ayout 1

Transcript

1 0465039146-FM:FM 12/5/06 12:25 AM Page i C O D E

2 0465039146-FM:FM 12/5/06 12:25 AM Page iii C O D E r s i 2 . 0 v e o n W R E N C E L A L E S S I G A Member of the Pers eus Book s Group New Yo rk

3 0465039146-FM:FM 12/5/06 12:25 AM Page iv Cop yr ig ht © 2006 by Law ren ce Les sig CC Att ribu ti on-Sh are Alike Pu blish ed by Basic Books A Me mbe r of the Pe rse us Bo oks Group Pr inte d in the Uni ted St ates of Am eri ca. For info rmatio n, ad dre ss Ba sic Bo ok s, 387 Pa rk Ave nu e Sou th, New Yor k, NY 100 16–8 810. Boo ks publ ished by Bas ic Boo ks are av aila ble at speci al discount sforbul kpurchas es in th eUn it ed State sbyco rporati ons ,inst ituti ons, and oth er orga ni zat ion s. Fo rmore ent at th e Perse us Book s info rm ati on, please contac t the Sp eci al Mar kets Departm Gr ou p, 11 Cambri dge Center , Cam bridge MA 021 42, or cal l (617) 252- 5298, (80 0) 255- 1514 or e- mai l sp eci al.m ar ket [email protected] pers eusbooks.com. CIP cat alog recor d for thi s bo ok is av aila ble from the Libra ry of Co ngress. ISBN -10: 0–465–039 14 –6 ISBN -13: 978 –0– 465 –03 914 –2 06 07 08 09 / 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

4 0465039146-FM:FM 12/5/06 12:25 AM Page v Cod e vers ion 1.0 WH OSE EVER Y IDEA FOR CHA RLI E NESSON, A YEAR. SE EMS CRAZ Y FOR AB OUT Code ver sion 2.0 TO WIK IPEDIA, THE SUR PRI SE THA T TEACH ES MOR E THAN EVER YTHING HER E. ONE

5 0465039146-FM:FM 12/5/06 12:25 AM Page vii C O N T S N T E f ace o the Se con d E ditio n ix Pre t ace t o the First Editi on xiii f Pre 1 Ch apt er 1. Co de Is Law Ch apt er 2. Fo ur Pu zz les from Cybers pac e 9 PAR T I: “REGUL ABILITY” Is the Way It Is th eWay It Must Be ? 31 Ch apt er 3. Is-Ism: Ch apt er 4. Ar chite cture s of Con trol 38 61 Ch apt er 5. Reg ulat ing Co de BY CODE PAR T II : REGUL ATION 83 Ch apt er 6. Cy ber space s Ch apt er 7. What Thin gs Regulat e 12 0 Ch apt er 8. The Limi ts in Open Co de 13 8 PAR T II I: LAT EN T AMBIGU ITIES io n 15 7 Ch apt er 9. Translat 169 Ch apt er 10. Int el le ctua l Pro pe rty 200 Ch apt er 11. Pri vacy 233 Ch apt er 12. Fr ee Sp eec h Ch apt er 13. Int erlude 276 PAR T IV: COMPET EIGNS ING SOVER Ch apt er 14. Sov er ei gnt y 281 Ch apt er 15. Compe titi on Amo ng So ve reig ns 294

6 0465039146-FM:FM 12/5/06 12:26 AM Page viii PAR T V: RE SPON SES 31 3 Ch apt er 16. The Prob lems We Fac e 32 5 Ch apt er 17. Respons es Ch apt er 18. What Declan Does n’t Get 33 5 e ndi App 34 0 x Not es 34 7 Inde x 39 9

7 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page ix P R E T O T H E S E C O N D E D I T I O N F A C E Thi s is a tra ns lat io n of an old bo ok—i ndeed, in In te rne t time, it is a tra nsl a- tio n of an anci ent tex t. The fi rst ed it io n of this book was pu blis hed in 199 9. It was wri tte ninavery di fferent cont ex t, an d, in many ways ,it was wr itte nin opp ositio nto tha tcon te xt .As Idesc ri be in the first chap te r, the domi nan tidea am ong thos e wh o ra ved abo ut cybers pace then wa s tha t cyber spac e wa s bey on d the reac h of real -sp ace reg ulat ion. Govern ments couldn’ t tou ch lif e onli ne. And he nce, li fe onl ine wo ul d be differe nt, and separa te, fr om the dyn ami c of life offl in e. Code v1 wa s an argu ment against that the n com mon vi ew. In the yea rs since, that common vi ew has fade d. The conf ide nce of the even the de sire —that the In ter net excep ti onali sts ha s waned. Th e idea—and Int ernet woul drem ai nun re gu lated isgone. And thus ,in acc epti ng thein vit a- tio n to upd ate th is boo k, I fa ced a di ffi cult cho ice: wh ether to write a new bo ok ,ortoup da te the ol d, tomak eit relevant and read able in ara dicall ydif - fe ren t tim e. re ma ins, and I’ve don e th e la tter. The basi c str uc tu re of the fir st edition the argu ment adv anc ed isthe sa me .Bu tI’ve chang ed th efr am ing of par ticu - la r ex amples, and, I hop e, th e clar it y of the wr iting. I’ve als o ex tend ed the ar gu ment in so me par ts, an dadded brief link sto lat er wo rk in or der to bett er inte grate the arg umen t of the ori ginal book. On eth in gIha ve not done, ho wever, is ex tend the arg ume nt of this book to the (ins ane ly in the place sthat oth ers hav ework ed. No rhave Isuccumbed powe rf ul ) tempta ti on to rewri te the book as a res pons e to critics ,both sym - pat het ic and not. I have inclu ded di rec ti on in the notes for th ose wanting to fo llo w the arg ument s ot hers have made in response . But, even more tha n when it was fi rs t pub li shed , thi s boo k is jus t a small part of a mu ch bigge r debate . Thu s, you sho ul dn ’t re ad thi s to the exclus ion of extraor dina ry late r tth eargu - wo rk. Two boo ksinpart icu lar alrea dy pub lishe dnic ely complemen Who Con trol s the Net ? (2 006 ), and me nt ma de here —Go ld smith and Wu ’s Be nkl er’s The Wealt h of Ne two rk s (2 00 6)—and athi rd byZi ttr ai n,expec ted in 20 07 ,si gn ifi cantly exte nd s the same arg ument. ix

8 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page x x pre fa ce to th e sec ond editi on Ihav eals onot tr ied to enu merat ethe mis tak es ,rea land all ege d, made in and some I’ve ke pt, be ca us e, th e fir st ed itio n. So me I’ve simply corrected, howe ve r mis take n ot hers tak e them to be, I conti nu e to bel ieve tha t they ar e not mist akes . Th e mos t impo rta nt of th e sec ond type is my view tha t the inf rast ru ct ure of the Net wil l bec ome increas ing ly co ntroll ed and re gu la ble have call ed this “mis ta ke” a dig it al ide nt ity techno log ies. Friends through “w ho ppe r.”It is no t. I’m no t sure what time ho rizon I ha d in mind in 19 99, made there have no t come to and I con ced e tha t some of the pred ictions pass —yet . But I am mo re conf ident to day than I was th en, and thus I ha ve mistak e.” Perh aps this is simpl y to chos en to sti ck with thi s “f und amental hed ge my bets : If I’m ri ght, then I have the reward . If I’ m of unde rs tanding wr ong ,the n we’l l hav e an Int ernet clo ser to the values of its origina l de sig n. The gen esis of the revi si ons fo und here wa s a wiki. Basic Bo ok s allow ed me topos tth eor ig inal edi ti on of th ebo ok in awiki hos te dby Jots pot, and a tea m of “chapte r ca ptain s” help ed fa cilita te a conv ersa tion abo ut the te xt. There were some edi ts to the tex t itsel f, an d many more valu able comm en ts 1 Ith en took tha ttex tas of the en dof 2005 and added myown an dcrit ic is ms . edits to pro du ce th is bo ok. Wh ile I wou ld n’t go as far as th e mu sician Jef f Tweed y (“Hal f of it’s yo u, half is me” ), an important part of this is not my the royal ties from this book to ion of that, I’ ve committed wo rk . In recognit the non pro fit Crea tive Commons. I am gratef ul to JotSpot () fo r do na ting the wi ki and ho stin g . That wiki was mana ged by an serv ic es th at were us ed to edit Cod e v1 ext raordi nar ySta nf ord unde rgradu ate, Ja ke Wachma n, who gav ethi sprojec t mo re time than he had . Ea ch chapt er of the book , while liv ing on the wi ki , had a“c hapter captai n.” Iam gratefu ltoeach of them —An nBart ow ,Ric hard Bele w,Seth Fi nke lstei n, Joe lFl yn n,Mi aGarl ick, Matt Good ell ,Pa ulGo wde r, Pete r Ha rter, Br ian Honerm ann, Bra d Johns on, Jay Kes an, Joh n Log ie, Tom Madd ox, Elle nRi gsby ,and Jon Ste wa rt —for the work they vo lunteer ed todo, Code and toth eman yvolun teers who spen ttheir time trying to make v1 be t- te r. I am esp eci ally gr at efu l toAndy Or am for his extens ive co ntr ibu tio ns to the wi ki. In addi tion to the se volu nt eers, Sta nfo rd helped me gat her an army of Code v2 required law student stohe lp co mp let ethe res ea rch tha t .This wo rk beg an wit hfo ur—D avi dRy an Brumber g, Jyh-An Lee, Bret Logue, and Adam spent a summe r coll ect in g all the work tha t built upo n or cr it i- Pu gh—who . ci zed in par t to decide ho w to mod ify Co de v1 I reli ed upon that research . v1 Co de Dur ing th efal lse meste r, 20 05, asemina rof St anfor dstude nt sadded the ir own cri ti cal tak e, as we ll as cl asses at Ca rdozo Law Sch ool. And th en du ri ng th e year, tw o oth er stu dents , John Ed en and Avi Lev Robi nso n-

9 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page xi xi pr ef ac e to the se co nd edi tion Mos her, spent many hou rs hel ping me co mplete the re search necess ary to . Cod e fin ish a rea sonab le draft of v2 Code v2 Nostu dent, how ev er ,con tri but edas much to the fina lversion of she took com ma nd as Ch ris tina Gagnie r.In the final mo nth s of th is project, of the re sea rch, comple ed questions, pu tt ing the ting a gaggle of unresolv pr oc es sinafor mthat cou ld be publ ish ed ,and sup er - re su lts of thi s18-month vis in gacheck of al lci tati ons to ve rify their compl ete nes sand acc ur acy .Wi th- out he r wo rk, this boo k wou ld no t have be en comple ted . Iam also gr ate fu ltofri end sand col league swh ohav ehe lp ed mesee how thi swork ne eded toch ange— es pe cia ll yEd Felten, Davi dJo hnso n,Jorge Lim a, v2 . Al an Rot hman, and Ti m Wu . Ja son Ralls des ig ned the graphics Cod e for An d fi nal ly, I am ind ebted beyond word s to Elaine Adol fo, whose ta le nt and gI’ ve ev er kno wn, and witho utwhom Icoul d pa ti enc earefa rbe yo nd anythin not ha ve do ne this ,or muc h el se in the pas t few years .

10 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page xiii P R E T O T H E F I R S T E D I T I O N F A C E under th eti tle “Com - In th espri ng of1996, atanannua lconfer enc eor ganized ficti on wr iters wer einv it ed puter s, Freedom, an dPri vacy ”(CFP), tw oscience- to tel lst or ies abo ut cy be rs pac e’s futu re. Vern or Vi nge spoke ab out “u bi qui to us distri buted sys te ms,”inwh ich lawenf or ceme nt” mad epo ssi ble by “f in e- grained th e te chn olog y that wil l en ab le our fu ture way of li fe also feed s da ta to, and accep ts comman ds fro m,the gov er nm ent .The arc hitecture that wo uld enab le og ists we re thi s was alre ad y bein g bu ilt— it was the Internet—and technol alr ea dy descr ibi ng ways in wh ich it co uld be exte nded. As th is networ k whi ch cou ld al low such co nt rol beca me wo ve n into every part of socia l li fe, it wo uld be jus tama tt er of time ,Ving esa id, bef ore the govern me nt clai me dcont rol over vit alpart sof this sy st em. Asthe syst em matur ed, ea ch new gener atio nofsystem co de woul dincr ea se th epow erofgo ver nment. Our digital selves— and inc reas - ingly ,our ph ysical sel ves —w ould li vein aworld of perfect regulati on ,and the we to day call the Int ern et ar chite ctu re of this di st ri bu ted comput ing—what an dit ssucc essor s— would ma ke th at regula tory perfecti on possi ble. To m Maddox foll owed Vi nge and tol d a sim ila r stor y, thoug h with a sl ig ht ly dif fer ent cast. The go ver nme nt’ s power wou ld not com e jus t from chi ps ,he ar gu ed .Inst ea d,it wou ld be rein forced by an alliance betwe en gov - er nmen t and comm erce .Co mmerc e, lik e gover nment, fares better in a well- re gula ted wor ld. Comme rce would ,wh eth er di rect ly orindi rect ly, help su pply ace woul d thu s change to re so urce s to bui ld a wel l-reg ulat ed wor ld. Cybersp take on cha rac te ri st ic s favor abl e to th ese two powe rfu l forces of so cial ord er . Ac co un tabil it y wou ld emerge fro m the fl edgl ing, wild Inter ne t. . Cod e an d commerce Whe n th ese two auth ors sp ok e, th e future th ey descri bed was not yet pres ent . Cy ber sp ace was incre as ing ly ev erywh ere, but it was very hard for tho se in the aud ience to imag ine it tamed to serve the ends of governm ent. An d at that ti me , commerc e was cer tain ly interes ted in cybers pa ce, thou gh cred itca rd co mp anie swere sti ll war ning custo me rs to stay far aw ayfrom the Net .The Net was an exp lo di ng soc ial spa ce of some th ing. But it was har d to se e it as an expl od ing spa ce of soc ia l control. xiii

11 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page xiv xiv pr efa ce to the fi rst editio n I di dn’t se e eithe r speec h. I first li st ened to the m throu gh my co mpute r, th re eyears af ter they we re gi ven .Their words had been record ed; they now sit 1 It takes a se co nd to tun e in and lau nch th e ar chiv ed on a ser ve r at MIT . rec ord ing of the ir sp eeche s. The ve ry act of listening to these lec tu re s giv en platfo rm that no doubt erved on a rel iab le and indexed yea rs be fore—s eed, comme rcia l Inter net rec ord ed the fac t th at I had li st ened, ac ros s high-sp lin esth at fe ed my ho use bo th the Inte rn et and ABC New s—conf irmed some - thi ng of thei r accou nt. One can he ar in th e aud ie nce’s reaction a re cog nition th at the se auth ors wer e talk in g fi cti on —they wer e sci ence-f iction writ er s, af ter al l. Bu t the fic tio n they spo ke terr ified those who lis te ned . Ten yea rs late r, the se tal es are no long er fiction. It is no longe r ha rd to a more perf ectly regu la te d spac e or und ers ta nd how th e Net cou ld become how the fo rces beh ind co mme rc eco uldplay arole in fa cilitating tha tre gula - tio n. Th e ongo ing bat tl e over peer -t o-peer fileshar ing is an ea sy example of of music files (amo ng oth er s) was th is dyn amic. As an ast onishing quantity ma de av ailab le for free (a nd agai nst the law of co py right) throu gh P2P back. Its str at egy has app li ca tio ns, the reco rd ing indu stry has fought pr osec uti on of th ose downloading mu sic il legally , inc luded vigorous extr aor di nary ef forts to secur e ne w leg islat ion to ad d new pr ote ctio ns for th ei rco pyrigh te dcon ten t, andaho st of new techni cal meas ure sde signed to namely chan ge a fe ature of the orig inal ar chitecture of th e network— that tthat stan dbehind the Ne tcopie sconte nt blind to the rules of copyrigh tha t cont ent. The batt le is thus joined, an d the outcome wil l ha ve imp licati on s n. Bu t the form of th e bat tle is clear: for mor e than jus t music distributio to chang e the infras tr uctu re to make comme rce and gove rnm ent working bet ter contro l pos sible. wer e fir st-gen era tion theor ists of cyb er sp ace . Th ey Ving e and Maddox cou ldte ll the ir sto ries about perfec tcon trol bec ause they lived in aworl dtha t coul dn ’t be control led . Th ey could con nect with their audi en ce beca use it wan ted to resis tthe fu ture they de sc ri bed. Env isio nin gthis imposs ible wor ld was spo rt . Now the imp oss ibl e is inc re asi ngl y real. Much of th e cont rol in Vinge’ s and Mad dox’s st ori es tha t str uck many of th eir listeners as Orwel lian now to imag ine the syst em of pe rfe ct se em sto many quite rea son ab le. It is possible re gu la ti on th at Ving e de sc ri bed, and so me even like wha t they se e. It is ine vi table tha t an in creas ingly larg e part of the In te rne t will be fed by com - me rce. Mos t don ’t se e an ything wrong with that eithe r. The “terr if ying” ha s now bec ome no rmal , and only the hi sto rians (or authors of ol d bo oks lik e thi s) wi ll not ice the dif ferenc e.

12 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page xv xv pr efa ce to the fi rst editio n This boo k conti nue s Ving e’s and Mad dox’ s sto ries . I sha re their view of of reg - architecture the Net ’sfutu re ;muc hof this book is abou tthe expanding ul at ion that the Inte rne twil lbecome .But Ido n’t share the co mp la cen cy of the of that 1996 reco rdin g. self -c ong rat ula tory che ers ec hoing inth ebackground It may wel l hav e been obv iou s in 1996 wh o “th e ene my ” was. But it is not ob vio us now . The ar gu me nt of thi sboo kisthat ou rfut ure is neit he rVinge ’snor Ma d- do x’ s acc ou nts stand ing alone . Ou r fu tu re is the tw o wo ven togethe r. If we we re on ly in for the dystop ia de sc ri bed by Vinge, we woul d ha ve an obv iou s :Or well gave us the too ls,and Stalin ga ve us the res olve an dpowe rf ul response to re si st the to ta lit ari an sta te. After 9/11, we may well see aspying and in vasi ve Net .But eve n tha t wi ll hav e li mi ts .Total itarian co nt rol by Washing to n is not our fu ture . is soli dly in our past. 19 84 Li ke wis e, if we we re only in for the fut ure tha t Ma ddox des cribed ,many of our cit iz ens woul dcal ltha tutopi a, not scie nce fiction. Aworld wher e“the would be, forth em, ma rket” run sfr ee and the “evil” of gov ernment is defeated a worl d of perf ec t freed om. But when yo utie the fut ure sde sc ri bed byVinge and Ma ddox toge th er ,it in large par t ex er ci sed by is a dif fe rent pic ture al togeth er: A fut ure of control techn ologie sof co mm erc e, bac ked by the ru le of law (or at leas twhat ’s lef tof the ru le of la w). The chal len ge for our gen er atio nis to reconci le the se tw oforce s. How do are managed we pro tec tlibe rt ywh enthe archi tec tu res of control asmu ch by the go ver nment as by the pri vat esec tor? How do we as su re priv acy whe nthe free th ou ght wh en the pu sh is ethe r per pe tu al ly spi es ? How do we guarantee whe n the to pro pe rtize eve ry idea? How do we guar ante e sel f-deter mination ed elsewhere ?How, in other ar chitec tu re sof cont ro lar eperp etuall ydetermin wor ds, do we bui ld awo rld of libe rt yin the face of the dan gers that Vi nge an d Mad do x toge th er des cr ibe ? The an sw er isnot inthe knee-jerk of alibe rta r- anti gove rnme nt rhetoric libe rty, even if they ar e al so ia n past : Go ver nme nts are nec essa ry to protect ab le to de st roy it. But neithe r do es th e answ er lie in a retur n to Ro ose ve lt’ s New De al. Stat ism ha s fai led . Li bert y is not to be fou nd in some new D. C. alp hab et soup (WPA, FCC, FDA ...) of bu reaucracy. A sec ond ge ner at io n ta kes th e ideal s of the firs t and works them out ag ai nst a diffe rent bac kg ro und . It knows the ol d deb ates ; it ha s map ped the dea d-en d ar gu me nts of the prec edi ng th irty years .The objec tive of a sec ond gen erat ion is to as k qu es tions that avoid dea d-e nds and move beyond them . Th ere is grea two rk from both ge ne ra tio ns .Esth er Dys on and Joh nPe rry Barlow , and To dd La pi n sti ll inspi re, and still move on e (Dys on is editor at

13 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page xvi xvi pr efa ce to the fi rst editio n lar ge at CNE T Ne two rks; Ba rl ow now spe nds time at Harvar d). And in the sec ond generat ion , the wo rk of And rew Sha piro, David Sh enk, an d St even John son is bec oming wel l know n and is compel ling. My aim is thi ssec ond gen erati on.As fi ts myprofe ssi on (I ’m alaw ye r), my more obs cu re, more technical, co ntr ibut io n is more long -winded, and more obtuse tha nthe best of eithe rgene rat ion .But as fi ts my profes si on, I’ llof fe rit an yway. In the deb ates th at rag e rig ht now ,what I have to say wil l not plea se an yo ne ve ry muc h. And as I pec k th ese las t words before e-mailing the man - us cr ipt off to the publ isher ,Ican alr ea dy hear the re act ions: “Ca n’t you tell th e th e powe r of the sher iff and the pow er of Wal t Disney? ” dif fe ren ce between “D oyou real ly think weneedagovern ment agency reg ul ating so ft ware cod e?” An d fr om the other si de: “H ow can yo u argue fo r an archit ec tu re of cy ber- abil it y to do good? ” spa ce (f ree sof tw are) that di sabl es gover nment’s But I am als o a teac her. If my wr it in g pr od uces ang ry re ac tions , the n it mi ght al so eff ec t a more bal anced ref lection. Th ese are hard time s to ge t it rig ht, but th e ea sy ans wers to ye st erday ’s debate wo n’ t get it right. I ha ve le ar ne d an ex tr aord ina ry amo unt from the tea che rs and critics me wr it e thi s bo ok. Hal Abels on, Br uce Acker man, Jam es who ha ve helped Boyle ,Jac k Go ld smith ,and Ri ch ard Po sne r gave patient and excel le nt adv ice on earl ier dr af ts . I am grat ef ul for th ei r patienc e an d extre me ly for tu nate to hav ehad the ir ad vice. Larr yVal eand Sar ah Whitin gguided my rea din ginth e fiel d of architec tu re, th oug h no doub t I wa s not as pati ent a stud ent as I wha tit wo uld take shoul dhave be en .Son yaMead hel ped me put into pictures a la wyer te n thou sand words to say. An arm yof stu dents did mo st of the bat tle on ear lie rdra fts of this book. Tim othy Ehr lich, Enoch Chang, Caro lyn Bane ,Ra chel Barber, Be n Edelman, Da wn Farbe r, Mela ni e Gli ckson, Be than y Glover, Nerlyn Gonza lez ,Sh annon Joh ns on, Kare n King, Al ex Mac gill iv ray, Mar cus Mahe r, Da vid Me la ugh, Tere sa Ou , Laur a Pirr i, and We nd y Seltz er provided exten sive, if res pec tf ul, crit ici sm .And my assi stants, Lee Hop kins and Catherine Cho ,were cruci al in keep in g th is arm y in li ne (and at bay ). Three stu dents in parti cul ar have influe nce dmy ar gu me nt, thoug hnone are fai rly ca ll ed “s tud ents.” Haro ld Reeves takes the lead in Ch ap te r 10. Tim Wu fo rc ed meto re thi nkmuch of Pa rt I. And Andr ew Shapiro sho wed meth e ho pef ul ne ss in a fu ture that I ha ve de sc ribed in ve ry dark te rms . Iames peci all yinde bt ed toCathe ri ne Margue rit eManl ey ,whos eextrao r- din ar ytal ent, both as awri ter and are search er, made it pos sibl eto finish this work long bef ore itot herw ise co uld have been finished .Thanks also to Tawe n Ch an g an d Ja mes Sta hir fo r the ir car efu l review of th e note s and wo rk to keep them hones t.

14 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page xvii xvii pr efa ce to the fi rst editio n This is a not a fiel d where one le arns by liv ing in libra ries .I ha ve le ar ne d s I have had, or watche d, with an ever yt hi ng I kno w fr om th e conv ersation ex traord inary co mmu ni ty of academi cs an d acti vists, who hav e been str ug - gli ng ove r th e la st fi ve years bo th to unders tand what cybers pa ce is and to ni ty inc lu de sth eschol ars and writer sIdis cu ss in mak eitbe tte r. Th is commu the tex t, espe cia lly th e lawye rs Yoch ai Benkler, James Boyle, Mark Leml ey, Da vi d Post, and Pam Samu el so n. I’ve al so bene fited greatly fr om conv er sa - tions wi th no nla wye rs, especi al ly Hal Abelson, John Perry Ba rlow, To dd Lapi n, Jose ph Rea gle, Paul Re sni ck, and Dann yWeitz ner. But pe rhap s mo re impor - tantl y, I’ ve benef ited from discu ssi ons wi th the act ivi st s, in particul ar the Cen - ter fo r Demo cr acy and Tec hnol ogy, the Electronic Fronti er Fou nda ti on ,and the Ame ri ca nCi vil Lib ert iesUni on. They have ma de theissu es re al, and they ha ve do ne muc hto defe nd at least some of the values th at Ithink impor ta nt. Thi sbo ok wo uld no thav ebeen wri tten ,howev er, but for astory byJu lia n byHenry J. Perritt, and many ar gume nts with Di bbel l, aconfer enc eorganized Da vi d Jo hns on. I am gr ate fu l to all three for what th ey have ta ug ht. as a fell ow at Harvar d’s Pr ogr am on Ethics and the I bega n thi s project l en cou ra ge - Pr of essions . I am gr at efu l to Denni s Th omps on for his skeptica men tthat yea r.The Ber kmanCen ter fo rInterne tandSociety atHar vard La w Schoo lhas made muc hof my re se arc hpossibl e. Iam grateful in pa rticu lar to to the ce nter ’s co- Li llia nand Myl es Ber kman for that sup port ,and especially Zittrain, for hi s support and, dire ct or and my so meti me co teac her, Jonathan mo re impor ta nt, fr iend shi p. I’ve ded ic at ed this book totheothe rco-dir ector of the Berkman Cent er, Ch arlie Nesson, who has given me the spac eand su p- port to do this wo rk and a cer tain inspi ration to pus h it diff ere ntl y. But mor esig nificant than an yof that suppor tha sbeenthepa ti ence ,an d love , of the pers on to who m I’ve dedi cated my lif e, Bett ina Ne ue feind. He r love wil l seem cra zy, and wonderfu l,for mu ch more than a year .

15 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page xix C O D E

16 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 1 O N E e i s l a w c o d TW O DECADE S AG O , IN THE SP RIN G OF 198 9, COM MUNI SM IN E UROPE A LMOST died —co llap sed ,lik eatent, its ma in pos tremoved. The end wasnot br oug ht by war or revolut io n. The end was ex haus tion. A new pol itical reg ime was bo rn in its place ac ro ss Cent ral and East er n Europ e, the beg in ning s of a new po lit ical soc ie ty. For con stit ut io nal ists (l ike me) , this was a he ady time . I ha d gr ad uated fro m la w sc ho ol in 19 89, and in 19 91 I be gan teaching at the Unive rs it y of Chi cago .At tha ttim e, Chica go had ace nter devo ted to th estudy of the emerg - ing demo cr acies in Centr al and Eas ter n Eu rope. I was a part of that ce nte r. Ove rthe ne xt fi ve yea rs Ispe ntmo re ho urs on ai rpl an es, and more mornings dri nki ng bad coff ee, th an I ca re to remembe r. East er n an d Cen tral Eu rope we re fi lled wi th Ameri cans tel li ng former Com mu nists ho wth ey should gove rn .The advi ce was end less. And silly .Som e ns to the em erging co nsti - of the se vis ito rs lit er al ly sol dtra ns lat ed co nstitutio able hal f-baked ideas about how the tu ti on al re pub lic s; the rest ha d innumer came fr om anatio nwh ere ne wnat ion ssh ould be governed. The se Americans co nst itu ti onal ism seemed to wo rk, yet they ha d no clu e why. The Cen ter ’s mi ssi on, how ev er, was no t to advis e. We knew too littl e to an d how gu id e.Our aim was to wa tch and gather data about the tr ansitions they prog re ssed .We want ed to unde rstand th e change, not direc t it. What we sa w wa s st ri ki ng , if underst anda ble . Those fir st mom ents afte r co mmu ni sm’s coll ap sewere filled with an tig overn ment al passion —a sur ge of an ger direct ed agains t the stat e and agains t state regu lation. Lea ve us alon e, th e peop le seemed to say. Let the market and nongovernme nta l org aniza - take gover nme nt’s place. After gener at ions of com - tio ns —a new society— mu nism, th is reac tion was compl et el y unde rstan dabl e. Governm en t was the 1

17 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 2 2 CODE 2.0 oppr es sor. Wha t co mpromise coul d there be with the ins trum ent of your re pr ess io n? Ace rtai nkind of liberta rianism see med toma ny to su ppo rt much inth is re actio n. If the mar ket were to reign ,an dthe gove rnme nt were kept ou tof th e wa y, fre edom and pro sper it y wou ld ine vitably grow. Things wo uld ta ke care es .The re was no need ,and cou ld be no plac e, for exte ns iv e re gu - of themselv lat ion by the state . But thi ng sdidn’t ta keca re of th em sel ves .Markets di dn’ tflo uri sh.Gove rn - me nts we re crippl ed , and cri ppl ed gov ernments are no el ixir of freed om. it shif ted from the state to maf iosi, the mselv es oft en Power didn ’t disa ppear— cre ated by the sta te. The need for tr ad it ional state fu ncti ons— police ,cour ts, sch ool s, hea lth ca re—did n’ tgo away, and priva te inter es ts didn’ teme rgeto fill that ne ed .Instea d, the needs wer esimply un met. Securi ty evaporat ed. Amo d- ern if pl od din gan arch yrep la ce dthe blan dcommun ism of the previous thre e s for Nike; pens ion ers we re ge nera tions: ne on ligh ts fla sh ed adv ert isement swin dl ed out of thei rlife sa vings by fraudu len tsto ck dea ls; ban kers were mu r- dered in bro ad dayl ig ht on Mo scow st re ets .One syste m of contr ol had bee n re placed by anothe r. Nei ther was wh at Wester n libertarians wou ld ca ll “fr ee - do m. ” {T XB2} Abou t a dec ade ag o, in the mid -1 990s, ju st about the time whe n th is pos t- ni st eu pho ria was be ginni ng to wane, ther e em erged in the Wes t commu prom ised an othe r“ne w so ci et y,” to man y ju st as exciting as the new societies in post -commu nist Eu rope .Th is was the In te rne t, or as I’ll def ine a bit late r, “cybe rs pa ce.” Fi rs t in unive rs it ie s and cen te rs of res earch, and then throu gh - out soci et y in gener al ,cybersp ace bec ame a new targe t for libe rtaria n uto pi - freed om fro m the state wo ul d reign. If not in Mos cow or Tblis i, Here an ism. then in cybe rsp ac e wo uld we find the ideal libertarian societ y. The cata lys t for thi s change was lik ewi se unp lanne d. Bor n in a res ear ch 1 cy be rs pa ce to oar ose fro mth eunpl ann ed pr oject in th eDefe ns eDepar tme nt , dis pl ace me nt of a certai n archi tec tu re of control .Th e tolled ,sing le -pu rpose net wo rk of tel epho ne s wa s disp la ced by th e un tol led and mu ltipu rpos e net - wo rkof pack et-swi tc hed da ta .And thus the ol don e-to -many ar ch itec tu res of radi o, newsp apers , books ) we re comple mente d by a pub li shin g (television, apublishe worl dinwhich anyon eco uld become r. People could com munic at e an d ass oci ate in wa ys tha t they ha d neve r do ne befo re. The sp ace se em ed to prom ise akind of soci ety that re al spac ewould never al low—freedom with ou t with out power .In the wor ds an ar chy, con trol withou tgove rn men t, consensus of aman if esto that defined this idea l: “We re je ct: kings, pr eside nt sand vot ing. 2 We belie ve in: rou gh conse ns us and ru nnin g code.”

18 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 3 3 cod e is law about fre edo m in As in pos t-Communis these fi rs t thoughts t Europe, to the di sappe aranc eof th estate. As Joh nParry Bar - cy ber spac etied freedom low , fo rmer lyr ic ist for the Gra te fu l Dea d and co- founde r of the El ec tron ic Fron tier Foun dat ion, dec la red in hi s“De clara ti on of In dependen ce for Cyber - spa ce, ” Gov ern men ts of the In du st rial Wo rld ,you wear ygian tsof fles han dste el ,Icome from Cy bers pac e,the new ho me of Mind. On be half of th e fu tur e,I ask you of the past to le ave us alone .You are no t welc ome amo ng us .Yo u ha ve no so ver - ei gn ty where we gath er. But her ethe bon dbe twee nfr ee dom and th eabsen ce of thestat ewas sa id to be even stro nge r than in po st-C ommu nis t Eu rope. The claim for cybe r- would not re gu late cyber space —it was spa ce was not just that government co ul d not that gov er nment reg ulat e cy be rsp ace. Cybe rspa ce was , by natu re, un av oid ably free . Go ver nment s co ul d threat en, but behavior cou ld not be co nt rol led ;laws could be passed ,but they would have no real ef fect. The re wa s could reign. no choi ce abo ut wh at ki nd of governm ent to ins tall—none Cyber spa ce would beasoc iet yof avery di ff erent sort. There wo uld be defi ni - tio n an d direc ti on, bu t bui lt fr om the bottom-u p. The so ciety of this spa ce wou ld be a fu ll y self -or derin g enti ty, clean sed of go vern ors and fre e fr om po lit ical hacks. I tau gh t in Cent ra l Eu rope du ri ng the summ er s of the earl y 1990 s; I wit - in attitu des abou tcom munism ne ss ed thr oug hmy st ud ent sthe tran sformation th at Ides cribe dabove. And soIfel tabit ofdéjà vu whe n, in the spring of 1995, thes ever ysame pos t- wh il eteac hing thelawofcybe rs pace, Isawin my students com munist thou ghts about fr eed om andgovernment .Even at Ya le— not kn own fo r li ber ta ria n pas sio ns—t he stud ents se emed dru nk wit h what Jame s Boyl e 3 no gov ern ment coul dsu rvive with ou t woul dlat er call the “lib er tari an got cha ”: th e Int erne t’s ri che s, ye t no gov ern men t could co ntrol the li fe tha t went on there .Rea l-spac egov ern ment swo ul dbecome as patheti cas the last Commu nis t ,jol ted out of reg ime s: Itwas the wit hering of th est at ethat Marx ha dpromised exi st enc ebytrillio ns of gig ab yt es fla shi ng acro ss the ether of cybe rspa ce. why . But wha t wa s nev er ma de cl ea r in the mids t of this cele bra tion was le of re gula tio n? What made it so ? Th e wo rd Wh y wa s cybe rsp ace incapab anov el itse lf sugg ests no tfre edom but contr ol .Its et ymol ogy re ache sbeyond Neur om an cer, by Wil li am Gib son ( pu bl is hed in 1984 )to the wor ld of “cy be r- 4 net ics, ” the st ud y of contr ol at a di stance throu gh devices. So it was do ubly to see th is ce lebr at io n of “p erfec t free dom” und er a ba nner tha t puzzling as pi res (to an yone who knows the ori gi n, at leas t) to pe rfect contr ol.

19 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 4 4 CODE 2.0 As I said ,I am a consti tuti onal is t. I teac h and write about cons titutional and cybersp ac ewere la w. Ibel ie ve tha tthe sefirs tth oug ht sabout go vernment ju st as mi sg ui ded as the first tho ughts abo ut gove rn me nt after com mu nis m. Li bert y in cybe rspac e will not come from th e ab sence of the stat e. Lib erty there ,as anywhe re ,wi llco me from astateof acerta in kin d. We build aworl d from socie ty any self-con scious whe refreedo mcan fl our is hno tby removing co ntr ol, but by se tti ng it in a pl ace where a particu lar kind of self -cons ciou s did, by se ttin gsoc ie ty up on cont rol surviv es .Webui ld li be rty asourfounders . co nstit uti on a ce rt ain But by “c onst it ut ion” Idon’ tmean ale gal te xt.Unlike mycou nt rym en in Ea stern Euro pe in theea rly 19 90s ,Iam no ttry ing to se ll adocum ent tha tour fr amer s wr ote in 17 87. Rath er, as the Briti sh unde rstand wh en they spe ak of th eir “co nsti tut ion ,” Ime an an archi tec tu re —not just aleg al text but awa yof life —t hat stru ct ures and const rai ns soc ial and legal po we r, to the end of pr o- te cti ng fu nd amen tal values. (One studen taske d, “co nstitut ion ”in the se ns eof “j us ton etool among man y,one simp le fl ashl ight that kee ps us fro mfumbling se th at wecons ta ntly ca ll in the dark, or, al ter nat ively ...more lik ealighthou fun- upo n?” Ime an co nsti tuti on as inlighthous e—a guide that hel ps anchor damen tal value s.) Con st it ut io ns inth is se nse are bu ilt,they ar enot found .Fou nda tion sget lai d, they don ’t mag ic al ly appe ar. Just as the founde rs of ou r na tion le ar ned fro mthe ana rc hy that fo ll owed the revolution (reme mber: ou rfirstcon stitu - tio n, the Ar ti cles of Confeder ati on, was a mise rabl e failure of do-nothing - ne ss ), so too are we beg inni ng to und erstand abou t cybe rs pa ce that this bu ild ing, or laying, is not the wor kof an inv isible hand. There is noreaso nto bel ie ve th at the fo un dat io n for li ber ty in cyberspace will sim pl y eme rg e. In deed ,the pass ion for th at anarc hy —as in America bythe late 178 0s,and as in the fo rm er Ea ste rn bl oc by the lat e1990s— ha sfad ed. Thus, asou rframers learn ed ,and as the Ru ssi ans saw ,we ha ve every reaso n to belie ve that cybe r- spa ce, le ft to its elf ,wil lnot fulfil lthe promise of fr eedo m. Lef ttoitself, cy be r- spa ce wi ll bec ome a perfec t too l of cont rol . Contro l. Not nece ssari ly contro l by gove rnme nt, and not ne ces sari ly contr ol to som e evi l, fa scis t end. But the argu men t of this bo ok is that the inv is ible han d of cybe rs pa ce is building an arc hit ecture tha t is quite the opposite of its archit ectur e at its bi rth. Th is invisibl e han d, pushe d by gov - er nmen t an d by com merc e, is con str uct ing an ar chitectur e tha t will per fect t re gulation possible. Th e strug gle in th at contr ol and make highl y efficien wo rld will not be gove rnme nt’ s. It will be to as sure tha tess enti al li be rties are pre served in th is envir onm ent of perf ect control. As Si va Va idh yana th an pu ts it,

20 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 5 5 cod e is law Whi le on ce itseemed ob vio us and easy to declare the ri seof a”ne tw ork soci et y” inwhic hindivi dual swould realign themsel ve s, emp owe rthems elve s, an dun de r- mi netr ad iti onal metho ds of socia land cu ltura lcontro l,itse ems clea rthat net - 5 wor ke d di gita l comm unicat io n nee d not serve suc h liber ating ends. This boo k is about the chang e from a cybe rspa ce of an arch y to a cy be r- spa ce of con tr ol. Whe nwe see the path that cybe rspace isonnow —an ev olu - tio n I desc ri be belo w in Par t I—w e see that mu ch of the “l ibe rty” pres ent at cybe rsp ace ’s fou ndi ngwi ll be re moved in its futu re. Valu es origina lly cons id - ered fundame ntal wil l no t survi ve. On the path we have chose n, we wil l will make ma ny of us re make wha t cyb erspa ce was. Some of that remaking hap py. But some of that re ma king ,I ar gue, we should all re gre t. Ye t whe ther you celebra te or re gret the change s tha t I will describe , it is cri tic al to unde rsta nd how th ey ha ppen. Wha t pro duced the “l iber ty” of that lib erty? That le ss on will the n cy be rs pace, and wh at will change toremake su gge st a seco nd abou t the so urc e of reg ul ation in cy be rsp ace. Th at un de rs tan di ng is th e ai m of Part II. Cybe rs pa ce de mands a ne w un derst anding of ho w regu lat io n wor ks. It compel s us to lo ok beyond the tradi ti onal law yer ’s scope— be yon dlaws, or even no rms. Itrequ ir es abroader the recogn itio n of a newly acc oun t of “reg ula tion,” an d mos t impo rtantly, sa lie nt reg ul ato r. Th at regu lat or is the ob sc ur ity in th is book’ stitl e—C ode .Inreal space ,we recogni ze ho wlaws regula te— th rough constitu tions, st atu tes, andot he rle gal co des .In cy bersp ace we mu st understand ho w a diffe re nt “code ”regulate s— ce) tha t make how the software an d hardw are (i .e ., the “code” of cyberspa cybe rsp ace wha t it is also re gu lat e cyberspace as it is. As Willia m Mi tchell 6 “L ex In for mat ica, ”as Joe l Rei de nbe rg put s it, thi s code is cybersp ac e’s “la w.” 7 or be tte r, “code is law .” fir st put it , La wye rs and lega l theori sts ge t bo thered, how ev er, whe n I ech o this slo - gan. The re are di ff erenc es, the yinsi st, bet ween the regul atory ef fects produc ed by cod e and th e regul ato ry ef fects pro duced by law ,not the le as t of which is ive” that run s with ea ch kind of re gu - the diffe rence in the “int ernal perspect la tion .We unders tan dthe internal exa m- pers pecti ve of legal regu lation—for ple , that the rest ric ti ons the law mi ght impos e on a comp any’ s fr ee dom to pol lu te are a produc t of self- con sci ous regul ation, refl ecting va lues of the is harde rto recogniz ewith th at re gu lation. That pe rspective soc ie tyimposing co de .It co uld be there, but it ne ed not. And no dou bt this is just on eof man y im port an t di ffe re nce s be tween “code” and “law .” Idon’t deny th es ediff eren ces .Ionly as se rt th at we learn so meth ing use ful fro m ign ori ng the m for a bit. Justi ce Holmes famou sly focuse d th e re gu la tor

21 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 6 6 CODE 2.0 8 He offe re d a th eory of re gulat ion th at ass umed that “ba d on the “bad man.” man ”at its core. His poi nt was not that eve ryone was a“bad ma n”;the point ins tea d was abo ut how we co ul d be st constr uct systems of reg ula tion. if wethink about the My poi nt isthe sa me. Isu gg est we le arn something “bo t man” theory of reg ulat io n—o ne focus ed on the re gulation of co de. We the ta rget of in other words, if we imagine wil l le arn some th ing important, re gul ati on asama ximi zi ng ent it y, and con sider the ran ge of tools the regula - tor has to contr ol th at mac hi ne . Co dewi llbeacent ral too linthi sanalys is. It will pr esent the gr ea testthre at to both liberal and libe rtarian ideals, as well as their greatest promis e. We ca n cy bers pace to protect valu es th at we be liev eare fun - co de bui ld, orar chi tect ,or to al low thos eva l- damental .Or we can build ,orarc hite ct, or co de cyberspace ues to dis ap pe ar. Th ere is no midd le ground. There is no choic eth at do esnot incl ude som e kind of building. Code is neve r fou nd ;it is onl y ever ma de,and onl yeve rma de byus. AsMark Ste fik puts it, “D iffe rent ve rs ions of[cyb er sp ace] 9 Or aga in ,cod e su pport dif fer en t kind s of dreams. We choos e, wisel y or not.” “de ter mines wh ic h pe ople can ac cess whi ch digi ta l obje cts ...How suc h pro - 10 gra mm ing re gulate s human int era ctio ns ...depends on the ch oice s made .” Or ,more prec is ely, acode of cyber space, defining th efreedoms and cont rols of cyb erspac e, wil l be bu ilt . About th at the re can be no debate. Bu t by whom, and with what va lues? That is th eon lychoice we hav eleft to mak e. fo rm of contro l. The clai m is My argum en t is no t for so me top-down env isions an envi - not that reg ulat ors mustocc upy Mi crosoft. Acons titution ro nmen t; as Ju st ice Hol me s sai d, it“c al l[s ] int o life a being the de velopm ent 11 Thu s, to sp eak of a const itut ion is no t to of whi ch [cannot be] fo reseen.” des cri be a hu ndred -d ay pl an. It is inst ead to ide nti fy the valu es tha t a spa ce sh ou ld gua ra ntee. It isnot to de scr ibe a“gover nment ”; it is not evento sele ct bot tom-u por top- dow nco nt rol . (a sif asi ngle choice mus tbe made) between In speak ing of acon st itut io nin cybe rsp ace we are simpl yasking :Wh at val ues sho ul d be prot ected th ere ? What values should be built into the sp ac e to en cou rage what for ms of li fe ? an dstruct ur al. In The “v al ues” atsta ke here are of tw osort s— sub stantive th eAmer ic an co ns titu tio nal tr adi tio n, wewor ried about th ese co ndfi rs t. The fr amer s of the Const itu ti on of 1787 (ena cted without a Bill of Rig hts) we re fo cus ed on stru ctu res of gov ernment. Their aim was to ensu re that a pa rtic - ular gove rnm en t(th efed era lgove rnmen t) di dnot become to opowe rfu l. An d so they bu il tint oth eConst itutio n’ sdesign che cks on the power of th efeder al go ve rn ment and limi ts on its re ac h over th e states . Op pone nts of tha t Const it ut io n insi st ed that more checks were nee ded , to impo se su bstantive limits on gov er nm ent ’s that the Co nst itu tion needed

22 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 7 7 cod e is law powe r as wel l as stru ct ural li mits. And thu s was the Bil l of Righ ts bor n. Ra ti - fied in 179 1, th e Bil l of Rights pro mised that the federal gove rnme nt would no t rem ove cert ai n freedo ms—o f speec h, priv acy, and due pr oce ss. And it valu es woul d re main gu aran teed that th e commi tme nt to thes e subs tantive des pite the pass ing fanc ie s of normal , or ordinary, The se val - gove rnment. th ro ugh our ue s—bot h substa nt iv e an d struc tura l—wer e th us en trenched constit ution al desig n. They ca nbech anged ,but only thr ou gh acu mber some an d co st ly pro cess . ing cybe rsp ace, but we hav e We fa ce th e same ques ti ons in constitut 12 Al ready we ar e str uggl ing app ro ac hed th em from the opp osi te di rec tion. wi th subs tanc e: Will cybe rsp ac epromis epriv acy oracces s? Wi llit ena ble afre e cult ur eor ape rmi ss ion cult ur e? Wi ll itpreserve aspace for fre espeec h? Th es e are ch oic es of substan tive val ue , an d they are the su bject of much of this bo ok . But st ru ct ure matt ers as well ,th ou gh we ha ve not even be gu n to und er- stand ho wto limit, or reg ul at e, arbitr ary regulatory powe r. Wh at“che cksand bala nce s” are poss ib le inthi ssp ace ?How dowesep arate powe rs?How dowe en sure tha tone reg ul at or, or one gover nme nt, doesn’t beco me too po we rf ul? Ho w do we gu ar antee it is pow erfu l enough? The orist sof cyber spac eha ve been ta lk ing about the se que st io ns si nc eits 13 Bu tasacu lt ure, weare just begi nn in gtoget it. As we slo wly co me to bi rth. ce affect us—ho w its arc hi tec - se e how di fferent str uc tures within cyberspa tur e, in a sens e I wil l define below , “re gulates” us —we slow ly come to ask n of these arc hi- ho w thes e str uc ture s sh ou ld be defined. The first generatio ers an d hacke rs, te ctu re s was bu ilt by a nonco mme rcia l sec to r—research n has been bui lt by fo cus ed upon bu ild in g a netwo rk. The seco nd generatio commerc e. And the third , not yet off th e drawi ng board, co uld well be the pr odu ct of gov ernmen Whi ch regu lators t. Whi ch regu lator do we prefer? sh ou ld be contro lled? How does soc ie ty exerc ise that co ntrol ove r en tit ies that aim to contr ol it? In Part III, I br ing th ese qu es ti ons ba ck down to the gr ou nd. I con sid er three areas of contr ov ersy—i ntell ect ual prope rt y, pr ivacy, an d fre e spee ch— an diden ti fy the va lue swi thin eac hthat cybe rs pa ce will change .Th es eva lu es law an d technol ar e the produ ct of th e int erac ti on between ogy. How tha t inte rac tio npla ys ou tisof te nco unter-i ntuiti ve. My aim in th is pa rt is to map that in te rac tion, so as to map a way tha t we might, using th e to ols of Part II, pre ser ve the va lu es that are important to us within each context. Part IV int er na ti onal ize s the se qu estions . Cybe rs pa ce is ev er ywhe re, mea ni ng thos ewho popu lat ecybersp ac ecome from eve rywhere. How wi ll th e sove rei gn sof ev erywhe re liv ewi th the claimed “s overeignty” of cybe rs pa ce ?I

23 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 8 8 CODE 2.0 map a part ic ul ar res ponse tha t seems to me inev itabl e, and will reinf or ce th e co nclusi on of Par t I. The fin al part, Part V, isthe darke st. The cen tr al lesso nof thisboo kisthat cy be rspa ce requ ires cho ices. Some of these are, and shou ld be, pr iva te : ho w a citize n wan ts to Whe ther an auth or wants to enf orce her co pyright; valu es that are col lectiv e. prote ct his pri vacy .Bu tsome of th ese choi cesinvolve up to the chal le nge I en d by asking wh ether we—me aning Amer icans—are rational ly —mea ning both that thes e choi ce s pre sent. Are we ab le to respond (1 )ar eweab leto re spon dwit hout undu eor irrat ional passion, and (2) dowe to the se cho ice s? in g and res ponding ha ve in st itu ti ons cap abl e of understand My st ro ng sense is th atwe are not,atlea st now, abl eto re sp ond ratio na ll y to thes echal le nge s. We are atastag ein ou rhistory when we urge ntly nee dto make fu ndame nta lch oices about va lu es ,but wesh ould tru st no insti tut ion of to make suc h choic es. Courts cann ot do it, bec ause as a le gal gov er nment co ntes ted matter s of valu es . cu ltur e we don ’t wa nt co urts cho osi ng among Con gres s sh ould not do it bec au se ,as a political culture, we ar e deeply skep - Th ere ismuch to ti cal (and ri gh tly so )ab out theprod uc tof thi sgovernment. be pro ud of in ou r hi story and trad it io ns. But the gove rnme nt we now hav e is a fai lur e. Nothi ng impor tant sho uld be tru sted to its co ntr ol, even thou gh ever yt hi ng imp or ta nt is. Chan ge is poss ib le . I don’t do ubt that revol ut ions rem ain in our fut ur e. int erest s, or specially But Ifear that it is too easy for the go vernment, powered to di slod gethese re volu tio ns ,and tha ttoomuch will beat stake for itto allow nt has al ready crimi nal ized the core real chan ge to suc ceed . Our governme hac ke r of ng th e meaning into som ething ethi c of this mov ement, tra nsformi qu ite ali en to its ori gina l se ns e. Th ro ugh extre mi sm in copyright regulation, it iscr imina liz ing the cor ecr ea tivit ytha tthis network cou ld prod uc e.And this is only the be ginni ng. Thin gs cou ld be di ff erent. They are di ffe re nt els ewhe re. But I don’ t see ho wthey cou ld be diff ere nt fo rus ju st now. This no doubt is sim pl yaco nfes - sion of the li mi ts of my own ima gi nation . I woul d be gr ateful to be pr ov en the citiz ens of the for - wro ng .Iwou ld be grat ef ultowatc h as werelearn—as me rComm unis tre pu bli csare learning —how to es cape these dis abl in gid ea s in th e pa st de cad e, and nc e. But nothing abo ut the poss ibilit ie s for governa espe cia ll yno thi ng in the pas tfiv eyea rs, ha sco nvinced me that my sk ept icism abo ut go verna nc e wa s misp laced . Ind eed, events have only re in forced th at pess imi sm.

24 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 9 T W O p u z z l e s f r o m f o u r c y b e r s p a c e HAS USED THE I .S OME HA VE BEEN E VE RYO NE WHO IS RE ADI NG TH IS BOOK NTERNE T in “cybe rspace.” The Inte rne t is that mediu m throu gh which you r e-m ail is del iv ere d an d we b page s get pu bl ishe d. It’ s what you use to ord er boo ks on at Fandango. Goo gl e is on the Am azo n or to check the times for lo cal movies In ter ne t, asare Micr oso ft “hel ppag es .” But “c ybe rsp ac e” is so me thi ng more .Thoug h bu ilt on to p of the In terne t, cyb er sp ace is ari cher experi enc e. Cybersp ace is some th ing you ge tpul led“into,” per haps by the inti macy of instant mess ag e chat or the int ricac y of “massivel y s” for short, or if the game is a role-p layin g (“ MMOG mult ip le onl ine games” Gs” ). So me incyber spac ebeli ev ethey’ re inacomm unit y; ga me ,th en “MMORP som e con fuse th eir liv es wi th th ei r cy be rspace existence. Of cou rse, no sh arp lin ediv ides cybersp ac efro mth eInter ne t. But th ere is an importan tdiffer ence in ex per ien cebetween the two. Tho se who see the Internet si mpl yasakin dofYel - ce speak of. For low-P ag es-o n-s te roi ds wo n’t recog nize what citi zens of cyberspa the m, “cy ber sp ace ”issi mply ob scu re. Som e of this diff erence is gener ati on al. Fo r mo st of us ove r the ag e of 40, the re is no“cyb ers pa ce ,” even if there is an Inte rnet. Mos t of us don’t live a life on lin eth atwoul dqual if yas alife in “cyberspace.” Bu tfor our kids, cy bersp ac eis who spe nd hund red sof hours inc rea sin gly their sec ond life. There are millions amon thin the al tern ative wo rld sof cyberspace—la ter on we wi ll focus onon e 1 of th ese wo rl ds, agam ecall ed “Second Lif e.” Andthu swhi le you may th inkto yo urs elf,thi sal ie nspa ce isnot hing Ineed worry abo ut because it’ sno where I’ ll ever be, ifyou care tounder st and an yt hi ng about the world the nex tgen era tion “c yberspac will in hab it ,you sho ul dspe nd some ti me understanding e.” Tha t is th eaim of tw oof the sto rie sthat follo w. These tw odescr ib ecyb er - spa ce. The other tw o de scri be aspect s of the Internet more gene ral ly. My ai m 9

25 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 10 10 CODE 2.0 thr oug hthes efour very di fferent stori esisto orient by sometimes di sor ienti ng . My hope is that you’ll come to unde rst and fo ur themes that wi ll recu rthrou gh - outthi sboo k. At the end of this cha pter ,Icom ecle an ab out the th emesand pr o- vid eamap. For now, just fo cu son the stories. BO RD ERS It was a ver y or di nar y di sp ute , this argu men t bet ween Mar th a Jon es and her 2 th at peop le have had sinc e the start of It was the sor t of dispute ne ig hbo rs . rst and in g. In ne ig hbor hood s. It didn ’t beg in in anger. It began wi th a misunde Mart ha tho ugh t th is wor ld, mi sun de rs tand ing s like th is are far too common. ab out that assh ewo nde re dwhether she should stay ;the re we re othe rpla ce sshe wou ldme an ab an doni ng what she had built ,bu tfrust rat ion s cou ld go.Leaving likethis were beg inni ng to get to her. Maybe ,she thou ght, it was time tomove on. The ar gu me nt was about borde rs— about whe re her landsto pped. Itsee med ewould have the powers-that-b lik easi mpl eidea, on eyo uwou ld have thought wor ke dout many yea rsbefo re .But here the ywere, her neig hbor Dan kand sh e, st il l fi gh ti ng abo ut bord er s. Or rat her, about something fuzzy at the borders— ab out so met hi ng of Martha ’s that spi ll ed over into the land of oth ers. Thi swas did. the fig ht, and it al lrelat ed to what Martha Mar tha gr ew flow er s.No t just an y flowe rs, bu t flo wers with an od d sort of pow er . The y wer e be autiful flowe rs , and th eir scent ent ranced. But, howe ver bea ut iful, these fl ower s were al so po iso nous. This was Martha’s wei rd idea: to ma ke flo wers of ext rao rdi nary be auty which, if to uc hed, would kill. St ran geno dou bt, bu tno one said that Mart ha wasn’t st range. She was unus ua l, as was this ne ig hbor hood .But sad ly, di sput eslike this were not. The sta rt of the ar gum ent wa spr edict able en ou gh. Ma rt ha’s nei ghbor, Dan k, had ado g. Dank’s dogdi ed. The dog died bec aus eithad eaten apetal fr omone of Ma rth a’s fl owers .A be auti ful pet al ,and now a dead dog. Dank had his ow n ide as ab out the se flow er s, and abo ut this neighbo r, and he ex pre ssed tho se id ea s— per ha ps with abit too much an ge r,or perhaps wit hanger ap pro pri at eto the situa tion. “Th er e is no reaso n to grow dead ly flowe rs, ”Dank yel led ac ross the fen ce. “T her e’s no reas ontoget so ups et abou tafew dead dogs,” Mar tha re plied. “Adog ca nalways bere pla ced. And any way, why have adog that su ffers wh en dyi ng? Get yo urs elf apai n-f ree-d eat hdog ,and mype tals wi ll cause no harm. ” Icame into the arg ume nt at about this time .Iwas walk ingby, in th eway on e wa lks in thi ssp ac e. (A tfi rst Ihad teleport ed to get near, but we need n’t comp li- ca te th est ory wit hjarg on. Let’ sjust say Iwas wa lking .) Isaw the two neig hb ors be com in g inc re as ingly ang ry wi th eac h other. I had heard about the disp ut ed

26 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 11 11 ce fou r puzzle s from cy berspa flo wer s—a bout how thei rpet als carri ed pois on. Itse eme dto me asimp le pro b- howpro bl em slike th is lem to solve, but Igues sit’s si mple on ly if yo uunderstand ar ecrea ted . were ang ry bec ause in asen se th ey were stu ck. Bo th had Da nk andMartha built a life in the neighbor hood; they had invest ed many ho urs the re. Bu t bo th condi tio n: Weal lbuild wer ecom ing tounde rs tand it slimit s. Thi sis acommon ou rlives inpl ac es wi thlimi ts. Wear eall dis app ointe dattimes .Wh at was differ - en tabout Dank an dMartha? On ediff er en ce was th enatur eof th espa ce, or con text, where thei rar gu me nt wa shapp ening. Thi swas no t“re al sp ace” but virt ua lspace. It was part of wh at I multip le onl ine game” was a “massively cal l “cyb erspa ce .” The env ironment sp ac eisqu ite di ffe rent from the spac ewe ca llreal. (“M MOG ”), and MMOG Re alsp ace isth epla cewh ere you are righ tnow :your of fice, your den,maybe and others tha tare byapo ol .It ’s aworld de fined by both law sthat are ma n-made ions is a man-made not .“Li mi ted liabil it y” for corporat law. It mean s th at the liab le for the si ns dir ect ors of acorp orati on (u su ally )cannot be held personally of the co mp any. Limit ed life for hu mans is not ama n-m ad elaw: That we all wi ll die is no tthe resu ltof adeci sio nthat Congress ma de. In real sp ac e, ou rlives are sub jec tto bo th so rt sof law, thou ghin pri nciple we could chang eon esort . But ther eare other sorts of law sin re al spac eas wel l. You bou gh tth is book , Itr ust, oryou borro wed it from someo ne wh odid. Ifyou stole it, youare athi ef, wh et her you are caught or no t.Ou r lang ua ge is a nor m; norms are co llecti vely det erm in ed. As our nor ms have been det ermine d,your “stealing ”mak es you a th ief, an dnotjus tbec aus eyou took it. The re are plenty of ways to take someth ing but notbe thoug ht of as athi ef .If yo ucame acros sadollar blowin gin the wind , tak ingthe money will not ma ke yo uath ief ;indeed, not ta kin gthe mon ey make s (even whe nthe reareso yo uachump. Bu tst ea ling thi sbook fr om the bookstore ma ny left for others )mar ks you as athie f. Soc ial norms make it so, an dwelive life sub je ctto these norms. co llec tively ,if not in di vidual ly.I ca n Som e of the se nor ms can be changed doi ng so wil lmak e ch oose to bu rn mydr aft card, but Icann ot choo se whether me a hero or a tr ai tor. I can re fu se an inv itati on to lunc h, but I cann ot ch oose inreal lif e, but escap ing th e wh et her doing sowil lmake me rud e.Ihave choices con seq ue nces ofth echoic es Ima ke is not one ofth em. Norms in thi ssen se con- st ra in us in ways that are so fami liar as to be all but invis ible. MMOG sp ace is dif feren t.It is, fir st ofall, avi rtu al space —l ikeacar toon on to look three-dimensional. atelevisi on sc reen, someti me srendered But un like a on th escr een in rea l ca rt oon ,MM OG spa ce ena bles you to cont rol the characters ti me. At least , you cont rol yo ur char acter—one among many char acte rs con - tr olle dby many ot he rs in thi sspac e. One builds the world one wil linh abit here.

27 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 12 12 CODE 2.0 As a ch ild , you grew up learni ng the phy sics that governe d the wor ld of Ro ad ;your children Run ner and Wil e E. Coy ote (vi olent but forgiving) wi ll grow up ma ki ng thewo rld of Roa dRu nner and Wile E.Coyote (sti ll vio len t, bu tmayb e not so forgivi ng) . They wil l de fi ne the sp ace and then live ou t th e st ory . Th eir ch oic es wil lmake the laws of that space rea l. spac e is unreal. There is real life in MMO G Th is is not to say that MMOG spa ce, co nst itut ed by how peop le inter act. The “spa ce” desc ri bes wh ere peo ple inter act— much asth eyinte ra ctin real space no doubt, but with so me impor ta nt diffe ren ces. In MMO Gspace the inter acti on is inavi rtual medi um. This int er - acti on is “in ”cyb ers pace .In 1990s te rms, people “j ack” into these virt ual sp ac es, an d they do things ther e. An d “th ey” tur ns out to be many man y peopl e. As figure woul dbe 10mil lion Edw ard Cas tron ov aest imat es, “an ab solut eminimum [bu tmy ]gues sis that itispe rhap s20to 30 mill io n” particip ating in the se virtual 3 The “[t ]y pical user spends 20–30 ho urs per week inside th e fant asy. worl ds. 4 As onees say est im ate s, “ass um ing Pow er users spe nd ev ery avai lable mo me nt.” just aver ag eco nt act time amo ng the se 9.4 mil lion people, subscri bers tovirt ual world scou ld be de voti ng over 213 mi ll io nho urs per week to build their virt ual 5 live s.” The thin gspeop le dothere are hi ghly varie d. Some pla yrole-pl aying ga me s: wor king wi thin aguild of ot her play er sto ad vance in sta tus and po wer toso me ult im ate end . So me si mply get toget her and gab : They appea r (in a fo rm they sele ct, wit hqual it ie sthe ychoo se and bi ogr aphi es they have written )inavi rtu al room andtype mess ag es toeach ot her. Or they walk aro und (ag ain, the ambig u- it y is not a sl ight one) and talk to people .My fri end Ri ck does th is as a cat —a thi s spa ce and talks to ma le ca t, he insis ts. As a mal e cat , Ri ck para des around any on e who’s int eres ted. He ai ms to flush out the cat-lovi ng sort s. The rest ,he re po rt s, hepuni shes. Other sdo muc hmore than ga b. Some ,for exam pl e,hom este ad .Dep endi ng on th e worl d and its law s, cit ize ns are give n or buy plots of undevelop ed lan d, wh ic hth ey then deve lop. Peopl espend ext raord inary amounts oftime bu ildin g a lif e on these pl ot s. (Isn’t it inc red ibl e the way these pe ople waste time? While for firms we don’t ow nan d yo uand Ispen dup to sev en ty ho urs aweek working gand buil d- bu ildi ng fut ure swe’ re no tsur ewe’ll enj oy, these people are designin ing thi ng sand making alife ,even if only avirt ual one. Scandalous !) The ybuild by design ingand then const ruc ting them—have houses— fami ly or fr iend smove in, and pursue hob bi es or rais e pet s. They may grow trees or od d plant s—lik e Ma rth a’s. 6 MMO G spa ce gr ew out of “MUD ”or “M OO ”space . MU Ds an d MOOs The re are noreal are vir tu al wor lds, too ,but they aretex t- based virtual worlds. gra ph ics in aMUD or MOO, just text ,reportin gwhat someo ne say sanddo es.

28 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 13 13 ce fou r puzzle s from cy berspa You can const ruc tobje cts in MOO spa ce andthen have th em dothi ngs .But th e obj ects act onl y throu gh th e medi at ion of text. (Their acti ons ar e gen er al ly qu ite sim ple ,bu t even sim ple can befu nn y. On eyear, in a MUD tha t wa spar t of a cyb erl aw clas s, someo ne built a char acte r name d JPos ner . If you poked JP osn er, he mutter ed, “Po kin g is in ef fi cien t.”Ano ther charact er was FEa st er - and use the word “fa ir,”andFEas t- br ook. Stan din aroom wit hFEa sterbrook erb rook would repeat wha tyou sai d, substitu ting the wo rd “effi ci ent .”“I t’s not fai r”beca me“You mea n, it’s not ef fi cien t.”) Alt ho ugh it was ea sy forpeopl ewho liked texts orwh owrot ewel ltounder - stan dthe att rac tion of thes etex t-bas edreal ities ,it was not so eas yfor the ma ny space lif ts that lim it just abit. It is who did n’ tha ve tha tsame fo ndn ess. MMOG the mov ie versi on ofacyb ers pac enov el. You build things her e, andthey sur vive yo urlea ving. You ca nbu il dahouse ,an dpeopl ewalk ing down the stre et see it. into your house, they se ething sabout You ca nlet them come in, and in coming yo u.The ycan se ehow yo ucon stru ct you rworld. If apartic ular MMOG space per mits it, th ey migh t even se ehow you ’ve cha nged the laws of the realworld. In rea l spa ce, fo r inst ance, people “slip and fall” on we t floors. In the MMOG in yo ur wo rl d, wet fl oor s spa ce you ’ve built, tha t“law” may no t exist. Instead, may mak epe ople “slip an dda nce .” The best ex am pl e of th is spac e today is the extra or di nar y com mun ity of ni ty , the avatars are Se con d Lif e. In it, people cr eate bot h thin gs and commu oftho usan ds ofho urs am az ingly well cr aft ed ,an dtheir own ers spend hundreds bu ildi ng thi ngs inthis space tha toth er ssee, an dsome enjoy. Some make cl oth es or ha ir styles ,some make ma chi nes tha tmake mus ic. Wha tever ob jec torse rvic e Life are creating it. There th epr ogr amm in gla ng ua ge allo ws, cre ato rs in Second are more th an 10 0,00 0re si dent sof Second Li fe at the time of this wr iting .The y occ up yclos eto 2,0 00 se rve rs hou se din dow ntown San Franci sco, and suck 250 ki lowa tts of el ectric it yju st to ru nth ecompute rs—a bo ut the equ ival en tof 160 home s. whe nMa rtha But her ewe ge tbac kto Mart ha andDan k. In the ir exc hange— wh at was bla me d Dank for hav ing a dog that die d with pain— th ey revealed (“Wh y do you remarks mos t am azi ng about that part ic ul ar MMOG. Martha’s hdog ,an dmy have ado gthat suff ers when dyi ng? Get yo urself apai n-free-deat pe tal s wi ll caus e no harm” ) sho ul d have struck you as odd . You may have thou ght ,“H ow weird that someone wou ld th in kth at the faul tlay no tinthepoi - so no us petal sbut in adog that died wi th pa in.” But in this spac e, Da nk did have achoi ce about how hi sdog wo ulddie. Maybe not achoi ce abou twhe th er “po i- so n” would “ki ll” adog ,but achoice abo ut whether the dog woul d“suffe r” when it “d ie d.” He al so had achoi ce about whe the racopy of the dog co uld bemade, so th at if it di ed it cou ld be“re vived .” In MMOG spa ce, these poss ibilit ie sare not

29 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 14 14 CODE 2.0 given by God .Or rat her, if they are def ined by God, then the players sh are the ned by the pow er of Go d. Fo r the pos si bil iti es in MMOG sp ac e are determi cod e—th e soft war e, or ar chit ect ure, that make s the MMOG sp ace what it is. that is “What happen s wh en ” is a state me nt of logi c; it asserts a relati onship over tha tcode. In ma nifest edin code. In re alspac ewe don ’t have much control MMO Gsp ace we do. So , whe n Ma rth a sai d what she said abou t the dog , Da nk mad e wha t se em ed to me anobv ious resp on se. “Wh ydo you rflowers ha ve to sta ypoi so n- ou sonc eth ey leav eyour la nd? Wh ynotmake the pet als po isono uson lywhe n n, for example, they are blown on you rlan d? Wh en they le av eyour la nd—whe on to my la nd —wh ynot mak ethem harmless? ” It was an id ea .But it di dn’t reall yhelp .For Mart ha ma de her liv ing selli ng th ese poison ous pla nt s. Oth er s (ok no t man y, but some) also lik ed the ide a of th isart tied todea th .So it wa sno solut ion to make poi sono us plan ts that we re po is ono usonly on Mar th a’s pro per ty, un less Marth awas also intere sted in col- le cti ng alo tof ver ywei rdpeople onher land. But th e id ea did sugge st anot her .“Oka y, ” sa id Dan k,“wh y not mak e the peta lspois on ous only wh en in th epossessio nof someon ewho has ‘pu rcha se d’ th em? If th ey ar est olen ,or if th ey blow aw ay ,then le tthe pe tals lo sethei rpoi - son .But wh en kept bythe ow ne rof the plant, the petals keep thei rpoi son. Is n’ t th at asol ution tothepr oblem th atbot hof usface? ” The id ea was ingeni ou s. No ton lydid ithe lp Da nk ,it help ed Ma rtha as well. 7 (P eo pl e want reali ty in that virt ual spac e; As the code exist ed, it allow ed thef t. But if Marth acould the re wi ll beti me enou gh for heaven when hea ven comes.) 8 remove d a pl ant’ s pois on , then “the ft” modify the co de sl ig htly so that the ft the pl ant’s val ue. That change would pr otect the profi t in woul d also remove her pla nts as we ll as prot ect Dank ’s dog s. Here was a solut ion that made bo th st sca ll apareto superior move. Andit was ne ig hbor sbet te rof f—w hat economi aso luti on that was as po ssi ble as an yot her. All it requi red was achan geof code. Th inkfor ase con dabout what’ sinvo lved he re. “Theft ”entails (a tminimum ) a change in po ss es si on. But in MMO G sp ace “posse ssio n” is just a rel atio n def in edbythe so ftwa re that de fi nes the spac e. That same code must also de fine th epr ope rtie sth at posse ssio nyie lds. It might, like real space, dis tingu ishbet ween hav in gacak eand eat ing it .Or itmi ght erase that dist inct ion, meanin gyou can spa ce you “e at ”you rca ke, bu tonce it’s “eate n,” it magical ly rea ppears .In MMOG 9 ca nfe ed acrowd with five lo aves and tw ofi shes, and itisn ’t ev en amir acle. So wh y not cra ft th e sa me solut ion to Mart ha and Dan k’s proble m? Why not de fine ow nersh ip to in clu de th e qua li ty of po ison ousn ess, an d pos ses si on wi thout ow nersh ip to be posse ssion wi tho ut poi so n? If the world is de si gn ed th is way, th en it could reso lve the dispu te bet ween Martha and Da nk, not by

30 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 15 15 ce fou r puzzle s from cy berspa maki ng one of them ch an ge his or her behavi or, but by changi ng the laws of natu re to elim ina te th econ flict alt oget he r. We’ re ash or twa yin tothis not so short boo k, though what I’mabo ut tosay may mak eit avery sh or tboo kin deed (for you at least). Thi sbook isall abo ut the que st ion rais edbyth is sim ple story, and ab out any sim pli city in this app ar- en tl y sim pl e answ er. This is no t a book about MMO G space or av at ars . The that wi ll in clu de st ory ab out Mar th a an d Da nk is the fi rst and las t example av ata rs. Bu tit is aboo kabo ut cy ber spac e. My clai misthat both “o nthe In ter- net” and “in cybersp ace ,” we wil l conf ro nt preci se ly the questi on s tha t Ma rtha and Dan kfaced, as we ll asth eque sti ons tha ttheir sol ution raised .Both “on th e Int er net ”and “in cyber spa ce ,” tec hn ol ogy con sti tut es the envi ron me nt of the spa ce, and it will give us a muc h wider range of cont rol over how intera ctio ns wor kin th atspace tha nin rea lspace .Pro blems ca nbe progra mme dor “co ded” aw ay. And whi le the experi enc e wi th int o th e st or y, and they ca n be “coded” ga mers so far is th at they don’t wa ntvir tu al worlds todeviat etoo far from the po in t for no w is tha t there is the capaci ty to mak e th ese rea l, the important worl ds diff eren t. It is thi sca pa city th atra ises the qu estio nthat isatthe core of th is bo ok: Wha t does it mea n to liv e in a world whe re proble ms can be code d awa y? And wh en, in that wo rl d, shoul d we co de probl ems aw ay, ra ther th an lea rn to work th em ou t, or pun ish th ose who cause them? It is not MMO Gsp ace that mak es these que stions int er est ing probl em sfo r law ; the ver y sa me pr oblem s will ari se outsi de of MMOG spac e, and out sid e MUDs and MOOs. Th eproblem sof th ese spaces are pro blems of the Int ern et in gen era l.And as mor eof our lif ebec omes wired (a nd weir d), in these nsethat more of our life move sonl in e, th ese que sti on swi ll beco me mo re pr essi ng. in this bus ine ss to know tha tIca n’t con vince you But Ihave lea rn ed enough of this with an arg umen t.(I ’vespen tthe last 12 years talki ng about thi ssubje ct ; at lea st I kn ow wha t doe sn’t work. ) If you see the poin t, good for you. If you don’ t, I must show yo u. So my met hod for readers of the seco nd sort mus t be more ind irect. Proof, for th em , will come in a stri ng of sto ries, whi ch ai m to of this chapt er. int rod ucean ddiso rien t. Th at, ag ai n, is the purpose Let me describe afe wot her place sand the oddi ti es that inhab itthe m. GOVERN OR S A sta te—c all it “Bo ral” —doe sn’t lik e its citi zen s gambli ng, even if many of its citi ze ns do like gambli ng. Bu tthe state isthe bo ss; the peo ple have vot ed; thelaw is as it is. Ga mblin gin the sta te of Bora lis ill egal . Then alo ng co mes the Int ernet. Wi th the Ne tstrea ming into their hom es thro ugh ph on es or cabl e li nes, some citizens of Boral de cid e that Int ernet

31 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 16 16 CODE 2.0 gamb lin gis the ne xt “ki ll er app.” Aci ti ze nof Bor al sets upa“se rv er”(a com - acces s to online ga m- puter that is acce ssibl e on the Int erne t) that provides blin g. The stat e do esn ’t lik e it. It tell s this citizen ,“Shut dow n you r serv er or we wil l loc k you up.” Wi se ,if eva sive, th egam bli ng Bora li an agr ee sto shut hi sserv er down —a t lea st in the sta te of Bor al.But hedoe sn’t choo se toleave the gambli ng busi ness. Inst ea d, he re nts spac e on a serve r in an “off sho re haven. ” This offs hore we b on the Netan dac ces - se rver hums away, on ce agai nmaki ng gam bling available po int:Gi ven si ble toth epe op le of Bora lvi ath eInt ern et .Here’s the important th e arch ite cture of the In tern et (a t lea st as it was ci rca 1999), it doe sn’ t re all y depe nd on geog rap hy. matt er wher e in rea l spa ce the serv er is. Access doesn’t Nor, dep end ing on how clev er the gambl ing so rt s are, does acc ess requ ir e tha t th e user kn ow any thin g abo ut wh o own s, or ru ns, the re al serv er. The use r’s ac cesscan be passed through anony mizin gsites tha tma ke it pra ctica ll yimp os - and wi th who m. wher e wen ton si ble in th een dto kno w wh at The Bor al atto rney general thu s now fa ce s a diff icu lt pro ble m. She may ha ve mov ed the serv er out of he r stat e, but she hasn’t su cceeded in re du cin g Bora li an ga mbl ing .Befor ethe Net ,she would have had agroup of people she eru nning ga mb li ng sites, and those who give thos eplac es co ul dpunis h—thos cu st om. Now, the Net has ma de them pote ntially free from pu nis hm ent—a t the least beca us e it is mo re dif ficult to kno w who is running the se rver or who is gambl ing. Th e wo rl d for this atto rney ge ner al has change d. By going into a wo rld wh ere this behav ior is no longer onl ine, th e gam bl er s moved . reg ulable By “re gula bl e” I mea n sim ply that a cer ta in beha vi or is ca pable of re gul a- ti on. The term iscom par ative ,no tab solut e—in some plac e, at some time, ace r- tain beh av io rwil lbemo re re gu lab leth anat anothe rplace and in anothe rtime . My claim abou t Bor al is sim pl y th at th e Net ma kes gam bling le ss re gulab le th ere tha nit wa sbe for ethe Net .Or atle ast ,inasen se that wi ll becom eclear er as th e st ory con tinues, wit h th e arch itecture of the Net as it ori ginall y was ,li fe on the Net is less re gu labl etha nlife of f the Net . ITI ES JA KE’S COMMUN If yo uha dme tJa ke at apart yin Ann Arbor (we re Jake at aparty in Ann Ar bo r), 10 you woul d hav e for go tt en hi m. If you didn’t fo rget hi m, you mi ght ha ve th oug ht, here’ s an othe r quiet, dweeby Universi ty of Mi chi gan un de rg ra dua te, te rr ified of the worl d, or ,at lea st ,of th epeople inthe world. Yo u would n’t hav e figur ed Jake for an au th or—i nde ed, qu it e a fam ous sh ort- st ory author ,at le ast wi th in hi s ci rc les. In fact ,Jake is no t ju st a fam ous

32 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 17 17 ce fou r puzzle s from cy berspa author ,hewa sal so acha ra cter inhis own st ori es. But who he was in hi sstori es was quite differ ent from wh o he wa s in“re al” life—i f, that is, aft er rea di ng hi s st or ie s you stil l th ough t this di stin cti on bet ween “re al life” and “n ot real li fe ” mad emuch sen se. Ja ke wr otesto ries ab ou tviole nce—a bout sex as wel l, bu tma inly abo utvio - lenc e. The yse ethed wit hha tred, esp eci ally of wo men .It wasn’t enou gh to ra pe awo man ,sh ehad tobe kille d. An dit wasn ’t eno ugh th atsh ewas kil led, she had to be kill ed in a pa rti cu la rly pai nfu l and tort ured way. Thi s is, howe ver unf or - tu na te ,agen re of wri ti ng .Jak ewas amaster of this genre . In re al sp ace Jake had qu it e succ ess ful ly hid de n this pr ope ns ity . He was ble, harmles s. Ye thoweve r on eof amilli on boys:un rem arka ble, in distinguisha inof fens ive in re al sp ac e, the harmf ulness he pe nned in cybe rspa ce wa s in a group incr easi ngly well kno wn. His stori es were pu blis hed in USENET, cal led al t. sex.st ori es. US EN ET isn ’t itself anetwo rk ,ex cept inthe se ns ethat the per son al ads of a na tiona l ne wsp aper ar e pa rt of a netw ork. Stri ctly speak in g, USEN ET is the pr odu ct ofaproto co l—aset of ru les nam ed the network news tr an sfer pr otoc ol (NNT P)— for exc ha ngi ng me ssa ges in te nd ed for publi c vi ewi ng. The se mes - ups are orga ni zed int o sa ges ar eorg anize din to “n ewsg ro ups, ”and the newsgro ar e qui te techni cal, many are relat ed to hobb ie s, sub ject s. Most of the subjects ups co me wi th pi ct ur es or and some arere la te dtosex .Some me ssa ge snewsgro movies, bu tso me, like Ja ke’s, aresi mply st ori es. Th er ear ethou sa nd sof newsgroup s, each ca rr ying hundr ed sof me ssa gesat any one tim e. Any one wi th acces s to a USEN ET serv er can get ac cess to the mes sages (or at least to th eones his admin ist rator want shim to read), andany - post ed. Im ag in e on ewith acc ess can po st amessa ge or re spo nd to on ealready apu blic bul letin boar don wh ich people post questi on sor co mme nts .Any on e can rea d th e boar d an d ad d hi s or her own thoughts . Now imag ine 15, 000 s, ea ch tie dto the boa rd s, each with hun dr eds of “t hr eads” (st rin gs ofargument nex t). Th at, in any on e plac e, is USE NET. Now imagi ne these 15, 00 0 boa rds , ac ro ss the worl d.Post wi th hu ndr eds of thr eads each ,on mil lions of computers amessa ge in on egr ou p, and it is added tothat grou p’s board ever ywh er e.That, for th eworl d, is USEN ET . Jake , as I said , post ed to a gro up call ed alt.s ex.s tories .“Alt ”in tha t na me re fers to the hi er archy that the grou psits within .Initiall y, th ere were seven pr i- 11 mar y hi erarc hies . “A lt” was cre at ed in rea cti on to th is ini tial se ve n: Gr oup s among pa rti cipa nts in ar ead ded to the se ven thr oug haformal voti ng process ad min istr a- the groups .But groups ar eadd ed to “alt” based sol ely on whether tor s choo se to car ry the m, and , general ly, administrators will ca rry them if they are pop ula r, as lo ng as thei r popu lar ity is not controvers ial.

33 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 18 18 CODE 2.0 Am ong the se gro ups th at are ca rr ied on ly on de man d, alt .sex. st ories isquite po pu lar .As with any writ in gspa ce, if stori es are “good” by the st an dar ds of the are fo llow ed spa ce—if they are sto ries th at users of the sp ace demand—they and their autho rs becom ewell kn own . Jake ’s stuff was ver y valua ble in just thi s sen se. His stori es , abou t ki dn ap - ping ,tor turin g, rapin g,and kill ing women, were as graphic and rep ul sive as an y su ch story co ul d be —wh ich is wh y Jak e was so fa mous am on g li ke- mi nd ed so rts . He wa s a supp lie r to the se peo ple, a cons tant and cons ist en t fix. They nee ded the se account s of inn ocen t wom en being vi olat ed, and Ja ke sup pli ed th em for fre e. One night in Mosc ow, a si xteen-y ear-o ld girl rea d a stor y by Jake . She sh ow ed it to her fa the r, wh o sh owe d it in turn to Richard DuVa l, a Mi chiga n alum . Du Val was shock ed at the story, and ang ry tha t it bore the ta g “u mi ch .edu ”on the stor y’ s he ader .He ca lled his alma mater and co mpla in ed. 12 They took th ecomp la int serio usly . The uni versity cont ac te dthe polic e; th epoli ce con ta ct edJak e—w ithhan d- cu ffs and a jail cell .A slew of doctors exa mined hi m. Some con clu ded that he wa sathre at .The local prosec ut ors agreed with these docto rs, espec ial ly after his Jake an daCan adian com puter was seiz ed ande-m ails we re dis covered between fan who was pla nning tore-e nac tin re al space on eof the sto ries Jake pu bl is hed in cyber sp ace .At lea st, tha t’s what th ee-mails said .Noone could tell for ce rta in wh atthe two men rea lly in ten ded. Jak esai dit was all pu refi cti on,andinde ed, th ere wasno evid ence to prov eot her wise . No net hele ss ,fede ral charge swere bro ught aga inst Ja ke for the tra ns mis sion of a threat . Jake said th at his st ories we re only words, pro tected by the Fir st Amen dme nt to the U. S.Con stit uti on. Amon th and ahalf later, aco ur tagr ee d. 13 an dJa keret urn ed to the spe cia lkind of obsc uri ty Thecha rges wer edro pped , th at had de fined his li fe befor e. I do n’t car e so mu ch just now abo ut whethe r Jak e Ba ke r’s words sho uld hav e been prot ect ed by th e Consti tution . My con cern is Jake Ba ke r hi ms elf , a person no rmed into appa re nt harm le ssness inreal space, but set free incyber - spa ceto beco me the aut ho rof th is viol enc e. Peop le sai dJake wa sbrav e, but he wa sn ’t “bra ve” in rea l spac e. He di dn’t express his hatred in cl asses, amo ng fri en ds, or in the sch ool ne wspa per .He sli thered away to cybers pace ,an d on ly th ere did his de via nc yflou rish . He did th is bec ause of so met hi ng ab ou t hi m an dso met hin gabout cyb er- spa ce. Ja ke was th e sor t wh o wa nte d to spread st ori es of vi ole nc e, at le ast if he gave Jake this pow er .Jake wa s co ulddo so withou tpubli cac cou nt .Cyb erspace in effect an autho rand publi sh er in on e. Hewro te st ori es, and as qui ckl yas he fi nished them he publi shed them—to some thirty mill ion comp ut ers ac ro ss

34 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 19 19 ce fou r puzzle s from cy berspa th e wor ld within a fe w da ys. Hi s po ten tial audi ence was lar ge r than twi ce tha t for the to p fift een best -selli ng novel s com bin ed, and tho ugh he ma de nothi ng fro mhis work, th edem an dfor itwa shig h. Jake had di sco ve red awayto mai n- li ne his depr av ity into th e ve in s of a pu bli c fo r whom this stuff was othe rwi se Hu stler wo uld n’t publi sh the li kes of thi s. ) qu ite diffic ult to fin d. (E ve n Of course, the rewer eot her wa ys Ja ke co uld ha ve pu bli she d. He co uld ha ve ionwould hav e or wo rs e. But no real-w orld publicat Hustl er , offer edhi swork to was potent ia lly mill ion s, giv en Ja ke a comp ara ble audi en ce . Jak e’ s readership str etc hing across coun tryand cont in en t, acro ss cul ture and tast e. Thi s rea ch was made possi ble by th e powe r in the net work : Anyo ne any - allowe dpub li cat ion wher ecould publ is htoeve ryo ne ev er ywh er e. The network respons wit hou t filt erin g, ed it ing, or, per ha ps most importantly, ibil it y. One co uld wr it e wha t one wa nte d, sig n it or not , post it to mach in es across the wo rld, and within ho ur sthe wo rds wou ld be ev erywh ere. The netw ork rem ove d the most impo rtan tcon str aint onspe ech in real sp ace—th esepar ation of pub - lis her from aut hor. Th er eis van ity pub lish ing in real space, but onl ythe rich ca n use it to rea ch a bro ad aud ien ce .For the rest of us, real space aff ords onl y the acc ess th atth epubl ish ers wan tto give us. Thu s cy bers pac e is diffe re nt becaus e of the reach it al low s. But it is also di ffer ent be cause of th e rel ati ve ano nym ity it permi ts. Cyberspac e per mi tte d Ja ke to esca pe the const ra in ts of rea l spa ce. He did n’t “go to” cy be rs pace whe n hewrot ehis stories, inth esen se th athedidn’t “l eave” An nArbo r.But whe nhe was “in” cybe rsp ac e, it allowed him to esc ape the norms of An nArbor. He wa s fr eeof rea l- life con stra int s, of th enorm sand underst andi ng stha thad su cces s- fu lly form ed hi mint oamember of acol leg ecommunity .Maybe hewasn’t per - fect ly at hom e; ma ybe he wasn ’t the happi est .But the world of the Univ ers it yof Mi ch igan hadsuc ce eded inst ee ri nghi maway from the li fe of aps ychopa th— exc ept wh en it gav ehim acce ss to the Ne t. On the Net he was som eon eels e. As the In ter net ha sgr ow n, it ha sprodu ced ma ny mor eop por tun ities for rac te rs that do things in the virtu al worl d that they Jak e- like cha rac te rs—cha wo ul d ne ver do in th e real wo rld. On e of the mos t pop ula r MM OGs is a gam e called “Gra nd Th ef t Aut o.” In this ga me, one pra ctices com mitting crim es .And one of the most troub ling uses of vide och at is the prac tice of vir - recen tly re port ed, tho u- New York Times tual -p ros tituti on bychildr en. As th e sa nd s of chi ld re n spe nd hu ndreds the ms el ve s online. of hou rs pros tituting Si tt ing in the “pri vacy” of their ow n bedroom, us in g the iSigh t ca me ra their girl or boy en ac ts the se xu al paren ts gave them for Chri st mas, a 13-y ear-old behavi or deman ded by the audie nce. The au dience gets their fi x of sexu al baggage this pe rve rs ion . Th e kid gets mo ne y, an d wha tever psychological 14 be havi or crea tes.

35 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 20 20 CODE 2.0 It is imp ossibl y diffic ul t to look ac ross th is ran ge of Jake- li ke chara cters and not th ink tha t, at som e poi nt, the virt ual has crossed over in to somet hi ng re al. Or ,at lea st, the vir tua l has rea l effect s—eit her on tho se who liv e it ,or on 15 Wh en Ja ke was pr osec uted ,ma ny First Ame ndme nt th ose wh olivewi th the m. defen ders ar gue d his wor ds, how ev er vivid, never cro ssed into reali ty. And no dou bt, there is adiffer ence betw ee nwr iting abou trape and raping, ju st as th ere is a di ff eren ce bet wee n an act or enact ing rape and actua lly rapi ng someone. But Itak eittha tal lcon cede ali ne iscro ssed so mewhere as we move ac ro ss thi s ran ge ofJak e-lik ech aracte rs. If aparent was untro ubled bythe vir tual prostit u- ti on of her son in his bed room ,we wou ld no tun derstan dthat tobe pri nc ipled fr ee speec h act ivism , ev en if the onl y“pro stitu ti on” was the son des cri bing in tex thow he was moles ted by th ose in th echat . But my point is not to dr aw lin esbet ween the accept able virtu aldu al- live s and the un accep tabl e. Itisinste ad to re mark that this spa ce enab les more of th is du al ity. An dthough part of thisdu al ity is alw ay s“o nly vi rt ual,” an dsom et im es “onl yword s,” real -sp ace regu la tors (whet her paren ts orgovernme nts )wi ll fee l com pell ed to rea ct. Th e Net en abl es liv es that were previo usly impos sible, or At least some of thos evirtu al lives will ha veeffec ts in co nve nien t, oruncommon. the liv es ofthe pe ople livi ng in the virtu al spa ce, and on non-v irtua llive s—both th elives of those aroun dth em . WORM S THA T SN IF F A“wo rm ”is abit of com pute rcode th at isspit ou ton the Net and wor ksits way int o the sy stem s of vuln era bl e com pute rs. It is not a“vi rus” beca us e it do esn ’t attac hitself to ot her progr amsandin ter fere wit hthei rope rati on. It isju st abi t of extr a cod e th at doe s wh at the code wri ter sa ys. The code co uld be har mless and simp ly sit on som eon e’s mach in e.Or it could be harmfu land co rru pt fi les or do othe rda ma ge that it sau th or commands. Im ag ine a wo rm desi gned to do good (at le ast in the mi nds of som e). fo rapa rtic - Ima gine th at the co dewr it eris the FBI and that the FBI is looking (NSA). Supp ose ular docu men t belon ging to th e Na tio nal Securi ty Agency without th at this docum en tis cla ssi fi ed and ille gal to possess th eprope rcle ar - an ce .Imagin etha tthe worm pr op agate sits el f on the Net, findin gits way on to hard di sk swhere ver itcan. Onc eon acomp uter’ shard disk, it scan sth een tire dis k. If it fin ds the NSAdoc ument, itsen ds ames sage back tothe FBI sa ying as muc h. If it doe sn’ t, it erases itse lf. Finall y, as sume that it can do all this without “i nt erf erin g” wit h the operat io n of the machine. No one woul d kno w it was there ;itwou ld repo rt ba ck nothing ex cept that the NSA docume nt was on the hard disk .

36 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 21 21 ce fou r puzzle s from cy berspa Is th is anunco nsti tutiona lwor m?Th is is ahard ques tion that atfi rst seem s initiated sear ch to have an easy answ er. Th ewor mis enga gin ginago vernment- of citi zen s’ dis ks. There is no reasonab le suspi cion (as the law ordina ri ly re qu ires) th at the disk holds th edocu men tfor whi ch the gov ernm en tissear ch - sear ch of pri vate spa ces by th e gov ern - ing . It is a genera li zed, suspicionless ment. From th est and poi nt of the Const itutio n—th eFou rthAm endm ent in pa r- ntwas wri t- ti cu lar— you don’t get any wor se tha nth at. The Fourt hAmendme te n again st the backg round of just thi s sort of ab us e. Kings Geor ge II and autho rizin g the m to se arc h Ge or ge III wou ld give off ice rs a“gen era l warrant” 16 No su sp ici on was thr ough pri vat e ho mes lo oking fo r evid ence of a cr ime. nee ded befor ethe offi cer ra nsac ked your ho use, but bec ause he ha dawarra nt , yo uwe re not able to su ethe of fi ce rfortr espass. The aim of the Fou rt hAm end - ment was toreq uire at lea st susp ici on, so that the bu rd en of the sear ch fell on a 17 re asona bly chosen cla ss. Bu tisth ewo rm rea llyth esameasthe King’s gen eral sea rc h? On eim por tant that the Frame rs of di ffer enc eis this: Unl ik ethevicti ms of the gen eral searches user never kn ows that hi s ou rConstitu tion wer econ cerne dabo ut, the computer or her disk is be in g se arched by the worm. Wit h the gen eral searc h, the po li ce wer e break in g int o a hous e and rum ma ging throug h private stu ff. Wi th the wor m, it is abit ofcom put er code th at does the break in g, and (I ’veassu med )it can “s ee ” onl y on e thi ng . And per haps more importantly, unl ik e the gener al sea rch, th eworm lea rn slit tle an dle avesnodamage aft er it’s fin ishe d: The code ca n’t rea d priva te lett ers; it doe sn’t br ea k down doors; it doesn’t int erfer e wi th or di na ry lif e. An dthe in noc en thav eno thi ng tofe ar. The worm is sil en tinaway tha tKin gGeorge ’s tro ops we re not.Itsearc hes perf ect ly and invi si bly, dis cove ri ng onl ythe guilty. It doe sno tbur den the inno - cen t;it does not trou ble th eord ina ry cit izen; it ca ptures only what is out si de the pr otection of the law. Th is diffe re nce com pl icate sthe constit utiona lques tion. The worm’s be ha v- ior is lik e a gen era lized sea rch in th at it is a search wi tho ut suspi ci on .But it is unl ike the histo ric al gen era lized sea rch inthat itcreat es nodisru pti on of ordi - nary life an d“disco ve rs” on ly con tra ba nd. In this way , the wor m is li ke a dog with out probable sni ff— wh ic hat least atairp ort sis cons titu tio nally permissible 18 ca use —b ut be tter . Un lik e the dog sn if f, the worm doesn’t eve n let the com - pu ter user kn ow wh en ther eisase arc h(and henc ethe user su ff ers nopar ti cu- lar ized anx iety). al ? Tha t depe nds on your conce pt ion of Is th e wor m, the n, con stitution wh at th e Fourth Amen dm en t pro tects. In one view, the amen dme nt pro tec ts ag ai nst suspic io nless gover nme ntal invasi ons ,whet her those inva sions are bur -

37 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 22 22 CODE 2.0 den so me or not. In a secon d vi ew, the amendment prot ects aga inst inv asi on s th at ar ebu rde ns ome, al lowi ng only those for which there is adeq uate susp ic ion tha t guil t wil l be unc ove re d. The par ad igm ca se that motivat ed the fr am er s do es not distin gui sh betwe en thes e two very differen t typ es of pr otections, be cau se th etec hn olo gy of th eti me wou ldn’t di sti ngui sh either. Youcou ldn ’t— tech nic all y—h av e a perf ectl y bur de nless gene raliz ed sea rch in 1791. So the y didn’ t—tec hn ical ly —e xp re ss a view about wh eth er such a se arc h shoul d be co ns ti tut ion all yproscri bed .It is ins tead we who mu st choose what th eam end - ment is tomean . Let ’s ta ke the ex ampl e one ste p fur ther . Ima gi ne that the worm doe s not sea rch eve ry machin eit en co unters, but instead can beput on a machi neon ly wi thju dicia lauth orizat ion —say ,awarra nt. Now the suspic io nl ess -sear ch par t of theprobl em has be en rem ov ed. But now imagi ne asecon dpar tto thi srule: The gov er nmen t req ui res th at netw ork s be const ructed so that a wor m, wit h ju dic ial authoriz at ion, co ul d be plac ed on an y machine. Ma chi ne s in thi s eady, even though worm swil lbe reg ime, in oth er wor ds ,mus tbemade worm-r dep loyedonl ywith ju dic ia lwa rra nt . th is questi on in Is ther e any cons titu tio nal pro blem wi th thi s? I explore muc h gre ate r de tail in Ch apter 11 , but for now, notice its sal ien t fea ture . In both cases, wearedes cribing are gime th at allo ws the governmen tto col lectdat a abo ut us inahigh ly ef fi cien tmanner —inexpen sively ,that is, for bot hthe go v- er nmen t and the in noc ent. Thi s eff iciency is made po ssible by techno log y, wh ich per mits sea rch es th at befor e wou ld hav e been far too bur de nsom e an d inva siv e. In both case s, th en , the qu est ion co mes to thi s: When the abil ity to pow er to sear ch sea rc h wit hout bur den increase s, doe s the gover nment’s inc re ase as wel l? Or ,mor e dark ly, as Ja mes Boy le put s it :“I s free dom inver se ly For if it is, as rel ated to th e efficien cy of the availa ble means of survei llance?” 19 Boy leputs it, then “w ehavemu ch to fe ar.” Th is qu est ion, of co urse, is no tlimi te dto the gove rnme nt. One of the def in - ing featu res of mo dern life is th e emer genc e of tech nol og ies th at make data Most of what we do—he nce , co ll ect ion and proces sing ext raordi narily efficient. most of wha t we ar e—is recor ded out side our homes. When you ma ke tele - phon e cal ls, data are recor ded ab out whom you call ed , whe n, how long you 20 spo ke, and how fr equ en tly you made such calls. When yo u use your cre di t ca rd s, da ta are rec ord ed ab ou t when ,wh ere, what, and fro m wh om you mad e and po ss ibl ypro - pu rch ase s. When you ta keaflig ht,you riti nerary isrecorded 21 fil edby the go vern men tto determ ine whether you are likel yto be aterro ris t. If yo u dri ve a ca r in Lon don , ca mera s record yo ur li cense plat e to det ermi ne wh eth er you’v epaid th epr oper “co nge stio ntax.” No dou bt Holly woo d’s image of coun ter -t err oris tunit s—where one person sitting beh ind ater minal ins tantly

38 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 23 23 ce fou r puzzle s from cy berspa tr ac ks the life of ano ther—is wr ong. But it need not beterribly wro ng fo rmuch long er .It may not be eas ytoim agin esys te ms that follow an indiv idu al whereve r th at gat her an extraord inary he goe s, but it is ea sy to imag in e technologies amo unt ofdata about ev ery thi ng we doandmake those data acc essib le to those would be sli ght ,and the pa yof f with the pro per aut hori zati on .The intru siveness co uldbe grea t. Bo th priva tean dpubli cmon itori ng in the dig ital age, then ,hav ethe sa me sa li en t fe ature: mon itorin g, or se ar ch in g, can inc reas e witho ut increa sing the bu rden on the indi vidual se arched .Bo th pres ent asimilar question :Howsh oul d we th in kabout this ch ange ?Ho wsh ou ld the pr ote cti on the frame rsgav eus be app li ed toaworl dthe fra mer scou ldn’ teven imag in e? TH EMES Four stori es ,fou rthe me s, eac hawi nd ow into one asp ect ofcy bersp aceth at wi ll be centra l in all that fol lows . My aim in the bala nce of this boo k is to wo rk I thus end thi s cha pt er wi th a th rough th e issues rai sed by th ese fou r themes. ofthe book. ma pof the fo ur ,laid out in the orde rth ey will ap pear in the balance That ord er be gin swit hstor ynum ber two. Regu labi lity to regul at e behav ior wi thin its “Re gu labil ity” is the ca pa ci ty of a government pr op erreac h. Inthe con te xt of the In ternet ,that me ans the abili ty of th ego vern - me nt to regulate the beh avior of (at lea st ) its citizens while on the Ne t. Th e st or yabo ut Boral was th us astor yab ou tregulability, or mor espec ifi ca lly, abo ut th echa ng es inregula bility th at cybe rsp ac ebring s. Before th eInt ernet, it was rel - ativ ely ea sy for the att orn ey gen era l of Boral to co ntr ol co mme rc ia l gam bli ng wi thin her jurisdic tion ; af ter the In tern et, when the servers mo ve d out si de of Bora l,reg ul ation bec ame much mor edi ffi cul t. For the reg ula tor, thi s is ju st a pa rtic ula r in st an ce of a muc h mo re ge ne ral st ory. To re gul ate well ,you need to know (1) who someon e is, (2) whe re they are, and (3) wha tthey ’redoi ng .But bec ause of the way the In ter net wasor ig i- nall yde sign ed (an dmore on thi sbelow) ,there was nosi mp le wa yto kn ow (1 ) wh o someon e is, (2) wher e th ey ar e, and (3) what they ’re do in g. Thu s, as li fe mov edon to (t his versi on of) the In tern et, the regu labi lit yof that lif ede cr eas ed. The ar chi te ct ur e of the space— at lea st as it was—ren dered life in th is space less reg ula bl e. Th eba lan ce of Par tIisabout regu labi lity .Ca nweimagin eamore re gula ble cy bersp ac e? Is this th ecy ber spac ewe are co ming to know?

39 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 24 24 CODE 2.0 Reg ula ti on by Cod e The st ory about Ma rth a and Dan k is a clue to an sweri ng this que st ion abou t re gula bil it y.If in MM OGspa ce we can chan ge the laws of natur e—mak epos - si ble wh at be fore was impo ssible , or make impo ssi ble what be for e was po ssi - bl e—wh ycan ’t wecha nge regula bili ty incyberspac e?Why can’t weima gi nean Int er net or a cy berspac e wher e beh av ior can be cont rol led beca us e co de now en ab les th at con trol? Fo rth is, impor ta ntl y, isjust wha tMM OG spa ce is. MMOG spa ce is“reg - sp ace regu la tio n co mes ulated ,” tho ugh the re gul at io n is spec ial. In MMOG thr ou gh co de . Impo rtant ru les are impos ed, not thro ugh social sanc tio ns , an d no t by the state, but by the very arch itecture of the par ticu lar sp ac e. A a statu te, but thro ugh the code th at gove rns the rule is def ine d, no t through spa ce. Thi s is the seco nd the me of thi s boo k: There is regul atio n of beh av ior on the Inte rn et and in cyber sp ace, but that regulat ion is imposed primar ily thro ug hcod e. The dif fe rence sinthe reg ul ations effec ted through code distin - guis hdi ffe re nt parts ofthe Int ernet and cybers pace. In some pl aces ,lif eis fa ir ly be tween these fr ee; in ot he r pla ce s, it is more cont ro lled. And the dif ference spac es is sim ply adi fference inthe archi tectures of contro l—tha tis ,adiffer enc e in cod e. If we com bine the first two the me s, then ,wecome to ace nt ral argu ment of the book :The regu lab ili ty de sc ribed inthe first theme depend sonthecod e descr ib edin the se cond .So me ar ch ite ctur es of cybe rspa ce are mor ereg ula ble than others; some ar chi tect ure s ena bl e bette r control than othe rs. The re for e, whe the r a part of cyb erspa ce—or the Int erne t ge ner ally—can be regulated tu rn s on the nat ure of its code . Its archite ctu re will aff ect whethe r beha vior 22 is its politics. can be cont rol led .To fol low Mitch Kapo r, its arch itecture res are mo re An d from this a furt her po int foll ows: If some architectu re gul able than ot her s—if some give go vern me nts more control th an oth er s— then gov er nme nts wi ll favor some arc hi tectu res more than othe rs . Favor , in or for gov ernm ents. tu rn , can transla te into ac ti on, either by gover nments, Eit her way ,th earch itectur es th atrend er space less regula ble can th emselv esbe ch an ged to mak eth espac emore re gu lable. (By whom, and why ,is amatte rwe take up late r.) This fac tabou tre gu labil ity isathreat to those who wor ry about gov ern - menta lpower ;it is areal ity for those who dep end upon gover nme nta lpow er . Som edes igns enable govern ment more tha nothers; some desi gns en abl egov - er nmen t diff erently ; some des ig ns sho uld be chos en ove r othe rs , depe nding upo n the value s at st ak e.

40 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 25 25 ce fou r puzzle s from cy berspa Lat ent Ambi gui ty The wo rm tells adi ff eren tstor ystill. Th ou gh it is atechn olo gy fo rse arch ing ,the wor m’s fu nc tion differs from “sea rchi ng” inre al space. In real spa ce, asea rc hcar- it might creat e, th eexpo su re rie sco sts: the burde ns ofthe search, the inse curities 23 The wor m reach. beyond it mig ht ma ke pos sib le to in vasions a legitimate er ases th ose costs: The bur den isgo ne,the search is (p ractic al ly) inv is ib le, and the sear chin gte chnolog yis pro gra mme dto find only what is ille gal. Thi srai ses aqu estion ab ou thow suc hase ar ch sh ou ld, un der the Con sti tu ti on ,beunde r- st oo d. Afa ir vi ew ofth eCon stitut ion ’s prote ctio ns could go in eithe roftw oways . It ma ybetha twese etheworm ’s inv asion as in co nsist ent wi th the di gni tytha t 24 or it may be tha t we see the invas ion th e amen dm ent wa s writ ten to pro tect, of the wor masso uno btru siv easto be reason able. The answ er cou ld be ei ther , wh ich mea ns th at th echa nge rev ea ls wh atIwil lcall “a laten tam bi gu it y”in the or igina lcon stitu tiona lru le .In the orig in al cont ext, the rule was cle ar (n oge n- er al ized sea rc h), but inth ecu rr ent con tex t, the rule depen ds upon whic hval ue the Co nst itu tio nwasme an ttoprote ct. Th equest ion isnow ambi gu ou sbet ween (a tle ast) tw odiffer ent answ ers. Ei th er answ er ispossi ble, depen di ng upon the va lu e, so no wwemu st ch oose on eor the othe r. Yo umay not buy my sto ry about the wor m. You may think itis pure scien ce fict io n. Bu tby the en dof th ebook ,Iwi ll conv in ce yo uthat there are any num - ber of cases in which a si mi la r ambigu ity tro ubles our con sti tut iona l pas t. In ma ny of th em ou r Consti tution yields no answer to the questi on of ho w it sh ou ld be ap pl ied, beca use at le ast two answ ers are possi ble— in li ght of the ch oi ces th at the fr am ers actu ally made an dgiven the techn ologi es of to day . For Am eri cans, this amb igui ty crea tes apro blem .Ifwe lived inan era when co urts fel t entitl ed to select th e va lue tha t prod uce d an answe r that made the mos tsen se in the co nte xt ,there wou ldbe no pr oblem. Latent amb ig uit ies wou ld cou ld have gon e ei the r framers be answe red by choi ce s ma de by ju dges—the this way, but our jud ges ch oose to go wa y. But we don ’t live in su ch an er a, and so we don ’t hav e a way for co urt s to re so lve these am big uit ie s. As a res ul t, we must rely on ot her ins ti tuti on s. My cl ai mis ada rkone :We ha ve no such ins titutio ns. Ifour ways do n’t ch ang e, our con stitution in cyb er spac ewi ll beathi nn er an dthi nn er regi me. Cyber spac e will pre sent us wi th ambi gu it ies over and over ag ain. It will pre ss th is question of how best to goon .We have tool sfro mreal spac ethat wi ll us in one di rec tion or que sti ons by pointing hel p resol ve the int er pretive ano the r, at leas tso me of th etime .Bu tin the end the to ol swill guide us even less th an the ydo in real spa ce an dti me .Wh en the gap betw een thei rgu ida nc eand

41 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 26 26 CODE 2.0 wh atwe do bec omes obv iou s, wewi ll be force dto dosomet hin gwe’re no tver y goo dat do ing —d ecid in gwh atwe wa nt, an dwhat is right. Co mpet in g So ver eig ns Bu tre gula tion bywh om? For theru les ar ediffe re nt in one pla ce ve rsus ano the r. Thi s wa s one imp or tant issue rai sed by Ja ke Ba ker. Ja ke liv ed in Ann Arb or, Mic hig an. His lif ethe re was subjec tto the norms ofAnn Arbor ,and he of that well. The authority app arent ly adap ted to these no rms reas onably spa ce go ver ned Jake, and, as far as an yo ne knew , it app eared to go ve rn him exc lu si vely. But incybe rs pace ,Jak e’ sbeha vi or change d, in pa rtbecau sethe nor ms of the sp ace were di ffe re nt. That cre at ed the pro ble m. For when Jak e“went to” cybe rsp ace ,he did n’ t leave re al spa ce .In particu lar, he neve r le ft Ann Ar bor. he was able to tel epor t Whi le si tting in ador matthe Unive rs it yof Michigan, hi ms el f—i n th e only norma tively significant a dif fe rent worl d se nse—to wh er ethe norm sof civ il it yand dec enc ythat gover ned ou tside hi sdorm roo m did not reig n. Cyber sp ace gave Jak e the chanc e to es cap e Ann Ar bo r nor ms an d to live accord ing to the norms of an other pla ce. It crea ted a com peting these competi ng au tho ri tyfo rJake an dgave hi mthe ch an ce to select between aut ho ri ti es me rel y by swit chi ng his computer on or off. Ag ain ,my point is not that no si mil ar po ss ibilit y exis ts in rea l spa ce—it pla in ly do es .The re isno doubt aJake li vin gin Hac ken sack, New Je rs ey (asu b- urban tow n with su bur ban value s) ,who dr ives every nigh t in to low er Man - hat tan an dli ve sfor afew ho urs ac cord ing to the “rul es” of lo we rManha tta n. Tho se ru les are not the rul es of Hac kensa ck; that life is differ ent. Like Ann Ar bor Jak e, the Hac kensa ck Jake live s under competing au thorit ies . Bu t be tween the li ves of th ese tw oJa ke s, th ere is adiff ere nce in degr eetha tripe ns int o a dif fere nce in ki nd: It is at lea st conc ei vab le that th e Ann Ar bor Ja ke rai se s a more signif ic ant probl em for Ann Ar bor than the Hack ens ack Jak e and th e ef fec t rai se s for Hacke nsack. The di fference s could well be greater, mo re per vas ive . Nor sh oul dwe th ink too narr ow ly about the competing nor ma tive com - mu nit ie sinto whic haJak emi ght move. “Escape” here can be goo dor ba d. It is esca pe whe n a gay tee n in an int ol era nt small town can leave the nor ms of 25 that tow n th roug h a gay ch at room on America On line; it is esca pe when a chi ld pr edato r es cape s the norms of ord in ary society and engag es a child in 26 on lin esex. Bo th esc ape sare enabl ed byth earchi tec tu re of cybe rs pa ce aswe r, are ve ry diffe re nt. I call the now kno w it. Our att it udes abou t ea ch, howeve fir stesca pe libe rati ng and the second cr im inal. There are some who wou ld cal l

42 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 27 27 ce fou r puzzle s from cy berspa both es ca pe s cri minal, and som e who wou ld call bot h li berat ing . But the qu es tion isn ’t abo ut name-c all ing , it’ s about the con sequ ences of liv ing in a wo rld wh ere we ca n oc cup y bo th so rts of sp ace at the same tim e. Whe n 50 peo ple from 25 ju risd ict ions aro und the wo rld sp end 2,0 00 ho urs buil ding a vi rtu al commu ni ty in Seco nd Li fe th at is hou sed on serve rs in San Francis co, what cl aim shou ld real wor ld jur isd ic ti ons have ove r that activ ity? Which of the 25 jur isd ic tions ma tt ers mo st? Whic h sove reign shoul d gov ern? {T XB2} that foll ows. They also ma pth eund er - The sefour th em es fr ame everything in cybe rs pa ce ca n sta ndi ng tha t I wa nt this book to prov ide. Regulation hel p us see somet hi ng im port ant about how all re gulati on wo rks. Th at’ s th e les so n of the fi rst the me, “re gula bility.” It wil l als o int rod uce a regu lato r That ’s the seco nd (“ cod e”) who se signi fic anc ewedon ’t ye tful ly understand. will ren der ambig uous certai n th eme ,“R eg ula tio nby Co de .” Th at reg ulation va lue s th at ar e fund amen tal to our tra dit io n. Thu s,th e th ir d them e,“ lat en t Sta tes, to mak e a amb igu it y.” That am bi gu ity wil l requ ire us, th e United choic e. But th is cho ic e is just on e amo ng many th at many so ver eigns will ha ve to make. In th e end the ha rdest pr oblem will be to reckon the se “com - pe ting so ver eign s,” as they ea ch ac t to mark this sp ace with their own dis - tin cti ve values. I ex pl or e th es e fo ur th emes ag ains t a bac kg rou nd that, as I said at the st ar t,has cha nged signi fi ca ntl ysi nce th efi rst edition of thi sbo ok .Wh enIfi rs t wro tethe boo k, two ide as seem ed to domi nate debat eabout the Net: fi rst, that the go ve rnm ent co uld ne ver regu la te the Ne t, and second, that thi s was a np la ce th at goo dthin g. To day ,attitude sare diffe rent. There is still the commo in spam , com put er gove rnme nt can ’t re gul at e, bu t in a world dr owning vi ru se s, ide nt it y th ef t, copyr ig ht “p ir ac y,” and the sexu al ex ploita tion of chil - .We all love the Net. But if dren , the resolv e aga inst reg ul at ion has weakened so me gov er nment cou ld real ly del iver on the pro mis e to er ase al l th e ba ds of thi s spa ce, mo st of us wou ld gl adly sig n up. Yet while at tit ude s ab out the Net ha ve prog res sed , my own vi ew s ha ve not. I stil l believe the Net can be reg ul ated. I st ill believe tha t the obv ious co nseq uen ce of obvio us infl uen ces will be to radi cally in crease the ab ilit y of that ,in pri nci ple ,thi s is go vern ment s to regu la te th is Net .I also still believe not a bad thing. I am not agai nst regul ati on, pro perly done. I beli ev e regu la - ti on is essent ial to pr eservi ng an d defendi ng cert ai n fund amen tal li ber ti es . that we ar e far from a time when our gov ern me nt in Bu t I al so stil l believe This is both be ca us e of a pa rti cu lar can pr ope rl y reg ulate in this context. gene ral skep tici sm ab ou tgov ernm en t— grounded in adis gust ab out the par - ti cul ar form of cor rupt ion th at defines ho wour government fu nct ions—and

43 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 28 28 CODE 2.0 a particu lar skept ici sm ab out gov ern men t—that it ha s not yet fu lly re cog - nize d ju st ho w regu la tion in the dig it al age work s. No doub tth ispa rt icular mix of view swill cont in ue to puzzle som e.How l abo ut gove rnm en t? But it can I be liev e in reg ul at ion and yet be so skeptica do es n’ ttake mu ch imag ina ti on to unders tan dhow th es eapp arentl yconf lict - ing vi ew scan go toge ther. Itak eitweal lbelieve in the po tential of medicine. But imagi ne your atti tude if you were con fro nted with a“doc tor” ca rry ing a vi alof leech es. Th ere ’s muc hweco uld do in this con text ,orat lea st ,th at ismy wit hth is par - view .But there’ save rygood re ason notto want to do anything ticu lar do ctor.

44 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 29 P A R T O N E a b i l i t y ” “ r e g u l It issaid tha tcyb ersp ac ecan’ tbe reg ulated .But what does itmea nto sa ythat so met hi ng cou ld be reg ula ted ? What make s regul at ion poss ibl e? Tha t’s the que st ion rai sed in this Part. If th eIn te rn et can’ tbe regulated, wh y? And wh at- ever the rea son, ca n it ch ang e? Mi ght an unre gulab le sp ace be tam ed ? Might the Wi ld West be wo n, and how ?

45 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 30

46 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 31 T H R E E i s - i s m : i s t h e i t m u s t b e ? w a y i t i s t h e w a y The rise of an elect ro nic me diu m that disre gar ds ge ogr ap hical bou nd - arie s thr ows the la w int o disa rr ay by cr ea ting en tirely ne w phen ome na that need to beco me the su bj ect of clear leg al ru le s but that can no t be so verei gn. gov ern ed, sa ti sfact orily , by any cu rr ent te rrit oriall y based 1 Da vid Joh nson and Dav id Po st Som e th ings neve r cha nge ab out govern ing the Web . Most pr omin en t is its inn at e ab ility to resist govern an ce in al most any form. 2 Tom Steinert -Thr elk eld F THE REWAS A MEME THAT RU LED TALK AB OUT CYB ER SPA CE I ITWAS THAT CY BE RS PAC E , wa sapla ce that co uld not bere gula ted. That it “cannot be gov ern ed”; th atits be broke n, or that “n atu re ”istore sis treg ulat io n. No ttha tcy be rsp ace cannot shut itdown. Bu tif cy be rspa ce exis ts ,so fir st-ge ne ra tion go ve rn ment cannot thi nk ing go es, go ve rnment’ spower ove rbehav io rthe re is qu ite limited .In its esse nce ,cy bersp ace is a spa ce of no cont rol . Nat ure. Esse nce .Innat e.The way th in gs ar e. Th is kind of rhetor ic should ra ise susp ic ions in an y con tex t. It sh oul d especi ally raise suspi cion here . If there is any place wh ere nat ure ha s no ru le, it is in cybers pac e. If the re is any pla ce that is cons tru ct ed, cybersp ace is it. Yet the rhetor ic of “e ss ence ”hides thi s con st ruc ted ness. It misl eads ou r intu itions in dangerous ways . 31

47 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 32 32 CODE 2.0 Thi s is the fa llac y of “i s-ism ”—the mi sta ke of co nfu sin g how so me - .But a way that cybe rspa ce thing is wit h how it must be .Ther e is certainly is is not how cybe rsp ace has to be. There is no sin gl e way ho w cybe rspace is the nature of the th at the Ne t has to be; no sing le arc hitec tur e that defines that we would call “th e Net” Ne t. Th e possib le arc hit ectu res of something is arch itectures those different ar e man y, and the char act er of lif e within div erse . That most of us comm it th is fal lac y is not sur pri sing. Most of us work. We th erefore ha ven’t a clu e about how ne tworks have no clu e ab ou t ho w the y cou ld be dif fer ent. We as sume that the way we fin d things is the way thi ng s hav e to be. We are not tr ained to think about all th e di fferent wa ys te chno logy cou ld achi eve th e same ends throu gh dif fe re nt me ans . Th at sor t of tra ining is wha t tec hnol ogists get. Most of us ar e not te chn ol - ogists. Bu t und erl yin g eve rything in this bo ok is a sin gle no rmat ive plea: that is pla stic . It can all of us mu st learn at leas t enou gh to see that te chnology be re made to do thin gs diff ere ntly . And tha t if ther e is a mist ake th at we wh o know to o little about tec hnolo gy sh ould make, it is th e mi stake of imag ini ng techno lo gy to be too pla stic, rather tha n not pla sti c enoug h. We sh ou ld ex pe ct —a nd dem and—th at it can be made to reflect an y set of val- be on the tec hn olog ist s to ues th at we think im po rt ant .The bu rde n should show us why tha t de man d ca n’t be me t. Th e part icu lar is-i sm that I be gin with her e is the cla im tha t cybe rspa ce chapte rs argue, th at vi ew is ca n’t be reg ulat ed. As this , an d the following upon it s ar chit ectu re. depends wro ng .Wh eth er cy be rs pace ca n be re gulated Th e or iginal ar chite ctu re of the Int er net made regulatio n ex tremely di ffi - And there is al l th e evidenc e cul t. But that ori gina l arch itect ure can change. tu re tha t I in th e wo rld th at it is cha ng ing. Indeed , un de r th e architec be li eve will emerge, space hu mans cybers pa ce will be th e most regulable ha ve ever known .Th e“na tur e” of th e Net might once ha ve been it s unreg - ula bi li ty; tha t“na ture ”is about to flip . To see the fl ip, you must firs t se e a con tra st betw een two di fferen t cyb er -pla ces .The se tw o cyber -p lac es ar e ideal types, and, indeed ,on e of the re on the Net. Th at fact is confirma tio n tw o ide als no lon ger ex ists anywhe of th e poi nt thi s secti on aims to mak e: that we’re movin g fro m on e In ternet mo re regu la - to anot he r, an d the one we’ re mov ing to will be significantly ble . The fol lowing desc ri pti on s are not tec hn ical ;I don’t offer th em as co m- I offer th em to pl et e de finit ion s of ty pes of ne two rks or ty pes of control. ill us tr ate —to ske tc h enou gh to see a far more ge nera l po int .

48 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 33 33 is-i sm CYB ER -PL ACES: HA RVA RD VERS US CHI CAGO Th eIn ternet was born atuniver siti esin the United State s. Its fir st sub scr iber s we re re se arc hers. But as a form of life , its birth was tied to uni ve rs ity lif e. It sw ept stu de nts onl ine ,pu ll ing th em aw ay from lif ein real sp ace .Th eNet was one of ma ny intoxi cants on co ll eg ecampuses in the mid-1 990s, and its sig nif - colu mnis t J. C. New York Times ica nce only grew thro ug h tim e. As former He rz wrote in her first bo ok abo ut cybe rspa ce: Whe nIloo kup, it ’s fou r-th irt yin th emo rnin g.“Nowa y. ”Ilook from the cl ock to my wa tch .Way. I’ve be en in fro nt of thi s sc reen for six hours, and it see ms li ke no time at all. I’m not even rem ot ely tir ed . Daz ed and thirs ty, but not tire d. In fact, I’m heap of te xtb ook s, ph ot oc opi ed art ic les, hili ghters and eu phor ic.Istuff adisheveled up the con crete steps, past th e notes into my back pack and run li ke a ma dwoman secu rity guar d, and ou tside in to th e preda wn mist ... meets a dry one and st and fo r a sec. . . . [I] st art I stop wh ere a wet walkway th in ki ng abou t thi s thing that buzzes arou nd the ent ire wor ld, thro ug h the phone lin es, all day an d all night lo ng . It’s rig ht under our no ses and it’s in visi ble. It ’s li ke an entire go dd amned worl d. Excep tit doe sn’ tphys - Star Tre k, Na rnia, orMagr itte, or ica ll y exis t.It’s just the coll ectiv eco nsc ious ness of ho wever many peo ple are on it. 3 This rea lly is outst and in gly we ir d. Ye tnot al luniv ersities adopt ed the Net in thesa me way .Orpu tdifferen tly, the acces s uni vers it ies gr anted was not al l the same. The rul es were diff ere nt. of this diff ere nce come s The freed oms all owed were di fferent. One example s could ma ke fro m two places I kn ew qui te wel l, tho ugh many othe r example the same po int. In th emidd le 1990s at the Univ ersit yof Chicag o, if you wante dacces sto the In terne t, you simp ly co nnec ted yo ur ma chine to Ethe rnet jacks loca te d 4 thr ou gho ut th euni ve rsit y. An ymachi ne wi th an Et he rne tcon nec tio ncou ld ,you rmachine ha dfu ll acces sto be pl ug ged into the se jacks. Onc econnected ss, that is, that was co mple te, an ony mou s, and fre e. the In tern et—acce The reas on fo r th is fr eedom wa s a decisi on by an admi nis tra tor —t he then -Pro vost, Geo ffr ey Stone ,a former dean of th e law school and a pr omi - was des igning its net, the tech - nen tfree speec hsc hol ar. When the university be ni ci ans ask ed St one whe ther anonym ous co mmunicat ion should permi tted. Sto ne, citi ng the pri nci pl e that th e rul es regul ating sp ee ch at the uni ver si ty sho uld be as pr ot ecti ve of free spe ech as the First Ame ndm en t, said ye s: Peop le sho uld ha ve th e rig ht to commu nicate at the uni ve rs ity anony - mo usly , be cau se the Fir st Am endm en t to the Con stitution guarantee s the

49 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 34 34 CODE 2.0 same rig htvis-à- vis go ver nme nts. From th at policy decision fl ow ed th ear chi - tec tu re of the Univ ers it y of Chi cago’ s net. At Harv ard,the rule sare dif ferent. If you plug you rmach in ein to an Eth - er ne tjac kat the Ha rvar dLaw Sch oo l, you will not gain access to the Net .Yo u can not co nnec t yo ur mac hi ne to th e Net at Harvard unl ess the machine is , veri fied. Only mem be rs of the unive rs it y re gi st ere d—l ice nsed, approved com mun ity ca nregist er their mac hin es. Once regis tered, all inte rac tions with machine .Tojoin the the net wor kare mo nit ore dand ide ntified to aparticular ne two rk ,users have to “sig n” auser ag re ement. Th eagreement ac kn owl ed ge s is speech on this network thi s per vas ive pr ac ti ce of mo ni tor ing .Anonymous not pe rmi tted —it is agai nst the rul es. Access can be con troll ed bas edon who yo u are ,and int er acti ons can be traced bas ed on wh at you did . Thi s des ign als o ar ose from the deci sion of an admi nist rat or, one less fo cus ed on th e prot ecti ons of the Firs tAmend ment. Control wa s the idea l at . Harvar d chose techno log ies tha t Harv ard; acces s was the ide al at Chicago ies that made ac ces s easy. ma de con tro l pos sib le ;Chi cag o chos e technolog Thes etwo ne tworks di ffer inat le ast twoim por ta nt ways .Fir stan dmos t 5 Tha tdiff erence is byde sig n. ob viousl y, they differ in th evalues they embrac e. At the Un iv ersit y of Chi ca go, First Ame ndmen t valu es deter mine d network des ign ;dif fe re nt valu es det ermi ned Har vard’s des ig n. Bu tth eydiffer in asecon dway aswell. Beca us eac cess iscon tro lle datHar - va rdandid entit yis kn ow n,acti on scan betrac ed back totheir root in th ene t- and iden tity is not known, wo rk .Becau se access is no tcont ro ll ed at Chicago, or be tra ced bac k to their root in th e ne tw ork. Monitoring act ion s cannot tr ac kin g be havio r at Chi ca go is ha rde r than it is at Harvard. Beha vior in the Har vard ne twork is more contr ollabl ethan inthe Unive rsity of Chicago ne t- wo rk . The netwo rks thu s di ffer in th e ext ent to whic h they ma ke beha vior wit hi n each ne twork reg ul ab le .Thi s di ff eren ce is simply a matter of cod e—a di ff erenc e in th e soft wa re an d hardw ar e tha t gra nts users ac ces s. Di ffere nt co de make s dif ferent ly re gu labl e netw orks .Regulability is thu s a fu nction of des ign . Thes e two ne two rks are jus t two po in ts on a spe ct ru m of pos sib le net - work des igns .At one ext re me wemi ght plac ethe Inter net—a ne tw ork de fi ned ie tary and th at re quir e no by a sui te of pro to col s that are open and nonpropr per son al id ent ifi cat ion tobe acc ess ed and us ed .At the other extr eme are tr a- dit ion al clo sed , pr op ri eta ry netw orks, which gran t acces s only to thos e with ar e netwo rks ex pr ess auth oriza tion ; co ntr ol, th er ef ore, is tight . In between sof both. Th ese mixed netwo rks add ala ye rof contr ol to the th at mix element oth erw ise unco nt rol le d Int ernet. They layer eleme nts of control on top.

