Prinsip Regulasi Netral Teknologi: Teknik Antisipatif Terhadap Evolusi Teknologi dalam Hukum Pidana Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33019/dr6e8w52Keywords:
Regulasi Netral teknologi, Hukum Pidana, Asas LegalitasAbstract
Prinsip regulasi netral teknologi menjadi salah satu acuan baru dalam hal pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan maupun dalam penegakan hukum. Prinsip ini menjadi salah satu instrumen alternatif yang digunakan untuk menghadapi disrupsi teknologi dalam bidang hukum. Konsep netralitas teknologi memberi karakter regulasi yang luwes dan tetap relevan dengan berbagai instrumen teknologi yang baru. Namun, hal tersebut tampak menciptakan suatu kontradiksi terutama dalam hukum pidana yang didasarkan pada suatu asas legalitas yang pada salah satu maknanya menekankan pada perumusan yang ketat dan larangan analogi. Dengan menggunakan penelitian doktrinal dengan pendekatan konsep dan undang-undang, tulisan ini hendak menganalisis probabilitas penggunaan prinsip netralitas teknologi dalam hukum pidana. Hasil analisis menemukan bahwa prinsip netralitas teknologi dapat digunakan dalam hukum pidana. Penggunaan prinsip ini memberi sumbangsih yang signifikan bagi hukum pidana dalam menciptakan regulasi yang tetap relevan dengan perkembangan teknologi. Kebolehan penggunaan analogi yang sempit (penafsiran ekstensif) sejalan dengan nilai-nilai dari prinsip netralitas teknologi. Tulisan ini juga mengungkapkan bahwa beberapa aturan hukum pidana Indonesia pada dasarnya telah mencerminkan karakter dari prinsip netralitas teknologi. Prinsip ini juga tercermin dalam penafsiran hakim terutama dalam perkara-perkara yang objeknya bertalian dengan perkembangan teknologi.
References
Almada, Marco. “Technology Neutrality in EU Digital Regulation.” Available at SSRN: Https://Ssrn.Com/Abstract=5292321 or Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.2139/Ssrn.5292321, no. June (2025).
Andra J. Kartz and David L Carter. “An Assessment Of Computer Crime Victimization In The United States.” In Criminal Justice System in 21st Century, edited by Laura J. and Moriarty, Second. Illionis: Chales C. Thomas Publisher, 2005.
Brownsword, Roger. Law 3.0. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. New York: Routledge, 2021. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003053835-9.
———. “Law and Technology: Two Modes of Disruption, Three Legal MindSets, and the Big Picture of Regulatory Responsibilities.” Indian Journal of Law and Technology 14, no. 1 (2018).
———. “Regulating Human Genetics: New Dilemmas for a New Millennium.” Medical Law Review 37, no. 3 (2012): 14–39.
Cambridge Dictionary. “Analogy,” 2025. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/analogy.
Carl-Friedrich Elme and Massimiliano Bienati. “Technology-Neutral vs Technology-Specific Policies in Climate Regulation: The Case for CO 2 Emission Standards.” In Master in Sustainability Management - First Annual Conference SDA-Bocconi University, Milan, 1–42. Milan: SDA-Bocconi University, 2024.
Cordella, Antonio, and Francesco Gualdi. “Regulating Generative AI: The Limits of Technology-Neutral Regulatory Frameworks. Insights from Italy’s Intervention on ChatGPT.” Government Information Quarterly 41, no. 4 (2024): 101982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101982.
Craig, Carys J. “Technological Neutrality: (Pre)Serving the Purposes of Copyright Law.” Articles & Book Chapters 9780776620, no. 2013 (2013): 271–305.
Djakonoff, Vera, Atte Ojanen, Katri Sarkia, Heidi Uitto, Vesa Salminen, Esko Hakanen, and Juho Carpén. “From Technology Neutrality to Diverse and Impactful Technology Development,” 2024.
Gary E. Marchant. “The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and the Law.” In The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight, edited by Gary E. Marchant · Braden R. Allenby and Joseph R. Herkert. New York: Springer, 2011.
