTorts), and bizarre torts hypos. Nancy Litchfield Hicks Professor of Law at University of Richmond School of Law; recently the ELSI Visiting Scholar at DARPA.

Small drones are killing more civilians than ever before - and we need to act. Here’s my thoughts on what we need to do, like establishing a center dedicated to evaluating and investigating drone attacks, training investigators, and explaining how IHL applies to self-defense against drones:

What Can We Do About Drone Attacks on Civilians? Some Thoughts

Lately, I've been spending a lot of time analyzing, reporting on, and researching the horrifying global uptick in the use of small, cheap, short-range drones to intentionally target and kill civilians...

little-flying-robots.ghost.io

Chapter 11 is up! And note that we're intentionally posting these chapters as googledocs open to comments, as we welcome suggested additions and citations.

Rebecca Crootof@crootof.bsky.social · last wk.

In Chapter 11, we start to explore one of the biggest techlaw questions: When to regulate? We lean on @gaiabernstein.bsky.social's "windows of opportunity" concept to begin a discussion around relevant questions and framing strategies. (We continue the timing discussion in Chaps 12 and 13 . . . )

Honestly surprised by this framing. LOAC is hardly a moral compass, and it wasn't designed to be one. It's a practical floor, not an aspirational ceiling - it reflects states' self-interest, not human rights or morality. Cavalier violations of baseline requirements just show how far we've fallen.

Just Security@justsecurity.org · 2w ago

The law of armed conflict (LOAC) is designed to provide a moral compass for what is the most brutal of human endeavors. Abandoning that compass will benefit no one, writes @mikeschmitt.bsky.social (Michael Schmitt). When Civilian Infrastructure Becomes a Lawful Target:

Chapter 10 is up! And the techlawbook.com site now has teaching materials, with more to come this week!

Technology Law

techlawbook.com

Rebecca Crootof@crootof.bsky.social · 2w ago

Chapter 10 unpacks the Precautionary Approach, including bans (I finally got to write about AWS!), general critiques (@casssunstein.bsky.social), and variations (moratoriums, licensing regimes, burden-shifting, etc) (Sachs). It closes with a GenAI X-risk case study (@mtokson.bsky.social).

After a brief pause, we're back! And now with a fancy new website: www.techlawbook.com I'll be posting the remaining chapters of the first edition of Technology Law here weekly; they'll all be up by mid-August.

Technology Law

techlawbook.com

Rebecca Crootof@crootof.bsky.social · 3w ago

Chapter 9 leans heavily on @zittrain.bsky.social's concept of "generative technologies" to explore the tradeoffs and limits of the permissive approach. We discuss the promise and perils of generativity and how it may be layered, relative, and regulated. docs.google.com/document/d/1...

@propublica.org: I can answer this: "Current and former CHMR personnel said it’s impossible to know whether a more robust prevention team could’ve helped the military avoid civilian casualties in Yemen and Iran." Because I was the person whose job it was to check potential targets at CENTCOM. 1/

ProPublica@propublica.org · last mo.

NEW: Ten members of Congress have warned the secretary of defense that the Trump administration’s gutting of a program focused on shielding noncombatants puts service members in peril, erodes the military’s moral standing and may violate federal law.

Lots of tech companies are releasing surveillance specs & I’m reminded of the internal Meta memo to put facial rec in their glasses during a “dynamic political environment” because people will be too focused on other issues to resist. Companies think now is the right time to foist these on us all.

Yes, and - these quoted remarks are also an implicit shifting of moral, possibly legal responsibility from those making the tech to those who are (under duress) using it. This is a "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. From the guy selling the gun.

Tressie McMillan Cottom@tressiemcphd.bsky.social · 3mo ago

If ours was a world where AI (the ideology, politic, and tech) were, uh, asking these graduates to shape AI this might resonate. But it’s not. Look, you cannot go out and market your new corporate monopoly widget as the death kneel to American workers and then ask new workers to be excited.

We live in a time dominated by deeply unserious people making deeply unserious arguments in support of tragically serious results that serious people would have both avoided and known to avoid.