50 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 35 35 is-i sm 6 — Th us the or igi nal —the re have been so me chan ges in the last years Un iv ers it yof Chic ag onet work wa sclos eto the norm for Int ernet acc ess in the 7 Le t’s call it Ne t95. At the other ex tre me ar e clos ed net - mi dd le of the 19 90s . wo rk s that both preda te the Int ernet and stil l exi st today—for exa mple , the ATM netw or k, wh ich makes it pos sible toge tcash fro myour Cali for ni aba nk A . whil e in Tb li si .And in the middle are Harvard-type ne tw orks — . M at 2:00 ne tworks that add a la yer of control on top of the suite of prot oc ols tha t de fi ne “the Inte rnet .” Thes e pr oto cols are called “TCP/ IP.” I des cri be the m mo re ex tensi vely in Cha pt er 4. But the es sen tial feature of the Harv ard net - wo rk is tha t this suite was su ppl ement ed. You get ac cess to the Inter net onl y af ter yo u’v e pas sed thr oug h this lay er of co ntrol. All thr ee designs are comm unic atio nnetwork stha tar e“li ke” theInt ern et. es rai se an obvi ou s que stio n: When peopl e say that th e Bu t the ir differenc In ter net is“u nre gu labl e,” wh ic h netw ork are th ey describi ng? And if they’re tal kin gab ou tan un reg ul abl enet work, why is it unregulabl e? What feat ures in be diff ere nt? its design make it unreg ulabl e? And co ul d those features Co nsider thr ee aspe cts of Net95 ’s desi gn that make itha rd fo raregu lat or to co ntro lbe hav io rther e. Fr om th eperspective loving user, of an ano nymity- more valu able. the seare “fe at ure s” of Net 95— aspe cts th at make that network ar e“b ug s” —i mpe r- But fr om the persp ec ti ve of the reg ula tor, these features fec ti on sth at li mi tthe data that the Ne tcoll ects, eith er abo ut the use ror about the mater ial he or she is usi ng. The fir st imperf ect ion is infor ma ti on about use rs—w ho the som eone is ca rto on of who is usi ng the Int erne t. In the wo rd s of th e famo us Ne w York er two dog s sitt ing in fr ont of a PC, “O n the In te rne t, nobody know s you’ re a 8 No on e know s, bec au se th e Int er net proto cols don’t requ ire that you dog .” cred en ti al who you are be fore you usethe Inte rnet. Again, the pro to - Inte rnet co l do esn ’t requ ire th at credenti al ; yo ur local acces s point, like the Harv ar d net wo rk, mi ght. But even then, the infor mation that ties the indiv idu al to a cert ai n net work tr ans act io n is hel d by the access prov ide r. It is not a part of you r In te rnet tr ansac ti on. io n” is inf ormat ion about ge ogr ap hy—w her e the The se cond “i mperfect so meon e is who is us ing the Int ernet. As I will des cr ibe more in Cha pte r 4, al th oug htheIn ter net is consti tu ted byaddress es ,tho se ad dres ses were ini tially simp ly logica l ad dress es. The y di dn’ t map to any particu lar location in the ph ys ical wor ld .Th us, when Ireceiv eapacket of data se nt byyou throu gh the Int ernet , it is certai nly pos sib le for me to know the Int er net ad dr es s fro m whi ch you r pack et come s, but I wi ll no t know the physical addr es s. And fi nal ly, the thi rd “impe rf ecti on ”is inf or ma tion about use —w hat is the dat abei ng sent acro ss thi snetw ork; what is its us e? The Inte rne tdo es not

51 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 36 36 CODE 2.0 req ui re any par ti cul ar la beli ng syst em for data being se nt across the Inter net. Agai n,as we’l l see in more detai l bel ow ,there are norms that say som ething, to the norm s. No th- but noru letoassure data gets dis trib ute djustaccording in gpu ts the bits in to aconte xt of meani ng, atlea st not in away that amach in e “P ackets” of data ar e can use. Net9 5had norequ irement th at data be labeled. lab eled ,inthe sens eof havi ng an ad dre ss. But be yond that, the pa ck ets cou ld co nta in anythi ng at all . Thes e three “i mp erfect ions ”tie toge the r: Beca use the re is no sim ple wa y to kno w who som eo ne is, where the y come fr om, an d what they’ re doin g, there is no simp le way to reg ulat ehow peopl ebeh ave on the Net. If you can’ t rules that say “don’ t dis cov er who did wh at an dwh ere, you ca n’ teasily impose do thi s, or at le ast, don’t do it there .” Put differen tly, wh at yo u can’t kno w dete rmi ne s wh at yo u can cont rol . Co ns id eran ex am ple to ma ke th epoin tcle are r. Let’s sa yth esta teof Penn - sylvan iawa nts to bl oc kki ds from porn. Itthu spasses arul etha tsays “N oki d in Pennsyl va nia can get access to porn. ”To enforc eth at rule, Pen nsylvani ahas is a kid, (2 ) where they com e from (i.e ., go t to know (1) wheth er so meone Pen nsy lvania or Maine ),and (3) what they’re look ing at (por nor mar zip an). Net 95 ,howev er, won ’t be of mu ch help to Penns ylvania as it tries to enf or ce thi s ru le . People acce ssi ng content in Penns ylvania us ing Net9 5 ne ed not rev eal any thing abou twho they ar eor whe re they come from, and no thi ng in the des ign of Ne t95 requ ire s si te s to de scribe what conten t they car ry .The se ga ps in da ta ma ke re gulat in ghard. Thus fromthe persp ectiv eof the regulat or, the se are imp erf ec ti ons in th e Net’ s or ig in al design . Bu ttheHa rva rd network sugg es ts that itis atle ast pos sibl efor th e“bugs” of the user in Ne t95 to be eli mi nat ed. The Net co ul d know the credentials (id entit yan dlo cat ion )an dthe na tur eof th edata bei ng sent .That knowl edg e it s fu nc tiona lit y. The co uld be la yered onto the Int ernet without destroying ch oi ce , in oth er word s, is no t betw een the Inter net and no Int ernet, or be tween the Inter net and a clo sed pr opr ie tary network . Harva rd sugge sts a on top of the Net to mi dd le way. Arch ite ct ures of cont rol co ul d be layered “c orre ct ”oreliminate cou ld, in oth er “imp erfect ions .” An dthe se ar ch itectures 9 wo rds ,fac ilita te contr ol . That is the fi rs t, very small , cl ai m of this ear ly chap te r in a st ory about em ergi ng contr ol: Arc hi tec tu re s of cont rol are possibl e; they cou ld be adde d to th eInt ern et that we alr ea dyknow .If the ywer eadded, tha twould ra dical ly chan ge the char ac ter of the netw ork. Whether thes e arch itectu re s shou ld be add ed depend s up on what we wa nt to use th e netw ork for. I sa y this is a smal l clai m bec au se , whil e it is im po rtant, it is the sort of poi ntthat one recogni zes as obvi ou seven if one didn’t see it origina lly .Mor e

52 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 37 37 is-i sm than obv iou s, the poi nt sho ul d be pedestrian. We see it in lots of conte xts . of the po st off ice. Whe nIwas gr owing up, th ePost Offic e Thi nk, for example, was a hav en fo r anonymo us spee ch. The job of th e Post Office was sim pl y to deli ve r pa cka ges. Lik e Net95, it di dn’t wor ry about wh o a piece of mail was fro m, or wha twas inthe envel ope orpa cka ge. There was no enfo rc ed req ui re - me nt that you re gis ter before you sen daletter. There was noenfo rcedrequir e- me nt th at the le tte rhave are tu rn add res sorthat the return addre ss be cor rec t. If you we re car ef ul to av oi d fin ger pr ints, you cou ld use th is go vern men t- su bsi diz ed facil it y to send perf ec tly ano nymous mess ages. Obvio usl y, the Pos t Offic e could be arc hit ecte d differentl y. The ser vice co uld req uire, for ex ampl e,a ret urn ad dress .It coul d requ ire that yo u ve rify that the ret ur nad dre ss was co rrect (f or ex amp le, bychecking you rID befo re it ac cep ted a package ). It co uld even requ ire insp ection be fo re it shipp ed a part icu lar package or envel ope. All of these chang es in the pro ce dur es for the ed and po st wo ul d produ ce a wor ld in whi ch mail was more easily monitor tr ac ked. The gov ern me nt makes tha tcho ice when itde si gn sthe Post Offi ce as it do es. If mo nitor in g becomes import ant, the gover nment can change the sy ste m to facili tate it .If not, they can leave the postal system as it (la rge ly) is. But if it do es ch ange th e sy ste m to mak e monit oring more simpl e, tha t will in valu es that infor m the design of that network. ref lec t changes The claim of th is boo k is that there are suff icie nt inter es ts to mo ve the Net9 5from adefault of an onymi ty toade fault of identificatio n. But no thi ng I’ vesaid yet sh owshow .Wh atwoul dget usfrom the rel atively un regu lab lelib - er tar ian Ne t to a hig hly reg ulab le Net of control? Th is is the questio n for th e ba lance of Pa rt I. I move in tw o steps . In Chapte r 4, my cla im is tha t even wi th ou t th e gove rnme nt’s help , we will see th eNet move to anarc hitec ture of co ntrol. InChapter 5, Isk et chhowgove rn - me nt mig ht hel p. The trends promi se a highly regul able Net—n ot the libe r- tari an ’s ut op ia, not th eNet yo urfa th er (or more likely you rdaug hter or son) kn ew, but a Ne t who se es sence is the char acter of control . An In ter ne t, in othe r words, that fli ps the Inte rnet as it wa s.

53 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 38 F O U R i t e c t u r e o l a r c h s o f c o n t r I M AN DOESN ’ T FEAR THE ST ATE . H E KNO WS HIS NA TURE PUTS HI M HE T NVIS IB LE bey on ditsreac h(u nle ss he gets st up id,and of cours e, he al way sgets st upid). Hi s sto ry is the key to a gene ral les son: If you can’ t know who som eone is ,or him. His beh av ior is as he whe re he is, or wh at he’s doi ng ,yo u can ’t regulate wan ts it to be. There’ s littl e the stat e can do to change it. So too with the ori gina l Inter net: Ever yo ne wa s an invis ible man. As cybe rsp ace was or iginal ly arc hit ect ed, there was no simpl e way to kn ow who so meon e wa s, where he was, or what he was doing. As the In te rnet wa s or ig - ina lly archi tect ed, th en, th ere was no simp le way to re gulate beha vior ther e. The aim of th e las t chap te r, ho we ver, was to ad d a sm al l but im po rtan t poin tto this obvious ide a: What ever cybers pace was, there’ snoreaso nit has to sta y th is wa y. Th e“natur e” of the Internet is not Go d’s wil l. Its natur e is of its des ign . Tha t design could be different. The Net si mp ly th e product co ul d be de sig ned to rev ea l who som eone is, whe re they are , and wha t the y’r e doin g. An d if it we re so des ign ed, then the Net could becom e, as I wi ll argue th ro ug hou t this par t, the most regulab le space that man has ever kno wn. In thi scha pter, Ide sc ri be th echanges tha tcou ld—a nd are —pu shing the Net from the un re gula ble space it was ,to the perfectly regula bl esp ac eit coul d be .These cha nge sare not being archi tected by govern ment. They areins tea d be in gde man ded by us er sand deploye The yare not the pro d- dby commerce. uct of some 19 84 -i nsp ired conspi ra cy; they are the conseq uence of cha nges ma de for purely pra gmati c,co mme rc ial en ds. Thi sobvi ou sl ydoe sn ’t make thes echang es ba dor go od. My purpos ejust now is not normat ive , bu t des cri ptive . We shou ld un de rstand wher e we ar e go in g, an d why, be fore we ask whethe r this is wh ere, or who, we want to be . 38

54 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 39 39 ar chi tec ture s of con tro l {T XB2} in Janu ary in Germany The his tory of the fut ure of the Inte rnet was written 19 95. Germ an law re gu lat ed po rn. In Bavaria, it reg ulated porn heavily .Co m- ,) po rn avai lab leto its puS erve ma de (amoder ate amo unt of ,thr ough USENET rve wa sservi ng Ba va ria’ scitizen s. Bavaria told Compu Se rv eto use rs. CompuSe woul dbepun ish ed . remov ethe po rn fr om its server s, or it sexecutives Compu Serv e at fi rst object ed that the re was nothing it cou ld do—s av e re in the wo rl d. Tha t didn’t re movi ng th e po rn fr om ev ery se rver, everywhe tro ub le the Germa ns mu ch, bu t it di d troubl e Comp uSe rve. So in Ja nu ary 199 5, Com puSer vean noun ced atec hn ical fix: Rathe rth an bloc king acc essto the USE NET new sg roups that the Bavar ians had comp lained about fo r all mem bers of CompuSe rve , Comp uServ e ha d devised a technol ogy to fil ter 1 co nten t on a cou nt ry -by-co unt ry basi s. To ma ke tha t fix work, Co mp uServe ha d to be gin to re ckon who a user was , what th ey we re doi ng , and where they we re doing it. Tech nol ogy cou ld gi ve them acce ss to the data th at needed reckoning. And with that sh ift, the fu tu re was se t. Anobv io usres po ns etoaproble mof regul abi lity wou ld be gin to rep eat itself. Co mpuServe, of cou rse, was no tthe Inte rnet. Bu tits re spons esug ge sts the Imap just howtheInt er- pat tern that the Int ern et wil lfollow. Inth is Chapter, at least) like Com puS erv e. net can eff ect iv ely be ma de to ru n (in this respect DID WH AT, WHERE? WH O To regul ate ,the stat enee dsawa ytokn owthe who ,in“Wh odid wha t, wher e?” To see how the Ne t wil l sh ow the stat e “who,” we need to think a bit mor e car ef ully ab out how “i denti fi cati on” works ingeneral, and how it mi ght work on th e In te rnet. ti on: Real Space Id ent ity and Au thentica To mak esen se of the te chn olo gie swe use to identify is, co nsider who someone the relat io nshi p among three fami li ar ideas—(1 )“identit y,” (2) “a uthen tica - tio n,” an d (3) “crede nti al .” By “id en tit y” I me an somethi ng more tha n ju st who you are . I mea n as - wel l you r“a ttr ibut es,” or more bro adl y, all th e fa cts about you (or a corpora tion ,or athing) that ar etrue .You rid en tity, in this sense, inclu de syour name , yo ursex ,wh ere you liv e, wha tyo ur educ ati on is, yo ur driver’s lice nse num ber, you rsoci al securi ty num ber ,your purch ases on Amazon.com, whet her you’r e a la wyer —and so on.

55 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 40 40 CODE 2.0 Thes e at tri bu te s are known by others when they are commu nicate d. In ni cat ed au tomatically: re al sp ace , some are commu for mo st, sex , skin co lor, he ig ht, ag e ra nge , and wh ether yo u hav e a go od smil e ge t tr ans mitted auto - mat ically . Othe r attr ibute s can ’t be know n unles s th ey are reve ale d eit her by color, your el se: yo ur GPA in high school, you r favorite yo u, or by someone soc ia lse cu rity number ,yo ur la stpurch ase on Ama zon, whe theryou ’ve pa ssed a bar exam. Jus t be ca use an att ribu te has been ass erte d, how ev er, doe s not me an the at tr ib ute isbelieved .(“Y oupassed th ebar?!”) Rather bel ie f wil lof te ndepe nd icate” wh en we we “authent up on a pro ce ss of “aut hent ic ation. ” In general, wan t to beco me more co nf ident abo ut the truth about some ass erte d claim than app ea rs on its fac e.“I ’m mar ri ed,” you say. “Show me the ring ,” she says . The fi rs tstate ment is an as sert io nabo ut an attribute you cl aim youhave. Th e for au thenti ca ti on. We coul d imagine se con d is a demand (in a come dy at “Oh come on ,that ’s not aweddi ngrin g. Sh ow le as t) tha tde ma nd continuing. me you r marriage sto p, eithe r when lic ense .” At som e po int , the de mands en oug h co nf idence has been ac hieved , or whe n the inq uiry has jus t bec om e too we ird . Some ti me s thi s pr oc ess of au thent ic ati on is rel ative ly auto matic. Som e You say yo u’re a wom an; at tr ib utes , tha t is, ar e relat ively sel f-au the nticating: I’m li kely to bel ieve it when I see you . You say you’re a native spea ke r; I’m likel y to believe it onc e I spe ak wi th yo u. Of cou rse, in both cas es ,I co uld be foo le d. Th us, if my li fe de pended upon it, I might take other step s to be abs ol utel ycon fi den tof what other wise app ears plain. Bu tfor mo st pu rposes, es, we learn how to eva lua tewit ho utmuch wi th most famil iar sor ts of attribut mo re than ou r own ind ivi dua l jud gment. Some attr ibut es, how ever, cannot be sel f- authe ntica ting . You say yo u’re lic en sed to fly an air pl ane; I wa nt to see the lice nse. You say you ’re a mem be r of the Cali forn ia bar ;Iwant tosee you rce rtifica te .Yo usay you’re qualifi ed to per for m ope n hea rt surg ery on my fathe r; I want to see th ing s that ma ke me co nfi de nt th at yo ur cla im is tru e. Onc e again, these authe ntica ting “thing s” coul dbeforge d, and mycon fi den ce cou ld be unjust ified. But if I’m ca ref ul to mat ch the proce ss for authent ic ati on with th elevel of con fidence tha tInee d, I’m be ha ving quite rat io nal ly. And mos tof us can usua llyget by without ate r- rib ly comp li cated pro ce ss of au th enti cat io n. nt tool so met imes us ed in this process of au th en tic ati on isa On eimporta cre dent ial .By “cr ede nti al, ”Imean astandardized devic efor au thenti cating (t o so me lev el of co nfiden ce )an ass erti on made. Adri ver’s licen se is acr ed en tia l in this sense .Its pur po se isto au th enti cate the status of adr ive r. We ’re ge ne r- all y fa mil iar wit h the form of su ch li censes ; that gives us so me con fidenc e

56 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 41 41 ar chi tec ture s of con tro l tha twe’l lbe able tode ter min ewhe ther apartic ular license is vali d. Apa ssp ort ia l in this sense . Its pu rpose is to es tabl is h the citize ns hip of is also a credent the pe rso n it ide nti fie s, and it ident if ies a pe rs on thr oug h rela tiv el y self- aut he nticat ing attr ibut es. Once agai n, we are famil iar with the for m of this cre dentia l, an dthat gi ves us are lat ivel yhig hlevel of confi dence about the facts as serted in th at pas sp ort. ial s are bet ter tha n othe rs .Some are ar chite cted Obvi ous ly, so me credent to gi ve more confide nce than othe rs; some are more efficie nt at deliv ering the credentia thei r con fi dence th an othe rs . But we sel ect among ls av aila ble dep en din g upo n the level of co nf idence that we need. :Imag ine you ’re So ta ke an ob vi ous exa mple to br in gth ese points together appears in fron t of you an d decl are s tha t she is the a ban k telle r. Someone 1. She says sh e would like to withdraw all the ow ner of acco unt # 65 4–54323 mo ne y fro m that acco unt. (cal l he r Ms . X) has ass erte d a In the sen se I’ve de scr ib ed , thi s someone fa ct abo uthe ridentity —that she is the owner of accoun t#654–5 43 231. Yo ur job now is toauth entica te tha tas ser ti on .So you pull up onyo ur comput er the re co rds for the acco unt, and yo udi sc ov erth at there’s lots of mo neyinit .No w yo ur de si re to be conf ident abo ut th e au thentic ation you ma ke is eve n str ong er. You ask Ms. X her name ; th at name ma tches the nam e on the acco un t. Th at give s you so me conf ide nce. You ask Ms. X for two for ms of ide nti fi cation .Bot hmat ch toMs.X. No wyou have ev en more co nf idenc e. You as kMs. Xtosi gn awit hdrawa lslip .The si gn at ures seem to matc h; more con - fi dence sti ll. Fi na lly, yo uno te intherecor dthat the acco unt was establ ished by yo ur man age r. Yo u ask her whether sh e kno ws Ms . X. She confir ms that she does, an dthat the “Ms. X”stand ing atth ecoun ter is ind eed Ms .X. No wyou’re su ffi cien tly conf ide nt to tu rn ove r the money. No ti cetha tth roug hout thi sproc ess ,you’ve use dtec hno log ies to help yo u au thent ica te the at tribu te ass ert ed byMs. Xto be true. Your com pute rlinks a name to an acco unt nu mber. A driv er’s licens e or pass po rt tie s a pict ur e to a .The se ar eall tec hnologi name. The com pu te rkeeps acopy of asignature es to incr ease confide nce . And notic etoo tha twecould im agine eve nbette rtech nologie sto incre as e th is confid en ce. Cr edit ca rds, for exa mple , we re develo ped at a time when gth ecr edi tca rdau th en ticated its use. That de sig ncr eate sth e mere ly possessin addition inc enti ve to stea l a credi t card. ATM cards are diffe rent—in to pos - ses si on, ATM cards requi re a passw ord. That design re duces the va lue of on thei r ATM card s, or kee p sto len ca rds. But some write their pa sswords them in the ir wa ll ets wi th their AT Ms. This means th e risk from thef t is not tota llyremo ved .But that ris kcould be further reduced by other tech nolo gi es

57 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 42 42 CODE 2.0 of auth ent icat ion. For exampl e, certa in biom etr ic technologie s, suc h as nce that the thu mb print re ade rs or ey e sca ns, would inc rease the confide ho ld er of a card was an autho ri zed user. (Though these tec hnolog ies the m- se lve s can creat e the ir own ri sks: At a co nfe rence I heard a ve ndor des cribing based upon hi s handp rint; a par - a new te chnology fo r identi fyi ng someone ti cip ant in th e conf erence ask ed whet her the hand had to be al ive fo r the au the nti cat ion to work. Th e vend or we nt ver y pale. Aft er a mom ent, he re plied ,“I gu ess not.”) We ar e consta ntl y nego ti ati ng the se proc es se s of authe ntica tion in rea l lif e,and inthi spro ce ss, better te chn olo gie sand bett ercredentials en ab le more dista nt authe nt ication . In a smal l town, in a quieter time, cr eden ti als wer e not neces sa ry. You were kno wn by you r fac e, and you r fac e carried wit h it a re fere nce (held in the co mm on kno wl edge of the comm unity ) ab out your ch ar acter . But as life become s more fl uid, social institutions de pend upon oth ertech no log ie sto build con fid ence around impo rtant ident it yas sert ions. su ch authe ntica - Cred en tial s thus bec ome an unavoi dabl e tool for securing tio n. If te chno logies of au thenti ca ti on can be be tte ror wo rs e, the n, ob viou sly, man y ha ve an int erest in the se tech no logies becoming better. We each wou ld auth enticat ecert ain fa ct s bebett er off if wecoul dmo re easil yand confidently abo ut us .Commerce, too ,wo uld cer tainly be bett eroff with better te chnolo - gi es of authent ica ti on. Poor tec hnol og ies be gat frau d; fraud is an unp ro du c- ti ve cost for busin ess. If better tech nol ogy cou ld eliminate that cost, then pr ices co ul d be lower and prof its pos sib ly highe r. And fina lly, govern ment sbene fit fr om bett er tec hn olog ies of auth enti ca - tio n. If itis simpl eto authen tic ate you rage ,then rules that are tri gge red bas ed up on ag e are mo re eas il y enf orce d (dri nking ages , or li mits on cigaret tes). ic at e who you are, then it will be eas ier for the An d if it is simp le to authent go ve rn ment to tr ace who di d what. Fun dam ent ally ,the re gu lab il ity of li fe inre al- spac edep end supo ncert ain archi te ctur es of authe nti ca ti on. Th efact that wi tn esses can id en ti fy who com - mi tted a cr ime, ei ther bec aus e they know the pe rs on or bec ause of se lf - aut he nt icat ing fe at ure s su ch as “h e wa s a white mal e, six feet ta ll,” enhance s the abi li ty of the st ate to regulate agai nst that crime. If crimin als wer einvisibl e or witn es se shad no me mo ry, cr ime would incre ase. The fact tha tfinger pr ints ar e hard to cha nge and are now auto matic ally tr ace d to convic ted fel ons again. Relying on a mor e incr ease s the lik el iho od th at fel ons wi ll be caught chan geab le ph ysi cal chara ct eri sti c wou ld redu ce the ability of the police to tr ac kre pe at off end er s.Th efa ct tha tcar shav elicense pla tes and are regis ter ed by the ir owners incr ea ses the lik elih ood that a hit-and-run dr iver wil l be

58 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 43 43 ar chi tec ture s of con tro l ca ught. With ou tlicen ses, an dwi th out system sregistering owner s, it wou ld be ex treme ly diffi cul t to tr ac k car-relat ed crime. In all thes e case s,and in many mo re, tech no logies of authent ic ati on of real-s pa ce life make re gu la ting tha t life possi bl e. Th esethre ese pa rat einte rest sthe re for epoi nttoacom mon int erest .Th at’ s not to say that ev ery tec hno lo gy of aut henti cation mee ts that com mon int er - est , nor is it to say that the se int eres ts will be enou gh to faci litate mor e ef fi - ci ent auth ent ic at io n. Bu t it doe s me an that we can see wh ich way thes e inte res ts pus h. Bette r au thenti ca ti on ca n bene fit eve ryon e. ti on: Cybers pac e Id ent ity and Au thentica Id ent ity and auth enti cati on in cy bersp ace and rea l space are in the or y the sa me. In pr ac tice th ey are qu ite dif feren t. To see that diff eren ce,ho we ve r, we need to see more abo ut the tec hni cal detail of ho w the Net is built. As I’vealrea dy sai d, the Inte rnet isbu ilt fro masui teof pr otoc olsre ferred to co llec ti vely as “TCP /IP.”At it score ,the TCP/ IP suite in cludes pr otoc ol sfo r 2 Bruta llysim- exchan gin gpackets of da ta bet ween two machi nes “on” the Net. plif ied ,the syste mtake sabunc hof dat a(a file, for ex ampl e), cho psit up in to pack et s, an d sla ps on the addres s to wh ich the packet is to be sent an d the ad dr ess fr om whi ch it is sent . The addres ses are cal led In tern et Pro toc ol add res ses ,and the yloo klike thi s: 128.3 4. 35.204. Onc eproper ly add re ssed ,the pa ck ets ar e the n sent acr oss the Int ernet to their int ended dest inati on . Ma chi nes along the way (“r oute rs” )lo ok at the ad dress towhich th epacke tis comp licated) se nt, and depe ndi ng upon an (incr easingly al gorit hm, the ma chines deci de to whi ch mac hi ne the packet shoul d be sent next. A packe t coul d make many “hop s” bet we en its start an d its en d. But as the network be comes faster and mor erob ust ,tho se many hops seem al mo st instan tan eous.

59 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 44 44 CODE 2.0 In the te rms I’v ede sc ri bed, th ere are many att ribute sth at might be as so- ci ate d with an y packet of data sent ac ross the netwo rk. For ex am pl e, the pack et mig ht come fro mane-mail wri tte nby Al Go re .That means the e-mai l is wri tten by a forme r vi ce pre si dent of the Un ited States, by a man know l- edge able about glo bal warm in g,by amanover the age of 50, byata ll man, by an Amer ica ncit ize n, byaformer rof the United States Senate, and so membe als o th at the e-ma il was wr itte n wh il e Al Gore wa s in Ge rma ny, on .Imagine an d that it is about ne gotiat ions for clima te cont rol. The iden tity of tha t pac ket of inf ormat ion mi ght be sai d to include al l thes e attr ib ute s. Bu tthe e-mai litsel f au th enti cat esnone of th ese fa ct s. Th ee-m ai lmay say it’ sfro mAl Gore ,but the TCP/IP prot oc ol alo ne giv es us no way to besur e.It ma yhav ebee nwri tte nwhi leGore was inGer many, but he could have se nt it thr ou gh a serve r in Wa shi ngto n. And of cours e, whil e the syste m eventu al ly wil l fi gu re ou t tha t the pac ke t is pa rt of an e-mail, tra ve ling the info rmation acro ss TCP/ IP itsel f does not contai n an ything that wou ld in dica te what the con ten t wa s. Th e pr ot ocol thus do esn ’t authentica te who se nt the pac ke t, whe re they sent it fr om, and what th e packet is .All it pu rports to as sert is an IPadd ress to wh ic hthe packe tis tobe se nt ,an dan IP ad dres sfrom which the pac ketcomes. Fr om the perspec tive of the netw ork, th is other inf ormation is simpl y the network unn ece ssa ry surp lus . Li ke a day dre aming po stal worker, mo ve s the data and le ave s its inte rpretat io n to the app licatio ns at either end. Thi smi ni mal is min th eInter net ’s design was not an ac cident. It re flects a to pe rfor m a wide ran ge ove r deci sio n ab out how be st to de si gn a network set of ver ydif fer en tfun ctio ns .Ra ther th an build into this net wor kacomplex fu ncti on alit y tho ug ht to be needed by every single app lic ation, this network oth eapplic ati ons ph il os ophypushes co mp lexity to th eed geof th enetwork—t that run on the netw ork, rather than the netwo rk’s core. The cor e is kep t as simp le as po ssi ble. Th us if authenti cati on about who is using the ne twork is by an app lica tio n con - nec es sar y, that func ti onal it y sho uld be pe rformed nee ds to be nec ted to the ne twork, not by the ne twork itsel f. Or if content d by an app lica tion con - en crypt ed, that fun ct ion alit y sh ould be performe nec ted to the netwo rk, not by the ne twork its elf. This desi gn pr inc ip le was na med by net work architec ts Jer ome Saltz er , 3 e. Da vi dClar k, and Dav idReed as th eend -to-en dprincipl It has bee nacor e pri nci ple of th e Inter net’ s archi tecture, and, in my view, on e of the mos t io nand growt htha t impo rta nt reason sth at the Int er net prod uced the innovat it has en joye d. Bu tits cons eq ue nc es for purpos es of ident ifica tion and auth en - ti cati on mak ebot hextr eme ly di fficult with the basic pr otocols of theIn te rn et alo ne. It is as if you were in a carnival fun hou se with the lights dim med to dark ness and vo ices comi ng from aro und you , but fro m people you do not

60 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 45 45 ar chi tec ture s of con tro l kn ow and from plac es yo u canno t identify. The syste m kno ws tha t the re are about wh o thos e en titi es out there inte ra ct ing with it, but it knows nothing point —ano ny mity en ti ties are. While in rea lsp ace —an dhere is the important has to be cre ated ,in cybersp ace ano ny mity is the gi ven. ti on: Regul ability Id ent ity and Au thentica Thi s dif fere nce in the arc hi tec tu res of re al spa ce and cy be rsp ace make s a big dif ference inthe regul ab ilit yof beha vior in each. Th eabs ence of rela tive lyse lf- au thent ica tin g fac ts in cyb ers pa ce mak es it extr em el y di ffi cul t to regula te beha vio r the re. If we could all wa lk around as “The Invisib le Man ” in real spa ce,th esam ewould be true abou treal space aswell. Th at we ’re no tcapable of becomi ng invis ibl einre alspa ce (o rat le ast not easily) is an impor tant rea- so n that re gu lat io n can work. Thu s, for examp le , if a stat e wants to cont rol childr en’ s acces s to “ind e- cen t”sp eec honthe Int ernet, the ori ginal Inter net arc hitectu re provid es little hel p. The sta te can say to web sit es, “don ’t le t kids see po rn.” But the webs ite by the TCP/ IP pr otocols ope rato rs ca n’ t know —fr om the da ta provided at lea st— wh eth er the en tit yac cess ing it sweb page is akid oran ad ul t. Th at ’sdif - fe ren t,agai n, from re al sp ac e. If aki dwal ks into apor nsh op we aring amu s- tac he and st il ts ,hi seff ort toconc eal is likely to fail. The attr ibu te “being akid ” is ass erted inreal spac e, even if ef forts to conceal it are po ssible .But in cybe r- spa ce ,th er e’s no need to con ceal, bec au se the fact syou might want to concea l abo ut your ide nt it y (i.e ., th at you ’re a kid) are not ass erted anyw ay. All thi s is tru e, at lea st, under the bas ic Inte rne t ar chite ct ure . But as the las t te n ye ars ha ve made cl ear, none of this is tr ue by neces sity. To the exte nt that the lack of ef fic ie nt tec hnol ogi es fo r auth enti cating fa ct s about indiv id - ua ls mak es itha rder toregula te beha vio r, th ere are archi tectures that could be authe ntication .We ’refar la yere donto th eTCP /I Ppro to col to create efficient en oug h int o the his to ry of the Int ernet to see what thes e technolog ie s cou ld lo ok li ke. We’re far eno ugh into thi s hi story to see that th e trend tow ar d this aut he ntic at ion is unsto pp abl e. The only questi on is whether we wil l build for priv acy and int o thi s sys tem of au th enti ca ti on the kind s of protections aut on omy that are needed. ation Ar ch it ectu res of Identific Most wh ouse the Inter net hav eno real sen se about wheth er the ir beh av ior is mo nit ored, or trace abl e. Inst ead , the expe rience of the Net sug ge sts an on ymi ty. Wikipedi a do es n’t say “W elco me Ba ck, Larry” whe n I surf to its

61 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 46 46 CODE 2.0 si te tolook upan entry, an dneit he rdo es Goog le .Most ,Iexpect ,tak ethis lack nt to me an that no one is no ticing. of ack nowl edgeme But ap pear ances are qu ite deceiv ing .In fact, asthe Inte rne thas ma tu re d, th e tech no logi es fo r linking beh av ior with an id en tity hav e incre ase d dra- ty on the Net, and many mat ically .You ca n sti ll ta ke st ep s to ass ure anonymi depe nd up on that abi li ty to dogood (hu ma nrig hts work ers inBu rma) orevi l tak es eff ort. For (co ord in ating ter ror is tpl ots) .But to ac hieve that anonymity mo st of us, ou r us e of the Int ernet has bee n ma de at least tra cea ble in ways mo st of us wo uld nev er even consi de r pos sibl e. Con si de r fi rst the tr aceabi lity re su lt ing fr om the ba sic proto cols of the In ter net —TCP /IP. Whe nev er you mak e a requ es t to view a page on the We b, of data tha t will the web server needs to kno w whe re to sent the packets app ea rasaweb page inyourbr owser .Yo urcom put er th us tells th eweb ser ver whe re you are—i n IP spa ce at least—by revealing an IP ad dres s. As I’ ve already des crib ed, the IP ad dress itself doesn’t reve al an ythi ng abo ut who you are, or where in phy sic al spa ce you come from . But it do es en ab le acertai nkind of tra ce. If (1 )you have got ten access to th eweb thro ugh an Int ern et Service Provid er (I SP) tha tassigns you an IP addre ss wh ile yo u’ re on the In ter net and (2) that ISP keeps the logs of th at as sign me nt, the n it ’s per fec tly possib le to tra ce you r surfi ng ba ck to you . How? Wel l, ima gine you ’re ang ry at yo ur bo ss. Yo u think she’ s a blow ha rd who is dr iv ing the com pa ny in to ban kr up tcy. After mon ths of frus trat ion , you deci de to go pu bl ic. Not “pu bl ic”as in a pres s con fe re nce, but pu blic as in a po st ing to an online fo ru m wi thin whi ch your company is being dis cus sed. Yo u kn ow you ’d get in lo ts of tro uble if you r criti cis m we re tie d back to yo u. So youtakest eps to be “anon ymo us” onthe fo rum. Mayb eyou creat ean ac co unt in th efor umund er afictiti ous name, and that fi ctitio us nam emak es yo ufe el saf e. Yo ur bo ss ma ysee the nast ypost, but even if sh esuc ceeds in get- tin gthe for um hos tto reve al what yo usaid whe nyou signed up ,all tha tstu ff was bogu s. You r secr et, you bel ieve ,is saf e. Wro ng. In add it ion to the ident if icati on th at your use rna me might, or mi ght not , provi de , if th e foru m is on the web, the n it knows the IP addre ss fro mwhich yo umade your post .With tha tIP ad dress, an dthe tim eyou mad e 4 yo ur pos t, using “a rev ers eDNS lo ok-u p,” itis sim pleto ide nti fythe Int ernet And inc reasi ngly ,it is rel - Serv ice Pr ov ider that gav eyou acc ess to the Internet. at iv ely si mp le fo r the Int ernet Servi ce Prov ide r to ch eck its re cords to re vea l whi ch acc ount was usi ng that IP ad dres sat that specified time. Thu s,the ISP co ul d(i f requi red )say that itwas yo ur account that was using th eIP addr es s tha t pos ted the nas ty mess ag e ab out your boss. Try as you will to deny it

62 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 47 47 ar chi tec ture s of con tro l (“H ey, onth eInt er ne t, noone kno ws you’re adog! ”),I’d ad vise you togive up qu ic kly. Th ey’v e got yo u.You’ ve been trapped by th e Net. Dog or no, you ’re defi nitely in th e dogho use. No w ag ain , what ma de thi s trac ing possi bl e? No plan by th e NSA . No st rate gyof Mic ro sof t. In ste ad, what made this tra ci ng possib le wasaby-pr od- uct of th earc hite ctu reof th eWeb and thear chitectu re of ISPs chargin gacc ess to the Web. Th e We b mu st know an IP ad dress ; ISPs req uire ide nti fica tion bef ore they ass ign an IP addre ss to a custo me r. So long as the log reco rds of the IS P are kept, the tr ansa ct io n is traceable. Bottom line: If you wa nt an on ymi ty, use a pay phone ! ty in the Interne t raised som e im porta nt conce rns at the This tr aceabili beg in ning of 2006 .Go og le an no un ced it wo uld fig ht ademand bythe gove rn - (MSN and Yaho o! ha d both me nt to pro duce one mi ll io n sampl e searches. co mp lied with the same requ est.) Tha trequ est was made as pa rt of aninve s- tig at ion th e go ve rnm ent was condu ct ing to su pport its def ens e of a statute desig ne dtoblock kids fr om por n. And though th ere ques tpro mise dth edata wo uld be used for no other pu rpos e, it raised de ep conc ern s in the Inter net co mmu nit y. Depe ndi ng upon the data that Goog le kept, the requ es t show ed in prin cip le that it was po ssi bl e to trac e legal ly troubl ing sea rc hes ba ck to ind ivid ua lIP ad dre sse s(a nd to ind ivi du al swith Goo gle accoun ts ). Thu s,for exa mpl e, if your Inte rne t ad dress at work is a fixed -IP ad dress , the n ever y search yo u’ve ev er made from work is at leas t pos sibly kept by Go og le. Do es tha t ma ke yo u co nc erned ? And assume fo r the moment you ar e not a ter ro ri st :Wo uld yo u sti ll be conc erned? A li nk back to an IP ad dre ss, how ever, only fa cilitates tra cing, and aga in, even then not perfec t tr ac eabi lity .ISPs don’t keep data for lon g (or dinaril y) ; record s at all . And if you’ve acces sed the so me don ’t eve n kee p assi gnment could In ter net at an Int erne t ca fé ,then there ’s no reas on to believ e anything be tra ced back toyou .So sti ll ,the Int erne tpro vides at least some anonym ity . But IP tra cin gisn ’t the only te chnol ogy of ide nt if ica tion that ha sbe en lay - gy wa s de ve lo ped er ed on to the Inte rne t. A muc h more per va siv e technolo early in the his tory of th eWeb to mak e th e web more valuab le to com me rc e an d its cu st omers. Thi s is the techno logy ref er red to as “cookie s.” Whe n th e Wor ld Wide Web was firs t dep lo ye d, the prot ocol sim pl y up in a spe cial pro - en ab led pe op le to view conte nt that had been marked e (HTML ) made it ea sy to link to othe r gram min g lan gu age. Th is languag to the co nt ent (bold, or pa ge s,and itma de itsimp le to apply basic fo rmatting ita lics ,for examp le). But the one thing the pr ot oco ldi dn’ tenabl ewas asim ple wa yfor awe b- site to know whi ch ma chi nes had acc es sed it. The prot ocol was “s ta te-le ss.”

