WASHINGTON STATE ACCESS TO JUSTICE TECHNOLOGY PRINCIPLES: A PERSPECTIVE FOR JUSTICE SYSTEM PROFESSIONALS, THE

Justice System Journal, 2006 by Zorza, Richard, Horowitz, Donald J

Thus, the authors believe it should be unacceptable when inequity in access to or ability to use a technology leads to an unjust result. For example, such a result could occur if one party in a case has dominant or exclusive access to accident-recreation technology in the courtroom, while the other party does not. The risk of such unjust results might be substantially reduced or eliminated by means such as a) requiring the party in possession of a technological tool it is planning to use to make that tool available to the other parties, b) establishing a technology fund to pay for equalizing technology resources when required in the interest of justice, or c) sometimes prohibiting the use of particular technology on the grounds that it may distort the decision-making process.

The second Principle might also be applied to guide the design of court information-gathering and display systems to make sure that they serve the interests of justice. These systems must ensure that the broadest range of information is gathered and presented to the public in ways the public can reasonably access and understand.

The third Principle relates to "Openness and Privacy" and reads:

The justice system has the dual responsibility of being open to the public and protecting personal privacy. Its technology should be designed and used to meet both responsibilities.

Technology use may create or magnify conflict between values of openness and personal privacy. In such circumstances, decision makers must engage in a careful balancing process, considering both values and their underlying purposes, and should maximize beneficial effects while minimizing detrimental effects.

The official Comments to this Principle emphasize that this "Principle underlines that the values of openness and privacy are not necessarily in conflict, particularly when technology is designed and used in a way that is crafted to best protect and, whenever possible, enhance each value." This position contrasts markedly with much of the current public debate, where openness and privacy are seen as competitors.

As a general matter, technology is regarded as a threat to privacy. It is a truism that technologies such as the Internet provide many ways of obtaining access. It provides new ways of accessing, searching, gathering, integrating, analyzing, organizing, evaluating, using, and disseminating information. It also is a truism that the use of the generally benign word "access" may give the false impression that the privacy violation ends at the point of access. However, the reality is that anytime there is access to information, there is a significant potential for dissemination of all or part of such information. Moreover, combining or aggregating information from different sources in one place can lead to, when accessed, a more destructive violation of privacy.

While technology may create opportunities for violations of privacy it also provides ways of protecting it. Information is labeled and its access can be identified; therefore, it is possible to build systems that provide greater protection of privacy. Technology permits the holders of information to build more sophisticated systems for controlling or limiting access to all or portions of that information.