When the printing press was invented, it made it possible to break away (at least imperfectly) from the ancient tradition of censorship and proscribed works. In the modern world we’ve seen how the ability to copy electronic media butted up against copyright law. Our current solution is a combination of “nail the violators we can catch” while pragmatically conceding that copyright piracy is going to be widespread probably forever. The emergence of high-quailty home printers made it necessary to revamp US currency in order to make it less counterfeitable. Internet proxie servers that make it very hard or impossible to trace a user. Public-key encryption was at first classified as an intelligence secret, with the government prosecuting people who tried to make it public. I’m sure that other examples could be named.
My question is, what in general should the proper approach be to new technologies that make it easier to break (and get away with breaking) the law? Should certain technologies be banned like possessing burglar tools? If the means can’t be eliminated, should the people using them be punished (like drugs- effectively impossible to eliminate, so punish possession)? Adopt a libertarian approach and accept that some things that used to be illegal will have to be accepted at least de facto?
There have been science-fiction stories about technology undercutting society’s prohibitions, both in a positive and negative light. (Like a time-viewer that is also effectively a limitless peeping device, or a world-destroying superbomb that could be built with common hardware store materials) Suppose for example the emergence of universal fabricators made it possible to crank out at home the parts for guns or bombs? Prohibition in the United States in the twentieth century was futile not only because of smuggling but because of the ease with which fermentation could make alcohol. What if bioengineered microbes could let you make the drug of your choice at home in a mason jar?
Some people welcome this trend as libertarian, a counter-balance to technologies that increase centralized power (surveillance, etc.) Others say that there have to be some limits to what people can do with impunity. Some fear that the advance of technology might eventually be deliberately suppressed for authoritarian reasons, the way China attempts to limit it’s Internet. Your thoughts on this?
I hope we are not right behind China. How long before Big Gov takes our free use of the internet away? Didn’t they already try and pass a bill on this? Once Google and the government join hands we will have about as much rights online as we do with television. There is nothing save a few programs that have a kernel of depth. Even the History Channel sold out. I don’t like the handwriting on the wall.
If “We The People” get mad enough they may yank it. To keep us free from counter terrorism of course or some other line of baloney. It won’t work as prohibition didn’t. Only the thieves will have access.
Can you imagine the uproar this would create? Granny without her AOL messenger and Joe the perv without their fix. It might just be the wake up call we all need.
Generally, the law needs to be adapted rather than enforced more harshly. Overly harsh enforcement actually often tends to have the opposite effect than intended; it cedes the moral high ground to the people opposing the law. What tough-on-crime types often miss is that the law outside of a North Korea style totalitarian state is mostly obeyed because people believe in obeying the law. Convince enough people that the law is wrong and it becomes largely unenforceable, like drug laws.
Also, it must be recognized that changing technology can make laws simply obsolete, along with the system they are designed to enforce. We are having so many problems with copyright laws because in large part they were written for a system where copying and transmitting information over vast distances was difficult, not trivial. Trying with ever more harshness to maintain an obsolete system hasn’t done much but convince ever more people that the “pirates” have justice on their side.
On file copying, I think we should take the Pirate Party position (or something very like). Copying without intent to profit is not the same as copying with intent to profit, & should not be penalized in the same way.
The OPs question is too vague to answer properly? What “technology”? Which “laws”?
Continual improvements in firearm technology has made it easier to kill lots of people. We have restrictions on the types of weapons civilians are allowed to own, who is allowed to own them and where they are allowed to use them.
File sharing technology is completely different. It’s a disruptive technology that is rendering the role of music companies as providers and distributors of music irrelevant. Laws might prevent that for a little while, but eventually they are going to have to change their business model to adapt.
People can already build bombs out of household materials. Generally people don’t though.
It’s pretty difficult to prohibit a technology. All of human understanding is constantly creeping ahead, growing all around it. Everything gets easier, even the things you don’t actually work on.
The fascination with making technology illegal doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Think of all the technology ever created and how it makes breaking the law easier.
Bruce Shneier explained it much more succinctly than I ever could when discussing the Mumbai terrorist attacks:
That is like Richard Kluger says in his book.
You only get free speech in this country if you own a newspaper.
Many people agree. It’s like with guns you can oply know you’ll be free if you have one, maybe thats why those folk in washington detroit want to take them away.