63 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 48 48 CODE 2.0 When aweb serv errec eiv ed areq ue st toserve aweb page, it didn ’tknow any - 5 thi ng abo ut the stat e of th e requ est er be fore th at requ est was mad e. Fro m the perspect ive of priva cy , this sounds like a gr ea t fea tu re for the We b. Why shoul dawe bs ite know anythi ng about me if Igo to tha tsit etovie w cert ai n conte nt? You don ’t have to be a crimin al to apprecia te the value in ano nymo us br ow si ng. Imag ine librar ies kept re cords of eve ry tim e you ope ned a bo ok at th e libr ary, even fo r ju st a seco nd. Ye t fr om the pers pect ive of commerce, this “fe at ur e”of the origina lWeb is pla in ly a bug , and no t bec au se commerci al sites necess arily wa nt to know th e prob le m is mu ch more ever yt hi ng there is to know ab out you . Instead, you want to buy 20copies pr agm at ic .Say you go to Am azon. com and indicate ca rt” ha s20copie sof of mylate st boo k. (Try it. It ’s fun .) Now yo ur “shopping my boo k. You the ncl ickon the ico ntoch eck out, and yo unotice you rshop - pin gcart is empt y. Wh y?Well becau se ,as or iginally archite cted, the Web ha d no easy way to rec og nize th at yo u were the same entity that jus t or de re d 20 boo ks. Orpu tdif feren tl y, the we bser ver woul dsimply forg et you .The Web as or igin al ly bu ilt had no wa y to remembe r yo u from one pag e to ano the r.And thu s, the Web as origi na lly bu ilt wou ld not be of much use to com merce . But as I’v e sai d ag ain and agai n, the way the Web was is not the way the We bhad tobe. And so th os ewh owe re buil ding the infra structu re of the We b qu ic kly be gan to thin kthr ou ghhow the web cou ld be “imp rov ed” to mak eit ea sy for co mm erc eto happ en. “Co okies ”were the so lu tion. In 1994 ,Ne tsc ap e int ro duced a pr oto co l to mak e it po ssi ble for a web se rve r to depos it a smal l bit of da ta on your com pu ter whe nyou accessed th atserver. Th at smal lbi tof dat a—t he “co okie ”—made e you whe n it pos sib le for the se rver to recogniz yo u tra vel ed to a dif ferent pa ge . Of co urse, the re are lots of othe r conc er ns abo ut what that co oki e mig ht enabl e.We’l l ge t to those in the chapte r about pri vacy .The po int tha t’s imp orta nt her e, howe ver, is not the dang ers this tech - nol og ycre at es. Th epoi nt isthe pot enti al and ho wthat pote ntia lwa sbuilt. A sm all chan ge in the pro toco lfor cli en t-s erv er inter acti on now makes it possi - ble for web sit es to moni tor and tra ck thos e wh o use th e site. Th is is asmall step towa rd authenti ca te dide nti ty. It’s fa rfr om that ,but it is aste pto wa rd it. Yo ur comp ut er isn’t you (yet ). But coo ki es make it poss ible fo r the comp ut er to au th enti ca te tha t it is the same machine tha t was acces s- ing awebsi te amo ment bef ore. And itisupo nthis tech nol ogy that the whole could now “know” of we b comme rce ini ti all y wa s bui lt. Servers that this ma chin eisthe sam emach in eth at was here before. And from th at kno wle dge, they co ul d buil d a gre at de al of valu e. Now agai n, str ictly speaking, cookies are not hi ng mo re th an a traci ng techn olog y. Th ey mak e it simp le to trac e a ma chine acros s web page s. That

64 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 49 49 ar chi tec ture s of con tro l tr aci ng do esn ’t nece ssar ily reve al an y in for mat ion about the us er. Ju st as we co uld fol lo w a tra il of coo ki e crumb s in real spa ce to an empty ro om, a web ”from th e first ent ry on the se rver coul d fo ll ow a trai l of “mo us e dr oppings site unt il th e user leave s. In bo th case s, nothing is necess ar ily reve al ed about the us er . But som et ime ssom eth ing imp ort ant is rev eal edabout th euse rby as so ci - ati on wi th data stor ed els ewhe re. Fo rex ample ,ima gine you ent er asi te, and it and you re-mail ad dre ss as ks yo utore ve al you rnam e, your tele pho ne number, as a co ndi ti on of ente ring a co nte st .Yo u tr ust the we bs ite, an d do tha t, an d then you lea ve th e we bs ite. Th e next day, you come ba ck, and yo u bro wse on, of co urs e, of pa ges on that we bsite. In th is interacti a number through yo u’ ve re vealed noth in g. Bu t if a co ok ie was depo sited on your machi ne thro ugh your br owser (an dyo uhav eno ttaken ste ps to remo ve it), the nwhe n you ret urn toth esit e, th ewebs ite ag ain “know s” all thes efacts ab outyo u. The co oki e tr aces you r mac hine , and thi s trace links back to a pla ce wher e you pr ovi ded inf orma tio n the ma ch in ewould no t oth erw ise know. Th etr ac eab ili tyof IPaddress es and co okie sis the defa ul ton the Inte rnet now. Aga in, ste ps ca nbe ta ke nto avoi dthis traceability, but the vas tma jorit y of us do n’ tta ke th em. Fort una tely ,for socie ty and for most of us,what wedo on the Ne t doe sn ’t rea lly conce rn anyo ne. But if it did conc er n som eone , it wo uld n’t be hard to trac k us down. We are a peop le who leav e our “m ous e dro ppin gs ”eve rywh ere . This def aul t tr aceabi li ty , how ev er, is no t enou gh for some . They re qu ire so met hi ngmore .Tha twa sHa rv ar d’s view ,as Inot edin the pr evio uschapte r. s today. A var iety of Th at is also the vie w of just abou t al l pr iva te network tec hn ol ogies hav e de vel op ed th at en able str onger authent icat ion by tho se who use the Ne t. Iwillde sc ri be tw oof thes etechn ol ogies in th is sec tion. But it is the sec ond of thes etw othat wil l, inmy view, prove tobe the most imp or - tan t. y. The fi rst of the se tec hnol ogi es is the Si ng le Sign -on (S SO ) technolog to “s ig n-on” to anet work onc e, and then ge t This te chno lo gy all ows someone acce ss to a wide range of re so urce s on that ne twork without nee ding to aut he nt icate again. Thi nk of it as a badg e you wear at your pla ce of work. or “res ear che r” ) you get dif - Dep en din g up on wha t th e bad ge says (“visitor” fe ren t acces s to di ffe rent pa rts of the bu il ding. And like a ba dg e at a pla ce of wor k,yo uget the cred enti al by giv ing up oth er data. You gi ve th erec ep ti on ist an ID; hegiv es you aba dge; you wear th at badge whe reve ryou go while atthe bu si ne ss . The mos t co mm only depl oyed SSO is a syst em called Kerber os. Bu t ther e are ma ny di ffe rent SSOs ou t there—Microso ft’s Pas spo rt sys te m is an

65 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 50 50 CODE 2.0 ex am pl e—a nd ther eisast ron gpu sh to buil dfederated SSOs fo rli nkin gman y in a feder ated system , I di ffere nt sites on th e Int er net. Thus, for example, mi ght auth ent ica te my sel f tomy uni ve rsi ty, but th enIco uld move ac ros sany do main with in th e federat ion wi thou t authe nticating ag ain. The big adv an- tag e in this arch ite ct ure is tha t I can au the nticat e to the instit ut ion I tr ust s I don’ t tr ust. wit ho ut spread ing lots of data abou t my sel f to ins titution SS Os ha ve been ver yimp or ta ntinbui lding iden tit yin to theInte rn et. But to ol for id en - asecon dtec hn ol og y, Ibe lie ve, wi ll be come the most important tifi ca ti on inthe ne xt ten years. Th is is because ive res pe ctsimpor - this alternat tan tarchit ect ur al fea tu re sof the Inter ne t,an dbecaus ethe de mand fo rbette r techn ologie s of ident if icat io n wi ll conti nue to be strong. Forge t the ha ssl e of ty pi ngyo ur name an daddre ss at every site you want to buy some thing from . You onl yneed to thi nk ab out the extraordi nar ygrowth in identity thef ttorec- og ni ze the re ar e many wh o would be eager to see some thing be tte r come alo ng. To und ers tand th is se con dsys tem ,thin kfi rs tabout how crede nt ials wor k 6 You ’ve go t a wall et. In it is li kely to be a driv er’s licens e, som e in re al sp ace. cr ed it card s, ahe alt hins uran ce car d, an ID for wher eyo uwork, and, if you ’re icate some fact lu ck y,so memoney .Each of these ca rds can be used to authent abou tyou —agai n, wit hvery di ff er en tle vel sof confi denc e. The dr ive r’s li cense has a pict ure and a li st of ph ysi cal chara cteris tic s. Th at’ s en ou gh for a wine stor e, but not eno ug h for the NSA. The credit card has you r sig na ture .Ve n- do rs are suppo sed to us e that data to authen ticate that the per son who sig ns sus piciou s,she might the bil listhe ow ner of the ca rd .If the vend or becomes deman d tha t you sh ow an ID as well . No tic ethe cr itical featu res of this “w allet” arch ite ct ure .Firs t, the se cr ede n- tial sare issued bydif fe rent ent it ies. Sec ond, depend ing upon th ei rte chnolog y, they off er diff er ent leve ls of conf iden ce. Thir d, I’m fre eto use thes ecred enti als in wa ys never ori gin all y pl anned or inte nded by th e iss ue r of the cre de ntial. The De pa rtme nt of Mot or Ve hi cl es ne ver coordi nated with Vi sa to ena bl e dri ver’s lic ens es to be used to authenticate the ho lder of a credi t card . But once th e one wa s preva le nt, the othe r could us e it. And four th, nothing req ui res th at Isho wall mycard swhen Ican use jus tone. That is ,toshow my dr ive r’s lic ens e, Idon’ tals oreve al my hea lt hins ura nce ca rd. Or touse my Vi sa, I don ’t also hav e to reve al my Amer ic an Expres s card. These same fe ature s are at the core of what ma y prove to be the mo st impo rta nt ad ditio nto th eeff ec tiv earc hit ect ur eof the Inte rnet sinc eits bir th. Th is is a pro jec t be ing led by Micr oso ft to ess entially develop an Iden ti ty Me tasys tem—a new la yer of th eInt ernet, an Ide ntity Layer, that wou ld com - plem en t th e exis ti ng ne twork lay ers to ad d a new kind of fu nctionalit y. This

66 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 51 51 ar chi tec ture s of con tro l Ide nt ity Laye r is not Micr os oft Passport ,or some othe r Sing le Sign- On te ch - nol ogy. Ins tead it is apr otoc ol to enable akin dof virtual wal let of credent ial s, t bett er. wit h al l the same att ri but es of the credentials in you r wal let—excep Thi s vi rt ua l wallet wi ll not only be more reliable tha n the wa ll et in your po cke t, it wil l al so gi ve you the abil ity to con trol mo re precis ely what da ta abo ut you is rev eal ed to tho se wh o dem and data about you . For exam ple, in re al spa ce , yo ur wa lle t can ea sil y be stole n. If it ’s stole n, easy for the thief to use the then there ’s a per io d of time when it’s relatively card stobuy stuf f. Incybe rspac e,the se wall ets are not eas ily stol en. Ind ee d, if the y’re archi tected wel l, it would be practi cal ly impos sib le to “steal” th em. Rem ove th e ca rd s from th ei r hol der, and th ey beco me us eless dig ita l obj ects . Or again, inre al spa ce, if you wan ttoau th en ti ca te th at you’re ove r21and theref ore can buy asi x-p ac kof beer, you sh ow the clerk your driv er’ slice ns e. Wi th that , he authe nt ic at es yo ur ag e. But with that bit of data, he al so gets ac cess to you r name, yo ur addre ss, and in some states , you r socia l secu rity numb er .Those othe rbi ts of data are not neces sary for him to kn ow. In some co ntext s, de pe nd ing on how creep y he is, these data are exa ctl y the so rt you tec hnol ogie s do n’ t wan t him to kno w. But th e ine fficiencies of real-space re ve al the se da ta. Thi s loss of priva cy is a cost of do ing busine ss. The virtua lwal let wou ld bedi ffe ren t.If you ne edto authe nti cateyourage, the techno lo gy co ul daut he ntica te tha tfact alone—in deed, it co ul daut hen ti- ca tesimply tha tyou ’re ov er21,orove r65, or under 18, wit ho ut reve ali ng any - thi ng mo re .Or if you need to authent ic ate your citiz ens hip, tha t fa ct can be cert ifi ed witho ut reve al ing you r name , or where you live, or your pas sport numb er . The tec hnol ogy is cr af ted to reveal jus t wh at you want it to reve al , wit ho ut als orev eal ingothe rst uff.(As one of th ekey architect sfor thismeta - 7 ) sy st em, Ki mCa mero n, describ ed it:“To me, th at’s the ce nter of th esy ste m. ” And ,mos timp ortan tly ,using th epo wer of crypto grap hy, the prot oc olmakes it po ssib le for the other side to be conf ident about the fact you reveal with ou t req ui ri ng an y more data. of id ent if ic ati on is firs t Th e bri lli an ce in this solutio n to th e problems that it mir rors the bas ic arc hi tec tu re of the Intern et. There ’s no ce ntra lrepos - must ad op t. There that everyone ito ry fo rdata ;th er e’ sno netw ork technology is ins tea dapl atfo rm forbuilding sthat encou rages com - id en ti ty te chnologie pe ti tio namo ng di ff eren tpriv acy and security provider s—TCP/IP for id entity. but anyon ecan build for this pr otocol. Mi cro so ft may belead ing the project, No thin g ti es th e prot oco l to th eWind ows oper ating syste m. Or to an y othe r sp ec if ic vendor. As Ca meron wis ely puts it, “it ca n’t be owned by any one co mp any or any on eco un tr y...or just have the technology st amp of an yone 8 en gi neer .”

67 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 52 52 CODE 2.0 The Id en tit y Layer is inf rast ru ct ure for the Inte rnet. It gi ve s val ue (and Micr os of t’ s work is Mi cro so ft. But though rai se s con cerns ) to man y beyond an imp orta nt gif t to the Int er net, the Identity La yer is not altr uis m. d to me. Cam er on describe “M icro so ft ’s stra teg y is ba sed on we b services,” 9 Ther e is imp or tant pu bl ic “W eb servi ces are imposs ib le wi tho ut iden tity.” va lue he re ,bu tpri va te inte re st is drivi ng the deploymen tof thi spu blicvalue. Th e Ide nti ty Laye r would ben ef it ind iv idu als, bu si nes ses , an d the gov - er nmen t, but eac h di fferently . Indi vi duals could more eas ily protec t them - 10 if you ge t an e-mail fro m Pay Pal dem and in g you se lve s fr om ident it y th ef t; up date yo ur acco unt ,you’ll kno wwh et her the website is act ually Pay Pal. Or if yo u wan t to protec t yo ursel f aga inst sp am, you coul d block all e-m ail that y is ic at ed ser ver. In eithe r cas e, the te chnolog do es n’ t co me from an authent incr easi ng confidenc e abo ut the Inte rnet. An d the harms that come fr om a lac k of confi dence —mai nly fraud —wo ul d the refo re be reduced. Co mmer ce to owo uld bene fit fro mth is form of te chn olo gy .It too bene fits fro m the redu cti on of fr au d. And it too would be nefit from a mor e se cu re inf rast ru ct ure for condu ct ing onl ine tran sac tions . And fin ally , the gov ern ment wo ul d bene fit from this inf rastruct ure of tru st. If there were a simp le way to deman d that peo ple authe nticate facts about thems el ve s,it would beea sier fo rthe govern men tto insis tthat they do so. If it wer eeasier to hav ehigh con fid ence that the pers on on the webs it ewa s who he sai d he wa s, then it wou ld be chea per to del iver ce rtain info rm ation acro ss the web. But whil ein div idu al s, com merc e, an dgo vernm en twoul dal lben ef it fr om thi s sort of tec hno logy ,the re is al so some th ing that ea ch coul d lose . Ind iv id ual s rig ht now can be ef fec tively anon ymou s on the Net. A pla t- wou ld make anony mity muc h har de r. We fo rm for au the nt ic ated identity mi ght imagi ne, for exa mple, anormdev elopi ng to block acce ss toaweb site by an yo ne notcar rying atok en that atle ast ma de it pos sibl eto tra ce ba ckto th e us er— akind of dr iver’ slicen se for th eInternet. That norm, pl us this tec hnol - og y, wo ul d ma ke ano ny mo us speec h ext remely difficu lt. Co mmer ce cou ld al solos esome thing from thi sdes ign .To the exten tthat ed user of this there are si mple ways to au th enti cat e th at I am the authoriz cred itcard, for exam pl e,it ’s less nece ssa ry for webs ites to dem and all sor ts of and in one cas e I data abou t me— my ad dre ss, my tel epho ne numbers, rece ntly enc ou nte red , my bi rth day . Tha t fac t could build a nor m ag ains t re ve alin g ext raneous data. But that da ta may be valu able to bus ines s beyond simp ly conf irming a char ge . And gov ernme nts, to o, ma y los e so mething fro m this archit ect ure of iden tific ation. Just as com merc emay lose the extra dat athat ind ivi du als ne ed

68 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 53 53 ar chi tec ture s of con tro l to re ve al to au th ent ic ate themselve s, so too wil l the gover nment lose tha t. It ma y feel th at su ch data is nece ssa ry for some othe r pu rpose, but ga the ring it wo uld bec ome more dif fi cul t. Ea ch of these benef its andco sts ca nbeadjusted, depend ing up on ho wth e and secu rity techn olog y is imp lem ent ed. And as th e resu lting mix of privacy is the pro du ct of compet it ion and an equ il ibr ium be tw een indiv id uals and bu si ne ss es, there’s no way up front to predict what it wil l be. But fo r our purpose s, th e only import an t fa ct to noti ce is tha t this inf ra - st ru ct ure cou ld ef fect ively answ er the fi rst qu estion that regul abilit y req uir es Who enab lin gchea pid en- an sw erin g: did wh atwher e? Wit haninfras tructure activ ity falls dra - tif ica tion whereve r yo u are , th e frequ ency of unidentified mat ically . {T XB2} Thi s fina l exampl e of an ide nti fi cati on te chnology thr ows int o rel ief an imp orta nt fa ct ab out enc ry pt io n technology. The Identit y La ye r depend s upo n cry ptogr aphy. It th us de monstr at es the se nse in which crypto gra ph y is Jan us- fa ced. As Ste wa rt Bak er and Pau l Hurs t put it, crypt ogr ap hy “s urel y is th ebest of tec hnolo gies an dthe wo rs tof techno logies. It wi ll st op crimes and and it wi ll dri ve it wil l cr eat e new cri me s. It wi ll undermine dictatorships, them to ne w ex cess es. It wil l mak e us al l anonymou s, and it wil l tra ck ou r 11 ever y tra ns act io n.” Cryp to gra phy can beall the se th ing s, bo thgood and bad, because encry p- nti ali ty” fu nc - ti onca nserv etw ofu nd ame ntal ly diff ere nt ends. In its “confide nic at ions secret.” tio n it can be “u sed to keep commu In its “identif ica tion” 12 It func tion it ca n be “us ed to pr ov ide for ger y-pr oof digital id ent it ie s.” y), but it can from reg ul at ion (a s it enhanc es confidentialit en ab le s freedom 13 als o en abl e more effic ient reg ulat io n (as it en hances ide ntification). It s trad it iona l use is sec rets. Enc ry pt a mes sage , and only thos e with the has beenar ound as pro per ke ycan ope nand re ad it. Thi sty pe of en cryption lo ng aslanguage it su ffered fr om an im portant it sel f. But unt il the mid-1970s we ak ne ss : the same key that was used to encrypt a mes sage was also used to decr ypt it.So if you lost that key, all the mess ages hidde n with tha t key we re als oren dered vu lner ab le .If alarg enumbe rof mess ages were encryp ted with mised the whole archi ve of secr ets pr o- the same key, lo sing the key compro tec ted by the key. Thi s risk was sig ni fi ca nt. You alw ays had to “tra nspor t” th e key ne ede d to unlock the mes sag e, an d inh erent in th at trans por t wa s the risk tha t the key wou ld be lo st. In th emid-1 970 s, ho wever, a bre akthro ug hin encry ption te ch niq ue was Diffie and Ma rt in He ll - an nou nced by two comp uter scient ists, Whitfield 14 man . Rath er than re lyi ng on a si ngle key , the Diffie-Hell man syste m us ed

69 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 54 54 CODE 2.0 two key s—o ne pub li c, the other pri vat e. What is encrypted wi th one can be decr ypted onl y with the other. Eve n wit h on e key the re is no wa y to in fer the oth er . Thi sdi scover ywasthe clue to an arc hit ectur etha tcould bu ildanext raor - ce int o any netwo rk, whet her or no t the phy sic al di nar y ra ng e of confiden 15 An d ag ain, that co nfide nce cou ld bo th mak e me net wo rk its elf was se cure . co nfi de nt th at my sec rets won ’t be rev eal ed an d make me co nfid ent tha t the pe rs on usi ngmy si te ju st now is you .The technology there fore works to keep se cret s, bu t it als o mak es it ha rder to keep sec rets. It works to mak e stu ff le ss re gul able ,and more reg ula bl e. was on the side of pri - In the In ter net ’s firs t life, encry pt ion tec hnology va cy. It s most co mmo n use was to keep inf or mation secret. But in the Inter - ne t’ sne xt life ,encrypt ion te chno logy’ smo stimpo rtant role wi llbe inmaki ng the Net more re gu labl e.As an Identi ty Laye r gets bu il t int o the Net, the ea sy ab il ity to dema nd some for m of iden tity as a condition to ac ces sing the res ource s of the Net inc reas es . As that ability increases, its preval en ce wil l the next gen eratio nof th e incre ase as well. Indeed ,as Shaw nHe lms describes, In ter net Pr oto col —IP v6—“ marks ea ch pa cke t with an encryption ‘k ey ’that ca nnotbealte red or forged ,thu ssec ur el yidentif ying the packe t’s orig in. This auth en tic ation func ti on can identi fyevery sender and rece iver of inf or matio n ov er the Inte rnet, thus ma king it ne ar ly im pos sible for peopl e to re main 16 an on ymo us on the Int ernet.” And eve n if not impo ssi bl e, suf fic ient ly difficu lt fo r the vas t ma jor ity of us .Our packe ts wi ll bemar ke d. We —or somethi ng about us— will be known. WH O DI D WHERE ? WH AT, in “w ho did wha t, Re gu lab il it y als o depe nds upon knowing the “what” wher e?” But agai n, the In ter net as or ig inally designed didn ’t help the regul ator he re eith er. If the Int ernet pr otoco l si mply cuts up data int o pac ket s an d st am ps an add ress on th em , then not hing in the basic protoco l wo ul d tel l an yo ne lo oking at th e pac ket what the packe t was fo r. For exam ple, ima gi ne yo u’ re atelep hone comp any pr ov iding br oa db and In ter ne t acce ss (DS L) acro ss your te lephon e lin es. Som e sm art inn ova tor dev elo psVo ice-o ver-I P(VO IP) —an appl ication that makes it pos sibl eto use are n’t hap py the In ter ne t to ma ke telephone call s. You, the phone company, abo ut that ,becau se now peopl eusi ng you rDSL serv ice can ma ke unmete re d tele phon e ca ll s. That freed om cuts into you r profit. Is the re an yth ing yo u can do abo ut thi s? Rel ying upon ju st the Inte rnet pro toco ls ,the answer is no. The “pa ck ets ”of data that contain the simu la ted-

70 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 55 55 ar chi tec ture s of con tro l te lephon ecall slook ju st lik ean ypac ket of data. The ydon’t come label ed wi th VO IP or an y oth er consi st ent moni ker. Ins tea d, pa cke ts are simpl y ma rked wit h ad dres ses . They are not mark ed with explan ations of wh at is going on wit h each. But as my ex am pl e is meant to sugg est, we ca n ea sil y unde rs tand why som ewould be ver ykeen to unde rst and what packets are flo wing ac ros stheir ne tw ork ,and not just for ant i-comp eti ti ve pur pos es. Netwo rk ad min istrat ors try in gtodeci de whethe rtoad dnew ca pacity need to know wha tthe exis ting cap acity is bei ng use d for. Bu si ness es kee n to avoid their emplo yee s wasti ng time wit h spor ts or porn have a st rong interes t in knowi ng ju st what their it ie s tryi ng to avoid vir uses or mal ware being em pl oy ees are doing. Univers ins tall ed on ne twork comput ers need to know what kind of pack ets areflow - to will ing on to th ei r ne twor k. In all thes e cases ,the re’s an ob viou s and valid id en tify wh at pa cke ts ar e flo wi ng on the net work. And as they say, whe re there ’s a wil l,the re ’s a way . The wa yfoll ow sth esam etechn ique descri bed inthe sec tio nab ov e. Aga in, prot oc ol doe sn’ t inclu de technology fo r ide ntifying the TCP/IP the conte nt car ri ed in TCP/ IP pac kets. But it al so does n’ t inte rf ere with applica tions tha t TCP/ IP pac ke ts and report what those pa cke ts are about. mi ght examine So, for examp le ,consi der a pac kag e prod uce d by Ipa ne ma Technolo gies . Thi s technology enabl es a netw ork owner to ins pect the pa cke ts tra ve ling on its net wo rk. As its we bpag e promi se s, Th eIpa nem aSyst ems “dee p” la yer 7pack et in spec ti on autom at ic al ly rec og ni zes . al lcr it ic al busin ess and recr eation alappl ica ti on fl ow srunni ng over th enetwork Rea l-ti me gra ph ical interf ace sas wel las minute -by -minu te re po rt sare avail abl e 17 to rapi dly dis cov er newly deplo ye d ap pl ic at ions. Us in g the data gathered by thi s techno log y, the sys te m ge ne ra tes repo rts and who’ s us ing the m. ab ou t th e app lic at ion s bei ng used in the network, use, eithe r to econ o- es mak e it pos sib le to control network Thes e technologi mi ze on ban dw idt hcos ts ,or toblock us es that the network owner does n’ tper - mi t. of th is kin dof conte nt con tro lisapro du ct ca lled “i Pro - Ano th erexample 18 tec tYo u. ” Th is pr od uc t als o scans pac ke ts on a network , but this contr ol is load this so ftw are im pl emen ted at the le vel of a part ic ula r machine. Parents on aco mpu te r; th esoft wa re th enmoni tors all network tra ffi cwit htha tcom - puter . As th e comp an y de sc ri bes, the pr ogr am can then “fil te r ha rm fu l web- sit es and new sgr oups; re str ict Int ernet time to a predet ermined sch edule; dec id ewhic hprogr am scan ha ve Inte rn et access; limit th eamount of data that

71 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 56 56 CODE 2.0 can be sent or recei ved to /from you r co mp ute r; block e- mail s, online ch ats , words ;[and ons con tainin ginappropriate ins tan tmess ages and P2P connecti prod uce ]de tailed Inte rnet activ ity log s.” Onc eagain, this is an appl ic at ion that sit sontop of the netw ork and wat ches. Itinterv enes in netwo rk ac ti vit ywhe n it id ent ifi es the act iv ity as th e ki nd the ad ministr ator wants to contr ol. have devel op ed In add it io nto the se te ch no lo gie sof contr ol, pro grammers th edo mi nant appl i- awide ra ng eof pro gr ams to moni tor ne tworks. Perhaps cat io n in th is cont ex t is call ed “nmap” —a progr am ex pl ora tion or sec urity audit ing ... de signe dto rapid ly sc an large net - fo rnetwork wor ks. ...Nm ap uses raw IP pac kets in nove l way s to det er min e wh at host s are name an d version ) those av aila ble on the netw ork, wh at serv ice s (app lication hosts are offe ring , what oper at ing sy ste ms (a nd OS ve rsions ) the y are runn in g, 19 what ty pe of pa ck et filt ers/ fire walls are in us e, and do zens of other ch arac teri sti cs. Thi ssoftware is “free sof tware, ”me an in gthe sou rce co de is ava ila bl e, and e as well. The se an y mo dif ica tio ns of the so urc e co de must be made availabl conditio ns essent ially gu aran te e that the code nece ssary to enga ge in this mo ni tori ng wil l al wa ys be av ail ab le . Fi nal ly, cod ers ha ve develop ed “p ack et fil te rin g” te chnol ogy , whi ch, as on e pop ular exampl e de sc ri be s, “is the selective pas sing or blo cking of data pa ckets asth eypas sthr ough ane tw ork in terface. ...The most of ten used cri - te ri a are so ur ce an d des tina tion address, source and destinat ion por t, and “wha t” is ca rrie d pro toco l.” This aga in is a techno logy that ’s mo nitoring wit hi n pa ckets,and dec ides what’ s al lo wed based upon what it finds . In each of thes ecase s, alay erof co de com ple me nts th eTCP/ IP pr oto col, to gi ve ne tw ork adm in ist ra tors som et hing TCP/IP alone wou ld no t—na mel y, pa cke ts . Tha t know ledge kn ow led ge abou t“wha t” is car ried in the network doe sn’t wan t its in cre as es the “reg ul abi lit y” of networ k use. If a company em pl oy ees usi ng IM cha t, the n the se tec hnolog ies wil l en force that rule —by blo ck ing the pa ck ets cont ain ing IM cha t. Or if a compa ny wan ts to know co mmun icatio n, in Internet wh ich em ploy ees use se xu ally exp li cit speech the se technol ogi es wi llreve al that as well. Ag ain, the re are pl ent y of pe rfe ctl y re sp ect ab le re aso ns why netw ork admi nistrators might want to ex er cis e th is n if the re are plent y of cases where su ch pow er re gul ato ry au tho ri ty—eve prod ucts li ke software of thi sleg iti mat edemand, woul dbean ab use. Because thi s are developed . Now, of cou rs e, there are cou nte rmeasu res tha t user s can ad opt to avoid ju st this so rt of moni to ring .Auser who encrypts the data he send sacross th e netw ork wi ll avoid any fil ter ing on the ba sis of key words. And th ere are plen ty

72 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 57 57 ar chi tec ture s of con tro l of techn olo gies designe on the Net, soadm inis tr a- dto “an onymi ze” behavior But thes e tor s can ’t easi ly kno w what an ind ivi dual is doing on a network. fo r a pa rtic ula r us er to cou nte rme as ure s requi re a sig ni fi cant investment dep loy —wh ethe r of ti me or money .The vast major ity wo n’t both er,an d th e an duse of the ne twork content abi li ty of ne twork ad mini st rat ors to monitor wil l be pre se rved . Thu s, aswi th change stha tin cre as ed the ab il ity to id entif y“wh o” so meone is wh oisusing anetwor k,here too, private in terest spro vide asu ff ici ent in cen - tiv eto dev elop tec hn ologies th at make it incre asingl yeasy to say “wha t”so me - on e is doi ng who is usi ng a net work. A gap in the kno wl edge pr ovi ded by the developed pl ai nva ni ll aInterne tisthus plu gge dby these privately tec hnol ogi es. , WHERE ? WH O DI D WHAT s, th e Fina ll y, as long as dif feren t ju ri sdicti ons impo se different req uirement th ird bit of data nec essa ry to regu la te eff ici ent ly iskn owin gwhere the target of re gul atio nis. If Fr ance forbid stheselli ng ofNazi paraphern al ia, but the Uni ted St at es does not ,then aweb si te wan ti ng to re spect the laws of Fra nce must kn ow som ethin gabout wh er ethe person ac ce ssi ng the Int ernet is co min gfrom . But onc eaga in, the Inter net pro tocol sdidn’ tpr ovide th at dat a. An dthus, it wo uld be ext reme ly di ff icu lt to reg ulate or zo ne acces s to conten t on the bas is of geogr aphy. The or iginal Interne t made suc h reg ulat ion extr emel y diff icul t. As origi - nal ly de ployed ,as on e co urt put it: The Internet is wholl y ins ensit iv e to ge og ra phi c di sti nc ti on s. In al most ever y neither kno w no r care abo ut the physi ca l lo cat io n of case ,users of the Internet the Inte rnet res ource s they ac ce ss . Inte rne t pro toco ls were desi gned to ig no re s on the netwo rk rat he r th an docu ment geogr aphi c lo catio n; wh ile computer do ha ve “ad dres ses ,” they are log ica l add resse s on the netw ork rather th an geo - gr aphi c add res ses in rea l spac e. The ma jo rity of Inter net addr esse s co ntain no geo gr aphi c cl ues and, eve n where an Int erne t addr ess prov ide s suc h a clue , it 20 ma y be mis leadi ng . has come to the res cu e of re gu la bilit y. The re But once agai n, commerce are obv io us re asons why it wou ld usefu lto be abl eto identify wh ere someone have to do wi th reg - is wh enth ey acce ss som ewe bsite .Som eof those reasons ula ti on—ag ai n, bl ock in gNazi ma ter ial from the French, or porn from kids in Kan sas. We’l l co ns id er th ese re asons more exte nsi vely late r in this book. For no w,howe ver ,th emost in ter estin grea sons are those tied pur ely to co mm er ce.

73 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 58 58 CODE 2.0 And ,ag ai n, the se com me rci alrea so ns ar esu ffici ent to induc ethe developm ent ogy. of thi s technol On ce again, th e ga p in the da ta nec essary to ide ntify som eon e’s lo ca tio n is the pro du ct of the wa y IP addres ses are as signed . IP add res ses ar e virtu al addre ss es; they do n’tre fer toapar tic ul ar ge ographic place. They refer toalo g- ic al pla ce on th e netw ork. Th us , two IP ad dress es in pr in cipl e coul d be very cl ose to eac h ot her in numb er , but ver y far from each other in geograph y. That’s no t th e wa y, for exa mp le ,zip codes work .If your zip cod e is one dig it . fro m mi ne (e.g ., 9411 5 vs. 9411 6), we’ re pra ctical ly neighbors But this ga p in data is si mp ly the gap in data about whe re some one is while there ’s no simple way to ded uci ble fr om his IP ad dre ss. That means, ded uc efrom 23. 214 .23. 15 that someone is in California ,it is certai nly possi ble to ga ther the data nece ssar yto map wh ere so meone is, given the IPad dre ss. To do thi s, one need s to const ru ct a tabl e of IP ad dress es and geo gra phic lo ca - tio ns, an d th en tr ack bo th the ulti mat e IP add res s and the path along which apa cket has tra veled towhere yo uare from whe re it was se nt. Thus while the it can be used ind i- TCP /IP pr ot oc ol can’ t reve al where someone is directly, of an IP packet. rec tly to re ve al at le ast the or ig in or de stination The com merci al mo tiva ti ons fo r this know le dge ar e ob viou s.Ja ck Gold - sm it h an d TimWu tell the st ory of a particul arly famo us entrep re ne ur ,Cy ril Ho ur i, who was insp ired to deve lop IP ma pping tec hnology. Si tt ing in his ho tel in Par is one nig ht, he ac ce ssed hi s e- mail account in the Unit ed State s. Hi s e-mail was hos te d on a web server, but he notic ed that th e ban ner ads at the to p of the webs it e were advert isi ng an American flo we r com pa ny. That gav e hi m a (now obv iou s) ide a: Wh y not bu il d a tool to make it ea sy for a web site to kn ow fr om whe re it is be ing accesse d,so it can serve relev ant ads to 21 tho se us ers ? Hou ri’s idea ha s been copi ed by ma ny .Ge ose lec t, for ex am ple ,is a com - pany th at pro vides IP ma ppi ng servi ces . Ju st brow se to their webpa ge, and li kel y to be abl e to tell you aut omatical ly wh er e you ar e they ’re 99 percent br ow sin gfrom. Us in gthei rservi ce s, yo ucan get ageog raphical report lis ting the locat io nof th epeopl ewho visi tyo ursite, and you can us eth eir pro du cts to aut omati ca ll yupdat elo gfiles on your web server with geogr aphi cdat a. Yo u can aut omati cally chang ethe greet ing on yo ur websit edepe ndi ng upon whe re red irect a us er ba sed upon the user comes from, and you can automatically to the user. All he se es is aweb he rlocat ion .All of thi sfunct io nal it yis invisible alo ne doesn’t pag econ struct ed by tool sthat know so me thi ng that the TCP/IP re so me one is from. re ve al—whe So what co mmercia l reas ons do we bsi tes hav e fo r us ing such sof twa re ? 22 One co mpan y, MaxMi nd , li st sthe majo rreason as credi tcard fraud :If yo ur

74 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 59 59 ar chi tec ture s of con tro l cus tome rco mes froma“hi ghri sk IPad dre ss”—me aning alo cati on wh ere it’s d’sserv ic ewil l li kely the pe rs onis eng ag ed incred it card fraud —then MaxMin security ver if icat io n. Max - fl ag the trans ac ti on and direct that it have greater adv erti si ng. ”Usin g Min dalso pro mis es th eser vic ewil lbeval uable for “targeted stat e, or city, as its pr od uc t, a clie nt can targ et a mes sage based upon country, wel l as a“metr opo lit an cod e,” an area co de ,and conn ect io n speed of the user (no need to adverti se DV Ddownlo ad sto aperson on adial-u pcon necti on ). Here too ther e is an impo rtan t and powe rf ul ope n sourc e ap pl icat ion th at pr ovid esth esame IP mapp ing func tion s. Hosti p. info gives websit eoper - 23 Thi s agai n abi lity to “geo lo ca te” the users of thei r site. at or s—f or free—the is not held ex clusi vely by cor- mea ns tha tth ecore fun cti ona li ty of IP mapping porat ion s or a fe w in div idu al s. Any app lication devel ope r—inclu ding a go v- ernme nt—co ul d inco rpora te th e func tion into its applic at ions . The kn ow led ge and func ti onal it y is free . Thu s, again ,on eof theorig ina lga ps in the da tane ces sar yto makebehav - io r regu labl e on th e In ternet —geo gr aphic identi ty —has been fill ed. But it has not been fil led by government ma nd ate or secre t NSA op era tions (or so Ihope ). Inst ead, the gap hasbeen filled by acomm er cia linterest in provid in g now laye rsonto the Inter net to the data the ne twork itself di dn ’t. Technology pro duce the data the ne twork needs . Bu t it is st ill pos sibl e to eva de ident ifi cati on . Ci vil lib erty ac tiv ist Se th Fin kel stein ha s te stif ied to the rel at ive eas e with which one can evade thi s 24 Ye t as I will des cr ibe more belo w, even eas il y ev ad ed tracking can tr ac kin g. be ef fe cti ve tr acki ng .And whe ntied to the arch itectu res fo rident ity desc ri bed abo ve ,thi s so rt wil l become qu it e ef fecti ve. RES ULT S In th ela st ch apte r, we saw that th eunre gu lab ili ty of the Int ernet was aprod uc t of des ign : th at the fai lu re of that netwo rk to identify who some one is , what they ’re do in g, an d wh ere th ey’r e fro m meant that it wou ld be part icularly difficul tto enfor ce ru les upo nind ividua ls using the ne twork. Not imp os sib le, The Inter net as it but di ff icu lt. Not for al l peopl e, but for enough to matter. or igina lly wa sgav eever yon ea“Ri ng of Gy ges, ”the rin gwhi ch, as Plat oreport s invisibl e. The dile mm afor re gula - mad eGyg es the shepherd in The Republic, tio nin suc hawo rl dis prec is el ythe fear Pl at oha dabout this rin g: With such a ri ng, “n o man can be ima gi ned to be of su ch an iron natu re tha t he wou ld 25 stan d fast in jus ti ce .” And if suc h a man di d choo se jus tice, eve n with the po we r of the rin g, then “he wou ld be th ou ght by the lo ok ers-on to be a most wretche d id iot,

75 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 60 60 CODE 2.0 alt ho ug h th ey wou ld prai se him to one anothe r’s fa ces, and keep up appea r- an ces wit h one ano the r from a fe ar that they too might su ffe r inju stice .” But thes e gap s in the Inter net’s or ig inal des ig n ar e not ne ce ss ary. We ca n im agin e ne tworks tha t int er act sea ml essly with the Inter net but which don’ t s. ” An d, mor e imp or tant ly, we can se e why the re have th ese “imp erfection wo uld be an imp ortant co mme rcial int erest in eliminatin g th ese gaps . Ye t you ma y st il l be sk ept ic al . Eve n if mos t Inte rnet activ it y is tra cea ble usin g the tech no logie s that I’ ve desc ri bed ,you may still bel ieve th er e are sig - ni fic ant gap s. Ind eed, th eex plo sion of sp am, vi ruses, ID the ft, an dth elik eare to the fact that ther e’s still a lot of unregulab le behavi or. str ong testimony Commerce act ing alo ne has no t yet el iminated thes e threats, to both com - me rce an dcivil lif e. For re asons Iexp lo re late rin this book, it’s no tev en clea r could . co mmerce But commerce is no t the only ac tor here .Go ve rnme nt is als o an impor - tan tal ly, and the fr am ewo rk of reg ulabi lity that commerce has buil tcou ld be bu ilt on ag ain by go ve rnment. Gov ern ment ca n, in other words, help com me rce and he lp its el f. How it do es so is the subject of the ch apt er th at fol low s.

76 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 61 F I V E t i n g c o d e r e g u l a — C AND INDI REC TLY , FOR FO R CO MMERCE , OMM ER CE HAS DONE ITS PA RT gov ern me nts . Tec hn ol ogi es th at mak e commerc e more effic ient ar e als o The one suppo rt s the othe r. te ch nol ogies tha t mak e reg ul ation si mpler. The re are ahost of tec hnol ogies now tha tmake it eas ier tokn owwh osome - one is on th e Net, what they ’re doi ng, an d where they ’re doi ng it. The se te chn olo gie swere bu il tto make bu si ne ss work better. They ma ke lif eon the In te rn et safer. Bu t th e by -p rod uc t of thes e tec hnologies is to mak e the Net mor e reg ulable . Mor e re gu lab le. Notpe rfe ctl yre gula ble. These tools alon edo agreat dea l. As Joel Re ide nbe rg not es, they are alre ad y lead in g courts to reco gniz e how 1 But th ey don’t ye tcr eat e be ha vi or on the Ne tcan bere ached —and reg ulated. the in cen ti ves to buil d reg ulabi lity int o the heart of the Net. That final step 2 wil l requi re ac tion by the government. When I wr ote the firs t versi on of thi s book, I ce rtainl y ex pe cted that the go ve rn ment wou ld eve ntu al ly tak ethe se steps .Even ts sinc e19 99—inclu ding the birt hof Z-th eor yde scri bed bel ow—have only increased my confid ence. In the Uni ted Stat es, the identi fic ati on of “an ene my”—ter roris m—ha s weak - en edthere sol ve to re sis tgove rnme nt ac ti on to make go ver nmen tmore po w- er ful an d regu lat io n more ef fectiv e. The re’s a limit, or at least I hope the re is, but the re is also no do ubt that the line has been moved . And in any case , there is not mu ch mo re th at the governmen t would need to do in or de r to radi ca lly incre ase the regul ab il it yof th enet. These steps wou ld not them sel ve s exci te an y si gnif ic ant res is tanc e. Th e go vernme nt ha s the mea ns, and the mo ti ve .This chap ter ma ps the opport unity. Th etrick is obv iou sonc eit is se en. It may we ll be diff ic ul tfor the gov ern - me nt tore gu late be hav ior di rec tly, giv en the architecture of th eInte rnet as it 61

77 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 62 62 CODE 2.0 is. But tha t doesn ’t me an it is dif ficu lt for th e government to re gula te the archi tec ture of the Int erne t as it is. The trick , then, is for the go ve rnme nt to that mak es beha vior tak estep sth atin duce the de velopment of an architecture mo re regu lab le . In thi s conte xt, I don ’t me an by “arc hi tectu re”the regula tion of TCP /IP its elf .Ins tead, Isimply mean reg ula tion tha tcha nge sthe ef fe ctiv econ str aints of the arch it ecture of theIn ternet ,by alteri ng the code at any layer with in that es of ident if ic at ion are lackin g, th en regu lating the archi - spa ce. If tec hnologi can take to induce te ct ur e in thi s sens e me ans steps the gover nment the dep loym ent of tec hno log ies of identi fi cation. t takes these steps , it wi ll in crease th e regu labili ty of If th e go vernmen of thes e ste ps be ha vior on the Inte rnet .And de pendi ng upon th e su bstance tak en ,it could re nd er th e In tern et th e most per fectly regulabl e space we’ve kno wn.As Mi cha el Geis t des cr ib es it, “gover nments ma y have be en wil ling ’s nascent yea rs, but no to step aside dur in g the co mme rc ial Internet 3 long er. ” REG UL AT IN G AR CHITECTU RE: THE REG ULA TORY TWO -STEP We ca n cal l th is the “reg ul ato ry two -st ep”: In a co ntext in which beha vior is rela tive ly unregu la ble , th e gov ern men t takes steps to incr ea se reg ula bil ity . of exa mp les that se t the pa tte rn fo r An d on ce fra med ,the re are an y number the two- ste p in cybe rspa ce . Car Co ng est io n Lo nd on had a pr ob lem wi th traff ic. The re we re too many cars in the cent ral dis tr ic t,and th ere was no simp le way to keep “unnec es sary” ca rs out. So Lo ndon did three thi ng s. It first mandate d a lice nse pla te tha t a vide o on as man y publ ic ca mera cou ld re ad, and th en it in stalled video cameras fixt ure s as it wou ld tak e to mo nitor —per petual ly—w hat cars we re whe re. Th en, beginni ng in Febru ar y 20 03, th e city im posed a con ge stion ta x: In iti al ly £5 per day (be tween 7 . an d 6: 30 P . M .) fo r any car (s ave taxis and A . M re si de nts payi ng a sp eci al fee ), rais ed to £8 in Ju ly 200 5. After 18 months in ope rat io n, th esystem was wo rking “be tt er than expe cted.” Tr af fi cde la ys were dow n 32 pe rce nt, tr af fi c withi n the city was down 15 pe rcen t, and del ays on mai n route s into the zone s were dow n 20 perc ent. Lo ndon is no w ex ploring new technol ogies to mak e it even eas ier to charge for ac cess mor e accu ra te ly. as we ll as GPS and GSM tec hnologie The seinclud ene wtagging tec hnologies, s 4 that wo ul d monito r the car whi le withi n Lo ndon.

