• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • Disrupting Technology Disrupting Law

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    TranterPUB3173.pdf (123.4Kb)
    File version
    Accepted Manuscript (AM)
    Author(s)
    Tranter, Kieran
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Tranter, Kieran M.
    Year published
    2017
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    This Commentary disrupts technology disrupting law. It suggests that “disruption” is increasingly becoming a framework when lawyers write about technology. It is argued that this disruption frame is problematic. It is problematic because it reveals a surprising presentism lacking both a sense of the past and a coherent vision of the future. Further, this presentism produces an essential contradiction. There is a vision of hyper-change; a tsunami of disruption needing law; nevertheless the forms of modern law seemingly endure. This opens to what is fundamentally worrying about the disruption frame. In its affirmation of modern ...
    View more >
    This Commentary disrupts technology disrupting law. It suggests that “disruption” is increasingly becoming a framework when lawyers write about technology. It is argued that this disruption frame is problematic. It is problematic because it reveals a surprising presentism lacking both a sense of the past and a coherent vision of the future. Further, this presentism produces an essential contradiction. There is a vision of hyper-change; a tsunami of disruption needing law; nevertheless the forms of modern law seemingly endure. This opens to what is fundamentally worrying about the disruption frame. In its affirmation of modern law as able to manage disruption, the disruption frame obscures the significant transformation of law occurring in the digital. Technology is disrupting law in much more significant ways than is being considered by the disruption frame.
    View less >
    Journal Title
    Law, Culture and the Humanities
    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872117704925
    Copyright Statement
    © 2017 Association for the Study of Law, Culture and the Humanities. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. The final, definitive version of this paper has been published in Disrupting Technology Disrupting Law, April 2017 by SAGE Publications Ltd, All rights reserved.
    Note
    This publication has been entered into Griffith Research Online as an Advanced Online Version.
    Subject
    Law in context
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/340086
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander