[dfc]

It's strange to see the evolution of the technology versus policy debate. We started out with "the Internet views censorship as damage and routes around it." A little later we had Lessig saying "code is law." And now the refrain is "VPNs are not the solution to a policy problem."

I miss the idealism and optimism of the past. The only hopeful thing I can find in the new "quote" is that it seems that the tech world is finally aware of the need to work with policy makers and the public in addition to building new systems.

[chatmasta]

So true and I could not agree more. When did technical problems start requiring political solutions?

I think it's a Trojan horse from politicians to start legislating where nobody needs legislation. The net will still route around censorship, but it's becoming increasingly harder in a world where a high percentage of global bandwidth transits through a small number of large deployments by centralized corporations.

The pessimist in me sees this as a sure sign that the "Balkanization of the internet" train has long since left the station. However I remain optimistic that "information wants to be free." As long as information exists somewhere (and people know to look for it), decentralized tools like torrents, ipfs, Tor, etc will continue to enable access to it.

What I worry most about is the public's increasing dependency on sandboxed devices. We celebrate sandboxing as a win for security, which it certainly is, but the more we depend on it, the more we are subject to the whims of its corporate gatekeepers. How long before laptops are as sandboxed as phones?

Software can only solve the technical problems so long as it can run on the hardware in your possession.

[Bartweiss]

> When did technical problems start requiring political solutions?

When the technical solutions became criminalized. End-to-end encryption is only now becoming common, and English MPs are already talking eagerly about outlawing it. The need for political fights isn't exactly new - think of the Clipper chip in the 90s - but it hasn't abated either.

I see lots of suggestions that we can solve this with keeping tech ahead of law, but I don't think that's a realistic answer. People have tried that in banking and finance and a lot of other domains, and the result is that you eventually get stuck with whitelists (only access the internet these 3 ways) or intent criminalization (banning access the government can't see). You have to win some political fights, if only to carve out space for the technical solutions.

[dfc]

When in the modern era has there been technology that was not illegal? Guns, radios, printing presses...

[dredmorbius]

You're misrepresenting Lessig's point. His was not that code replaces statutory law, but that code is one of the four forms of law: Law, Norms, Market, Architecture (including code). Which is captured in his title, "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace". (Emphasis added.)

The problem in this case is that morality (Norms) has gone AWOL, architecture is insufficient, and market incentives are buying statutory cover to pursue privacy eviceration with impunity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_and_Other_Laws_of_Cyber...

[dfc]

No. I never said that "code replaces statutory law." I said it was strange to see the evolution from one extreme where code trumps law to the other extreme where technology can't solve policy problems. Lessig was mentioned in between those two extremes.

[dredmorbius]

I won't tell you what you meant as you're the leading authority on that. However, what you wrote was "A little later we had Lessig saying 'code is law.'", and, if you'll allow, a reasonable interpretation of that is "code replaces law".

If you meant to convey a different meaning, you might have clarified. I stand by my statement that that appears to misrepresent Lessig's argument, which is a good one.

As for the range of opinions ... from John Gillmore to Staticsafe ... views differ. It's helpful to keep in mind that Gillmore, Lessig, and Staticsafe are all presenting arguments as challenges to conventional wisdom. To that end, presenting any of them as indicative of the CW is also ... misleading.

Unless you meant another argument.

Again: I'm not trying to tell you what you meant, but I'm telling you what I'm reading from that. And ... between exposition, clarity, and/or argument, it could be better.

Cheers.

[dfc]

Prof. Lessig said "code is law" I was just quoting him. Moreover "code replaces law" is an entirely unreasonable interpretation on its face and especially if you consider I said watch the evolution from A to B to C.

I guess I will just have to live with your disappointment.

[dfc]

It occurred to me that "x is law" (and the variants "y is bad law" "z is good law") might be specific to American English?