2 ms·

The partial truth of this leads to some major fallacies. There are some things that good techies understand, like abstraction, that lead to more general solutio

by dwc 16y ago

The partial truth of this leads to some major fallacies. There are some things that good techies understand, like abstraction, that lead to more general solutions. Laws on the books tend to be tied very closely with specific implementations. Here's an example that's been with us for a long time: junk fax laws v. spam emails. Junk faxes and spam are essentially the same problem, but with different coefficients in the equation. What spam is not is a whole new problem never before encountered, requiring novel and special legislation. By treating each technological innovation as completely unique, each "solution" takes a NIH approach. This also provides a yet another venue for special interest groups (MPAA, RIAA, et al) to advocate their agendas on every new issue even though the core ideas have already been explored. Yes, the internet has given us true revolutions and more will come. But not every issue is a unique special case, but rather many are new twists on old themes.

joe_the_user 16y ago
Good point and rundown of the situation but I'd say the expectation of a new approach to law appearing will only be fallacious if we let it be by accepting the way things are going. Laws on the books tend to be tied very closely with specific implementations. Yes, the law as it currently exist is based on being able to preserve "differences that don't make a difference". It's developed incrementally, inductively and by analogy. The phenomena of generic information, of information that isn't tied to a physical manifestation, is anathema to the whole English Common Law tradition, the basis of our system of laws. Is a string of bits a song? a device for circumventing security? Hate Speech? Protected Speech? The law as it exists needs to answer this and yet can't answer this because the law needs a context and the free flow of information implies there no set context. And so the legal system is going to be either be further and further removed from reality or institute an entirely totalitarian system to maintain its expectations. Because generic information really doesn't consist of a series of "new devices" and "new contexts" but rather is a single, abstract and indivisible process; either every unique string of bits is free or it has an owner - which is it?

by dwc 16y ago

joe_the_user 16y ago

Good point and rundown of the situation but I'd say the expectation of a new approach to law appearing will only be fallacious if we let it be by accepting the way things are going. Laws on the books tend to be tied very closely with specific implementations. Yes, the law as it currently exist is based on being able to preserve "differences that don't make a difference". It's developed incrementally, inductively and by analogy. The phenomena of generic information, of information that isn't tied to a physical manifestation, is anathema to the whole English Common Law tradition, the basis of our system of laws. Is a string of bits a song? a device for circumventing security? Hate Speech? Protected Speech? The law as it exists needs to answer this and yet can't answer this because the law needs a context and the free flow of information implies there no set context. And so the legal system is going to be either be further and further removed from reality or institute an entirely totalitarian system to maintain its expectations. Because generic information really doesn't consist of a series of "new devices" and "new contexts" but rather is a single, abstract and indivisible process; either every unique string of bits is free or it has an owner - which is it?