The automation of rules governing transactions and dispute resolution through code, rather than traditional legal avenues, has been cited as viable in areas such as credit card disputes and security deposit agreements. Since algorithmic law is unambiguous, they argue that it reduces the subjectivity inherent in the traditional legal and judicial systems. Those who accept Lessig's literal meaning contend that, even in the event of a bug or glitch in the code, that same code still governs. Under an expansive view of “code is law,” if the code of a smart contract permits something then it is “legal.” This theory holds that code shall prevail, whether or not it conflicts with anything else. Thus, if the digital world remains “fundamentally skeptical about self-government,” and leaves regulations to coders only, we cannot ensure that our values will be embedded in the code that undergirds the Internet. That is, regulation will always exist, whether led by coders or by the government. Absent government regulation, the interests of coders-which may not prioritize shared values, such as privacy-will reign. According to Lessig, minimal government intervention in cyberspace will not mean less regulation. Lessig argues that we are preoccupied with nonregulation and that we view the concept of regulation as binary it is either present or absent.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |