Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by AmericanChopper 1139 days ago
1A makes regulating software basically impossible. I can’t imagine what additionally regulation they think they’re going to implement that will survive the judiciary. The only legal barrier I can see that could influence these AI services is that that their output is obviously not shielded from liability by Section 230. But that will play out in the civil courts, if at all.

I’d say the more likely outcome is the far more subversive scenario where the government simply pressures private organisations into doing its unconstitutional bidding

3 comments

Sorry but this comment is just totally wrong. Look into weapons exports that applied to cryptography, google providing android to Huawei, etc. etc. etc. etc. i mean jeez you don't have to look far for counterpoints to what you're saying
Yeah, they tried to limit crypto exports. Remember that munitions t-shirt? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars#/media/File:Muniti... You can put any regulations you want on the books - the point is that enforcing them can become laughably infeasible.
How can people (especially on this forum) know that crypto export controls existed, but not know that they were struck down for violating 1A?…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States

I guess we maybe differ here on what would constitute success for suppression. I see it as a "success" because the law stood for so long despite being pretty apparently unconstitutional. It is fair to see it as a failure since it eventually was overturned. Maybe the crux here is I probably agree with you that permanent suppression is impossible but temporary is super doable and temporary can be a fairly large fraction of a human lifetime so I still count it
I guess that’s an interesting way to backpedal without acknowledging how outright wrong your highly dogmatic comment was. There was a time in the past when there could be some merit to where you’ve chosen to move the goalposts. But there is now, and has been for some time, a higher court precedent that invalidates this position.
What do you mean? they were banned, the company i was working for almost went under because we were banned from providing any technology to a chinese tech company. That did get reversed but only after almost destroying the company. The android OS was caught up in that as well. How are these not suppressions?
I'm pretty sure that's not accurate, at least for cryptography, GPS, and some industrial control software (a few special LabView plugins, from my own personal experience). I mean, the actual enforcement, I agree with you, it's theatre. But if you get caught getting on a plane with it without your paperwork. . hoo boy. That ain't good. Bring extra kneepads and learn to relax your throat muscles.
Software is not speech.
The judiciary disagrees.

> One of EFF's first major legal victories was Bernstein v. Department of Justice, a landmark case that resulted in establishing code as speech

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab...

I disagree. See the history of DeCSS for more information.