"Code is law" is a dream that is not actualized. It's not actually law, it's just code. I'm pretty sure law enforcement will gladly prosecute for a lot of these "hacks".
Indeed it cannot be actualized, as it connects to the real world.
This is why things like "land registry on the blockchain" will never happen. When a court decides that a sale of a house was unlawful, then the blockchain is wrong and irrelevant.
Code isn't law. Law is system that ultimately sends people to your house and puts you in a locked house that you're not allowed to leave, and lets other people live in "your" house now.
In other words, "code is law" only if it complies within the existing framework of our laws. IMO, this still leaves a lot of room for creative applications of smart contracts.
Could be. But then any smart contract system needs to acknowledge this overarching law, and give it "super user access", if you will.
And these systems could exist. But they are not the systems that are being designed. They are in fact antithetical to the stated goals of all of these cryptocurrencies and smart contract systems.
What specific law was broken? In the US, generic "hacks" generally fall under the computer fraud and abuse act, which is notoriously vague about what qualifues as "authorized". Perhaps some other lawvis applicable. But I cannot think of any that are obviously on point. Nor can I think of a clear precedent that clarifies the issue.
This is why things like "land registry on the blockchain" will never happen. When a court decides that a sale of a house was unlawful, then the blockchain is wrong and irrelevant.
Code isn't law. Law is system that ultimately sends people to your house and puts you in a locked house that you're not allowed to leave, and lets other people live in "your" house now.
Math can't enforce who lives in your house.