panix on Sun, 30 Jan 2000 09:25:43 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Feed: Lawrence Lessig |
Stephen Johnson interviews Lawrence Lessig FEED: Let's talk a little about your background and about the connection -- both biographical and conceptual -- between constitutional law and computer code. LESSIG: I started as an academic in constitutional theory. Although most constitutionalists in America think only about the American Constitution, I was at the University of Chicago where we had the Center for the Study of Constitutionalism in Eastern Europe. So most of my work in constitutional theory was spent learning about the Georgian Constitution, the Russian Constitution, the Ukrainian Constitution -- comparative constitutional thought. Very quickly you realize that you can't think about constitutions just as legal texts; they're not things that lawyers write. Constitutions are really a set of practices and understandings and architectures of different cultures which constitute what we ordinarily think of as a constitution. So this attitude, this way of thinking about constitutionalism then translated quite directly, when I read anything about cyberspace, into identifying a set of practices associated with the code of cyberspace as an equivalent constitution in cyberspace. Code was nothing that lawyers wrote, but it was certainly something that constrained and made possible behaviors which are fundamental, in a sense, to the culture of cyberspace. FEED: And how does that idea resonate among fellow constitutional law scholars? LESSIG: With modern scholars it doesn't resonate very well. But if I could talk to scholars from the 19th century, I think they would get it. In the 19th century, the idea of, say, the English Constitution was much more salient in this respect. The constitution was much less associated with documents and much more associated with deep traditions that are relatively hard to change, and that lie below ordinary battles that exist in political society. I think scholars back then would have better grasped the idea. Constitutionalists today like to think strictly about the First Amendment and the right to bear arms and things like that. That seems to me a very thin way to think about what a constitution is. FEED: All this gets us to the fundamental argument in your new book, which is the parallel between computer code and the force of law. How did that idea develop? LESSIG: Actually, I don't remember exactly how it developed. I had been working independently of cyberspace in thinking about the different ways in which behavior is regulated. I'd done some work thinking about how norms regulate behavior, issues that were separate from how law regulates behavior and how the market regulates behavior. And then there was a fourth part: I was thinking outside of cyberspace about the architecture, how it's regulating. Then when I started thinking about cyberspace, I had to find a translation for these parts -- and architecture is, in cyberspace, the code. Code is the most significant regulator in cyberspace because it's the most plastic and pervasive tool; you can easily change it in lots of important ways. People often treat the features of cyberspace as if they're just given to us by God. What becomes obvious, when you think about it, is that these features have been crafted, even more so than, say, New York City has been crafted. These features have been crafted by people who have a certain purpose behind how they were structuring one place versus the other. That fact about cyberspace -- that there's a space that constrains and regulates behavior because of the choices of someone who built it -- that's an altogether obvious way to parallel how we think about law. FEED: Some people would say, "No. It's precisely because it's plastic that we don't need to worry about it as much, and it makes it less of a controlling force because it can be shifted and reinvented so easily." LESSIG: Yes, but there's a difference between individually plastic and collectively plastic. At any one moment an individual is not capable of redefining this space, but collectively it can be redefined, right? It's the same thing with norms. You could have a norm against smoking, and you could try to resist that norm and create the opposite norm, but no individual acting on his or her own could really do that. But collectively, you could redefine the norms. Yet individuals in the context of cyberspace can be less empowered -- depending on the way that our code is structured -- to resist the code. It could be, for all practical purposes, impossible in an extreme way to resist, impossible in a way that's more severe than it is in the case of norms. If you violate norms, you might get punished by friends, neighbors, etc. But it's still civil disobedience. The possibility is still, in a sense, architected into norms. But it's not a possibility necessarily architected into code. FEED: I was thinking about this word "architecture." Another contrarian argument that could be made against the "code equals law" argument, or the "architecture of cyberspace equals law" argument, is that architecture of cyberspace actually resembles real architecture out there -- the buildings, the physical layout of a city. There might be an "invisible hand" argument that what really structures your experience is not like the law -- is not the equivalent of a regulatory force from above -- but rather an open-ended, sprawling, self-organizing process that structures experience the way the streets of a city structure experience. Forces that aren't necessarily so severe and oppressive that they need to actually be held in check. LESSIG: Well, I agree that the direct parallel to code is the way a city is laid out. But you shouldn't take from that fact that the way the city is laid out is benign. My favorite example is that the way Robert Moses laid out New York City further segregated it on the basis of race. This is the way the city's been laid out, but it's going to have a policy behind it. Now, if governments could manipulate the architecture of the city as completely and as easily as I think it's possible to regulate the architecture of cyberspace, you would see much more regulation through architecture in the city and much less regulation through laws in the city. What we'll see in cyberspace is that it's going to be easier to move buildings around than it will be to change norms or to try to impose laws directly. That's why this will be ripe for the state to try to regulate it. Part of the objective in saying "code is law" is not to say that code is the equivalent of law, but rather to say that code can be a transmitter of legal principles or legal values. Thus it will be the target of legal regulation. We should think about what the regulation of code is in order to understand what the values of