SoK: Scope and Mission of CS&Law

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.08723
• Title: SoK: Scope and Mission of CS&Law
• Authors: Joan Feigenbaum (Yale University), Daniel J. Weitzner (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
• Classification: cs.DL cs.CY
• Publication Date: October 8, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.08723

Abstract

This paper systematically delineates the academic scope of the ACM Computer Science & Law (CS&Law) workshop. The authors particularly emphasize the significance of the conjunction "and" in the workshop's name, identify published papers that exemplify different aspects of the CS&Law scope, and note that this scope will evolve as the workshop and community mature. To refine the systematization of this emerging research field, the authors also discuss the mission of CS&Law: beyond providing a forum for academic exchange and community building, what objectives should the workshop seek to achieve?

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Context

1. Growing Interdisciplinary Legal Challenges: Advances in computer science fields such as artificial intelligence, cryptography, algorithmic data processing, networking, databases, and software engineering raise complex legal questions
2. Computational Methods Offer New Legal Perspectives: Computational approaches open new research avenues for legal issues ranging from criminal procedure to evidence to intellectual property
3. Necessity of Interdisciplinary Research: Research combining deep understanding of computational capabilities and limitations with multifaceted legal expertise is required

Research Motivation

1. Clarifying Disciplinary Boundaries: Establishing clear academic scope and boundaries for the emerging CS&Law field
2. Guiding Community Development: Providing guidance for current and prospective community members, academic department heads, and funding agencies
3. Promoting Genuine Interdisciplinary Research: Emphasizing the importance of "intersection" rather than "union," fostering deep cross-disciplinary collaboration

Core Contributions

1. Proposed the "Intersection Rule": Clarifies that CS&Law requires genuine intersection of computer science and law, not mere union
2. Systematized the Academic Scope of CS&Law: Elucidates what constitutes CS&Law research through concrete paper examples
3. Established Boundaries Between CS&Law and Adjacent Conferences: Clearly distinguishes CS&Law from other interdisciplinary conferences
4. Articulated the Mission and Impact of CS&Law: Describes the field's potential influence on policymaking, judicial practice, and system design
5. Provided Academic Career Development Guidance: Offers career development advice for scholars working in CS&Law

Methodological Details

Definition of the Intersection Rule

Core Principle: The "and" in CS&Law means "logical AND"—intersection, not union.

Specific Requirements:

• Employ interdisciplinary approaches to address problems in both computer science and law
• Combine rigorous technical computer science reasoning with rigorous legal analysis
• Address problems of interest to both disciplines
• Engage with relevant literature from both fields
• Integrate both disciplines in ways that transcend what either discipline alone could achieve

Research Methodological Framework

1. Legal Perspective Approach

• Problem Characteristic: For specific laws or regulations, whether relevant technology meets requirements may be unclear
• Research Objective: How to demonstrate technological compliance
• Examples: Formalization of GDPR's "unification" concept, privacy risk analysis of age verification systems

2. Technical Perspective Approach

• Problem Characteristic: For specific technologies or application domains, whether they comply with applicable law may be unclear
• Research Objective: How to demonstrate legal compliance
• Examples: Copyright issues in generative AI, discriminatory impacts in machine learning

3. Conceptual Integration Approach

• Problem Characteristic: Neither purely legal nor purely technical in origin
• Research Objective: Explore fundamental integration of computer science and legal concepts
• Examples: Relationship between non-determinism in machine learning code and law

Experimental Setup

Paper Analysis Methodology

Data Sources:

• Papers from CS&Law workshop proceedings
• Papers published in other relevant forums
• Articles in legal technology journals

Analysis Framework:

• Evaluate papers according to the intersection rule
• Classify by starting perspective (legal vs. technical)
• Assess degree of interdisciplinary integration

Evaluation Criteria

1. Rigor: Whether it contains rigorous computer science reasoning and legal analysis
2. Relevance: Whether it addresses problems of mutual concern to both disciplines
3. Integration: Whether it achieves integration transcending a single discipline
4. Innovation: Whether it generates novel research content in the "and"

Experimental Results

Typical Paper Analysis

Research from Legal Perspective

1. Formalization of GDPR Unification Concept (Cohen & Nissim)
   • Translates legal language into mathematical and computational frameworks
   • Provides technical standards for predicate single-use security (PSO)
   • Proves PSO security of differential privacy mechanisms
2. Age Verification System Analysis (Scheffler)
   • Technical feasibility analysis: online age verification is extremely difficult
   • Privacy and security threats: serious threats to privacy and security
   • Policy recommendations: proposes alternative approaches to protect children's online safety

