[st3v3r]

Under that reasoning, wiretapping laws and privacy laws should not apply to digital communications, because they were not specifically mentioned.

[fucking_tragedy]

I've noticed a trend where technology-inclined people take a very strict, autistic approach to the law. They tend to view the law as being analogous to source code in that there is no room for interpretation, intent or spirit behind what's codified.

I think this has manifested at its peak with Ethereum.

[John23832]

Laws are funny, they have a certain duality to them. They can be strict, but also fluid.

[John23832]

Not at all. If the existing law is interpreted by the courts to apply to digital communications then it does. Congress a has the ability to remove interpretations by specification.

[st3v3r]

So you disagree with your previous statement? That courts can interpret the law, including the intention of it?

[John23832]

My original comment said that courts could interpret law... I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, including intention. US courts do it all the time. It's called the Constitution.

[stinkytaco]

I guess I would look at this:

>evolution of the law (which involves creating new portions of the law to cover previously created portions which are considered lacking)

And argue that electronic privacy vis-a-vis wiretapping laws is creating a new portion of the law to cover previously created portions which are considered lacking. We can quibble about definitions, but that strikes me as very much in the area of "evolution".

[John23832]

I think defining "evolution" and "create" are the real sticking points in this argument. That get's down to splitting hairs. Though I will say that I do believe that everyone in this thread does have sound arguments given their definition of those two words.