Standards for “Science Communication” and “Social Negotiation of Proof” need to be evolved.
Public awareness and culture is demanding that legal systems be more open and approachable. However, the pragmatics of Crime and Punishment limit the scope of public awareness and understanding. The “lingua franca” of legal profession ought to be very distinct and beyond the quick grasp of typical public.
IMHO, Ethics is a better start and usually we address “Ethical Dilemmas”. If necessary one can evolve “Service Level Agreements” using a chosen natural language to ensure better readability by non-experts. This may be adequate for the purpose of professional societies. Law may be an option beyond this. In such a case, it may be wise to seek formal legal counsel than to undertake a study of law.
In summary, professionals need to facilitate “adequate” public understanding.
A simple case in point:
In theory it is possible to make an automated concise precis of a long judgment. In practice, it is wise to ask the question why was the original judgment so long.
“This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read” - Winston Churchill
The Technology - Society relationship is complex and can be constructive, tension-filled, or everything in between. When tension exists increasing public understanding has been proving to be very wise and productive.
In view of the various “academic freedom” bills or anti-science bills, I would wish to include the aspects of “Public Engagement” as well.
Computing professionals have a responsibility to share technical knowledge with the public by creating awareness and encouraging understanding of computing, including the impacts of computer systems, their limitations, their vulnerabilities, and opportunities that they present. This imperative implies an obligation to counter any false views related to computing and facilitate appropriate public engagement.