4 ms·
>In my opinion, code in its functional capacity is not speech. The code that locks the user out after 10 tries is just the digital equivalent of a gear or valve
by bcbrown 11y ago
>In my opinion, code in its functional capacity is not speech. The code that locks the user out after 10 tries is just the digital equivalent of a gear or valve: a functional building block of a machine. A gear in its functional capacity is not speech, but can be if used in a piece of sculpture for example.
That makes some sense, but I would distinguish between the use of an object and the creation of an object. Wouldn't designing a new gear or a new valve be speech? Are you arguing that there's no 1st amendment defense if the government tried to compel someone to design a new valve?
- rayiner 11y agoThe first amendment protects communication of ideas between people. What idea is communicated by a new gear design? What idea are you communicating when you write a function to lock a user out after 10 tries?
- antsar 11y agoIf you tell people that your device is designed to be secure, then by designing a gear for that device you are implying that that gear is secure.
- bcbrown 11y agoA fair point. I guess what I'm getting at is whether the creative process is an "action" that the government can compel, or "speech" that cannot be so compelled. Is it constitutionally allowable for the government to force someone to design something?
- harryh 11y agoIn this particular case, there isn't any creative process being compelled or even anything being designed. It's turning off a couple of security features. It's as creative as flipping a light switch.