3 ms·

While I have the utmost respect for the profession of law (except for the fact that it produces politicians whom I abhor), I don't think they've had quite enoug

While I have the utmost respect for the profession of law (except for the fact that it produces politicians whom I abhor), I don't think they've had quite enough time to think through every eventuality in tech yet. I'm not even sure if crypto currency ownership through key control is encoded in modern laws (as it should be for all digital assets). If you have interesting precedents though, please enlighten me. Accounting forensics are always interesting for finance people like me, and the blockchain ledger just makes it easier and yet more complicated.

jacques_chester 7y ago
The law is always catching up, but folks regularly overestimate the scope of what it has already seen. It's an engine for conducting analogous reasoning, and while technology is ever changing, people are fairly limited in scope. Take the key control problem. The separation of ownership and control crops up in a number of places: corporations, trusts, real property, intellectual property, probably a bunch of other places I have no idea about. It's likely that one or more of these would map sufficiently cleanly that a judge would make a binding order. I don't have access to law reports to do a quick look for relevant cases. If you thought STEM paywalls were bad ...
- hnews_account_1 7y ago
  Hmm. I don't agree with you on the fact that almost everything will have some easy to map analogous precedent / law clause. But I do appreciate the fact that I know literally nothing about law and that any fantastical suggestions I make would be ignorant at best, like you point out.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    The flip argument is that new cases arise constantly and that the law is always encountering totally novel circumstances. But by and large, most things have been done, or some echo has been. It's just that the novel stuff gets more press.

jacques_chester 7y ago

The law is always catching up, but folks regularly overestimate the scope of what it has already seen. It's an engine for conducting analogous reasoning, and while technology is ever changing, people are fairly limited in scope. Take the key control problem. The separation of ownership and control crops up in a number of places: corporations, trusts, real property, intellectual property, probably a bunch of other places I have no idea about. It's likely that one or more of these would map sufficiently cleanly that a judge would make a binding order. I don't have access to law reports to do a quick look for relevant cases. If you thought STEM paywalls were bad ...

hnews_account_1 7y ago
Hmm. I don't agree with you on the fact that almost everything will have some easy to map analogous precedent / law clause. But I do appreciate the fact that I know literally nothing about law and that any fantastical suggestions I make would be ignorant at best, like you point out.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  The flip argument is that new cases arise constantly and that the law is always encountering totally novel circumstances. But by and large, most things have been done, or some echo has been. It's just that the novel stuff gets more press.