Slashdot Mirror
How Will Law Continue to Affect Technology?
WPL510 asks: "I'm writing an article on how law impacts technology and vice versa, and would like to get the opinions of those who use technology every day. So- which laws have most affected your use of technology? Which have tried and failed? Does anyone else foresee any other possible, as yet unknown, problems posed by new technology (just as Diamond's Rio showed the holes in the AHRA)?"
>..there appears to be no way to get people to follow PRINCIPLES, not laws.
It's a problem as old as history. There's the infamous example of the wealthy Roman who discovered that inflation had drastically reduced the amount of the fine for physical violence, & so one day walked around Rome, punching out anyone he didn't like, then have his slave pay up the fine of 25 asses (probably the equivalent of either 25 cents US, or 12 New Pence, UK). If there's a loophole, people will find it.
>What people do with said law is more important than the law itself.
No, what's important is the fact that it has finally reached the tiny reptilian brains of corporations that there is a ton of money to be made under the buzz-word of ``Intellectual Property." (Whatever that means -- having looked at the Ip section of the ICANN website, they imply it to include more than patents, copyright, trade secrets, & trademarks.) And that an unfettered Internet might prevent them from making more than half a ton of money, at best.
Their answer? Legislation to limit people's freedom, in the wise of encroaching on the public domain. In other words, every time Mickey Mouse (tm) & his friends is about to slip out of copyright status into the public domain, the Disney corporation will lobby & get an extension of copyright.
Microsoft has been arguing for years that people aren't buying their software, merely leasing it.
It's this stifling effect of old men grasping after every last dollar that will keep the next generation from new discoveries & new wealth. Who wants to investigate, say, P2P data transfers, when the corporations that control the media, literature, & music feel they need to further fatten their profit margins, in order to pay their senior executives obscene salaries that will come to the next generation only thru inheritence?
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
...gets my vote for the most far-impacting of all recent technology-vs-law items. Yes, the CDA portion of it got the most attention, but by far the other aspects of the law are the more important and far-reaching, as it fundamentally changed the nature of the communications industry in the USA.
Find it here.
I don't mean to be US-centric, but I'm not familiar with other countries' laws enough to suggest examples therein.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
I guess the ladies in that fair southern state have never heard of mail order?
A law like that is only as effective as it can be enforced. The internet raises all kinds of interesting issues for the enforcement of many laws, most of which are oppressive rather than just.
I'm personally looking forward to the future with a combination of hope and fear. Hope because the internet represents freedom of information and freedom of expression, two of the cornerstones upon which every other freedom is founded. But I'm afraid that it may be corrupted by government or business interests into a tool for oppression in which big brother really is watching you. Which way it goes has a lot to do with what people like us do right now. We are at an historical nexus, a crossroads where the choices we make and the things we do will greatly alter the future course of human history. The world can either be set free by technologies such as the Internet, or enslaved by them. Which it will be is up to us.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Laws against drugs are nowhere near as effective as social stigma against their use. You really should watch a serial documentary that has been playing on the history channel. It's called "Hooked: Illegal drugs and how they got that way." It covers such drugs as heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and how it came to pass that there were federal laws against their possession and use. I do agree that the war on drugs has largely been a war on our citizens, but I don't think legitimizing drugs is the answer. Drugs are very harmful to the societies in which they have been widely used. The key is to make the use of drugs socially unacceptable, at which point the laws are irrelevant. People who for whatever reason want to use drugs are still going to, but their use is much less likely to balloon into widespread use.
Lee Reynolfd
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
one of the most annoying ways law affects me is the EULA which adds yet another step to the installation process of nearly every piece of software. what a waste of my time.
There are also attempts to extend the concept of EULA outside of software, e.g. the Cue:Cat: mess.
Another point is that some EULAs have parts that are simply not legal in germany
However they will continue to exist until it becomes very widely known that they have no meaning.
It's hardly uncommon for companies to put all sorts of clauses which are of questionable legal standing in contracts. e.g. "We disclaim anything except what the can't legally disclaim", with many people simply not knowing which legal rights they cannot trivially sign away and which they can't sign away at all.
Lawmakers, increasinly in the US anyway, seem out of touch with reality. Perhaps it's a sideeffect of being in power for decades, stagnation sets in.