78 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 63 63 regu lat ing co de Telep hones e a rad ic al shif t in the netw orks has undergon The archi tec ture of tel ephone 5 tele - past decade. Aft er res is ti ng the de si gn of the Inter net for man y years, ed to packet-s witche d are now shi fti ng from cir cu it-switch phon e networks nare spew ed acros sthe net wo rks .As with the Int ernet, packets of inf ormatio sys tem, and noth in gen sur es tha tthey wil ltrav el inth esame way, or along the same path . Pac kets ta ke the mo st ef ficient path, whic h depe nd s on the deman d at any one time . Thi sdes ign, howeve r, cre at es pr oble ms for law enf or ceme nt—in pa rt ic ul ar, todo thei rjo b. In the tha tpart of law en for ce me nt that depe nds upo nwiretaps circ uit -swi tc he dnetwo rk, it was relat ivel ysimple to identify wh ich wi res totap . In thepa cke t-swi tc hed netw ork, where there are no pred ictabl epa ths fo rpa ck - et sof dat atotravel, wi ret ap pi ng become smuch more difficul t. At lea stit is diffic ult und er on edesig nof apack et-s witche dnetw ork. Dif - led Cong re ss in fe ren t desi gns wi ll be di ffe rently dif fic ult. And that potential ca ti ons Assis tance for La w Enfo rc em ent Ac t 199 4 to ena ct the Communi (CAL EA) .CALEA re qu ire s that netwo rks be designed to preserv e the abilit y of la w en force ment to condu ct el ect ro ni c surveil lance. This requ ire ment ha s bee n nego ti ated in a ser ie s of “saf e ha rbor” ag ree ments that spe cif y the stan - ts of the law . dard s netwo rks mu st meet to sati sf y the requiremen CAL EA is a clas sic exam ple of the kind of regul ation th at I mean this ch ap te rtoflag. Th eindust ry cr ea te don enetwork archi tecture. Tha tar ch itec - tu re did n’t adequ ately serv ethe inte rests of go ve rnme nt. The res pons eof the go ve rn ment was to reg ulat e the des ig n of th e netwo rk so it better serv ed th e go ve rn ment’s ends . (Lu ckily for the net wo rks, the gove rnme nt, at lea st ini - 6 )As Sus an Cra wford wr ites, tial ly, agreed to pic k up part of the co st. Mos tcrit ica ll yforth efut ur eof th eInt ern et ,law enforc ement ...has ma de cle ar that it wants to ensu re tha tit rev iew sall po ssibl yrele vant ne wserv ice sfo rco m- pl iance wi th unsta ted info rma tio n-ga the rin g an d in formation -fo rwar din g re qu ire me nts bef ore the se servic es are la unche d. All prud en t busin esse s wil l want to run thei r se rvic es by law enf orc eme nt , sugges ts th e DOJ : “Servic e prov ide rs wou ld be we ll ad vise d to seek guida nce ear ly, pr efer ably we ll be for e dep loym ent of a service , if they bel iev e th at th eir ser vic e is not cove re d by CAL EA. ...DOJ wo uld ce rta inl yco nsid er aserv ice pro vi der’s fail ure to reque st 7 suc h guid ance in any enfo rce me nt actio n. ” CAL EA is a“si gna l,” Cra wfo rd des cr ib es ,tha tth e“FCC may tak ethe view tha tper mi ssion will beneeded fro mgovernment authoriti es wh en de sign ing

79 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 64 64 CODE 2.0 awide var iet yof ser vic es ,comp ute rs ,and web sites that use th eInt ernet pro - nes will be gover nment all ymanda ted as to col ...[I]n fo rmati on flo wmembra 8 That hi nt ha s part of the design proc ess for onl ine produc ts and serv ices .” ion (FCC) cat ions Commiss con tinue d:In Augus t200 5, the Fed er al Communi rul edthat Voice- over- IP servic es “must be des igne dsoas to make gov er nm ent 9 wire tapp ing easi er.” Of co ur se, reg ulat ing the arc hi tec ture of the netwo rk was not the onl y me an s that Co ngr ess ha d. Co ng res s co ul d have compen sated for an y los s in cri me pr eve nt io n th at re sult ed from the dec rease d ability to wir eta p by 10 Or Co ng re ss cou ld hav e incre ased the in cr easin g cr im inal punish ments . to crimina lin vest igat ion. Both of these chang es wo uld hav e re sou rce sdevoted alt ered the in ce nti ves th atcrim in alsfac ewi tho ut usin gthe net work ’s po ten ti al to hel ptra ck and co nv ic tcr im inals. But in ste ad, Congress ac tedtochan gethe ne tworks , thu s us in g the networks archi tec ture of th e tel ephone dir ec tly to chan ge the incent iv es of cr imi nal s ind ir ectly. This is la w re gul ati ng code . Its ind ir ect ef fec t is to imp ro ve law enf or ce - me nt , and it do es so by mo dif yi ng code-bas on law enf or ce - ed co nstraints me nt . compa nies .Ther e ar e few Re gulat ion li ke th is wo rks wel l wi th telephone comp an ie s,and the regula ti onis rela ti ve ly eas yto ve rify. Telep hone compa nies again st them ar elikel yto be are thus re gu lab le int ermed iar ies: Rul esdirected en forced . But what ab out wh en telephone servi ce (or ra th er “te lep hone serv ice ”) be gi ns to be carr ied acro ss the Int erne t? Vo nage, or Skype, rather than Be ll 11 So ut h? Are thes e enti ti es si mi lar ly regu lable? Th ean sw er is th atthey are, thou gh fo rdi ff er ent reasons .Sky pe andVon - ag e, as wel l as man y other VOI P prov id ers , seek to maximize their valu e as ra ting reli ab ly regu lab le co rp ora ti ons .Tha tva lu ecome sin part from demonst be havi or .Fa iling to comply with the ru les of the United States go ve rn me nt is not afoun datio nup on which to build ahealt hy ,profi table comp any. Th at’s as tr ue for Ge ne ra l Moto rs as it is for eB ay. Telep hones : Par t 2 the FBI pet ition ed the Fe dera l Fo ur yea rs aft er Co ngr ess ena ct ed CALEA, ent’ spowe r Commu nica tio ns Commis sio nto enhance even fu rthe rgovernm to re gul ate . Amo ng the amendments was a reg ula tion the FBI proposed usin g ce llu la r des ign ed to req uire dis cl osu re of the lo catio ns of indi viduals phon es by requi ri ng the pho ne com pa nies to report the cell tower from wh ic h 12 th eca ll was se rv ed. Ce llu la rpho ne sys tem sne ed this data to ens ur eseam les s

80 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 65 65 regu lat ing co de swit chi ngbe twee ntra nsm itters. Bu tbe yo nd this an dbilling, the phone com - pan ie s have no furth er need for thi s infor mation. The FBI ,ho wev er, has int ere sts beyo nd thos eof the com pa nies .It wou ld it has a“le gitimate la w enf orce ment like that data made av ail ab le whenever wou ld requ ire to CALEA re as on” for re que st ing it. The pro po sed amendment which is awa yof ind ir ectl y the cel lula rcompa ny to provid eth is inf or mation, 13 retrieva ble. req ui ring th at it wri te its co de to mak e the inf ormation was reaso nab le eno ugh: The ori ginal mot ivat ion fo r this re qu irement Eme rgenc y ser vic e prov iders needed a simple way to determ in e where an emer ge ncy cellul ar phone cal l was co mi ng from. Thus, reveali ng locati on dat a was ne cessar y, at leas t in those cases. Bu t th e FBI was keen to ex ten d the re ach of loca tio n da ta beyond ca ses wh ere someone was call in g 91 1, so the y push ed to requir e the colle ct io n of thi s in formation when eve r a cal l is ma de . So far ,the FBI has been su cc es sfu l in its re qu es ts with the regulato rs but less sowi thcou rts. Bu tthe limi ts the cou rt shave imposed simpl yrequ ire the FBI to meet a high burde n of pro of to get acces s to the data . Wh atev er the stan dard ,the ef fect of the re gu lati on has been to force cel l pho ne co mpa nies to bu il dtheir sy ste ms to col lec tand pre serve akind of dat atha tonly aids th e go ve rn ment. Da ta Retent io n Co mp uters gat her da ta about how they’re used. These da ta are col lected in they might ga the r lots of log s. The lo gs can be verb ose or no t— meaning dat a, or litt le .And th emore they gather ,th eeasier it wil lbe to tra ce who did what . Gov ern ments are begi nni ng to reco gniz e this. And som e ar e making su re th ey can ta ke adv anta ge of it. Th e United States is be gin ning to 14 “mu ll ,” an d th e Euro pe an Un ion has ad opt ed, leg islat ion to re gul at e“da ta gener ate d or pr ocess ed in conn ect ion with th e provision of pu bl icly av ail - abl e electr onic co mmunica retain spe ci- th at providers tio ns, ”by re quiring fie d da ta to better en able law enf orc emen t. This includes dat a to det ermine ion, time, dur at ion, type, and eq uip ment used in agiven th eso urc e, destinat 15 co mmuni cati on. Ru le ssuc has th is wil lbuild alaye rof tra ceabili ty int othe ati on, ma ki ng it easi er for go ve rnme nts to pl atform of ele ctro ni ccommunic nEdMa rkey of tra ck in di vidua lbe havio r. (By co ntr as t, in 2006, Congressma Ma ssa ch use tt s pr opo sed leg isla tion to forbi d certain com pa nies , Internet pr imar il y se arch engi ne s, fr om ke epi ng logs that mak e Interne t behavio r 16 tra cea ble. We’l l se e ho w fa r that pr opose d rul e gets.)

81 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 66 66 CODE 2.0 Encr yp ti on to code writ ers as a The examp les so fa r have invo lved re gu lation s directed es ,the gove rnm ent is dou bl y wa y in direc tly toch ang ebehav ior. But sometim ind irect: So metime sit cr ea te sma rket in ce nt ives as away to chang ecode writ - in g, so th at the code wr itin gwill indir ectly change beha vi or. An ex ample is the U.S .go ve rnm ent’s fai le dat tem pt to secur eClippe ras the standa rd for encryp - 17 ogy. tio n technol The same I have alr ead y sket ched the Janu s-f aced na tu re of encr yption: The gov ernm ent techn olog y enab les bo th conf ident ial ity and identif ication. allow s ind ivid ua ls to is co nce rned with th e conf ide nt ia li ty part. Encryption make the ir conv er sa tio nsorda taex cha nges untra nsla table except bysomeone 18 but we can put tha t wit h a key . How unt ransl atab le is a ma tter of debate, debate as ide fo r the moment, bec au se ,re gardles s, it is too untra nsl ata ble for sought the gove rnme nt’s li king. So the gove rnment to contr ol the use of en cr ypt ion tec hno logy byge tt ing the Clippe rchip acc epted as astan dar dfo r en cr ypt ion. The mechani cs of the Clipper chip are not easil ysum mariz ed, but its aim was to en cou ra ge enc ryp ti on tec hnol ogies that left a ba ck do or ope n for the 19 A co nve rsati on co ul d be enc rypt ed so tha t othe rs cou ld not go ve rn ment. wou ld have the abi lity (in most cases wit h un der stand it ,but the go vernment a cou rt or de r) to decry pt the conve rsat ion us ing a sp ecial key. then wa show it cou ld spre ad the Clip - The que st ion for the government per chi ptec hnolo gy. Atfirs t, the Cl into nadministr at ion though tthat thebest gy. This stra teg y pro ved wa y was simp ly to ban al l other enc ryp tion technolo e: It then fixed on a diff erent techniqu ve ry con tr ov ersia l, so the gove rnment 20 su bsi dize d th e develo pment and dep loy ment of the Cl ipp er ch ip. The thin king was ob vi ou s: If th e gover nment cou ld get indu stry to use Clipper the chea pes t tech nol ogy, th en it cou ld indir ec tl y Clip per by making wou ld do the re gul ation for the re gul ate the use of encry pt ion. The market 21 go ve rn ment. The su bsid y pl an fai led. Sk ept ic ism abo ut the qu ality of the co de itse lf , an d ab out the secrec y wi th whi ch it had been devel oped, as wel l as stro ng op pos it io n to any go ver nme ntal ly di rected encryption regime (es pe cia ll y a U.S .-spo nsored regim e), led most to reject the tech nolo gy. This forc ed the go ve rn ment to tak e ano ther path. That alte rnative isfo rour purp oses th emost inter esting .For atim e, som e we re pu shi ng fo rau tho ri ty to re gu late authors ncod edire ctly— of encryptio wi tharequi re ment th atthe ybuild int othei rcod eaback door th roug hwhich 22 the go ve rnment coul d ga in ac ce ss. Whi le the prop os als have bee n va ri ous ,

82 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 67 67 regu lat ing co de they all ai m at ens uri ng that the governme nt has a way to crac k whatever en cr ypt ion code a us er sel ects. Co mpa red with other strat eg ie s— ba nning the us e of enc ryp tion or —this mo de flo oding th e ma rk et with an al te rnat ive encr yption standard pre sen ts a nu mbe r of advantag es. First ,un like bannin gthe use of enc ry ption, th is mode of reg ulation does not ls. It th eref ore is not vuln er - dir ect lyin te rfere with the rig ht sof use by individua able to a st rong , if yet unp roven consti tut ional claim that an in divi du al has a rig ht “to spea kthroug hen crypti on. ”It aims on ly to change th emix ofencry pt ion use by an in divi du al. techno log ie savai labl e,no tto con tr ol dir ect ly any particular St ate regulat ion of th ewri ti ng of enc ry ption co de is just lik estate reg ulatio nof the desig n of auto mo bil es: Indiv id ual use is no t reg ulate d. Secon d, unlik e the te ch ni qu eof subs idizing one marke tsolution, this solu tion allows the mark et to co mpet eto prov ide thebe st enc ry ptio nsy ste m, give nthis re gula tory cons tra int. Fina lly,unli ke bo th other sol ution s, this one involves the reg ulatio nof onl yare l- ativ elysm all num ber of actors, sin ce man ufactu rer sof encryp tion tec hnolog yare far fe wer innu mb er than user sor bu ye rs of encry ption sys tems. Li ke the oth er exa mpl es in thi s section, the n, this sol ution is an ex amp le of the go ver nment reg ul at ing co de di rectly so as to better reg ula te behav ior in di rect ly ;the go vernm ent us es th earchi tecture of the code to re ach apar tic - ular subst ant iv eend .He re the end, as wi th digital telephony, is to ens ure tha t the governm en t’ s ability to searc h certain conversa tion s is no t blo cked by pursues em erg in g tec hnolo gy. And again, th e go vernment tha t end not by und er which re gul ati ng pri ma ry beha vi or but by reg ulating the conditions pr imar y be havior happens. ITY REG UL AT IN G CODE TO IN CR EAS E REG ULABIL that the gover nm ent wants to Al l fiv e of thes e exa mpl es ad dre ss a behavior In al l fiv e, the go ve rn- re gul ate, but whic h it ca nno t (e asi ly) re gul ate directly. me nt th us regu lat es th at behavi or indi rectly by directly regu lating technolo - ies in turn infl ue nce gi es that aff ect tha t behav ior. Tho se reg ulated technolog or con st rai n th e targe ted behavi or di ffe rently. They “influ enc e the deve lop - 23 men t of cod e. ” They ar e regu lation s of cod e tha t in turn mak e beh avior mo re regu lab le . The que stion that beg an thi schap ter wa swhethe rthe re we resimi lar ways th at the governm ent might regulat ecod eon the In te rne tto ma ke beha vior on the Net more regu labl e. Th ean swer is ob viou sly yes. Th ere are many st eps the gov ern me nt mi gh t ta ke to mak e beh avio r on the networ k more re gu lab le, an d there are obviou s re asons for taki ng thos e steps .

83 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 68 68 CODE 2.0 If don e prop erl y, th ese st eps wo ul d reduce and is olate unt ra ce able Inte r- tha t ba d behav ior net beha vio r. Tha t in turn would incre ase the pro bability signific antl y red uce the wo uld be detect ed. Inc rea sed de tectio n would exp ect edreturn from mal ic iou sness. For some signific ant range of mal evol ent act or s,that shif t wou ld dr ive their ba d behav io r els ew he re. This wo uld no twork perfec tly ,of cou rs e.Noef fo rt of cont rol could ev er ior. But pe rf ec - be per fec tineither as su ri ng trace abi li ty or tr acking misbehav tio n is not the standa rd. The qu est io n is whethe r the gover nme nt cou ld put en ough in cen tives in to the mixof the network toinduce ashif ttoward strace - abi li ty as a de fau lt. Fo r obvi ous reas ons, again, the ans we r is yes . Fo rm The General If the go ve rnment’s ai m is to fac ilitat e tra ceabil ity, that can be ach ie ve d by attac hin ganid en tit yto actors on thenetwork .One conceiv abl eway to do tha t wo uld beto req uir ene two rk providers toblo ck action sby indi vidu als no tdis- play in g a go vernmen t-i ss ued ID . That str ate gy, how eve r, is unlikel y, as it is l identit y po lit ically imp os sib le .Ameri cans are antsy enough about a nationa 24 the y are not likely to be int ere st ed in an Intern et identity car d. card ; But eve nif the governme nt can ’t force cyb er citiz ens to carr yID s,itisno t in centi ves dif fi cul t to crea te stro ng for indiv idu als to carry ID s. The re is no but you woul dfi nd itvery req ui rement that all ci ti ze ns have adriv er’s license, hard to get arou nd without one, even if you do not dri ve. Th e gov ernm ent on on your per son ,but doe snot requir eth at you ke ep st ate- iss ued identificati if yo u wa nt to fly to ano ther cit y, you mus t show at least one for m of it. The po int is obvi ou s: Make the inc ent ive to ca rry ID so str ong that it tip sthe nor - mal requ ire ments of int era cti ng on the Ne t. In the same way, the go vern men tcou ld cre ate inc enti ves toen abl edigi tal ID s, not by re gu lat ing indiv idu al s di rectly but by regul ating inte rmed ia ries . In ter med iar ies are few er, thei r inte rests are usu ally commercial, and they ar e and or di nari ly pl iant targ ets of re gu lati on. ISP s will be the “mos t im portant 25 ob vio us ”ta rge ts —“fo cal poi nts of Int er net control.” ha s to ind uc e the spread of Co ns id er fir st the mean s the gove rnment “d igi tal IDs .” Iwi ll then de scr ibe more what these “digit al ID s” would ha ve to be . Fi rst ,gov ernment me ans: •Sites on the Net have the ab il ity to co ndit ion access based on whether so meo ne car - rie sthe pr oper cr eden tial. The gov er nm ent has the po we rto requir esites to im pose this condi tion. Fo rexa mpl e, the sta te could re qu ire tha tgam bl ing site sch eck the

84 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 69 69 regu lat ing co de age and resid en cyof anyone try ing tous ethe site. Man ysi tescould be req uire dto ch eck the citiz ens hip of pote nt ial us ers , or an y numbe r of ot her cre dentia ls . As more an d more site s co mplied with this req uire me nt, ind ivid uals wou ld have a gre at erand grea te rinc ent ive to ca rry the prope rcr eden tial s. Th emore crede ntial s 26 they car ri ed, the eas ie rit would be toim pose reg ula tion son the m. who fi le dhis orher incom etax •The gov ernm ent cou ld give atax br eak to anyone wi th a prope r cre dent ial. ent coul d impos e a 10 percent Intern et sale s tax and then exempt • The governm any one wh opur chas edgo ods with acert ifi cate that au th ent icate dthe ir sta te of resi de nc e; th est at ewo ul dthe nbeabl eto coll ect wh at ev erlocalta xapp lie dwhe n 27 it wa s inf or me d of the purc has e. pu blication s un less they • Th e gover nm ent coul d cha rge us ers for government gai ne d acce ss to th e site with a prope rl y au the nt icate d cer tifi cate . 28 • As in ot her Wes tern dem ocra cies, the gover nment co uld manda te vo ting — an d the n esta bl is h Inte rnet vot ing ; vote rs would come to the vi rtual po lls wi th d. a dig ital identi ty tha t ce rt if ie d the m as registere • Th e governm ent coul d make cr ed it card compani es lia ble fo r the full cost of an y cr ed it card or deb it ca rd online frau d whe ne ve r the transact ion was proce sse d wi tho ut a qua lif ie d ID. • The go ve rnme nt coul d re quire th e establishment of a se cure reg istr y of e-ma il se rv ers that wou ld be us ed to figh t spam. That list would enc our age others to be gi n to requir e so me fu rth er le vel of au th ent ic ation befor e sending e-m ail. That authent ic at ion coul d be sup plie d by a digi tal ID. The eff ec t of eac h of thes e st ra teg ies would be to incre as e the pr ev ale nce The re is an ob vi - of digit al IDs. And atsome poi nt, th ere woul dbe atipping. ous be nef it to ma ny on the Net to be able to increas e confide nce about the enti ty with who m th ey are de al ing. Thes e digital IDs woul d be a tool to inc rease th at con fi den ce .Thus, even if asit eper mi ts its elf to be acc es se dwi th - that in itial conta ct coul d out an y cer ti fica ti on by the use r, an y st ep beyond req ui re ca rry ing the pr oper ID . Th e norm woul d be to travel in cybe rs pa ce wi th an ID; tho se who ref use woul d find the cybe rs pa ce th at they coul d inh abit ra dic al ly red uc ed. The co nsequ ence of thi s tipp ing would be to ef fe ctiv el y sta mp ev er y act ion on th e Inte rne t—at a mini mu m—with a kind of digita l finge rprint. at a mini mum—w That fi ng erprint— ould enable autho ritie s to trac e any — a minimum act ion bac k to th e pa rty res po ns ib le for it. That tra cing—at co ul d requ ire ju dicia l overs ig ht befo re any tra ce coul d be eff ecte d. And tha t ov ersigh t—a t a min imu m—co ul d tra ck the or dinary require men ts of th e Fou rt hAme nd ment .

85 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 70 70 CODE 2.0 At a min imum .For the cri ti cal part in thi s story is no t th at the gove rn- it could. Ins tead, the men t could ind uce an ID -r ich Int ern et . Ob viously Inte rne t the gover nme nt impo rta nt quest ion is the kind of ID-rich indu ce s. Compa re two ve ry di ff erent sorts of digita l ID s, both of which we can und ers ta nd in terms of the “w al le t” metaphor used in Chapte r 4 to describe ft is hel ping to le ad . the ev olving tec hnol ogy of identi ty that Microso On e sor t of ID wou ld work li ke thi s: Ev er y tim e you ne ed to id ent if y yo urself ,you turn over your wallet .Th eparty demanding iden tific at ion ru m- mag es thr oug h th e wal le t, gather ing wh atever data he wants. The sec ond so rt of ID wo rks al ong the line s of the Id ent it y La ye r des cri bed in Chap ter 4: Wh en yo uneed toidentify yours elf, you ca n provid e the min im al ide nt if ic ati on nece ssary .So if you need to ce rt ify that you ’re an Am eri ca n, on ly tha t bit gets rev ea led. Or if you ne ed to cert ify that you’ re over 18, only that fact ge ts revea led. On th emod el of the second form of the di git al ID, it becomes possib le to im agin e th en an ultra -mini mal ID—a n ide nt ifi cati on that rev eals no thin gon its fa ce, but fac il it at es tra ceabi lity. Ag ain, a ki nd of digital finger pr int wh ich is me ani ngl ess unl ess decod ed, and, onc e decod ed, links back to a responsible agen t. Thes e two archi tec ture s stand at oppos ite ends of a spec tr um. Th ey pr od uce rad icall y di ffe re nt cons equ ences for pri vacy and ano ny mity . Per - fect ano ny mit y is pos sibl e with neith er; the minimal ef fe ct of bot h is to mode, th at trace ab ility itsel f make beha vior traceab le .But wi th th e second ca n be heavily re gul at ed. Thu s, there should be no possi ble tr ac eability wh en the only acti on at iss ue is pr ot ected speech. And where a trace is to be per mi tt ed, it sh oul d on ly be per mit ted if authorized by pr op er judic ial acti on. Thu s the sys te m woul d pres erve the ca pacity to iden tify who did under aut hori zed cir - wh at whe n, bu t it wou ld only real ize that capacity cu ms tanc es. The dif fer ence betwee n the se two ID- ena ble d wor lds ,the n, is all the dif - fe ren ce in the wor ld. And cr it ic al ly, which worl d we get depends com plete ly upo n the values th at gu ide the develop ment of this architectu re . ID -ty pe 1 wo uld be a disa ste r for priv ac y as well as secur ity. ID -type 2 coul d ra dical ly incr ease pr iv ac y, as well as sec ur it y, for all except those whose beha vior can legi ti mately be track ed. Now, th e feas ibilit y of the gover nme nt eff ec ting eithe r ID depe nds cru - ci all y upo n the targe t of reg ulati on. It depe nds upo n the re being an entity re sp ons ib lefo rthe cod ethat in divi du als use, and it requires that thes eenti ti es can be ef fec ti vely regu lated . Is thi s ass umptio n really tru e? The gov er nm ent

86 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 71 71 regu lat ing co de ma y be ab le to regu lat e the tel epho ne compan ies, but can it re gu la te a div er- sity of co de wr it ers? In part ic ular, ca n it re gulate code write rs who are com - mi tted to res ist ing prec isel y such reg ul at ion ? In a wo rld wh ere the code wr iters were the sort of pe ople who gov erne d 29 of a fe w years ago ,th e ans wer is pro b- the Inte rne t Eng ineer ing Ta sk Force ab ly no. Th e under pa id he roes who built the Net have ideolog ica l re as ons to res is tgov er nment’ smand at e. They we re not likely toyield to its threats .Thus , they wo uld provi de an impo rtant check on the go ve rn me nt’s pow er ove r the archi tec tures of cy berspa ce . ial —as it becom es the pr od uc t of But as co de writ ing beco mes commerc asma ll er numb er of la rge comp an ies— the go vernment ’s abil it ytoreg ulate it bu sine sses(and incr ease s. Th emore money there isat stake, the less inclined thei r bac ke rs ) are to be ar the co sts of promoting an ideolo gy. The best exampl e is th e hi sto ry of enc ry ption. Fr om the ver y sta rt of the scont ro lof encryption, techie shave arg ue dtha t debate over the go vernment’ su ch regulati on sar esi lly .Cod ecan alway sbe export ed ;bits kno wnoborders. So the idea that a law of Cong ress wou ld contro l the flo w of co de wa s, thes e peo ple ar gu ed ,absu rd. The fact is, however, that the reg ul at ion s ha d a substa nt ia l eff ect. Not on from any num ber the techie s—wh oco uld easi ly get enc ry ption technologies t on th e busi ne sses writing so ftwar e tha t woul d of pla ce s on the Net—bu or IBM was no tab out to bui ldand sell inc orp or at esuch tech nol og y. Netscape so ft ware in vio lat io n of U.S. regulati ons. The Uni ted States ha s a fa ir ly pow - er fulthre at aga inst the se tw oco mp anie s.As the techies pred icted, re gu la tion di dno tco ntr olth eflowof bits. Bu tit did quite su bstantially inhibit the de vel- 30 op men t of softwa re that woul d use the se bits. Th e effe ct ha s be en pro found . Compan ies tha t were once ba st ions of unr egul ab ili ty ar e no w be com ing prod ucers of techno logies that fa cilita te of the enc ryp ti on pr o- re gulat io n. Fo rexamp le ,Net wo rk As soc iates, inheritor nt of regulation of enc ry pti on ;now gr amPGP ,was or ig inall yastr ong oppone cont rol of encryption an drecovery it off ers pr oduc ts that fac il itat ecorporate 31 of key s. Key reco ver ycrea tes acorpo rat eback doo r, which, in ma nycontex ts, ba ck door. is far les s re str ic ted than a governmental 32 Ci sc o is a sec ond exa mpl e. In 1998 Cisco an nou nced a rout er pr od uc t tha twou ld enab le anISP to enc ryp tInt er net tr affic at the link lev el —betw ee n 33 ga teways, th at is. But this rout er would al so have asw itch that would dis able the en cr ypt io nof the rout er data and facil itate the coll ection of unencr yp te d In ter net tra ffic .Th is sw itc h co uld be flipp ed at the govern men t’s comm and ; ed only when the gov er nm ent in othe r wo rds , the data would be encrypt al lowe d it to be.

87 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 72 72 CODE 2.0 The po in t in bo th case s is that the gove rnm ent is a pla yer in the ma rket rul es and by pu rcha sing fo r so ft ware. It affec ts the mark et bo th by creating pro du cts . Ei the r way, it inf luenc es the supp ly of com mer cia l softwa re demand pro vi der s who exist to prov ide wha t the market s. Ve tera ns of th e ear ly da ys of the Ne t mi gh t as k these suppli ers, “H ow co uld yo u? ” “It’ s just bu sines s,” is the obvi ous rep ly. COA ST COD ES EA ST CO AST AND WEST Thro ug hout thi s sec ti on, I’ ve been spe aki ng of two sorts of cod e.One is the “co de” th at Congres sena cts (as inthe tax code or “the U.S. Cod e” ). Cong re ss pas se s an en dl es s arr ay of sta tu tes tha t say in words how to behav e. Some stat utes direc tpeopl e; others di rect comp anies ;so me direct bur eaucra ts .The techn ique is as old as gove rnment s to contr ol. In ou r itself: using command co untry ,it is a pri mari ly Ea st Coast (W ashington, D.C .) activ ity. Ca ll it “E as t Coast Cod e.” The othe r is the cod e that cod e writ ers “enact” —the instru ctio ns imbed - work. Th is is co de in ded in the so ft ware and hard ware that make cy berspace its mo de rn se nse .It reg ulate s in the ways I’ ve begu n to describe .The code of Ne t9 5, for ex ampl e, re gul at ed to dis abl ecentral ized control; co de th at enc rypt s re gulate sto protec tpriva cy .In ourco untry (MIT ex ce pted), this kin dof code activi ty.We can wr it ing is in crea sin gl yaWest Coa st (S ili con Valley, Redmond) cal lit“Wes tCoas tCod e.” West Coas tand East Co ast Cod ecan get al ongperfec tly when they’ re not wit hi nit sow n payi ng much at te ntio nto eac hother. Each ,that is, can regulate dom ain .But th est or yof this ch apte ris “When East Mee ts West” :wh at happ en s when East Coast Cod e recogni ze s how West Coast Code af fect s regul abi lity , and whe nEast Coa st Cod esee showit mi ght interact wit hWest Coast Code to in du ce itto re gulate di fferent ly. The power of East Co ast Code over West This inte rac tio n has changed. of hackers and indi - Coa st Code ha sincre as ed. Wh en softw are was the product vi dua ls loc ated ou tsi de of any ins titut io nof eff ecti ve co ntrol (for ex am ple ,the Un iv er sity of Illino is or MIT ), East Co ast Code could dolittle tocon tr olWest 34 Co as tCo de . But as cod ehas become the pr oduct of comp anie s, th epow er of Ea stCoa st Code has in cr eased. When commerc ewrites code, then cod ecan be co ntro ll ed, becau se co mmerc ial enti ti escan becontrol led .Thus, th epo wer of Ea stover West in cr ease sas We st Coast Code becomes inc reasingl ycomme rc ia l. There isalong his tory of power mov ing we st. It te lls of the cla sh of wa ys be tween the old and the new .Th e patt ern is familiar. The East rea ches out to

88 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 73 73 regu lat ing co de co ntrol th eWes t; th eWes tres is ts .But that re sis tance is never com ple te .Va lues fro mthe Eas tbec ome int eg rat ed with the Wes t. Th enew takes onabit of the old . on the Inte rn et. Wh en We st Coas t That is precis ely what is happening Cod e wa s bor n, the re wa s littl e in its DNA that cared at al l about Eas t Coas t Re gu la - nication. Cod e co nce rns. Th e Int erne t’s ai m was end- to- end commu tio n at the mid dle wa s si mply dis abl ed. Over tim e, the conc erns of East Coas t Co de rs hav e be come mu ch mor e sa lien t. Every one hates the pa th olo gies of the Internet— viru ses, ID th ef t, an d spam, topick the leas tco nt roversi al .That uni versal hatred has war me dWe st Co ast Coders to fin di ng a rem edy . Th ey are now pri me d for the inf lu ence East Coast Code req uire s: ad di ng compl eme nts to the Inter net archite ctu re that wil l bri ng reg ul abi lit y to the Net. No w, some will co ntinue to res ist my clai m th at the gove rnme nt can ef fec t a reg ulab le Ne t. This res is tanc e has a co mmo n fo rm: Even if arch itec - tur es of id entif icati on eme rg e, and even if the y bec ome co mmo n, there is noth in gto show that th ey will becom eunivers al, and nothi ng toshow tha tat can alway swor karoun d any one time they cou ldnot be ev aded .Indi viduals the setechno lo gi es of identity .Nocon tr ol that they coul deffect woul dever be pe rf ect. Tru e. The co ntr ol of anID -r ic hIn te rn etwould ne ve rbe co mple te.The re wil l always be wa ys to esc ape . But ther e is an imp ortant fal la cy lu rki ng in the ar gu me nt: Ju st be cau se per fec tcontr ol isno tpossib le doe snot mean that effective contro lisno tpos - sibl e. Lo cks ca n be pi ck ed, but that do es not mean locks are us eles s. In the co ntext of the Inte rne t, eve n part ial co ntrol woul d have powe rfu l ef fects . . A fun dam en tal pri nciple of bovi nity is operating here and elsewhere ,are enough to direc t ve ry la rge anima ls . Ti ny con tr ols ,co nsis te ntl y enforced Th econt rols of ace rti fica te -r ich Inter ne tare ti ny, Iagre e. But we ar ela rge ani - mal s. Ithink it is aslik ely th at the majority of peop le wou ld res ist the se sm al l but ef fi cie nt re gu lat ors of the Net as it is that co ws wou ld res is t wir e fe nce s. This is who we are ,and this is wh y the se regu lations work. So imagine the wor ld in whi ch we al l cou ld sim pl y es tabl ish ou r cre de n- tial s si mply by lo oking int o a camer a or swip ing ou r finge r on a th um bp rint re ader. In a sec ond, with ou t easi ly for gotten passw or ds, or eas il y for ge d aut hen tica tion , we get acce ss to the Net, wi th all of the attrib ute s that are our s, reli ab ly and sim ply as sertabl e. What wil l happe n then? When you can cho ose betw ee n reme mbe ring a pas s-ph ra se ,typing it eve ry time yo uwant access to your com put er, and sim - ply us in g you r th um b to authe nt ic at e who you are? Or if not you r th um b,

89 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 74 74 CODE 2.0 the n you r ir is, or whate ver body par t turn s out to be ch ea pes t to cert ify? res ist? Whe n it is ea sies t si mply to give ide nti ty up ,will anyone If this is sell ing you rso ul,then trus tthat ther earetrulywond erfu lbene - sexist on the Int er net fi tsto be had .Im agine aworl dwher eall yo ur document in a“v irt ual pri vate net wo rk,” acc es sib le by youfrom any mach in eon th eNet 35 Yo u cou ld si t at an y ma chi ne, call an d pe rf ec tl y sec ured by a bi omet ric key . do you rwor k, an swer you re-mail, and mo ve on —every up your doc uments, - th ing perf ectl yse cur eand sa fe ,lock edup by akey certif ied by the markin gs in yo ur eye. .An dit com es This is th eea si est an dmos tefficien tarchit ect ure toimagine ntication. at (what some th ink ) is a very low pr ic e—authe Ju st sa y who you are ,plu ginto anarchi tect ure th at certi fies facts about you, giv eyour ide nti ty away ,an d al l th is cou ld be yo urs. Z-T HEO RY “So ,li ke, itdidn ’thap pen ,Le ssig .You said in1999 th atcom merce and gove rn - me nt wo ul d wo rk tog ethe r to bui ld the pe rfec tly regulab le net. As I lo ok thr ou gh my sp am-in fe sted inbox , whi le my viru s chec ke r runs in the ba ck - gro und, I wo nde r wh at you th ink now . Wh atever wa s possibl e hasn ’t ha p- pen ed . Do esn ’t th at show that yo u’ re wro ng?” An d So wri tes a fr iend to me as I be gan th is proj ect to upda te . v1 Code when the chan ge I was pre dicting whi le I nev er ac tu al ly sai d anythi ng about wo uld hap pe n, th ere is somethi ng in the cr iticism. Th e theory of Cod e v1 is miss ing a pa rt: What eve r inc ent ives th ere are to pus h in sma ll way s to the what woul d moti vate the per fec tly regu lab le Ne t, the theory doe sn’ t explain fin al pu sh. Wha t ge ts us ov er the ti ppi ng point? The an sw er is not fully wri tt en, but its int ro du ction was pu blish ed this Ha rva rd Law Revie w gave Profes sor Jon atha n Zitt rain ye ar .In May 2006 ,the 36 (he nce “Z- th eory ”) 67 pages toexplain “The Gener ativ eInte rne t.” The art i- nt is the mis sing cle is bri ll iant; the boo k wil l be even bet te r; and the argume Co de v1 . piec e in will be fa miliar to re ade rs of this book. Much of The Gener ati ve In ter ne t Ge nera l-pu rpo se computer s plu s an end-to -end netwo rk, Zit tr ain argue s, ative”) ha ve pro du ced an ex traord inari ly inno vative (“gener pl atf or m for e the good st uf f this pl atfor m has pro du ced .But we (I in ven tio n. We celebrat espe cial ly) who so cel ebrat e don’t pay en ou gh atten tion to th e ba d. For the ve ry sam e desi gn that mak es it poss ib le fo r an Ind ian immigra nt to inv en t Ho TMai L, or Sta nford dr opo uts to cre ate Goog le, als o makes it pos sible for mal co nte nts and wo rse to cre at e virus es and wors e. These sor ts us e the

90 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 75 75 regu lat ing co de gen er ative Inte rn et to gen er ate evil. And as Zitt rain rightly obs er ve s, we’ ve just be gu n to see the evi l thi s mal ware wi ll pro du ce. Con sider ju st a few of his ex ampl es : •In2003, inatest de signed to meas ure the soph istication rs in fin ding of spamme “op en rel ay” ser ve rs thro ug h which they cou ld sen d the ir sp am un de tecte d, wit hin 10hours spa mm ers had fo und the se rv er. Within 66 hours the yhad sent 37 more th an 3.3 milli on mes sa ges to 22 9,468 pe ople . • In 2004, the Sas ser worm was abl e to compromise more than 500, 000 comput - 38 ers—i njust3day s. Th eye ar bef or e, theSlamme rwo rminfect ed90pe rce ntof 39 a parti cul ar Mi cros of t serve r—in jus t 15 mi nute s. •In 20 03 ,th eSo Big.F e-ma il virus ac counted for almos t70 pe rce nt of thee-m ail s se nt whi le it was spr eading. More tha n 23. 2 mi lli on messa ge s were sent to AOL 40 users al one . Th es ear eof cour se not isol ated events. They areins tea dpa rtof agro wing pat tern . As the U.S. Comput er Emer gency Read in ess Team ca lcul ates , the re has been an explos ion of sec uri ty inci dents report ed to CERT . Here is the 41 grap h Zi ttr ain pro duc ed fro m the data: 03 Num Se curi ty Inci dents Re porte d to CERT/C C, 19 88-20 r of be 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80 ,0 00 60 ,0 00 40 ,0 00 20 ,0 00 0 19 88 1 98 9 1 99 0 1 991 19 92 19 93 1 99 4 1 995 19 96 1 997 1 998 1 999 2000 20 01 2002 2003

