Anatoly Levenchuk (ailev) wrote,
Anatoly Levenchuk

Код как закон

Больше всего на эту тему "не пишите законы, пишите код", кажется, написал Lawrence Lessig ( -- очень колоритный стэнфордский профессор.

Но примерчики у него, гм... Y2K... Да и все остальное... Например, как он хочет liability crisis для разработчиков софта. Это, кстати, сильно связано с идеей неограниченной ответственности -- вполне себе кажущейся либертарианской, но игнорирующей вариант "я услышал песенку, и она свела меня с ума. Оплати психбольницу".
From the perspective of this book, these twin concerns—with regulation by the state and regulation by code—are quite consistent. Just as we should worry about the bad regulations of law, so too should we worry about the bad regulations of code. And from the perspective of this book, Y2K is our first real crisis in code. It is the first time that the culture as a whole will have to confront the environmental damage done by shortsighted coders. Like shortsighted lawmakers, they have created a crisis whose proportions we cannot yet see.

But from the perspective of Declan's libertarianism, these twin concerns are harder to reconcile. Y2K is the product of a certain kind of libertarianism. It is the product of not thinking through the regulation of code, and of law not properly holding coders responsible for their code. Thousands of coders went about their work thinking their actions were simply their own. The culture and the legal system essentially treated those actions as those of iniduals acting alone. Now, years after the first bad code was compiled, we are faced with a kind of environmental disaster: we are surrounded by code that in critical and unpredictable ways will misfire—at a minimum causing the economy millions of dollars, and under some doomsday scenarios causing much worse damage.

It is a lack of a certain kind of regulation that produced the Y2K problem, not too much regulation. An overemphasis on the private got us here, not an overly statist federal government. Were the tort system better at holding producers responsible for the harms they create, code writers and their employers would have been more concerned with the harm their code would create. Were contract law not so eager to allow liability in economic transactions to be waived, the licenses that absolved the code writers of any potential liability from bad code would not have induced an even greater laxity in what these code writers were producing. And were the intellectual property system more concerned with capturing and preserving knowledge than with allowing private actors to capture and preserve profit, we might have had a copyright system that required the lodging of source code with the government before the protection of copyright was granted, thus creating an incentive to preserve source code and hence create a resource that does not now exist but that we might have turned to in undoing the consequences of this bad code. If in all these ways government had been different, the problems of Y2K would have been different as well.
Мы еще помучаемся с кодом-законом. И с кодом-агентом помучаемся. "И вдохнул Иван-программист в сервер Голем свой свеженаписанный Закон, и получил в лице Голема Законного Агента". Юридические, физические и компьютерные лица, с полной и ограниченной ответственностью...

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

  • 1 comment