Actually there is a very fundermental problem. "How do you have a democratic society which can filter out lobbying from corporate and extremist groups, without ignoring the views of ordinary people?" Companies and political/religious extreamists can lobby far better than ordinary people.
Law is a very funny thing, and funnier still is the American attitude that any laws they pass are enforceable globally (examples such as the Helms-Burton Act, relating to trade with Cuba, spring to mind very quickly).
Also the way in which US laws are assumed be constitutional until proven otherwise. Which in practice means a good enough lobbying group can get anything passed into law, regardless of any constitutional restriction.
Maybe the way to do it is to require lobbyists to carry proxies from the people they allegedly represent. If a lobbyist only represents twenty well-heeled people in a district or a few hundred radicals at the fundamentalist church, you could justify voting against their issue pretty easily.
However you then need a method of verifying proxies. Otherwise a large corporation could use their entire staff, shareholder and customer base as "proxies". Or a radical political group could claim "proxies" through affiliation with other groups. e.g. a radical church claiming to represent all churchs of a denomination.
These people are already familiar with ways to inflate the number of people they claim to represent. e.g. using terms like "Moral Majority".
http://www.richmond.edu/jolt/v7i1/n ote 2.html is what you're looking for.
Those of you in Hastert's district, please WRITE HARD-COPY LETTERS (they count more) demanding to know why he put his weight behind such a ridiculous and un-Constitutional bill. I suppose that we're unlikely to get a veto at this date; Clinton never saw a government power he didn't like either.
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Law is a very funny thing, and funnier still is the American attitude that any laws they pass are enforceable globally (examples such as the Helms-Burton Act, relating to trade with Cuba, spring to mind very quickly).
At the end of the day, people that understand the problems that today's technology laws are making will start moving themselves, at the very least in a virtual manner, to jurisdictions where such things aren't problematic, or don't exist. One classic example of this is (or will be) HavenCo. Based on the Pseudostate of Sealand, is a place which is basically lawless, and proud of the fact. As long as you don't peddle kiddie porn, you will be able to host just about anything on their servers.
HavenCo's existance could, theoretically, be ignored if ISPs are forced to filter the IP addresses to which users are allowed to connect. However, this is an impractical technology to use, as there are a vast array of methods available to get around it.
BTW, HavenCo has been mentioned on Slashdot here and here.
The URL in the main story was incorrect.
Click here for the corrected URL: http://www.richmond.edu/jolt/v7i1/note2.html I have noted this problem before. Possible slashcode bug?
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
...there appears to be no way to get people to follow PRINCIPLES, not laws.
"Don't steal" is common sense in theory, but enforcing that is pretty useless. What exactly is theft, anyway? Well, it's defined as... whatever, and then people just redefine the terms, or find some way to skate around the exact language of the definition and do it anyway.
Law and technology... well, I think what's more important than "what laws are on the books" is "what kinds of principles is this leading to" and "how are people trying to enforce/not enforce this?"
At the risk of sounding like Doctor Laura Sslesschingjer (sp?)... I mean principles in terms of realities, not the "principles and morals" definition.
I mean, every thing to have come down the pike recently has been about what we're doing vs what the law says. Microsoft for example. I think everyone can agree they're doing some pretty vile things, but "this is an operating system enhancement, the law only talks about products", "oh, we agreed not to do that for Windows 95. This is Windows 98. Note the name change?" etc is its typical weaseling around any law and therefore "legal".
What people do with said law is more important than the law itself.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
A balance must be struck between civility and freedom. The balance is shifting toward oppression, and if we don't push back, the whole thing will topple over.
-
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
yeah, the first amendment - it's getting in the way of the DMCA
--------------
system. /test on>
Actually, a better question to ask is "how are "whore" politicians going to affect technology??".
When the MPAA and a few pals roll into politicians are only too willing to roll over and support their cause after a few "donations". The conservative "Eagle Forum" explains how Disney has clout with the republican congress.
Or maybe a senator can be bought off by letting him ride around in a corporate jet when running for office. In return you can get your patent extended.
Or maybe you can get a congressional staffer to help you in changing the law by adding a couple of words, and giving him a job once he leaves town.
So if I wanted to see a bunch of prostitutes, I wouldn't go to the street corner, I'd just head to the brothel "capitol hill".
