4 ms·
I'm somewhat sympathetic to this view but I don't think it's consistent. If your bank gets hacked due to a flaw in the code and millions get stolen, why would y
by cinntaile 5y ago
I'm somewhat sympathetic to this view but I don't think it's consistent. If your bank gets hacked due to a flaw in the code and millions get stolen, why would you not apply the same code is law principle?
- zwkrt 5y agoBecause a bank's code is not the law. Banks handle actual money, for which there is a thousand year history of common law for settling disputes of ownership, debt, theft, collection practices, and insurance.
- rednerrus 5y agoIsn't the case here that the attacker was playing by the "rules" but found a loophoole?
- ikura 5y agoBecause the bank's relationship with its customers, central banks, and society as a whole, is codified in law and not in code. So if you find a legal loophole that's different from hacking the bank to get something the legal system doesn't entitle you to. When the code is the law, a hack is a loophole.
- otterley 5y agoThere seems to be an ongoing misimpression here that code is, in fact, law, as though our existing legal system doesn’t have something to say about that.
- cinntaile 5y agoCryptocurrencies and smart contracts exist within our society as well, they're not subject to an alternative reality.
- memonkey 5y agoThey're only barely being subject to society's laws though I think is the point.
- htrp 5y agoI think it is consistent, banks are built on legal frameworks. If you so chose to, and you were in certain countries, you could "hack" the legal system to steal the money yourself [1] and it would be perfectly 'legal'. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/20/how-bill-browder-became-russias-most-wanted-man https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/20/how-bill-browd...