cyberspace are. FEED: "Control" -- another key word. We talked a few months ago in FEED to Andrew Shapiro, who has a book out this year called The Control Revolution. You and Andrew have worked together on some things, right? LESSIG: Yes, he was my student, and we have worked closely together since. And he lapped me with his own book. FEED: Is there a distinction between your two definitions of control? Is yours, do you think, a darker one? Or different in some other way? LESSIG: I think the prediction I'm making is darker than Andrew's. Andrew is emphasizing the sense in which new technologies are going to empower control -- bottom-up control -- and to displace top-down control. I suppose I agree with that description as far as it goes. I'm a little bit more pessimistic, though, about the uprising. I'm more of a believer in the principle that it takes small fences to control large animals. These tiny little regulations that get built into the code are tiny little controls that can be quite significant in affecting behavior. Worse, people don't notice and don't resist these things that don't seem crudely coercive, like a police officer saying, "Do this, do that." They just seem innocuous, like speed bumps. FEED: Can you give a good example of one of those? LESSIG: Sure: privacy. We have an architecture of the web right now that makes it hard to control what data are gathered about you. Cookies are one part of that technology. The architecture is now that you can turn cookies on or turn cookies off. If you turn cookies off, or if you turn them back on when you get to a certain site, then 90 percent of your online life is spent making a decision about this. So most people just turn cookies on and live with it and that's that. Now, there's another possible response, which is to imagine an architecture that's much more subtle in its ability to negotiate privacy preference. But rather than rising up to demand this other architecture, most people just sit back, turn cookies on, and surf without thinking about it much. There's an example. That's a slight technological burden, this cookies thing. And it's a slight technological burden that we're willing to give away personal information to avoid. It's a very easy way to channel us into turning over information for free. FEED: Your book makes a very complicated argument about open source, or "open code," as you call it in the book, and its relationship to susceptibility to regulation. Would you explain that? LESSIG: One argument of the book is that we should expect governments to turn to the regulation of code as a way to bring about their regulatory objectives. The government sees that it's hard to regulate people directly in cyberspace, so if you regulate the code, then it makes it easier for the government to regulate people in cyberspace. But one check on that is open source software. To the extent the government attempts to regulate code, if the code is closed code, then it's hard for people to notice the regulation, it's hard for people to resist it, it's hard for people to substitute in. You basically have to accept the package as it comes. But if it's open code, then in a sense it reveals its regulation to anybody who can read the code, and it's relatively easy for people to pull out the part they don't like and put something else in. There's a nice parallel here: Remember the automatic fastening seatbelts? Here's a technology which was attempting to force people to use seatbelts. It was open code in the sense that it was easy for people to disable that, right? The state could have come in and said, "We're going to lock you up for 50 years if you disable your automatic seatbelt." But that was politically too costly, right? Instead, you set up a code which attempted to get people to behave in a certain way, but it permitted people to opt out because it was open code; it couldn't help but be open code. You checked the government's ability to try to enforce this regulation because the government wasn't about to force people into it directly. The closed code equivalent would have been if there was some way to make it absolutely impossible to start the car without a seatbelt connected and there was no way to get out of it. The argument in the book is that to the extent that the world of cyberspace is closed code, it's easier for government to regulate. To the extent that it's open code, it's going to be harder for government to regulate code. You might think of open code as a check on government regulation. But it's a check in the sense that it forces the government to be transparent in its regulation. FEED: So you're trying to persuade the libertarian factions that their beloved open source can actually function as a check. LESSIG: Right. It can function as a check in the way constitutionalists want to think of checks. FEED: That's great. One last thing: Y2K. You have a take on that which I think is different from any of the ones we've been hearing. LESSIG: I used Y2K opportunistically. Some critics continue to obsess about Y2K as this great disaster while at the same time they take a position that the government should just stay out of the internet and let things be. Most of the thrust of my book is an argument that if we just let things be, the internet is going to go down a path that's actually going to reduce freedom and enable government regulation much more than if we think critically about how things are developing. And with Y2K, the ease with which companies were able to get out of liability for bad products -- waiving their liability for software products, and thereby letting people be free of government regulation -- is in part responsible for the lack of concern about this bad product. Ford Motor Company can't produce cars that are going to explode after five years or it'd be sued. And yet it's easy for a software company to waive liability for any of these types of things just because of legal rules that allow them to get out of it and therefore avoid responsibility. Consequently, they don't spend as much time worrying about the products and the quality of the products. The basic point is that government could have played a role here in creating the incentives for companies to be much more responsible with the code that they produced. Instead, what we have is this potential environmental concern. FEED: What do you think is going to happen with Y2K? This interview will be published right after. (Presumably, that is, it will be published.) Are you stockpiling cans? LESSIG: No, but I'm going to be in Egypt. FEED: Really? LESSIG: Yes, where there are not many computers. So I'm going to be safe. [Laughs.] What is the proper role of regulation in cyberspace? Share your thoughts on "code is law" in the FEED Loop. © FEED Inc. http://www.feedmag.com/re/re280_master.html # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net