Yes, this has been a flame. If this had actually been an all out fire, politicians would be finding themselves hosed. Your revolutionary leader would have then given you instructions on how to proceed.
/test off>
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
In the mid 1980s, Louisiana passed a law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of all devices resembling sexual organs or "designed or marketed ... for the stimulation of human genital organs." Louisiana's supreme court recently struck down that ban 6-1, but before then, an entire category of technology was denied to Louisianans (and Alabamans by a similar law) simply because of prudish morality.
-- Anne Marie
Sadly the U.K is not alone in this. Our own illustrious Congress here in the U.S. is attempting to enact a similar bill s.2516 "The Fugitive Apprehension Act" would provide the same kinds of government policies here. In this case the goal is to ensure that the govenrment can locate fugitives by searching through their friends' and relatives' posessions.
The interesting aspect of our bill is the principle of delayed notification. For (perhaps loogical provided you don;t trust people) The government is entitled to search your records at a bank or at your ISP and "Delay Notifying You" until such time as they deem it appropriate. Presumably this time and the time when it's too late for you to get back at them will coincide. This delayed notification clause also allows them to arrest anyone (a bank clerk or ISP worker say) who is kind enough to tell you that your e-mails are being or have been read. Like the U.K. Bill this one requires explicit ISP cooperation.
By far the most pointed element of this bill is the fact that all of this can take place without a warrant. The requirement that a Judge grant permission to invade someone's privacy is missing from this bill. This is interesting since warrants have classib=cally bin the untimate dfence of people's liberty and rights against overzealous justice officials. In place of the warrant is something called "Administrative approval." I'm not sure who's approval that connotates (U.S. Justive department probably) but certanly not an unbiased party."
Currently Congress is due to go on the capaign trail soon so this bill may or may not be heald off. At the moment it is sitting in a House subcomittee. You can find the deatails on www.congress.gov Incidentally the bill was sposored by Strom Thurmond. AC
I believe that one of the most dramatic ways in which laws have been affecting technology as of late has to do with database implementation. Deadbeat Dad laws have finally enabled the collection of a single unique identifier, the SSN, for all US citizens. To be able to do much of anything with regards to state or government agencies (such as getting a driver's license, fishing license, etc) you'll have to supply your SSN. What this ultimately means is that a myriad of previously disjoint databases spanning many different government agencies are going to be searchable with a single key, and the ramifications of that in terms of everyday technology, even where it affects non-geeks, is staggering.
I live in QLD Australia. In June '99 the Federal Government made an amendment to the Broadcasting Services Act. This amendment introduced a "complaint based" internet censorship system. It came came into effect one the 1st of January 2000.
I haven't noticed the slightest bit of difference. There was a lot of puffing and blowing in Parliament about Protecting the Children and applying the same standards we have for movies and TV to the internet. There was talk of filtering all packets that came into Australia after the (startlingly obvious) point was made that most content viewed in Australia is hosted overseas.
Informed opinion (i.e., that of people who actually used computers/the internet) was that the proposed scheme was ludicrous and unworkable (ISPs are legally require to "make available" client side filtering software, although no-one seems to know if use of them is supposed to be mandatory), and time has shown that opinion to be correct. The scheme isn't the slightest hinderance to accessing "undesirable" content, it has cost millions of taxpayer dollars, and it has made Australia look like an IT backwater (which it isn't). Check out this link for an overview of the law.
At the time I said to people "this is the thin edge of a nasty wedge", and I'm still concerned that I may be right. While the law in its current form is more stupid than problematic, I'm deeply uncomfortable that it sits there packing some nasty penalties for non-complying ISPs. When there's a precedent for blocking one form of "undesirable content" it means that the infrastructure is right there when the government wants to block another form of "undesirable content".
Hope this helps for your article!
grib.
maybe
Please limit your answers to, at most, two double spaced pages.
Thank you.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
www.stand.org.uk has details on how silly/scary (depending on whether you're watching or on the receiving end) the RIP bill is.
Of particular interest is the letter to Jack Straw complete with encrypted confession to an unnamed crime. As it explains, under the RIP bill Jack Straw could be imprisoned unless he can prove that he does not have the decryption key. Proving you do not have something is a little tricky, of course.
And even you can prove that, you're still liable for imprisonment unless you give the police information enabling them to get the key.