91 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 76 76 CODE 2.0 Th egrap hends in 20 04 bec aus eCERT con clud ed tha tthe incid ents wer e so “c ommo nplace hable fro m one and wide spre ad as to be indistinguis 42 an othe r.” That the re is ma lw are on the Inte rnet isn’ t su rp ris ing .That it is growing is n’t su rprising ei ther. What is surpri si ng is that, so far at least, this malwa re ha snot been as destruc tiv eas it could be. Giv en the abi lity of malw ar eauth ors to get their malici ous cod eon many machines ver yqui ckly ,why hav en’t mor e tr ied to do rea l harm ? Fo rexa mpl e, im ag in eawo rm tha tworked itself on to amilli on ma ch ines , and in a synch roniz ed att ack, sim ult an eously deleted the har d drive of all mi ll io n mac hi ne s. Zi tt rai n’ s poi nt is no t that this is easy, but rathe r, that it is ju st as dif fic ult as the kind of wor ms th at are alread y succes sf ull y spre ading thems elve s eve rywhere .So wh y doe sn ’t one of the malic ious co de wr ite rs do on? re al damage ?Wh at’s stoppi ng cyber-Armagedd Th e ans wer is that the re ’s no go od answ er. And whe n th ere ’s no go od ex pl anat ion for wh y somethi ng ha sn’t happe ned yet, the re ’s goo d rea son to wo rr y tha t it wi ll ha ppen. And when thi s happen s—w hen a ma lw are author prod uces are al ly de vastat ingly dest ru ctive worm—that will tr igger th epol it - have not don e: pus h to com pl ete ic al re so lve to do what so far governments the work of tra nsfo rmi ng the Net into a regu lable sp ace. This is the cru cial (an don ce yo use eit, obv iou s)insi ght of Z-t he or y. Ter- ro r mo tivate s rad ic al chang e. Thi nk about, for exampl e, th e cha nge s in law 43 enf or cem ent (and the protec tion of ci vil rights )effected by the “Pat riot Act.” Th is ma ss ively exte ns ive pi ece of leg isl ation was en acted 45 day safter th eter - ro r at ta ck s on 9/11 . But mo st of that bil l ha d been written long bef ore 9/1 1. The aut ho rs knew that unt il there was a se riou s ter ro rist at tack ,the re would significan be ins uff ic ie nt poli ti cal wi ll to change tly .But onc e law enforcement the tr ig ger of 9/1 1 was pul led ,radi cal chang e was possibl e. The sam e wi ll be tr ue of th e Int ernet .The malw ar e we’v e se en so far has as annoyan We’ ve suf fered this damage cau sed gre at damage. ce rathe r than thre at . But when the Int ernet ’s eq ui val ent of 9/ 11 happe ns —wh ether spon - so red by “te rror ists ”or not—annoy ance wil l mature into po litical will. An d that po lit ical wi ll will pr odu ce rea l change. Zi tt rain ’saim is to prepa re us fo rth at ch ange. Hispowe rfu land ex te ns ive an aly si sworks thr oug hthe trade-o ff swecou ld make as we cha nge the Inte r- ne tinto some thi ng le ss ge ner ativ e. And wh ile his an alysis isworth yof aboo k of its ow n, I’l l le t him wr it e it. My goa l in po inting to it here is to pro vid e an v1 . Code Code out li ne to an ans wer that plu gs the ho le in the theory of v1 des cri bed th e mea ns .Z-theory prov ide s th e motive. {T XB2}

92 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 77 77 regu lat ing co de The There was an awful mov ie rel ea sed in 199 6 called Day . In dependence sto ry isab ou taninvas io nby ali en s. Whe nth eali en sfirst app ear, man year th- ling s are ea ger to we lco me them . Fo r these id ealists, there is no reas on to as sum e hos ti lit y, and so a gener al joy sprea ds amon g the hop efu l acr os s the glo be in reacti on towhat be fo re ha dsee med just adrea m: rea lly coo lali enlif e. Soo n aft er the aliens appe ar, howeve r, and wel l into the cel ebra tion, the mo od cha nges. Qui te suddenly , Ea rth’ s lea ders real iz e th at the inte ntions of th ese ali ens are not at all fr iend ly. Ind eed,they are quite hostile. Wi th inavery sh ort time of this re al iza ti on, Earth iscaptu red. (Only Jeff Goldb lu mrea liz es what ’s go ing on bef oreha nd, bu t he alw ays ge ts it firs t.) My st or y here is si mi lar (thou gh I hop e not as aw fu l). We ha ve be en as we lco mi ng an djoyou sabout th eNetasthe earthlings were about the ali ens in we hav e accep ted it s grow th in our lives wit hou t que s- In dep en de nce Da y; tio nin g it s final effect. But at some poi nt, we too will come to se e a pote ntia l thre at . We wil l see that cy berspa ce doe s not guar an tee its own fr ee dom but ins tea d car ries an ex trao rd ina ry po tent ial for co nt rol. And th en we will as k: Ho w sho ul d we res po nd? I ha ve sp ent many pag es making a point th at so me may fin d ob vi ou s. But Ihav efo und tha t, for some re aso n, the people for whom thi spoin tsh ou ld as nat ur e. Too be mos t impo rtant do not get it. Too many take this freedom ma ny beli eve liber ty wi ll tak e care of itsel f. Too many miss how different arch itectu res embe ddiffe ren tvalues, and tha tonly by se lecti ng the se di ff erent archi tec tures —th ese di fferent co de s—c an weestabl is hand prom ote our val- ues. why Ibe gan thi sbo ok with an acc ount of the Now it sho uld beapparent red is cov ery of th ero lefor sel f-g over nm ent, or contr ol, that has marked recent ar chi te ctu res of hi story inpos t-C omm un ist Eur ope. Market forces encourage e. Gove rnme nt needs to do ver y little — ide nti ty to faci litat e onli ne commerc The mark et ind eed , no thing at all —to indu ce ju st this sort of development. is ce rtain, fo rc es are to o powe rfu l; the pot enti al here is too great. If anything on the Net —and the re by it is th at an archi te cture of ident ity wi ll develop fu ndamental ly tr ans form its reg ula bil it y. Bu tis n’ titcle ar that gover nment shou ld dosome th ing tomak ethis arc hi - If co mmerc e is going to tect ure co ns is te nt wit h imp ort ant public values? defi nethe eme rging archi tect ure sof cybe rspa ce, isn’t th erol eof gov ernm ent rce’s inter es tare als o to ens ure that thos epu bl icvalu es that are not in comme bu ilt in to the arc hit ect ure ? Archite ctu re is a ki nd of law: It de te rmi ne s what peopl e ca n and ca nnot do .Whe nco mm er cia lint eres ts det er min ethe archi tecture, th ey creat eakind of pri va tiz ed la w. Iam not aga in st pri vat een terprise; my str ong pre su mpt ion

93 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 78 78 CODE 2.0 in mo st cas es is to let th e marke t pr od uce. But is n’t it ab solutely clea r that Tha t public va lues are not the re mu st be li mits to thi s pre sumption? exha us te dby th esum of wh atIB Mmigh tdesire? That wh at is goo dfor Am er - ic a Onl in e is not nec es sari ly go od for Amer ica? ing coll ecti ons of value s, and the Ord ina ril y, wh en we de scri be compet them, we ca ll the se choices “polit ic al.” They are ch oi ce s we ma ke among cho ices ab out how the wor ld wi ll be orde red and about which val ue s will be gi ven precedence. Choi ces among valu es , choi ce s about re gu lation, abo ut cont rol, choice s this is the st uff of poli tics . ab ou t the def initi on of sp aces of fr eedom—all Cod e co di fies va lues, and yet, oddl y, mos t peopl e sp eak as if cod e we re ju st a qu es tion of eng inee ring . Or as if code is best left to the market. Or bes t lef t una ddre ss ed by government. But the se att itu des are mi stak en. Po li ti cs is tha tpr oc essbywhich wecol - lec tiv ely decide how we sho ul d live . That is not to say it is a spac e whe re we co llec ti vi ze—a col lec tive ca n choos e a libe rtar ian for m of go vernme nt. The poi nt is not th e subs tance of the ch oic e. Th e point about politics is pro ce ss. Pol it ics is the pro cess by wh ic h we re ason about ho w things oug ht to be. Two dec ade s ago,in a powe rf ul tr il og y drawing togethe r a mov eme nt in 44 He mean tthat we le ga lth eor y,Robe rt oUnger pr ea ch ed that “it’ sall po litics.” the worl d is re move d from sh ou ld not acce pt tha t an y part of what defines pol iti cs—eve rythi ng sho uld be co nsi dere d “up fo r gra bs” and subj ect to ref orm. Many be li ev ed Ung er wa s argu ing that we should put everythin g up for grabs al l the time, that nothi ng sho uld be certai n or fix ed , tha t eve ryt hing sh ou ld be in consta nt flu x. But that is not wh at he meant. His mea ning was inst eadju st thi s: That we shou ldinte rr ogate the ne ce s- siti es of an yparti cula rsoci al orde rand ask whether they are in fa ctneces si ti es , an d we sh ould deman d th at those nec ess it ies just ify the pow er s tha t they or de r. As Bru ce Acke rman puts it, we mu st as k of eve ry exe rcis e of pow er: 45 Wh y? Pe rhap s not ex ac tly at the mo ment whe n the pow er is ex er cis ed, but so met ime. “Pow er,” in thi sac coun t, is jus tan other wo rd for cons tr aints tha thum ans ca ndosometh ing abo ut. Me teo rs cr ash ing to earth are not “power ”within the hits is not politics ,thou gh the do main of“it’s al l pol it ic s.” Where the meteor co nsequ ences may well be .Where it hi ts, instead, is nothing we ca n do an y- thi ng abo ut. But the ar chit ec ture of cybe rs pac e is pow er in this se ns e; ho w it is cou ld be diff ere nt. Po litics isabo ut ho wwedecide, how that power is exer cis ed ,and by whom.

94 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 79 79 regu lat ing co de If code is law, then ,asWi llia mMitc he ll wri tes ,“con tr olof cod eispower”: “F orciti zens of cyb ers pace, ...code...is beco mi ng acruci al focu sof polit ic al co ntes t. Wh o sh al l wr it e tha t so ftw are that increa singly str uc ture s ou r da ily 46 As the worl d is now , code wri ters are inc re as ingl y lawma ke rs . They li ve s? ” dete rmi ne wh at th e def au lts of th e Int er net will be; wh ether priv acy will be th eexte nt towhich prot ec ted ;the degr eeto whic hanony mit ywill be allowed; ac cess wil l be gu ar an teed . They are the ones who set its natu re . Their deci - sion s, now made in th e int erst ice s of how the Ne t is coded, define wha t the Net is. How th e co de regu lat es, who the code write rs are , and who contr ols the of justice mus tfo cus co de wri ters— the se ar eque stion son which any practice in the age of cyb erspa ce .The answ ers re ve al how cybers pac eis regulate d. My clai m in this part of the boo k is that cy be rsp ace is regul ated by its co de ,and that the co de is chan gi ng .Its reg ulat io n is its code, and its co de is ch ang ing . We are en te ri ng anage when the powe rof reg ul ation will be relo cated to astru ctur ewhos epro pe rti esand possi bi liti es are fun damentally dif ferent .As I sai d abo ut Ru ss ia at the sta rt of thi s bo ok, one for m of powe r ma y be is taking its pl ace. des tr oyed ,bu t another Our ai mmust betoun de rsta ndthis power and to as kwhe ther itispro p- er ly exe rc is ed. As Dav id Brin ask s, “If we admire the Net, sho uld not aburden of proof fall on thos ewho wo uld cha ng eth ebasic ass umptio ns tha tbroug ht 47 it abo ut in the first pl ace ?” Thes e “ba sic ass ump ti ons” were grou nde d in libe rt y and ope nne ss . An in vis ib le hand now thre at ens bo th. We need to unders tand how . {T XB2} On e examp le of th e dev elopi ng stru ggl e ove r cyber freedo ms is the sti ll-not- free Chi na. The Chi nese gov ernm ent has taken an inc reasing ly agg ress iv e norm s.Purv eyors stan dag ain st be ha vi orin cybe rspa ce th at violat es real-space of porn get 10 ye ars in jai l. Cri ti cs of the gove rnme nt get the same . If this is the peo ple ’s re pu bl ic, this is the peopl e’s tough love. To make thes e pro sec uti ons poss ib le, the Chines e ne ed the help of net - wo rk pr ov iders. And loc al la wreq ui res th at network providers in China he lp. ding Yaho o! So st or yaf ter st ory now reports major network prov ide rs—inclu and Mi cr os oft—h el pi ng the gove rnm ent do the sort of stuff tha twould make our Co ns titu tion cri nge . Bu t th e mor e re ve aling exa mp le of the The extreme s ar e bad enough. pat tern I’m de scr ibin g here is Googl e. Goo gle is (rightly) famou s for its fa n- tas tic searc heng ine. It sbran dhas been built on the ide atha tno irrele vant fac - tor con trols it s searc h results . Co mp ani es can buy search wo rds, but thei r re su lt s are br ac ke ted and separ ate from the main search resu lts . The ce ntr al

95 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 80 80 CODE 2.0 search res ults —th at part of the screen you r eyes ins tinctively go to—a re not with. to be tampered Un les sthe comp any see king to ta mper with the res ults is China, Inc. For 48 Si tesChi na want sto Chin a, Go ogle haspro mi sed to bu il dasp ec ial routi ne. bloc k won’ t app ear in the Googl e.CN search engine. No notice will be pre - se nted. No sy ste mwi ll inform sea rchers thatthe search resu lts they are rea d- ing have been filte red by Chi nese censors .Ins tea d, to the Chi nes eview er ,this wi ll look lik eno rma lol dGoog le. And bec ause Go ogle is so gr eat, the Chine se go ve rn ment know smost wi ll be dr iven toGoogle, eve nif Goo glefilterswha t the go ver nment do esn ’t want its peopl e to have. Here is th e pe rfec t danc e of co mme rce wi th gov ern me nt. Goo gle can bu ild the tec hnology the Chi nes eneed tomake China’s re gulation mor epe r- fe ct ly en ab led, and Chi na can ext ra ct that tal ent from Goog le by ma nda ting it as a co ndit io n of bei ng in Chi na ’s market. The val ue of tha t ma rk et is thu s worth mor e to Go og le than the value of its “ne ut ral searc h” pri nci pl e. Or at le as t, it bette r be , if this dea l mak es any se nse . My pu rp ose here is not to cr it ic ize Goog le—or Mic ros oft, or Ya ho o! The se compa nie s have stoc kho lders; maximizing corpor at e val ue is their char ge . Were I ru nni ng an y of the se co mpanies , I’m not su re I wou ld hav e acte d di ff ere ntly. has a pu rpose , and go ve rn- But tha t in the end is my poi nt : Commerce ment canexp loit that to it sow nend .It will, incre asingl yand mor efre que ntly , an d when it do es ,the chara cter of the Net will ch ange. Ra di cal ly so.

96 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 81 P A R T T W O b y c o d e r e g u l a t i o n The le ss on of th e la st part was that the inter acti on betwee n comm er ce an d gov ernm ent will cha nge the eff ec ti ve ar chitec ture of th eInte rne t. Tha tcha nge wi ll incre as e th e reg ula bil ity of be havio r on the Inter net. Powde r wil l be spra yed onth einvisib le men of cy berspa ce, and after th espray, their explo its wil l be more eas ily known. But sofar mysto ryhas no tchang ed the ba si cmod ebywhi chgov er nm ent and that th reat is regu late s. So far, the gove rnment thre atens pu nishment, srul e. als to obey the go vernment’ int ende dto crea te th eince ntive fo rindividu The cha nge s in the effec ti ve archi tec tu re of cybers pa ce that I ha ve de scribe d wo uld si mp ly ma ke it eas ier fo rthe stat eto make good on its th re at, and tha t would red uce the expect ed valu eof cri minal behav io r(pre fer abl ybel ow ze ro). en forcement; Tra ceabi li ty wi ll incr ease effective enforce me nt will effective ru le. incr ease the costs of devi ati ng fr om a state-s pecified In this part, Icons ider adifferen tki nd of re gula ti on. Th equesti on here is not how the arc hit ec ture of th e Ne t wi ll make it easie r for trad itiona l re gu la - ti on to hap pen. The issue her e is how the arc hit ec tu re of the Net —o r its “c ode”—it se lf be comes a re gula to r. In th is co ntext , the rule app lie d to an in di vi du al do es not find its force fr om the threat of consequences enfo rc ed by the law —fin es, jai l, oreven shame. Inste ad, the ru le is app lied to an indiv idu al

97 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 82 82 CODE 2.0 thr ou gh a kind of physi cs . A lo ck ed door is not a command “do not ente r” ba cke d up with the thre at of pu ni shmen t by the state. A lock ed door is a to enter some spa ce. ph ys ical co nstr ai nt on the libe rty of someone My claim is th at thi s form of reg ulat ion will be com e inc reas ingl y com - and ofte n counter mo n in cyber spa ce. And it has, more ov er, a distinctive - int ui tive cha rac ter. The ai m of thi s par t is to expl ore th is distin ctiv e mod e of re gul atio n as a ste p to un derst an di ng more sy st emati cally the int erac tion and po lic y. be tween tec hnology

98 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 83 S I X c y b e r s p a c e s I’ NT ER NET FROM CY BER SPACE . T O MA KE THE VE SA ID WE CA N DI STI NGUI SH TH E I of this part sa lie nt, we ne ed dis ti nct ive form of re gu lati on that is the subject to sa yabi tmore ab ou tth is di stinc tion .The Interne tisamediu mof com mu - nica ti on . Peop le do th ing s“on” the Int ernet. Most of those th ing s are triv ia l, even if impo rtant. Peopl epay bil ls on the Inter net, they make re serv ations at re st auran ts.They ge ttheir new sfr om the Int erne t.They se nd news to fam ily in the sens etha t me mber sus ing e-mai lor IMchat. The se us es are important they af fect th e econom y and mak e life easier and harder fo r thos e us ing the In ter net .Bu tthey’re no timportant inthe se nse that they change how pe op le li ve .It’s very co olthat you ca nbuy book swith one cli ck at Am az on. Ibuy tons lite ra ll y) of bo oks I wo ul dn ’t othe rw ise have bou gh t. But my life has (maybe not bee ncha nged by one -c lick (ev en if my bank accoun thas) .It ’s bee nma de easi er an d mo re li ter at e, but no t an ythin g fund ame ntally differ ent . Cyb er sp ace, by cont ra st, is not ju st abo ut ma ki ng lif e ea sie r. It is about ma king li fe differ ent ,or perha ps bette r. Itis about making adiff ere nt (or sec - on d) life .It evok es ,or call s to life, way s of inte ra cting that were not pos sibl e bef ore .I don ’t me an that the int era ct ion is new—we ’ve al way s ha d co mmu - nit ies ;these co mm unit ies ha ve alwa ysprod uced someth in gclose towh at Iwi ll de scri be cy bers pac eto ha veproduc ed. But these cyb er space comm unitie scre - ate a di ff erence in deg ree that has mat ured into a diffe rence in kind. The re is so methi ng uniq ue about th ein te ractio nsinthese space s, and som eth ing espe - ci all y uniq ue abou t how they are reg ulated . Life in cy be rspa ceisreg ul ated primarily thr ou gh th ecode of cy ber sp ace. No t reg ula ted in the sens e of Part I—my po in t is not that the code makes it easy to kno w who did what so that penalties ca n be vis ited upo n tho se wh o beh av ed bad ly. Regu la te d in the sen se that bar s on a prison regu la te the 83

99 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 84 84 CODE 2.0 mov em ent of a pr isone r, or re gu lated in the sense that stai rs reg ula te the it def ine sth e ce because ac cess of th edisa bl ed. Code is are gulat or in cyberspa ter ms upo n wh ich cyb ersp ac e is offe re d. And those who set tho se terms in cre asi ngly recog ni ze th e code as a mean s to achiev ing the be hav io rs that be nef it them be st . And sotoo with th eIn ter ne t. Co de on th eInter ne tisals oaregu lat or, an d But my st rate gy in peo ple live life on th e Int erne t subjec t to th at regulation. thi s chapte r is to begi n with the more obs cu re as a way to build re cog nition abo ut th e fa mi li ar. On ce you se e the technique to wo rld s you are applied appl ied to thewo rld yo u un li kely toinh abi t, yo uwil lrec ogni ze the technique inh abit al l th e ti me . {T XB2} Cy ber sp ace is not one pla ce . It is many pla ces. And the cha ract er of these man y pl ac es di ffe r in ways th at are fundamen tal. Thes e diffe re nce s come in these places, but demo - part from dif ferenc es in the peop le who populate grap hi cs al one don ’t ex plai n the vari ance. Someth ing more is going on. Here is a test. Read the fo ll owi ng pas sage , and ask you rs el f whe the r the des cri pt io n rings tr ue for yo u: I beli ev e virt ua l com munit ies pro mis e to res tore to Am erica ns at th e en d of the tw enti eth cen tu ry wha tmany of usfe elwas lost in th ede cades at the beg inn ing of ni ty, ofpla ce. Ask th ose wh o’ vebee nmem- th ecentu ry —a stab le sen se of commu bers of su ch a virt ual co mmunity, and they ’l l tel l you that wh at hap pen s th er e is mor e than an exc ha nge of elec tro nic impu lses in the wi res. It’ s no t just vir tua l bar nra is in g. ...It’ sals othe com fort from othe rsthat aman like Phil Catalf oofthe WELL can ex per ie nce when he’s up la te at nigh tca rin gfor ach ild su ffer ing from leu kem ia ,and he logs on tothe WELL and po ur sout hi sanguis hand fe ar s. People re all y do care fo r each other and fa ll in love ove r the Ne t,ju st as the y do in geo - gr aphic comm unit ies .And tha t“vir tua l” con ne cte dn ess is area lsign of hop ein a about th e fr agm en tation of publ ic lif e and the nati on th at’s incre as ing ly anxious 1 pol ari zat io nof inte res tgroups and the alien ation of ur ban exis ten ce. There ar e two so rts of re acti ons to tal k lik e this .To th os e who hav e be en in “cybe rs pace ”fo r some time , suc h ta lk is extremely familiar. The se peop le ha vebeen on diff ere nt kind sof “ne ts” from the sta rt. The ymov edtothe Inter - ne tfr om mor eis ola ted commun ities —f ro malocal BBS (bulle tin board serv - ic e) , or, as Mik e Godwi n (the au thor of the pass age) puts it, from a “ton y” add ress like The WEL L.For them the Net is asp ace fo rconvers ati on ,co nn ec - ti ons, an dexch ange—a wi ldl yprom isi nglo cation for maki ng life inre al spa ce dif fe ren t.

100 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 85 85 cy ber spac es But if you are arec ent immi gr ant to thi s“s pa ce ”(the old- tim er sca ll you “n ewbie s” ), or if al l yo u do on the Inte rne t is check your sto ck s or lo ok up mo vi e times, you are likely to be imp at ien t with tal k like th is .Whe n pe ople talk ab ou t“com munit y, ”about spec ial way sto conne ct, or abou tthe amazin g powe r of th is space to al ter live s, yo u are likely to ask ,“Wh at is th is idea of cy berspa ce as apl ac e?” Fo rnew bies ,thos ewho have simply e-m ailed orsu rf ed m. How ca n the Web, the “c ommu nit y” of the Ne t is an odd sort of mysticis an yo ne think of th ese page s ful l of ad vertis emen ts and spinn ing icons as a comm un it y, or ev en as a space? To the so ber newbi e, this ju st sounds li ke 2 hype hi gh on jav a. 3 How eve r much one Newb ie s are th e si lent majori ty of to da y’s Net. rom ant ic izes the old days when the Net was a place for con ve rs at ion and excha ng e, this is no tits func ti on fo rmos tof its us ers now. There areexplo d- nit ie sof blo gge rs andcre at ivity .But bl oggers ar est ill jus t3pe rce nt in gcommu of In ter net us ers; the vast majori ty of Inter net us e has no co nne ction to an y ide al of co mmu nit y. 4 How itloo ks, what yo ucando the re, Cyb er sp ace has chang ed in its feel . how yo u are connect ed there —all thi s has changed. Why it has ch ange d is a co mp licate d que st ion—a compl et e ans we r to which I can’t pr ov ide . Cyber - they are, wh at thei rinter - spa ce has cha nged in pa rt bec aus ethe people—who est s are —hav e ch ang ed, and in part becau se the cap abilities pr ovided by the spa ce hav e cha nged . But pa rt of th e cha nge has to do with the spa ce its elf. Co mmunit ies , exc hang e, and conve rs atio n all flouris h in a cer tain type of spa ce; the y are 5 My hop eistoillu min at ethedi ffe r- ext ing uis he dinadi ffer en ttype of spa ce. en ces betwee n thes e tw o env ir onments. The nex t se cti ons des cribe diff er en t cyb er-places . Th e aim is to bui ld in tu itio ns ab out how toth ink thr oug hthe differences tha twe obs erv e. Th es e intu it ion s, in turn , wil l he lp us see somet hing ab out where cy be rspace is mo vi ng . TH E VAL UES OF A SPAC E 6 They manife st the se values thro ug hth epra ctice sor live s Spa ces ha ve valu es. that they ena bl e or disabl e.As Mark St efik puts it: [B ]arri er s wit hin cybe rs pac e—s ep ar ate chat roo ms, intrane t ga tewa ys, di gita l en vel op es, and othe r syste ms to lim it ac ce ss—r esemb le the ef fec ts of nat io na l bo rde rs , phy sic al bou ndar ies, and di stanc e. Prog ra mm ing deter mines which peo pl e can acc es s which digital ob jects and whi ch di gital obj ec ts can inter act

101 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 86 86 CODE 2.0 with oth er dig ita l obj ects. How such pr ogr amm ing re gul ate s hum an inte rac - 7 on the cho ice s mad e. ti on s— and th us mo dul ates cha nge —depends Ch oi ces me an tha tdiff er ent ly cons tituted spaces enable and dis able diff er - en tly. Thi s is the fi rs t ide a to ma ke pl ai n. He re is an ex amp le. At the sta rt of the In ternet ,comm unic at io nwasthr ou gh text .Medi asu ch as US ENET new sg ro up s, Int erne t Relay Cha t, and e-m ail all conf ined exch ang e to te xt—to word s on a scre en, typed by a pe rs on (or so one tho ught ). Th ereas on fo rthis limit ati on isfai rly obvi ous: Thebandw id thof early Net life wa sver ythi n. In an env iro nment wher emo st users conne cte dat1,200 ba ud, if they were luc ky, grap hi cs and st re aming vi deo wo uld ha ve taken anunbe arabl y lon gtim eto downl oad ,ifthey downlo aded atall. What was nee ded was an effi - 8 tex tis one of the most effi cient . cien tmode of co mmuni cati on—and Mo st thi nk of th is fac t abo ut the early Net as a lim it ati on. Te ch nica lly ,it wa s. Bu tthi stec hni cal desc ri pti ondo es not exhaus tits no rmative descr iptio n as anarch itec ture thatmade pos sible acert ain kin dof lif e.From this pe rs pe c- tiv e, limi ta ti ons can be feat ures ; th ey can en ab le as wel l as dis abl e. And this pa rt icul ar limita tio n ena bl ed cl as ses of peo ple wh o were dis ab led in rea l- spa ce lif e. Thi nk about thr ee such classe s—t he bli nd, the de af , an d the “ugly .” In rea l spac e these peo ple fa ce an extr ao rdina ry arra y of con st raints on their abi li ty to co mmu ni cat e. The bli nd pe rson in real space is const antly co n- fr ont edwit har chite ctures th atpr esume he can see; he bears an extra ordi nary cost in re tr ofittin g real-s pac e archi tectures so th at this pres umpt ion is not architectur tot all y exclu sionary . The deaf perso n in real sp ace co nfronts es that pres ume she can hea r; she too bea rs an extraord inary cost in re tro fitt ing tu res. The “ugly ”pe rs on inreal spa ce (think of abar or aso cial the se architec club )con fron tsar chite ctures of soc ial norm sthat ma ke his appe ar ance aba r- rier to a cer ta in sort of inti mac y. He endures extrao rd in ary suf fe ring in con - fo rmi ng to th ese archi tect ure s. In re al space th ese th ree grou ps are confron ted wi thar ch it ectur es th at dis - ace, in its fir st ite ra tion , ab le them rela ti ve to“the rest of us .” But in cybersp they did no t. Th eblin dcould easi ly impl eme nt speech progra ms tha tre ad the (by def - in itio nma ch in e-r ead able) tex tand co uld re spo nd by ty ping. Ot her peop leon the Net wou ld hav e no way of know ing that the pe rson typin g the me ssa ge was blin d,unl ess he clai med to be .Th e blind we re equal to th e se eing. The same with the de af. There was no ne ed to hea ran yth ing in th is ear ly Int ern et. For the first time many of the deaf could have con ve rsa ti ons, or

102 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 87 87 cy ber spac es ex chang es ,inwhi ch the most sal ient feat ure was not that the pe rs onwas dea f. The de af we re equ al to the he ari ng. And th esame wi th the “ugly .” Bec ause your appear anc ewas no ttr ans mit - ted wi th ever yexcha nge, theun att ractive coul dhave an intimat econve rs at ion wi thothers th at was not autom atica lly defin ed by wh atthey loo ke dli ke. Th ey co uld fli rt or pla y or be se xu al wi th ou t their bodies (in an ex tre mel y unde r- of the Netmade these ap pr eciated sens e) getti ng inthe wa y. This first version peo ple equ al to “the beau ti fu l.” In avi rt ual chat room, stun ning eyes ,acap ti- vati ng sm ile ,orimpres sive bice psdo n’t do it. Wit ,engagement, and ar tic ul ate- nes s do. The arch ite ctur eof this or igin al cybe rs pace gav ethe se gr oups som ethin g th at they did not have inre al spa ce .More generall y, it chang ed the mix of ben - ef it sand bur de ns tha tpeople faced—t helit era te were enabl ed and theattr ac - rel ati ve to rea l spa ce. Archite ctur es produced the se ena blings tive disabled an d dis abl ings. I’ ve told thi ssto ry as if itmatt ers only to tho se wh oin real sp aceare “d is - 9 It is mor e acc ura te to say ab led .” But of cou rse, “di sab led” is a rel ative ter m. tha t the sp ace chan ge s the mea ning of th e ena ble d. A frien d—a strik in gly be aut if ul and power ful woman, marr ie d, and su ccess ful —de scribe d for me wh y she spe nd s hou rs in pol iti cal cha t spac es, argu ing with othe rs about all so rt s of pol it ica l top ic s: You do n’t unde rsta nd what it ’s like to be me. Yo uha veli ved yo ur whole life in a worl d wher e yo ur wo rds are ta ken for thei r meani ng; whe re what you sa y is he ard for what itsays. I’ve neve rhad aspa ce, be for ethi sspace ,where mywor ds we re taken for what the y mea nt. Always ,befo re,the y wer ewor ds of“thi sbabe ,” or “w if e,” or“m othe r.” I could nev er spe ak as I. But he re,I am as I spea k. Cle arly, the sp ace is enab li ng her, even thou gh one would not ha ve said 10 that in re al space she was “di sab led.” Over ti me , as ban dwid th has expa nd ed , thi s arch itect ure has chang ed, an d so has th e mix of benef its and bu rde ns. Wh en graphics ente red the Net “b lind” again. As sou nd fil es thr ou gh theWor ld Wi de Web ,the bl ind became the deaf have becom e “de af” or speech in vi rtu al spac es have been created, ag ai n. An d as ch at ro oms have sta rted segre gating in to spa ces wher e vide o- ca ms capt ure rea l ima ges of the peo ple chat ti ng an d spaces whe re ther e is 11 nappea li ng are ag ain unappealing. ju st text ,the video-u As thearc hi tec ture s chan ge, def init ions of who is “d isa bl ed” ch an ge as wel l. My point is not to argue tha t th e Net sh oul d not cha nge —th oug h of co ur se, if it can ch ang e in wa ys that min imize the dis abl ing ef fe ct of soun d

103 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 88 88 CODE 2.0 12 Howe verimp ortan t, my poi nt isno t an dgrap hics, th enitno dou bt sho ul d. sim pl y to highl ight a rea lly abo ut th e “disa bl ed ” at all . I us e this example li nk—bet we en thes estr uctu res of co de an dthe worl dth is code enables. Co des con st it ut ecyb ers paces ;spaces ena ble an ddisable in divi duals andgrou ps .Th e se lec ti on s abou t code are th erefore about who, wha t, and, in part a selection mo st impor tant, wha t wa ys of li fe wi ll be enabl ed and dis abled . CYB ER -PL ACES itie s” th at are We can build on this point by lo oking atanumber of “commun co nst itu ted di ffe re ntly and that const itute diff ere nt for ms of lif e and by con - sid er in g wh at mak es the se di fference s pos sible. Amer ica On line (AOL) is an onl ine serv ice prov ide r—“b y far the la rge st IS P Ame ri ca Online 13 with some 12 mil lio n subs criber s in 199 8 and 27 millio n in the wo rl d” 14 But des pi te havi ng the pop ul at io nof New York and New Je rs ey com - tod ay. bi ned, AOL sti ll desc ribe s its el f as a “comm unity.” A larg e co mmu nit y per - ni ty noneth el ess. hap s, but a commu This co mm unit y has a consti tu ti on—no t in the se ns e of a wr itte n docu - me nt (t ho ug h th ere is that as well ), but in the sens e of a way of life for thos e wh o live there. Its foundi ng vi sion was that co mmunity would ma ke this pla ce sin g. So from its star t, AOL ’s emphasis has been on enabling peopl e to in te ra ct , throug h chat, bull eti n board s, and e-mail. (Tod ay, AOL hosts the 15 ) Ea rl ier ex ch ange of mor e mess ag es dail y tha n does the U.S. Post Off ice. pr ovide rs, obs ess ed wit hprovidin gcon tent or advertising, limi te dor ignore d the pos sib ilit ie sfor int era ct ion and exc han ge, but AOL saw inte ra ction as the st uf f tha t mak es cy be rspa ce di ffere nt. It bu il t its elf on bu ilding a comm unit y 16 an d est abl ish ing its el f as a pl ace whe re peop le cou ld say what they wanted . This inte racti on is gov ern ed bythe ru les of the place .Some of the se rules are forma l, othe rs cu stoma ry .Among the fo rmal are express te rm s to which ever y membe r su bscr ibe s upon joini ng AOL. These term s reg ulate a wi de ran ge of beh avi ors in this space, in clud ing the behavior of AO L mem ber s 17 an yw her e on the Inter ne t. Inc reas ingl y, the se rules ha ve become con tr ov ers ia l. AO L pol icies ha ve bee n call ed “B ig Bro ther ” pr act ice s. Argum ents that get hea ted pro duc e excha ng es that are ru de. But ru dene ss, or offe nsi venes s, is not pe rm itte d in AOL’ s comm unit y. Wh en the se exc hang es are expu nged, claims of “ce nsor - 18 sh ip ” ari se.

104 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 89 89 cy ber spac es My aim here, howev er, is no t to cr it ic ize th es e ru le s of “netique tte .” AOL not inco n- al so hasother rules tha tregula te AO Lme mb ers—ru les expressed res of the spa ce. The se rules are tr ac ts bu t ra th er th rou gh the ve ry architectu th emos timpor tant par tofAOL ’scon st ituti on, but they are prob ably the part in this cy be r- co nsi de red last when we thi nk abo ut what regul ates behavior pla ce. Con si de r some exa mp le s: 19 as amember ofAO Lyou co uld be any one of five For most of AOL’s life , peo ple .Thi s wa s just one amaz ing fe at ure of the sp ace. When you starte d an ac co un t on AOL, you had the rig ht to establ is h up to five ide ntities ,throu gh fi ve dif fere nt “sc ree n names ” that in eff ect es tab lish five diff ere nt accou nt s. So me users ,of co urse ,used the fiv e sc reen names to give other fa mil y me m- be rs acces s to AOL. But no t eve ryone us ed an AOL ac cou nt lik e this . Think abo ut the single woma n, si gni ng up for her firs tAOL acc ou nt. AOL ga ve he r uptofive ide nt it ies tha tshe ca nde fine as she wishes—five differ ent pe rso nae sh e ca n use in cybe rsp ac e. What doe s that me an? A screen na me is just a labe l for id en tif ying who yo u are whe n you ar e on the syst em. It need not (indeed, ofte n ca nnot) be you row nname .If your screen name is “S tr ayCat,” the npe ople can reach you by sen din g e-ma il to “s tr ayc [email protected] l.com. ”If you are onl ine, peopl e can try to talk to yo u by pag ing St ray Cat on the AOL sys te m; a dialo gu e woul d th en ap pear on yo ur scree n as king wheth er yo u want to tal k to the pe rson who pag ed yo u. If you ente rachat room, th elist of residen ts there will add you as “St ray Cat .” But who is Str ayC at? Here is a sec ond dim ension of cont rol. St rayCa t is who Stray Ca t sa ys she is. She can choo se to define he rself as no one at al l. If sh e cho os es to place a de sc ri pt ion of he rself in the me mbe rs’ dire ctor y, tha t ete as sh e wishes .It can be tr ue or des cri pt io n can be as comp le te or incompl fa lse ,exp lic it or vague ,invi ti ng or not. Ame mbe rstumb ling acros sSt rayCa t, then, in achat roo mset up fo rstamp collec to rs could get her prof ile and re ad and is si ngle and femal e. What hap pe ns nex t that Stray Cat li ves in Cl eveland is an yo ne’s gu ess . Ye t this need only be one of St ra yCat’ s five id en tities . Let’ s say the re is a dif fe ren t perso na that St rayCat lik es to have when she wande rs thr oug h cha t ro oms .She ca nth en se le ct anot her scr een name an dde fin eit inthe di re ctory as sh ewis he s.Per ha ps when St rayCat ishaving aseriou sdiscussi on in anew s- gr ou p or pol iti cal list sh e prefe rs to speak as hers elf. She coul d the n sele ct a scr een name clos eto her own name and de fine it ac cording to who she rea lly is .At ot he rtimes St ray Cat may like topretend to be aman—enga ging in vir - tu al cr os s-d re ssi ng and all tha t mig ht br ing with it. One of he r scree n nam es

105 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 90 90 CODE 2.0 co ul d th en be a man ’s. And so on. The poi nt is the multipl icity tha t AO L thi s mu lti pl ic ity pe rmits . al low s, an d the freedom No one ex cep tSt ray Cat needs to kno wwhich scre ennam es are he rs .She is no tre qui red topub lis hthe ful llis tof her ide ntities, and no oneca nfi ndou t who she is (u nless she bre aks th e rul es). (A fte r reveal in g to the U.S .Na vy the the pe rs on fo r name of one of its me mbers so that th e Navy cou ld prosecute be in g a homos exua l, AOL adop ted a ver y str ic t pri vacy policy tha t prom ise s 20 nev er to al lo w a simil ar tr ans gre ssi on to happe n ag ain.) So in AOL you were give n a fantast ic pow er of ps eu don ymit y tha t the “c od ewrit er s” of re alspa cesimp ly do not gi ve. You cou ld, of course ,try in re al spa ce to live the same range of mul tip le lives, and to the ex ten t that thes e ent, you cou ld quite oft en get awa y li ves ar e not in com pat ibl e or inconsist wi th it. For in st an ce, you could be a Cub s fan duri ng the su mmer and an steps to hid e ope ra buf f du ring the wi nte r. But unl ess you take extraordinary yo uride nti ty, in rea lspac eyouar eal ways tied back to yo u. You cann ot simp ly defi neadiffe rent ch ar ac te r; you mu st make it, and more importa nt (and dif - ide ntity . ficu lt ), you must sus tai n its separa ti on fro m you r original Thatis afir st fea tureof the const ituti on of AO L—a feat ure consti tu ted by is tied to speech —what its cod e. A second you can say, and wh er e. Wit hin the limits of decenc y, and so long as you ar e in the prope r pla ce , th es elimits ,spee ch onAOL yo ucan say wh at you want on AOL. But beyond is con stra ined in amo re int ere st ing way: no tbyrul es ,but byth echara cte rof the po te nti al audi ence . Ther e ar e places in AOL where peopl e can gat her; the re are places wher epe ople can go an dre ad me ssag es poste dby othe rs .But gathe rs at one time, or eve n a spa ce th at there is no sp ace wh ere everyone ever yon e must so on er or lat er pass thr ou gh . There is no pu bl ic spa ce whe re yo ucould addres sall mem be rs ofAOL. There is no town hall ortown mee ting he ard byoth - wh er epeo pl eca ncomp lain inpu bli cand have the ir complaints ers .The reisno spa ce large en ough fo rcit izen sto create ario t. Th eow ners of AO L,ho weve r, can spe ak to all .Ste ve Case, th efo under of AO L, used towrite 21 rs as the co mmunity’s “to wn mayor .” “chat ty ”lette rs to the membe Cas elef t AOL in 20 05 ,and apparently int ohis speake rsho es .AOL no one has stepped do es st il l adv ert is e to al l its members and can se nd everyone an e-ma il, but and thos ethe yauthor iz ecan do so. The rest of the me mbe rs on ly the owners of AO Lcan spe ak tocrowds only where they notice acrowd —and ne ve rto a cr owdgr ea ter than thi rty -si x(up from twenty-thr ee when the fir st editio nof thi s bo ok was pub lish ed ). This is anothe rfea tu re of the consti tut ion of the spa ce that AO Lis ,and it too is defi ned by co de .That only tw enty-three peop le can be in a chat room at on ce is a choice of the co de eng ineers .Wh il e their reasons coul d be ma ny,

106 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 91 91 cy ber spac es the eff ect is cl ear. On e can’t im agi ne easi ly exci ti ng memb ers of AOL int o pu bli caction, such aspick eting the lat est pricin gpolicy. There are place stogo to comp la in, but you hav eto take the troub le to gothere yo urself. Th ere is no pla ce whe re me mbers ca n compl ai n en mass e. Re al sp ace is diffe rent in thi s res pect .Much of fre e sp eech law is de vote d to pre serving spaces where di ssen t can occur—spaces that can be no tic ed, 22 In re al spa ce the re ar e citize ns . an d must be conf ront ed, by nond issenting pla ces where peop le can gathe r, pl ac es where they can leafle t. People ha ve a al publ ic forum s. ri ght to the si dewalk s, pub lic str ee ts, and other tradition They may go the re and ta lk abo ut is su es of pub lic impo rt or other wis e say whate ver th ey want. Co nsti tu ti onal law in real spa ce protects the rig ht of the pass io nate and the wei rd to get in th e fac e of th e res t. But no su ch des ig n is 23 As Daw n Nu nzi ato wri tes , bu ilt in toAOL. AOL ex pla ins in its Comm un ity Guidelin es that “lik e any cit y, we take pride in —a nd are pr otec tiv e of— our co mmu nity. ” Unli ke any ot he r city, ho wev er , AO Len joys the un fe tter ed di scre ti ontocens or cons titu tiona lly-prote cted sp eech in it s di sc us sio n forum s and othe r online space s, inc luding “vulg ar la ng ua ge” (w hi ch, it war ns ,is“no more app rop ria te onli ne tha n [it] would be at Thanks - gi vi ng dinner” ), “c rud e co nvers at ions ab out se x,” an d “dis cus sion s abou t . . . 24 ille gal dru g abu se tha t im ply it is acc ep ta ble .” This is not toromanti cize the pow er of rea l-s pa ce pu blic for ums.(N or is stron ge rprotec tion it topi ck on AOL: As Nunz iat ocont inues ,“us ers seeking for th eir expr es sio n might turn to an ISP othe r than AO L. Th ey will fi nd, ho weve r, si mil ar res tric ti ons on speec h imposed by man y othe r majo r 25 )We ha ve bec ome such an apolit ical soc ie ty that if you act uall y exe r- ISPs .” cised this constitut ionally pro tected ri ght, people wo uld thi nk youwe re anut. the lates t tax propos al in Con - If you st oo d on a str eet corner and attacked gre ss, your frien ds woul dbe lik ely to worry —and not abo ut the tax prop osal. There are ex cep ti ons—events can ma ke sal ie nt the need for pr otes t—but in the ma in , th ough rea l sp ace ha s fewer con trols th rough code on who can sp ea k whe re, it ha s man y more cont rol s throu gh no rms on wha t peop le ca n effect ive spa ce say whe re .Perhap sin the end real spa ce is mu ch like AOL—the That ma ywe ll be .But my fo rpub lic spe ech islimit ed an doft en unimportant. ai m her e is to ident if y the fea ture and to isolat e wha t is res po nsibl e for it. An d on ce aga in, it turns out to be a fe at ure built into the code. A third fea tu re of AO L’ s co ns ti tu ti on al so com es from its cod e. This is tr ac ea bili ty. Wh ile me mb er s are wit hin the exclusiv e AOL content area (in oth er words ,whe n they’ re no t usi ng AO L as a gatew ay to the Inte rnet), AO L

107 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 92 92 CODE 2.0 can (an d no doubt do es) tr ace yo ur act ivities an d coll ec t inf or ma tion about the m. Wha tfile syou do wn load, wha tare as you fre quent ,wh oyour “budd ie s” valua ble ;they he lp are —al lthis is ava ila bl eto AO L. The se data are extremely AO Lst ru ct ure itsspace to fit cus to mer dem and. But gainin gthe abi lit yto co l- lec t thes e data requ ired a des ig n de cisi on. Th is decision too wa s part of the by its cod e. Itisadec is ion con stitu tio nthat is AO L— ag ain, apa rt constituted that gi ve s some bu t no t others the pow er to watch. AOL is not exclusi ve in thi s enabl ing capacit y. It sha res the pow er. One wo nd er ful fe atu re of the onl ine sp ac e is something called “budd y lis ts .” Add so meo ne to yo ur bud dylist, and whe nhecomes online you hear the sound of a cre aki ng door and are notif ied th at he is onli ne. (T he “bu ddy ” need not kno whe is be in gwat che d, th ough hecan ,if he knows, block th ewa tch ing.) If that per so n go es into a cha t are a and you “lo cate” him, you will be told in at ed what chat area heis. Th is power ,giv entoordinar yus ers ,can hav ecomplic co nsequ ences . (Imag ine si tti ng at wo rk wit h your bu dd y featu re turned on, wa tch ing yo urspouse com eonline, ente rachat ar ea, and—you getth epoi nt .) Thi s abi lit y to mo nito r is bui lt into the spa ce. Ind ividual s can tu rn it of f, at least for a single watch er, bu t only if they kno w about it and th ink to change it. Co nsi der on efinal feat ur eof the cons tit uti on of AOL ,clo sely link ed to the la st:commerc e. In AOL you can buy things .Yo uca nbuy things and downloa d them, or buy things and have them sen t to your home. Whe n you bu y, you bu y wit h a sc ree n name ,and whe n yo u buy with a screen name ,AOL knows (ev en if no one els e doe s) ju st who you are. It kno ws who you are, it kn ows whe re yo u li ve in real spa ce , and mo st important, it kn ows you r cr edit ca rd numb er and th e securi ty it pr ovi des. AOL kno ws who yo uare— this is afeatu re of its des ig n. Al lyo ur beh avio r back to you as a user . on AO L is wa tc hed ; all of it is mo nito red and tracked AOL pr omis es no tto co ll ect da ta abo ut you ind ividual ly, but it ce rta inl ycol - lec ts dat a abou t yo u as part of a co ll ect ive. And with this colle ctiv e, and the lin k it provides bac k to yo u, AO L is a sp ace that can bette r, and mo re eff i- ci en tly, sell to you . Th es e fou r feat ures mark AOL spac e as di fferent fr om ot her plac es in cybe rsp ace .It is ea sie r for AO L to ident ify who you are, and ha rd er fo r indi - vi duals tofind ou twho yo uare; easi er for AO Lto speak toal lits “ci tiz ens” as AOL’s vie ws abo ut it wi sh es, and har der for dissid ent s to org anize against and harde rfor indiv id uals how thin gs oug ht to be; easi er for AOL to market, ive wor ld; it can create this dif fer en t wor ld to hid e. AOL is a dif fe rent normat bec ause it is in con trol of the ar ch itec tu re of th at world. Members in that spa cefa ce, inase ns e, adif ferent set of law sof nature; AOL make sthos ela ws .

