
11 segments available
Discussions and headlines around tech policy tend to be dominated by what the President and the White House (aka the executive branch of the government) and what the Senate and House of Representatives (aka the legislative branch) are saying and doing. But it’s the judicial branch — the courts — that often gets the final say on key technology policy questions of the day… Like encryption, among many others. And now, there’s a new Supreme Court justice in town (Neil Gorsuch, who was sworn in last month) — how does that change judicial decision making around tech policy? Finally, is the growing trend of tech companies writing and signing amicus briefs (or otherwise engaging with the courts) for high-profile policy issues a good or bad thing for their employees, shareholders, and others? One thing is clear, though: The tech sector is getting more and more involved in policy issues, and is arguably becoming a “fourth branch” of government (or perhaps even a “fifth estate”) with its own checks and balances. Or so argue the guests in this episode of the a16z Podcast | Karen Dunn, partner at Boies Schiller Flexner (who has also been a consultant on the TV show House of Cards); and Erin Murphy, partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C. (recently recognized by National Law Journal as “a rising star”); in conversation with Ted Ullyot, who heads up Andreessen Horowitz’ Policy and Regulatory Affairs operation (and was formerly in both industry, as a general counsel at Facebook, and government, himself). The discussion took place as part our annual a16z Tech Policy Summit, in Washington, D.C., earlier this month.
In this segment, the hosts introduce the podcast's focus on tech policy, emphasizing the often-overlooked role of the judicial branch in resolving key technology issues. They highlight the importance of the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, in shaping tech policy decisions, including topics like encryption.
"hi everyone welcome to the a six in Z podcast we talk a lot about tech policy issues in the news and elsewhere but we tend to focus only on what the president and the White House also known as the exe..."
The conversation shifts to the recent confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch and how his presence may influence the Supreme Court's decisions on technology-related cases. The guests discuss Gorsuch's judicial philosophy and past rulings, particularly in relation to privacy and Fourth Amendment issues.
"as well as crisis management and she's also been a consultant on the TV show house of cards and then we have Aaron Murphy partner in the Washington DC office of Kirkland and Ellis her practice focuses..."
The discussion delves into the evolving interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in light of modern technology. The guests compare Justice Gorsuch's potential approach to that of Justice Scalia, particularly regarding privacy issues and the implications of technology on legal standards.
"about how the court in its current composition is likely to come out on significant tech issues in particular is there anything in justice gore such as background as a Tenth Circuit judge deciding som..."
This segment explores the challenges courts face in applying outdated legal frameworks to contemporary technological issues. The guests discuss specific cases, such as the use of cell tower records and the implications for privacy rights, highlighting the need for updated legal standards.
"little bit in recent years with cases dealing with things like using technology in ways that many of us would think of as invading our privacy ichiro to it just to some extent there's so many of those..."
The conversation continues with a focus on how recent Supreme Court decisions reflect a growing recognition of the complexities of technology and privacy. The guests discuss landmark cases that have shaped the current legal landscape and the implications for future rulings.
"Tenth Circuit that indicated he's pretty sensitive to this idea of not reflexively applying old rules to new technology but when you're on a lower court you're bound by what the higher court says and ..."
The segment addresses the increasing involvement of tech companies in legal matters, particularly through amicus briefs. The guests discuss the implications of this trend for the tech industry and the legal system, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to advocacy.
"interesting and the replacement of Justice Scalia with justice course which is particularly interesting because Justice Scalia who wrote a precursor decision to that Jones styled it very much as a phy..."
The discussion shifts to the concept of political consumerism, where tech companies are pressured to take stances on political issues. The guests explore how this trend affects corporate responsibility and the potential backlash from consumers and employees.
"but I think what the Supreme Court is telling us is that they're starting to think about this and mostly it's been through the prism of the Fourth Amendment yeah I think when you look at some of those..."
In this segment, the guests reflect on the significance of amicus briefs in shaping legal outcomes. They discuss instances where these briefs have influenced court decisions and the importance of tech companies articulating their positions in legal matters.
"up with and they may now use it much more than they ever did but if you've got kids at home who that is the way their world works I think it would open your eyes to thinking about ok we need to be sur..."
The conversation turns to the ongoing legal challenges surrounding encryption, particularly in high-profile cases like Apple vs. FBI. The guests discuss the implications of outdated laws on modern technology and the need for legislative action to address these issues.
"tech companies so I'll just save my views or my own on this topic but I have thought about this a lot and I actually think you know I've heard even just today one person I talked to said the problem i..."
The guests emphasize the necessity for Congress to address the legal ambiguities surrounding technology and privacy. They discuss the frustration within the courts regarding the lack of legislative clarity and the potential consequences for future cases.
"it used to be if you're a company and you sort of stayed neutral that was the right thing to do but now if you see neutral a lot of times it's not at all the right thing to do and people get very angr..."
As the segment concludes, the guests reflect on the evolving relationship between tech companies and the judicial system. They discuss the potential for tech to be viewed as a 'fourth branch' of government and the implications for future policy and legal frameworks.
"you think that's a risk yeah I do when I think about amicus participation I mean there are cases where it's quite obvious that there's a wonderful role for tech companies yeah play I think courts are ..."