A full guide to the implications of the bill is here.
As the previous poster mentioned, press coverage of the bill has been extremely limited, which is surprising given the far reaching effects on the right to privacy it has.
The fact that the law functions as an immune system for society means that it is susceptible to the work of people who are the societal equivalent of the AIDS virus; people who corrupt the structure of the legal system to their own destructive ends.
Because the law is uniquely devoted to the control of evil in society - it is the one societal system which evil feels, and has always felt, a pressing need to control and shape.
Does anyone seriously believe that holding red hot pokers to someone's tongue was the idea of good people? Ancient legal systems were - from our perspective - obviously the work of evil. Modern ones still are, they are just packaged so as to make that evil influence blend in invisibly.
--
The law, 100's of millions of lines of code, not one line of which has ever been tested to see if it works.
In theory yes, in pratice big business pushes
for most of the laws.
We who believe in open source have won a few
but we have the same problem the indians had
when the amercas were discovered.
The indians believe that land belongs to no-one.
This is why they "sold" land for little or no
money.
The settlers took full advange of this. Now indians live on reserves and "americans" own the land.
Most people on slashdot thank that standards
should be open. However open standards do not
allow big business to leverage markets so
big business will fight this by lobbying for
new laws and patenting every thing in site.
As much as I am voting for companies that promote
open source software and standards (redhat, valinux etc )it seems that companies who make money keeping standards and software development
closed (ala microsoft) will have several advantanages.
Unless our goverment leans real hard to the left
big business will have an advantage.
The real challange for open source is not just
write better software and open standards but
to also learn how to market it and leverage it
better than closed source companies.
Lets face it. Most people that are using open
source are not paying for the software and are
paying little to no money for support.
Everything else being equal closed source comanies
have a lot more money to market there products and
lobby goverment with.
Sadly unless something changes in our laws or
someone finds a way to make open source more
profitable than closed source we have a hard road ahead of us.
AdFuel
Government's primary function is protection of property rights, not the active exercise of those rights. Therefore it is property rights, not activities, that should be taxed. The government should be held accountable for property losses, as is any insurer; particularly losses due to government malfeasance as protector. But the government should _not_ be held accountable for losses to property rights for which it is not paid a tax. Exemptions for taxation naturally extend to the property rights traditionally protected by the head of the household, such as home and tools of the trade (which are also protected from creditor confiscation under traditional notions of bankruptcy).
Such tax exemptions should include patents held by the inventor as they are quite naturally an extension of the concept of "tools of the trade".
The main symptom of activity taxation is the distance created between technology and capital. The legalistic literacy needed to avoid activity taxation is enormous and it is acquired at the expense of technological literacy. The best example of this is the enormous industry of tax accountants and lawyers who sit at the right hand of any corporate CEO. "flat tax" proposals never really go anywhere due to the fact that they are taxing all activity "evenly". Such proposals are the reductio ad absurdum of activity taxation. It is simply impossible to tax all activity. Voluminous exemptions are needed or else the economy would be so impeded that even the government recognizes it would suffer enormously. This creates yet another industry of lobbyists who attempt to off-load their clients of these burdens.
I put out a white paper on a net asset tax in 1992 after having participated in passing a couple of laws to reform technology policy at the federal level, including tax policy. But over the years I've become much more realistic and therefore radical in my thinking. I now believe those that proclaim themselves to be "libertarians" need to take their own rhetoric more seriously by pursuing something like my proposal for Warrior's Insurance. But that's only if they want to be honest with themselves, which is doubtful. Even Ayn Rand couldn't face the fact that at some point the word games have to stop.
Seastead this.