Research from Technical Perspective

1. Generative AI Copyright Issues (Lee, Cooper & Grimmelmann)
   • Technical decomposition: decomposes generative AI into an 8-stage process
   • Legal analysis: covers multiple aspects of copyright law
   • Integrated framework: proposes generative AI supply chain framework
2. Big Data Discriminatory Impact (Barocas & Selbst)
   • Technical problem: algorithms inherit historical biases
   • Legal framework: analyzes through disparate impact doctrine of anti-discrimination law
   • Integrated conclusion: requires rethinking meanings of "discrimination" and "fairness"

Interdisciplinary Integration Achievements

1. Zero-Knowledge Proofs and Law (Bitan et al.)
   • Technical application: zero-knowledge proof systems verify software properties
   • Legal requirements: balance law enforcement confidentiality with fair trial rights
   • Integrated innovation: expands understanding of legal requirement application in new technological environments

Related Work

Adjacent Interdisciplinary Conferences

1. ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC): Focuses on intersection of economics and computation
2. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT): Addresses algorithmic fairness and social responsibility
3. Foundations of Responsible Computing Workshop (FORC): Focuses on theoretical foundations of responsible computing

Disciplinary Boundaries

• Legal Technology Journals: Primarily publish papers applying legal analysis to computer-related technologies
• Privacy Law Scholars Conference (PLSC): Focuses on privacy law issues
• Computer Science Conferences: Annual meetings in various research fields address legal and policy issues

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Importance of the Intersection Rule: CS&Law's value lies in genuine interdisciplinary integration, not mere disciplinary juxtaposition
2. Evolutionary Nature of Research Scope: CS&Law scope will evolve as the community develops, but core principles remain constant
3. Diversity of Impact: CS&Law research can provide guidance to policymakers, judges, and system designers
4. Methodological Openness: Any analytical approach used by computer science or law scholars applies to CS&Law

Future Development Directions

Knowledge Challenges

1. Generative AI and Intellectual Property:
   • Copyright compensation mechanisms for training data
   • Intellectual property treatment of small-scale AI training
   • Fair pricing determination and payment delivery systems
2. Online Free Speech and Misinformation:
   • Technical-legal collaboration to reduce misinformation harm
   • Balancing free speech with information accuracy
   • Technical-legal solutions avoiding over-censorship

Funding Challenges

1. Changing Federal Funding Environment: End of the "Endless Frontier" era of U.S. federal research funding
2. Emerging Opportunities:
   • Policy support for generative AI-related research
   • Funding potential from technology industry, particularly AI sector
   • Expansion of international funding opportunities

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Conceptual Clarity: Clearly defines CS&Law academic boundaries through the "intersection rule"
2. Rich Examples: Provides abundant concrete paper examples to elucidate abstract concepts
3. Practical Guidance: Offers practical advice for scholars, funding agencies, and academic institutions
4. Forward-Looking: Identifies future development directions and challenges
5. Community Building: Facilitates development and maturation of CS&Law community

Limitations

1. Subjectivity: Potential subjective judgment regarding what constitutes "rigorous" interdisciplinary research
2. Boundary Ambiguity: Certain edge cases may be difficult to classify definitively
3. Evolutionary Challenges: Boundary definitions may require frequent updates as technology and law evolve rapidly
4. Implementation Difficulty: Genuine interdisciplinary research demands high knowledge background requirements from researchers

Impact

1. Academic Impact:
   • Establishes theoretical framework for emerging interdisciplinary field
   • May influence boundary definitions in other interdisciplinary fields
   • Provides evaluation standards for CS&Law research
2. Practical Impact:
   • Guides policymakers in understanding complexity of technology-law issues
   • Assists judges in handling legal cases involving technology
   • Provides guidance for technology company compliance
3. Educational Impact:
   • Provides guidance for interdisciplinary curriculum design
   • Helps academic institutions understand and support interdisciplinary research
   • Provides career pathways for scholars

Applicable Scenarios

1. Academic Research: Guides research directions and methodology selection in CS&Law field
2. Policy Development: Provides framework for technology-related legal policy formulation
3. Judicial Practice: Guides judges in understanding technology-law issues
4. Enterprise Compliance: Provides analytical framework for technology company legal compliance
5. Education and Training: Serves as reference for interdisciplinary education program design

References

The paper cites 16 important references covering core CS&Law papers, including:

• Classical papers on cryptography and law enforcement access 1,2
• Pioneering research on big data discriminatory impact 3
• Applications of zero-knowledge proofs in law 4,9
• GDPR formalization research 8
• Generative AI copyright analysis 12

These references constitute the theoretical foundation and practical guidance of the CS&Law field.

Overall Assessment: This is an important survey paper that establishes a clear theoretical framework and practical guidance for the emerging interdisciplinary field of computer science and law. Through the "intersection rule," the paper clarifies disciplinary boundaries, elucidates abstract concepts through rich examples, and lays a foundation for healthy development of the field. While certain challenges exist regarding objectivity in boundary definition, its guidance value for both academic and practical communities is undeniable.