Bank That Suppressed WikiLeaks Gives It Up

Is It Obvious writes "Bank Julius Baer has moved to withdraw suit against Wikileaks. We've discussed this story a few times, most recently when the judge lifted his injunction against WikiLeaks' registrar. The Baer story reflects an issue that will only grow worse over time: the gap between technology and the legal system's understanding of said technologies and their application to established legal principle. Given the rapid rate of technological change, is there a more practical way to interface emergent technology with our legal system while retaining civil rights over corporate rights?"

Comments

Short answer

[sm62704]

is there a more practical way to interface emergent technology with our legal system while retaining civil rights over corporate rights?"

No.

Longer answer: We don't need more knowlegable judges, we need more intelligent ones.

Re:Short answer

[sjames]

If only we could require judges to undergo rigorous mental training and prove their humanity (on pain of death) before they get to sit in judgement of others. Legislators even more so.

Wrong approach

[moogied]

Its not an issue of making laws for every single new techonology. Its about making laws that cover our basic rights and are upheld purely on those basis. So this means company's cannot take our information and share it whoever they want, because we have a law against it. Its fundamental issues that are in need of clarification, not little laws for every application.

Sure we can.

[ardyng]

There are these mystical people called "Consultants." I know that that's a dirty word in most people's minds, but seriously.

We should have an independent group of people who ACTUALLY know what they're talking about that can be called upon by judges who don't understand what's going on. Judges can't be expected to have a grasp of every field of knowledge that may come up in their cases.

I don't see it actually happening, but that's life.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Just a thought

[apdyck]

I don't know if anyone else has thought about this, or if it's even practical, but why not establish a court system for High-Tech cases? They could hear things like the **AA cases and examples such as this one, and would have judges that are actually paid to keep up with the changes in technology. In fact, I'm sure you would have no problem finding volunteers among the existing pool of judges that are actually aware of legal issues. So you take a pool of existing judges with knowledge of tech issues, ask them to keep their knowledge current (I'm sure they have aides to help them with this), and have any cases dealing with computer crime and/or civil cases involving the Internet go through this 'special' court system. It would not be any more lenient than the existing courts, however the parties involved would have a basic understanding of the issues that face high tech companies and individuals. Of course, the hard part would be to determine which cases go before this court. For this, I propose that all cases have to be heard before the regular system, and if one or more of the parties involved wants to have it moved to the high tech court, both parties should have to make an argument as to why / why not. Thoughts, anyone?

Re:Corporations don't have rights.

[KublaiKhan]

It's not -really- a person, though. It is an -entity-, yes, but not an actual -person-.

Unless corporations have gained the right to vote and to hold public office while I wasn't looking?

Four words.

[ardyng]

Define how you can tell the difference between a real expert and a snowjob artist.

I can do that in four words.

Peer review and publication.