[lobstey]

But unlike computer security, laws are not determined by hardware that never complain about exploitation. Law is operated by humans, and people may reject exploration by arguing the contract differently. Lawyers are trained to dispute humans rather than rules.

[oh_sigh]

A human just sounds like a buggy, inconsistent compiler in this case.

[bobthechef]

A Procrustean view.

The law isn't perfect, and in that sense, it is like software in that it is constantly changing in anger. With the law, however, you're also in the situation of having many different interpreters. Given that the law is imperfect and requires refinement and adaptation in anger, given the imperfect knowledge of law givers, it is expected that there would be multiple interpretations.

Law does not determine justice by virtue of its codification. Morality does. Law is just the determination of general moral principles. A ruled-based system blindly followed by a machine would be a disaster outside very narrow, niche applications.