5 ms·

Breaking laws is normally not a good idea. But most of the time, the only way to change bad laws and regulations is to break them first. Everything from slave

Breaking laws is normally not a good idea. But most of the time, the only way to change bad laws and regulations is to break them first. Everything from slave laws to miscegenation laws to gay laws had to be broken first before they could be changed. The one of the central aspects of the civil rights movement was breaking laws - ie rosa parks. Also, this is hacker news and the hacking community generally isn't fond of restrictive laws and regulations.

Traster 8y ago
I think you're right that there are some laws that are worth breaking, but let's not conflate choosing to break laws as a matter of principle with breaking laws as a matter of sloppiness. There was no real reason for Swarm to break these laws beyond a fundamental unwillingness to follow basic standards that are there for good reason. Their law breaking a FCC investigation has almost certainly cost them more than it would've cost to engage with the FCC. The fact is that all the examples in the grand parent post involved businesses that could have operated legally but chose not to because they could make the economic decision to break laws to profit from fast expansion. In my view laws should be written with penalties to prevent people from breaking them, not as some sort of toll booth.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  What exactly would be a good alternative? Jail time is also not a good penalty. See: marijuana. The fines, by contrast, seem to be working pretty well: how many other companies get busted by the FCC for violating satellite launching regulations? The fact that it is so rare is a testament to how effective the deterrent has been in regulating companies in this space.
  - Traster 8y ago
    I think the fact that Swarm consulted with the FCC, had their plan to launch satellites rejected and then decided to launch anyway indicates the fines weren't suitable. A simple 3 year ban on further launches would've changed that. I find the fact that Swarm did this knowingly particularly egregious. I'm also not sure the lack of violations is a good indicator that the FCC is working since I don't think there's a particularly big sample of companies doing this for other structural reasons.
    - gg82 8y ago
      If they broke the existing law what difference is a ban going to make?
laumars 8y ago
I don’t think you can really equate slavery and Rosa Parks to wilfully encouraging drivers to get parking tickets and launching satellites without authorisation. I’m all in favour of civil disobedience when laws are stupid but breaking laws just to make a fast buck isn’t the same as defying inequality.
- sano1 8y ago
  No shit. Rosa Parks wasn't being backed by coastal VC money. She was just some lady.
pergadad 8y ago
Well if you launch your own army of satellites and they smash into and destroy someone else's - will you pay? Will you be able to pay? What if it was another government's spy satellite/military Comms/positioning system and you just caused a diplomatic incident? There's a lot of space around earth but crashes aren't rare anymore (see how Iridium has backups already in space to ensure coverage once there's failures/crashes) - add more satellites and the issue gets worse.
cco 8y ago
Comparing regulations around financial instruments or satellite launches, no matter how onerous, to slavery is ridiculous. One is clearly immoral and no one would question the validity of civil disobedience as a method to over throw immoral laws. The comparison here is not a good one at all, these are two different things.

Traster 8y ago

I think you're right that there are some laws that are worth breaking, but let's not conflate choosing to break laws as a matter of principle with breaking laws as a matter of sloppiness. There was no real reason for Swarm to break these laws beyond a fundamental unwillingness to follow basic standards that are there for good reason. Their law breaking a FCC investigation has almost certainly cost them more than it would've cost to engage with the FCC. The fact is that all the examples in the grand parent post involved businesses that could have operated legally but chose not to because they could make the economic decision to break laws to profit from fast expansion. In my view laws should be written with penalties to prevent people from breaking them, not as some sort of toll booth.

bobthepanda 8y ago
What exactly would be a good alternative? Jail time is also not a good penalty. See: marijuana. The fines, by contrast, seem to be working pretty well: how many other companies get busted by the FCC for violating satellite launching regulations? The fact that it is so rare is a testament to how effective the deterrent has been in regulating companies in this space.
- Traster 8y ago
  I think the fact that Swarm consulted with the FCC, had their plan to launch satellites rejected and then decided to launch anyway indicates the fines weren't suitable. A simple 3 year ban on further launches would've changed that. I find the fact that Swarm did this knowingly particularly egregious. I'm also not sure the lack of violations is a good indicator that the FCC is working since I don't think there's a particularly big sample of companies doing this for other structural reasons.
  - gg82 8y ago
    If they broke the existing law what difference is a ban going to make?

laumars 8y ago

I don’t think you can really equate slavery and Rosa Parks to wilfully encouraging drivers to get parking tickets and launching satellites without authorisation. I’m all in favour of civil disobedience when laws are stupid but breaking laws just to make a fast buck isn’t the same as defying inequality.

sano1 8y ago
No shit. Rosa Parks wasn't being backed by coastal VC money. She was just some lady.

pergadad 8y ago

Well if you launch your own army of satellites and they smash into and destroy someone else's - will you pay? Will you be able to pay? What if it was another government's spy satellite/military Comms/positioning system and you just caused a diplomatic incident? There's a lot of space around earth but crashes aren't rare anymore (see how Iridium has backups already in space to ensure coverage once there's failures/crashes) - add more satellites and the issue gets worse.

cco 8y ago

Comparing regulations around financial instruments or satellite launches, no matter how onerous, to slavery is ridiculous. One is clearly immoral and no one would question the validity of civil disobedience as a method to over throw immoral laws. The comparison here is not a good one at all, these are two different things.