A lot of people are constantly complaining about the law being behind the times and how it cant hope to keep up with technology. Some try to use these complaints as some sort of excuse to not regulate technology in the least. This atitudes show a lack of understanding of how the law works. The law cannot spend its time trying to predict each twist and turn that our culture will take and what actions will be necessary because of these twists. The law places a high value on precedents. So in a sense it constantly looks at the past. Because of this attempting to change the law is hard and will always be hard. This is necessary because a premium is placed on constancy. The law needs to be as constant as posible. What was wrong yesterday cannot out of the blue be right today or vice versa. Changes in the law will for the most part be slower than changes in society since the law is a contractual agreement between all the members of the societal group and it must wait until the societal group is ready to codify its new belief. Sure the law makes discrimination illegal but discrimination still exists. This doesn't mean that the change in the law was not a reactionto changes in society. It was necessary to go through the equal rights movement to get some changes in the law. The law follows society and tries to solidify what most people in that society believe is the correct way of dealing with specific problems. Sure the law will and can be perverted by entities that are powerful in that society (a la M$ employing the son of the chief supreme court justice) but even that shows what the belief structure of the society is. We live in a society where money is one of if not the most powerful entity and those who have can try to mould the society as the will. Sometimes the society will not tolerate those attempts because what they are shooting for is either too alien or contradictory to other values that form the culture of the society. So the law is a part of society and its culture and like any other part of society it can affect the culture and thus directly or inderectly affect itself. As a part of society it also mirrors the greater structure of society within itself.
I think encryption, spread spectrum wireless and other technologies are responses to governments policing (or repressing depending on your opinion)
It's sad, but in the ever present "WAR ON DRUGS" a lot of civil liberties have been thrown to the way side. In the 1930's a "no knock warrant" would have been laughed out of court. Police dressing up in Ninja suits would have cause a public outrage, but not today. The police say they need more information, and thus more weapons. The pursuit of this information and weaposn fuels some technology.
THen there is the other side of the coin. Drug dealers (if they are smart) employ technology to try and stay one step ahead of the police. Anti-bugging technology super fast scanners and so forth are fueled by concerns that people are being "listened in on". Thousands on boats that have low radar profiles and good top speeds. They even use the "Internet" to communicate which technoliges are successful with each other.
In these examples the Law is fueling a duel between police and drug dealers. So far with BILLIONS wasted, and numerous lives lost the battle still rages on. We could legalize drugs and get off this silly damn merry go round but that would stop the people that are making a profit and doing the R&D into NEW technologies, curtail the DEA's budget and put thousands of hard working drug dealers out of work. (Excuse the run on sentence :)
Just one example of laws fueling technology
The law provides a profit motive for some technologies. Some of the highest profit motive is for technologies that allow people to "skirt" the law.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
For example, I'll focus on pornography because it's everywhere and has been a hot issue. Porn has always been around. When the camera was invented, people whined about porn there. When the VCR was invented, people whined about people having or buying porn tapes. (Ironically, porn is one of the reasons that VCRs got so much market penetration so fast...pardon the pun.) When the camcorder was invented, there was complaining that people were using it to tape their sex romps.
For some reason when it gets to computers, people freak out more than usual. When BBSes became popular, people were being jailed (e.g. Amateur Action BBS). When the Internet became popular, the news media, public, and political scum went nuts, passed laws like the Communications Decency Act, made hit-and-run attacks on the Internet such as the "computer pedophile" episode of NBC's "Crusaders" back around 1995.
But look at the change in culture between, say, the mid-80s and the year 2000 in America. Sex is nowhere near as taboo as it was. "Alternative sexualities" (sexual orientiations as well as things like bondage) are tolerated and practiced far more mainstream. It's discussed more openly. It's more prevalent in movies and on TV. This is a pretty massive change. (As a side note, you can tell how tolerated sex has become by observing how readily people like Dr. Laura freak out.
Of course, banning pornography was hard already. Banning it in the future will be nearly impossible with file sharing networks like Freenet. For better or worse, I expect that technology will have some of these effects over the next few years:
Restricting things like child pornography will rapidly become very difficult, if not impossible. (The legality and ethics of this is a completely separate issue, which is more complicated than most people think, involving things like different ages of consent in different countries.)
Intellectual property, in the form of software, music, and video, will rapidly become obsolete. New market models will have to be developed.
Strong cryptography will become more commonplace.
Many "undernets" will spring up across the Internet which use strong cryptography, tunnelling, and have their own email, news, and other systems. I know for a fact that this has already happened, and they have restricted access and fairly complex entrance systems. An infinitely more mainstream but very watered-down version of this is Gnutella.
In these cases, the law could try, but they can't readily enforce, just like they can't readily enforce laws against having sex in positions other than the missionary position. They can't regulate what they can't see. In the latter case, it's your house, curtains, or whatever. In the case of the Internet and technology, it's cryptography, systems like Freenet, and plain old practicality.