Greenberg, Brad A. “Rethinking Technology Neutrality.” Minnesota Law Review 100, no. 4 (2016): 1495–1562.
Hamzah, Andi. Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Edisi Revi. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2020.
Harašta, Jakub. “Trust by Discrimination: Technology Specific Regulation & Explainable AI.” CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2381, no. December (2019).
Hiariej, Eddy O.S. “Keunggulan UU Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Seksual.” Kompas, 2022. Keunggulan UU Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Seksual.
———. Prinsip-Prinsip Hukum Pidana. Yogyakarta: Cahaya Atma Pustaka, 2016.
Hildebrandt, Mireille, and Laura Tielemans. “Data Protection by Design and Technology Neutral Law.” Computer Law and Security Review 29, no. 5 (2013): 509–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2013.07.004.
Ismaya, Siti, Arianda Lastiur Paulina, Saffah Salisa Azzahro, Muhammad Rizaldi Warneri, Alexander Tanri, and Justitia Avila Veda. Materi Ajar Peningkatan Kapasitas Advokat Terkait Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2022 Tentang Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Seksual. Jakarta: Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR) - MaPPI FHUI – Aliansi Nasional Reformasi KUHP, 2024.
Koops, Bert-Jaap. “Should ICT Regulation Be Technology-Neutral?” In Starting Points for ICT Regulation, Deconstructing Prevelent Policy One-Liners, edited by Corien Prins and Maurice Schellekens Bert-Jaap Koops, Miriam Lips, 77–108. The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-665-7_4.
Lamintang, P.A.F., and Theo Lamintang. Pembahasan KUHAP Menurut Ilmu Pengetahuan Hukum Pidana & Yurisprudensi. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2010.
Lyn M. Gaudet and Gary E. Marchant. “Administrative Law Tools for More Adaptive and Responsive Regulation.” In The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight, edited by Braden R. Allenby Joseph R. Herkert Gary E. Merchant, 167–82. New York: Springer, 2011.
Mandel, Gregory N. “Legal Evolution in Response to Technological Change.” In Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology, edited by Karen Yeung Roger Brownsword, Eloise Scotford, 225–46. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2016. www.oxfordhandbooks.com.
Mathis, Bruno. “Should Crypto-Asset Regulation Be Technology-Neutral?” Blockchain and Private International Law 87 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004514850.
Moeljatno. Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2015.
Moses, Lyria Bennett. “Sui Generis Rules.” In The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight, edited by Joseph R. Herkert Gary E. Marchant, Braden R. Allenby, 77–94. New York: Springer, 2011.
———. “Understanding Legal Responses to Technological Change: The Example of In Vitro Fertilization.” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 6, no. 2 (2005): 505–618.
Ojanen, Atte. “Technology Neutrality as a Way to Future-Proof Regulation: The Case of the Artificial Intelligence Act.” European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2025, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2025.10024.
Reed, Chris. “Taking Sides on Technology Neutrality.” SCRIPT-Ed 4, no. 3 (2007): 263–84. https://doi.org/10.2966/scrip.040307.263.
Ruth B. Carter and Gary E. Marchant. “Principles-Based Regulation and Emerging Technology.” In The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight, edited by Joseph R. Herkert Garry E. Merchant, Braden R. Allenby, 157–66. New York: Springer, 2011.
Sandin, Per, Christian Munthe, and Karin Edvardsson Björnberg. “Technology Neutrality in European Regulation of GMOs.” Ethics, Policy and Environment 25, no. 1 (2022): 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1865085.
Shadikhodjaev, Sherzod. “Technological Neutrality and Regulation of Digital Trade: How Far Can We Go?” European Journal of International Law 32, no. 4 (2021): 1221–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chab054.
Thomas O. McGarity. “Some Thoughts on ‘Deossifying’ The Rulemaking Process.” Duke Law Journal 41 (1992): 1385–1462.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ahwan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All publications by Progresif : Jurnal Hukum [p-ISSN: 1978-4619, e-ISSN: 2655-2094] is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