108 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 93 93 cy ber spac es Ag ain ,my ai m is no t to cr it ic ize the crea tion of this wor ld or to say tha t it is improp er. No doubt AO L makes pr omis es to its mem bers tha t are des ign ed to al lay som eof the co nc ern tha tthis con trol creates, and no dou bt wou ld prov ide pl en ty of alte rna - if the pl ace bec ame oppress ive , the market tiv es. Rath er my objec tiv eis to imp art asens eof wh at make sAOLth eway it is. It is not just wr itten ru les ; it is not jus t cust om; it is not jus t the supply and dem and of akn owing cons umi ngpu bli c. What makes AOL is in lar ge par tthe str uc tu re of the spac e. You en ter AOL andyou find it to be acer tain un iver se . ca n resis t Thi s sp ace is co nsti tu ted by its code .You can res is t this code—you on aswe ater .But by putting how yo ufin dit, just asyo uca nre sist co ld weather yo u ar e not go ing to cha ng e how it is. You do not have the pow er to cha nge AOL’ s code, and ther e is no plac e where you could ral ly AO L memb ers to fo rc eAOL tocha nge the code .Youlive li fe in AOL subject to its te rms ;if you do not li ke them, yo u go elsew here. Thes e feat ures of the AO L spa ce ha ve impor tant implications for how it there is a probl em on AOL th at AOL wa nts to stop. It is re gul ated. Imagine wan ts to prev ent or at least cont rol a certain beh av ior. What tools do es AOL ha ve? Fi rst , it has all the to ol s that an y club, frate rnity, or “comm unit y” migh t ha ve. It can announce ru le s for its me mbers (and AOL ce rtainl y do es ). Or it can tr y to st igmat ize th e beha vio r, to use the nor ms of the comm un it y to if theprob lem hel pregul at ethe prob lem .Th is AOL does as well. Alternatively, co mes fr om the overu se of a part ic ular res ource, th en the mana ger s at AOL can pr ice that re so urc edifferent ly by exactin gatax to reduce its usa ge or adi f- fe ren t pri ce for th ose wh o use it to o mu ch . Bu t AOL has som eth ing more at hand. If AOL does not like a certai n beh avio r, th en in at le ast some case sitcan regulat ethat be ha vior bycha ngi ng lan guage , it can write its ar chit ectu re . If AOL is try ing to co ntrol indecent r mix ing be tw een rout ines that monit or lang uage usage ; if there is imprope if there is a vi rus to whom; adul ts an d kids, AOL can tra ck who is talking pro bl em ca us ed by peopl e upl oa di ng inf ected files , it can run the fil es auto - ma tic all ythr ough vir us ch eck ers; if ther eis sta lking orhara ss ing or th re aten - n betwee n any two indiv idu als. ing be havi or, AOL ca n bl oc k the connectio In shor t, AOL ca n dea l with certai n ty pe s of pr obl ems by cha nging its know (while in AOL ) is code . Be cau se the univers e that AOL members defi ned by this co de, AOL can use the code to regul ate its membe rs . Thi nk abit about th epower Iamdescr ibi ng— an dag ain ,Iam not co m- plai ni ng or cri ti ciz ing or qu est ioning this po wer, only describin g it .As yo u mo ve th ro ugh th is sp ac e that AOL de fin es —enterin g a cha t area, post in g a

109 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 94 94 CODE 2.0 me ssage to a bu lle tin bo ard , ent ering a dis cussio n space, sen di ng inst ant - other peop le, up load ing me ss ag es to ano th er perso n, watc hing or fo llowing or dow nlo adin gfi le sfr om sites, turn in gto cert ai nchan nels andre ad in gcer - tai n art icl es ,or obs ess ivel y paging through a spac e loo king fo r pictu res of a cer tain ac tor or ac tre ss —as you do any of these things, AOL is ,inan impo r- tan t sense , there . It is as if the sy st em gi ves yo u a sp ace suit th at you use to mo nit ors your every mov e. na vigat e the spa ce bu t that sim ul taneously In pr incip le, the poten tia l fo r con trol is ext ra ord ina ry. Im agine AOL time for acertain kind of se rv ice it want sto discoura ge , slo wi ng the response to see ,orid en - ad sth at it wan ts cu stomers or cha nneling the su rf er through ti fyi ng patter ns of beh avior tha tit smo nit ors would wat ch, ba sed onthe fear dangerous to peop le of typ eY. tha t pe op le with patt er ns like X are typically I do no t think AO L en ga ges in ac tivit ies like these, and I am not sa yin g tha t t to note tha t the the re would be anyt hin g wro ng if it did .But it is importan tinthe sense that pot entia lfor cont rol inthis “com mu nity ”is unlimited—no AOL cou ld make life mise rable (since people would th en lea ve ), but in the se nse that it has a regula to ry to ol th at other s, in both re al sp ace and oth er cy bers pace s, do not. Its po wer is, of course, ch ec ked by th e ma rk et, but it ha satoo lof co ntro ltha tothe rs in th emarket ,bu tou tside cyb erspa ce, do not have. In pr inc iple , then, AOL must choo se . Ev er y time AOL de cid es tha t it wa nts to reg ul ate ace rtai nki nd of beha vio r, it mu st sel ect fro mamo ngat least fo ur modalities— e. And when sele cting rules, norms , pr ices, or architectur on e of the se four mo dal it ie s, sel ect ing archit ecture as a regu la tor will ofte n mak e the mo st sense. Cou nsel Co nn ect Da vi d Jo hnson began Couns el Connect (CC) in 19 92 as an online law ye rs’ co ope ra ti ve. The idea wa s si mpl e: Give su bs cr ibers access to each othe r; le t them enga ge in conversa ti ons wi th ea ch other ; and th rou gh this acces s and th ese co nve rsa ti on s, val ue would be cre ated. Lawyers woul d give and tak e wo rk; the ywou ld cont ri bu te ideas as they found ideas in the spa ce. Adiff er ent kin dof la wpr ac tice woul deme rge —le ssinsu lar, less exclusi ve, mo re br oad ly bas ed. Itho ug ht the ide aamaz ing ,th ou ghmany thou ght it nuts .Fo ratim ethe sy ste m was car ri ed by Lex is ; in 19 96 it was sold to Ame rican Law ye r Media , 26 L. P.; in19 97 itmigr ated to th eInt ernet, and it cl os ed in 199 9. At its pea k, it boas ted thou sand s of subs cr ibers , thou gh it is hard to know how man y of them co ntr ibuted to the dis cu ssi on onl in e. Mos t simp ly watch ed the discu s-

110 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 95 95 cy ber spac es sion s of oth ers ,pe rha ps linki ng th ree or fou r discu ss ion grou ps of their par - ticu lar interes t, plus afew of more gener alinteres t. But many saw the eme rg- ing cu ltu re as so me thi ng amazi ng and new (for lawy ers at lea st). As its fou nder, Da vid John son, de scrib ed it, “Think of The Well for la wyers, with it s 27 own high ly unique evoluti on, em ergence, mai ntena nce, and adapt at ion. ” Me mber s got to kno w eac h othe r well .“In evitably, this led to nu me rou s re al wo rld mee ti ngs ...Of tho se I att ended ,it alw ays res embl e[d] a get tog ether of long -t ime ac qu aint an ces even th oug h man y of us ha[d] not prev io usly 28 me t fa ce to face.” The dis cus sio n was organi zed into leg al topics . Ea ch top ic was div ided into dis cu ss ion gr ou ps, wit heach gro up led by adiscussion le ader .Th ele ader was not amod erator; he or she had nopower to cancel apost. Th eleader was the re to in sp ir econver sation —to induce othe rs to speak by be ing enco ura ging or prov oca ti ve. At its hei ght, th ere wer esom e90 grou ps in this sp ac e.Th eposter of apar - ticu lar mess age ma yhav eha dit remov ed, but if the pos te rdid not re mo veit, it st ay ed—a t fi rs t in the lis t of top ic s bein g discus sed ,and later in an archiv e that cou ld be se arch ed by any member. Member spai dafee to joi nand ge tan accou nt wit htheir re al na me on it. Pos tin gs use members ’ re al names , and an yone wonde ring who som eone is could simply lin kto adi rect ory .Me mbers of CCmust bememb ers of th ebar , unl ess th ey are jo urn alists . Oth ers have no right to access; the comm un ity he re is exc lusiv e. Po st in gs in the spa ce lo ok very mu ch li ke pos tin gs in a USENE T new s- grou p. A threa d cou ld be started to a thread were by any one, and replies ap pen de d to the end . Be cause mess ag es did not mov e off the syst em, on e coul deas ily rea dfro mthe st artof ath re adto its end. Th ewhole con ver sation, not just a sni pp et, was pre served . Thes efeat ures of CC sp ace were obvi ousl ydes ig ned; the archite cts chos e to enable certa in feat ures and to di sab le oth ers. We can list he re som e of the ef fec ts of thes e cho ic es. Fir st , ther e was the eff ec t from bein g req uir ed to use your ow n nam e. You wer e mo re lik ely to think be fore speaking an d to be care fu l about being rig ht bef ore say ing some thing de fi nit ive. You we re cons tr aine d by the co m- yyou coul d mu nit y, whic hwou ld jud ge what yo usaid, and in th is communit not escap e fr om be in g li nked to what you said . Respon sibil it y was a cons e- quen ce of th is arc hit ectur e, but so was a certain in hibition . Do es a senio r partn erat alead ing la wfirm rea lly wa nt to as kaqu estio nthat wil lannounce hi s ign orance abou t a certa in are a of law ? Names cann ot be cha nged to pro - tec t the ign or ant, so the y wil l oft en si mply not speak.

111 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 96 96 CODE 2.0 Se con d, there was an effect from fo rc ing all discu ss ion in tothr ea ds .Post - ings wer ekept togethe r; aques tio nwa sasked, and th ediscussi on beg anfro m the que st io n. If you wanted to cont ri bute to th is dis cu ss io n, you ha d to firs t ing. Of cou rse, this wasnot a re ad thr ou gh the othe r po st ings before respond te ch nic alre quire men t—y ou cer tain ly had achoice not to read. But if you did not re ad throug h the entir e thre ad, you co uld well end up repe ati ng wh at lis tening . ano the r had sai d and so reve al that you were speaking without rs’ behavior Ag ai n, the us eof rea lna mes ties membe to the no rms of the com - mu nit y. Thir d, there was th eef fect of rep utat io n: The rep ut ati onyou built inthis space wa sbased on th eki nd of ad vice you gave. Your re put ati on sur vi ve dan y part icu lar post and was, of co urse , affe cted by any sub sequ ent pos ts. Thes e po st s were arc hi ved and se arch abl e. If you said one th ing about topic X and then the oppo site lat er on, yo uwere at least open to aques tion about cons is - ten cy. Fo urt h, the re was the ef fect of tyi ng reputation to a real na me in a re al co mmu nit y of pro fessi onal s. Mi sbehav ing here matte red els ewhe re .CC th us got the benefit, that is, of th enorms of got thebenefit of that co mmunity—it a part icul ar commu nit y. The se norms might have su pp orted rel ative ly pro - ductiv ecomm unity beha vio r—mo re productive, tha tis, than th ebe ha vio rof agro up whose me mb er sare fun da me nt al lymix ed. Th ey mig ht al so hav esup - behav ior. Th us , CC porte d puni shing th os e wh o devi at ed fr om appropriate go tthe benefi tof comm un ity sa nction tocon trol impro per beha vior, wh er eas AOL had to rely on its own conte nt po liceto ensu re that people sta ye dpro p- er ly on topic. We can de scr ibe th e world of CC that these featu res cons titu te in two in tw o dif - dif fe ren t ways ,ju st as we ca n des cr ibe the wo rld AOL co nstitutes fe ren tways .One is the li fe that CC’s fe at ures ma de poss ible—h ig hly dia logic an den gaged ,but moni tored and wi th consequ enc es. The othe ris th eregu la - bi li ty by th ema nage rof th elif etha tgoe son in the CCspace .Andhere weca n se e a si gn if ica nt di ffe rence betw een thi s spa ce and AOL. y to regul ate more ef fec - CC co ul d ha ve us ed the nor ms of a communit ti ve ly than AOL ca n. CC be nefited from th e norms of the le gal com munit y; by th at com munit y. it kne w tha t any mis beha vior would be sanctioned The re was , of cour se, les s “be havio r” in this space th an in AOL (you did fe wer th in gs her e), bu t such as it wa s, CC behavio r was quit e signif ican tly an d the con sequen ces of usi ng re gu lat ed by the rep utat ions of members the ir rea l nam es. Th es e dif fer en ce s togethe r had an ef fect on CC’s ab il ity to regula te its mem be rs. They enab led a regulatio n through mo da lities oth er than code.

112 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 97 97 cy ber spac es Th ey ma de beha vio rin CC more reg ulable by nor ms than beh avio rin AO Lis. CC in tu rn may have had les s contr ol than AOL does (s inc e the cont rolling nit y), but it also bore less of the bur den nor ms are thos e of the legal commu the popul ation, ma king me m- of regu lat ing its me mbers’ behav io r. Limiting are the tools of be rs ’ be havior pub lic ,tyi ng th em to their real names —these se lf -re gul at ion in this vi rt ual spa ce. acy and But CC was li ke AOL in one imp ort an t way : It was not a democr in the nei the r is AOL . Man agem ent in both cases cont rols what wil l happen space —ag ain ,not witho ut constr aint, becaus ethe market is an im por tant con - st rain t. Bu tin neit her pl ac edo “the pe op le”have the power to co nt rol what goe s on. Pe rha ps they di d, indir ectl y, in CCmore than AOL ,sin ce it isthe norms of “the pe op le” tha t regulat e beh avio r in CC. Bu t these no rm s ca nnot be us ed may have been aga ins t CC dir ec tl y. The de ci si on s of CC and AOL managers af fect ed by marke tfor ces—i ndivi dual scan exit, competito rs can st ea lcus tom ers away .But vo ti ng do esn’ tdir ect wher eAOL goes, and it di dn’t wit hCC eith er. That’s not th e cas e with the ne xt cybe r-pla ce. At leas t, not an ymor e. aMOO Lambd La mbdaM OO is a text- ba sed vi rtua l re ality . People from acro ss the worl d (to day clos e to si x th ou sand of them) li nk to this sp ace and inter ac t in ways that the sp ace pe rmits .Th erea li ty is the product of this intera ction. Indi vid - uals can par ti ci pate in the construc tion of this reality—som etim es fo r upward s of eig ht y ho urs a wee k. For some this in te ra ction is the mos t su s- tai ned human conta ct of th ei rent ire lives. For mos tit isakind of inte ra ction unma tched by an ythi ng else they know . In the main, peopl e ju st tal k he re . But it is not the tal k of an AOL cha t f cons tr uc ting ro om .The talk in a MU D is in the servi ce of cons tr uction—o and this tal kin g acha rac ter and acomm uni ty .Youint er act in part by talking, is tie dto ana me. Th isname, andthememori es of wh at it has don e, live inthe spa ce, an d ov er time peop le in the spa ce come to kn ow the pe rson by what the se memor ie s reca ll . The life with in the se MUDs dif fer .Eliz abe th Reid des cr ibe stwo di ff er en t 29 “s ty le s” yle MUD. Socia l —so cia l- st yle MUD and an advent ure or game-st ities wh ere people talk an dbu ild cha rac te rs MU Dsare simpl yonl in ecommun or eleme nts for the MUD. Ad ventu re MUD s are games ,with (v irt ua l) priz es the dep loy ment of skill in ca ptur ing res our ce sor or po wer to be won through defe at in g an ene my. In eithe r cont ext, the commu nities su rviv e a pa rticul ar inte ra ct io n. They become vi rtu al club s, though with differe nt pur po ses. Me m- be rs bu ild re putat io ns thr ou gh thei r behavior in thes e club s.

113 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 98 98 CODE 2.0 You get a cha rac te r simp ly by join in g th e MOO (thoug h in Lam b- da MOO the wa itin g li st fo r a cha ra ct er ext en ds over many mo nths). When you will have. At le ast, you yo u joi n the space , you defin e the character def ine cer ta in fe atu res of yo ur character .Yo uselec taname and agende r(no gen de r is an opt io n as well ) and desc ribe yo ur charac ter. Some descri ptio ns is “tal land thin, pale as str ingcheese, ar equite ord in ary (Johnny Manhattan 30 Oth ers , ho weve r, are quite ex tr aord in ar y. wea rin g a neigh bo rh oo d ha t”). (L eg ba , for in sta nce, is a Ha itia n tr ickster gend er, spirit of in determinate brown- skin ned and wea rin g an expe ns iv e pearl gray su it ,top hat, and dark 31 gl asse s.) Jul ian Dibbel l bro ke the sto ry of thi s sp ace to the nonv irt ual wor ld in an 32 The stor y that was the focu s of Di bbe ll’s artic le Vil lage Voic e art icle in the . rca lled Mr. Bun gle wh o, it turn sout, was actu ally agrou p in vo lved acharacte of NYU underg raduat es shari ng thi s si ngle ide ntity. Bun gle en te red a ro om late on e eve ning and fo und a grou p of chara cte rs wel l kno wn in that spa ce . Th efull sto ry can not be told any better than Dibbell tells it. For ourpu rpos es, 33 the fa cts wil l be eno ug h. Bung le had a sp ec ial sort of po wer . By earn in g sp ec ial stand ing in the co mmu ni ty , he had “voo doo” powe r: he could tak e ov er the Lambd aMOO to do thing s voi ces and ac tions of other char act ers and make the m appear the ydid not re ally do.This Bun gle di dthat nig ht to agroup of wo men and at least one person of ambi guous gender. He invoked this po we r, in this pu blic spac e, an dtook ov er the vo ices of these peop le. Once the ywere inhi scon trol, and made it see m as Bun gle “raped” th ese women, vio lently an d sa distically, if they en jo yed th e rape. The “rape ”was vi rtual in th e sense that the event ha ppe ned only on the wire s. “No bo die s tou ched ,” as Dib bell des cr ibes it. Wha te ver phys ic al inte ract ion oc cu rr ed cons is ted of a mingling of ele ctr oni c si gnal ssent fr om site ssp re ad out be tween New Yor kCity and Sydne y, Aust rali a. M . Pa cific P . . . . He co mme nce d his ass aul t ent irel y un prov oke d at, or abo ut 10 Stan dard Time . ... [H] e began by usi ng his vood oo doll to force on e of the roo m’ s occu pa nts to sexua ll y service him in a va rie ty of mo re or le ss conven - ti ona lways. That th is vic tim was ex u. ...Heturne dhis att entio ns now toMoon - dre ame r...forci ng he rint oun wa nte dliaison swit hoth erind ividu al spres ent in th e ro om. . . . Hi s action s gr ew progre ssi ve ly vio le nt. . . . He ca used Mo on - dr eamer to vi ola te he rsel f with a piece of kit che n cu tl ery . He coul d not be sto pp ed unt il atlas tso me one summ one dIggy ...who bro ught with him agun of nea rwi zard ly po we rs, agun tha tdidn’t kil lbut enve loped its targets in acage 34 impe rme able eve n to a voo doo doll’s powers.

114 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 99 99 cy ber spac es Rap eis adif ficu lt word to use inan yco nte xt, but par ticu lar lyhe re. Some to do in this virtual sp ace, it has nothing wil l objec t tha t what ever happened wit h rape .Yet ev en if“i t” was not “r ape ,” al l will see a link betw ee n ra pe and wha t happe ned to th es e wo men th ere. Bung le us ed his powe r ove r thes e wo men for his ow n (and aga inst thei r) sexu al des ire; he sexu aliz ed his vio - le nce an d deni ed th em even the dig nit y of reg is te ring thei r prote st. For ou r purp os es ,whether what happen ed he re was rea lly ra pe is bes ide the poin t.What mat te rs ishow the co mmu nity rea ct ed .The co mmu nit ywas outrag ed by wha tBungl eha ddone ,and many th ou gh tsome thin gshoul dbe do ne in re sp onse. Th ey ga there d, th is co mm unity of mem ber sof La mbd aM OO, in avirtua l ro om at a se t time, to disc uss wha t to do .So me thirty show ed up, the lar ges t nit y had known. So me thou gh t that Bung le shoul d be mee ti ng the commu ed,” as it is descr ib ed, kil led for purpo ses of the MOO .Othe rs exp elle d—“toad tho ught th at nothi ng sho ul d be done ; Bu ngle was certainly a cre ep, but th e best th in g to do to creep s was si mply to ign ore them. So me call ed on the Wi zar ds of th e space —the crea tors, the gods —to interve ne to dea l with this chara ct er . The Wi zard s dec li ned: Thei r job, they repl ied , wa s to creat e th e wo rld ;the me mb ers ha d to learn to live within it. There was re ally no law that go ver ned what Bungl e had don e. No re al- spa ce law rea ched sex ual pr anks li ke thi s, and neith er did any ex plici t rul e of 35 This trou bl ed many who wan ted to do some th in g. In vo ki ng LambdaMOO . th at re al-s pa ce ideals ab out fai r not ice and due pr oce ss, these peopl e argued Bun gle coul dnot bepuni sh ed for viola tin grules that did not ex is tatthe time . Two extr emes eventu al ly eme rged. On e sid e ur ged vigila ntism : Bung le wa s a mi scre ant, and someth ing sho uld be done abou t him. But wha t sh ouldn ’t be done, the yar gu ed, wa sfor Lambd aMOO bycrea ting to respond a worl d of reg ula ti on. Lambd aMOO did not need a state; it nee de d a few go od vigi la nt es. It ne eded peop le who woul denf orce the will of the com mu - nit y wit hou t th e per manent int rus ion of so me cen tr al force calle d the sta te. Bu ngle sho uld beexp elle d, kille d, or“t oa ded”—and som eone would doit. But on ly if the grou p resi st ed th e cal l to organ iz e its elf in to a state. The ot her si de pr om ote djust on eide a: dem ocr acy. With th eco opera tion a way to vot e on rules that of th e Wi zards , Lamb daM OO shou ld establish An yques tion cou ld be made wo uld go ver nho wpeop le inthe sp ac ebehaved. limiting the scop e of wha t the sub ject of a bal lo t; there was no constitution de mocr ac y cou ld de cide. An is sue decided by th e ballot wou ld be imp le - me nted by the Wiz ard s. Fro m then on, it woul d be a ru le. Bot hext remes ha dtheir vi rtue s, an dbot hin vite dcer tain vic es. Th eana r- ch y of th e first risk ed chao s. It was eas y to imag ine th e comm un it y turning

115 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 100 100 CODE 2.0 aga ins t peopl e with littl e or no warni ng; one imagined vi gil an tes ro amin g people who se crim es hap - the sp ace , uncons tr ai ned by an y ru le s, “toading” pen ed to str ik e the m as “awf ul.” For those wh o took th is pla ce les s seriou sly than rea l spac e, thi s com promi se wa s to lerabl e. But wh at was to le ra ble for so me was intol er ab le to oth ers—as Bu ngle had lear ned. De mocrac y see med nat ural, yet ma ny resi sted it as well . The id ea that seemed po lit ics co uld exis t in La mbd aMOO to sully the spa ce. The thou ght that id ea swo uld have to be deb at ed and the nvoted on was jus tanothe rbur- coul d be regula te d, but it al l den . Su re, rule s woul d be kno wn and behavior from th e fu n the spa ce be gan to seem lik e work. The wo rk too k something was to have been. In the en d, both happe ned . The de bate tha t ev ening wou nd dow n afte r al mo st th re ehours. Noclear res olut ion had found its way in. Bu tareso lu ti on of so rt s did occu r. As Di bbel l de sc ri bes it: hi s deci sio n.Tom - It was also at this poi nt, most li kel y, tha t TomTrac eback reached Trace bac kwasawi zar d, ataci turn sort of fellow who’d sat bro odi ngon the si delin es all eve nin g. He hadn’t sa id a lot , but wha t he had sai d indi cated that he to ok th e crim e co mmi tt ed aga inst exu and Moo nd reame r ve ry seri ousl y, and that he felt no par tic ula rco mp assi ontoward the character wh ohad commi tted it .But onth eoth er ion of afel low pl aye rjus t hand hehad ma de it eq ua lly pla in th at he took th eeliminat as se ri ou sl y, and mor eover th at he had no desire to ret ur n to th e days of wizardly the co nfl icting inte rventi on. It must hav e been difficul t, the ref ore , to re concile imp ulses churn ing wit hin hi m at th at mo ment .In fac t, it was pro bab ly impossi ble, of the MOO’s for ...as much as he would have liked to mak ehi mself an inst rument coll ect ive will ,[he surely re ali zed that un de rthe prese nt ord erof th ing s] he must in the fina l ana lys is eit her ac t alo ne or not act at al l. So To mT race back act ed al on e. He told th e lin gerin g fe w playe rs in the ro om th at he had to go , an d the n he . He di d it quie tl y and he di d it pri vat ely , . P M wen t. It wa s a min ute or two bef or e 10 bu t al l an yone had to do to know he ’d don e it was to typ e th e @who co mman d, which wa s no rm al ly wh at you typed if yo u wan ted to kn ow a play er’s prese nt loca - tio n and the tim e he la st logg ed in. But if you had run an @who on Mr. Bungle not ck left emmeline ’s room, the da tab as ewou ld ha ve told you too lo ng afte rTo mTraceba so me thin g di ffer en t. “Mr_B ung le, ”it wo uld have sa id ,“is not th e name of any playe r.” The date ,as it ha ppen ed, wasApr il Fo ol’ sDay, bu tthis wa sno jo ke: Mr .Bungle 36 wa s tr ul y de ad an d truly go ne .

116 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 101 101 cy ber spac es When the Wiz ard s saw th is, th ey moved to the othe r ex tr em e. With no fo rm al de cisi on by the ci ti zens, the Wi zards called forth ademo cr acy. Sta rt ing 37 an y mat ter cou ld be dec ided by ball ot , and any pr oposition May 1, 19 93 , 38 rec eivi ng at le ast twi ce as man y vot es fo r as against woul d becom e the la w. or not. Many wonde red wh ether this was an advance There is a lo t to thi nk abo ut in this stor y, even in my sav age ly ab ridge d 39 Bu tIwa nttofoc us on the se ns eof los stha tacc ompa nie dthe Wiz- ve rsi on . ard s’ deci si on. The re is a cer tai n roman ce tied to the idea of establis hing a de moc rac y— Kodak com mer cials wit h tearful Ber liners as th e Wa ll come s dow n an d al l th at. Th e romanc e is the idea of self-g overn men t and of es tab - move to self -go ve rn- lishi ng str uc ture s that faci li tat e it. But Lamb daMOO’s me nt , thr ough str uc ture s of democ ra cy ,was no t jus t an achiev em ent. It was also afa ilure. The sp ac ehad faile d. It had failed, wecou ld say, to sel f- regu late . It ha d fail ed to engender valu es in its popu latio n su fficie nt to avoid ju st the the pa ssage of the so rt of ev il Bu ngle had per pet rat ed. Th e debate marked sp ace from one kind of pla ce to ano ther. From a sp ace self-regul at ed to a spa ce regu lat ed by sel f. It mig ht seem odd that th ere wo uld be a pla ce whe re the emer ge nce of demo cracy wou ld so depres s peop le .But this kind of reactio n is not uncom - mon in cyber-p la ces .Ka tie Hafn erand Mat thew Lyon tell astory of the em er - ge nce of a“widget” cal ledthe FINGER co mmand on UNIX, th at would allow user s to see wh en the last time ano ther use r had bee n on th e comp ute r, and y, I shou ld wh eth er she ha d read her mai l. Some thought (not su rprisingl of an invas ion of priv acy. Whos e thi nk ) that this co mm and wa s so mething and why sh ould th ey ge t to bu si ne ss was it wh en I was las t at my machine, kn ow whe ther I hav e re ad my mai l? Aprogr amme rat Carn egie Mello nUni ver sity ,Ivo rDur ham, chan ged the co mman d to gi ve th e us er the powe r to avoid this spy ing finge r. The re su lt? “D urham was fl amed wi tho ut mer cy. He was called ever yt hin gfro mspinel ess to soc ia lly ir re spo ns ible to a pet ty poli tic ian, and wo rse—but not for pr o- tec ting priv ac y. He was criti ci zed for monkeying with the openn ess of the 40 net wo rk. ” Th evalue sof the UNIX wor ld wer ediffe ren t. Th ey were valu es embedded th eval ues, and mem - in the code of UN IX .To cha ng ethe co de was to change be rs of the co mmu nit y fo ug ht tha t chang e. So too with th e chang es to La mbd aMOO. La mb - Bef ore the ba lloting, of socia lst ruct ure s daM OO was re gu lat edth rough no rms .The se regulations we re sus tai ned by the co ns tant pol ici ng of indi vidual citiz ens .They wer e th e re gulati on s of a comm uni ty ; the ris e of dem ocracy ma rked the fa ll of thi s co mmu nit y. Althou gh norms wo uld no doubt surv ive the establis hme nt of a

117 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 102 102 CODE 2.0 de mo cracy ,th ei rsta tus was forever ch anged. Be fore the demo crac y, astru ggle only by cons ens us —b y over whi ch norms sho ul d prev ail co uld be resolved cert ai nvi ew spreva ili ng inadec entr al ize dway. Now such astr ugg le cou ld be re so lved by the po wer of a ma jo ri ty—not th rou gh wh at a maj orit y did, but thr ou gh how they vot ed. I’ve rom ant ici zed thi s bi zar re littl e worl d far mor e tha n I inte nd ed . I do bef ore dem ocra cy was not mean to sugges t tha t the wor ld of LambdaMOO nec es sar ily be tte rthan the one af ter. Iwant on ly to mark aparticula rchange . Li ke CC ,an dun like AOL, Lamb daM OOis aplac ewhere norm sre gu lat e. But rs have co ntrol ove r unl ik e CC , Lambd aM OO is now a pl ace whe re membe re st ruc tu ring the norms. Such con tro l ch ang es thing s. No rms become diff ere nt whe n ba llots ca n ove rru le the m, and code be com es diffe re nt when ballots can or de rWiz ar ds to ch ange th eworld. These ch anges ma rk amo ve men tfrom one kind of nor ma- tiv e space to ano th er ,fr om one ki nd of regul ation to anothe r. Bu tth ere are imp ortan t In all thr eeof the secy ber-p lac es, code is aregulator. di ffer enc es among the thr ee .Norm shave arelevan ce in CC and Lamb daMO O th at th ey do not in AOL ; dem ocrac y has a rel evan ce in Lambda MO O that it do es not hav e in CC or AOL. And moni tori ng has a relevanc e in AOL that it do es not ha ve in Lam bda MOO or CC (s in ce nei ther of the latte r two use dat a abo ut indiv idua ls for com merc ia l purp oses, ei ther int ernal or ext er nal to the ties; as Jen nifer Mnook in or ga nizat io n). Cod econ sti tu tes th ese three communi 41 Di ffe r- throug htechnology. say sofLambda MOO, “pol itic s[is] im plemented ” ence sinthe code co nst it ut ethem diffe re ntly, bu tsome code makes comm unity th icker tha noth ers. Where com mun ity is thic k, norms can regulat e. The next sp ace in thi s survey is also co ns ti tuted by co de , thou gh in this cas e the “m anagement” has less abil ity to chang e its basic arch ite ct ur e. Th is cod eis net cod e— apr otoco lof the Int ernet that is not easily chan ged byasin - gle user .At leas t it was not easy fo r me. .l aw.c yber Hi sname was IBE X, an dno one kne wwho he was. Iproba bly could ha vefig - taft er he di dwhat hedid , ure ditou t—I ha dthe data totr ack him down—bu Ididno twant toknow who he was. He was pro bably astu dent in th every first class ab out cy bersp ac e that I taug ht, and I wou ld have failed him , becau se I was furi ous abou twhat heha ddone. The class was “The Law of Cyber space ”; ve rsi on one of that cl ass was at Ya le . Isay ver sion on ebe ca use Ihad th eextraor dinar yoppor tu ni ty to tea ch tha t cl ass atthre eex tra ordi na rylaw sch ool s—first at Yale, then at the Univ ers ity of

118 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 103 103 cy ber spac es Ch ic ag o, an d fina lly at Harv ard . These were thre e ve ry differe nt pla ces , wit h th re ever ydiffer ent st ude nt bodie s, bu tone part of the course was the sa me in ea ch pl ac e. Ever y yea r a“n ews group” was associ at ed wi th the cla ss—a n ele c- abo ut quest ions tr onic bull eti n bo ard where stu dent s could post messages ra ise d in the course, or abo ut any th in g at all . These postin gs be ga n conv ers a- ti ons —t hre ad s of disc uss ion, one me ssage post ed after anothe r, deba ting or qu estion in gwh at th eearli er me ssa ge had said. Th es e ne ws group s co nst itu ted what phil os op he rs mig ht ca ll “d ia logic co mm uni ties .” Th ey wer e sp aces where discuss ion could occur, but wher e wh atwas sa id was pre se rve dforoth ers to read, as in CC .That was the dialo gic was what was ma de over time as peop le got to know part . The community in this space and inreal space .One ye arst ud en tsinthecl ass each oth er —both an dst ud ents outsi de th eclass (who ha dbee nwatching the .la w.cybe rdis cu s- sion s develop ) had a par ty; ano th er year the studen ts outside the cla ss wer e in vite dto atte nd one cla ss .But over the thre eye ars, at three differ en tsch oo ls, it was clear th at th ree commu nit ie shad been made. Ea ch was born on apar - ticu lar date, and eac h lived for at least a cou pl e of months. My st or y here co mes fr om Yal e.Yal e is an odd sor t of law scho ol ,thou gh odd in agood way .Itis sma ll an dfil led with extremely bright peo ple, ma ny of whom do no treal ly wa nt to be law ye rs. It fas hions its elf as aco mmu nity ,and ever yon efro mthe dean on do wn (not a“Yal e” way to des cr ibe thing s) strive s co nti nuo usl y to foster and sustai n thi s se nse of commu nity am ong the stu- l de nt s. To a la rge ex te nt , it works —not in the sen se that th er e is perpetua pea ce ,but in the sense that peo pl eever ywhere are aw are of this sense of co m- mu nity .Some embrac eit, others resi st it, but re sistan ce ,like an em bra ce, say s that someth ing is there . One do es not res is t the commu nity of people on a Greyho und bu s. On e extr ao rd ina ry feat ure of the Ya le La w Sch ool is “the Wall.” The Wall about whateve r they want to say . is a place where peop le can post comments about Ya le ’s tre at - A let ter can be po sted abo ut gay ri gh ts at Yale, or a protest are posted as we ll as points ment of union ized wo rke rs . Polit ical messages abo ut la w. Eac hpos ting mak esaddi ti onal ones poss ib le—eith er scribble don the or igi nal pos t or app ended unde rneath the pos t. An ext ra or din ar ysig nfor an yvis it or, the Wall islocated righ tat th ecent er of the law sch ool. Inthe midd le of afak eGo thi cst ructure is aston espac ewith sc ores of pap ers po sted in ra ndom fashio n. Around th eposts sta nd wa nde ring st uden ts, read ing wha toth er shave said. Thi sis Yale’s speakers’ cor ner ,tho ug h the spe ake rs are wr it ers, and the wri ti ng is su bs tantive. The re is little to be gain edon the Wal lthr ough rh eto ri c; togain resp ect there, yo umu st sa ysome - thi ng of sub stance.

119 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 104 104 CODE 2.0 On e rul e, howev er, governs thi s space. Al l po sting s mu st be signe d; an y Originally, po st ingwithou tasignat ure isremoved. no dou bt, the rule mea nt that the po st ing must be si gned by the pers on who wrote it. But be cause th is is Ya le, where no rule ca nexis twithou tathous and ques tions rais ed ,acus tom has eme rg ed whe reby an anon ymou s post can be sig ned by some one not its gives the pos t the aut hor (“Si gned but not wr itte n by X” ). Th at signature pedi gree it need s to survive on the Wal l. The reasons for thi srul earecle ar ,but so too are its pr ob lem s. Let’s say you wan t to cri tici ze the dean for a dec isi on he has made. The dean, how ev er swee t,is apowe rful person ,an dyou migh twell prefer to post amessage wi th- ou tyour name atta ch ed toit. Orsa yyou are astuden twith politic al vie wsth at ma ke you an out sider .Pos ting amess age with those vi ews and your signatu re mi ght dra w the sco rn of you r cla ssmat es. Free sp eech is not spee ch without con seque nce ,and scor n,or sha me, or ost racis mar elike ly cons equenc esof lots of sp eech. Ano nym ity, then, is a way ar ou nd this di lem ma. Wit h ano nymity , you can say what yo uwant wi tho ut fe ar .In some cases, for some peop le ,th erigh t to spe ak anon ymou sly mak es sense . St il l, aco mm unity mig htwa nt to resi st thi sri ght.Ju st as an onym it ymi gh t gi ve you the st rength to stat ean unpop ular view, it can also sh ie ld you if you po st anir respon sible, or sl and ero us, or hurtfu lview. You mig ht wan ttoque s- tio nthe pol icie sof th ede an, or yo umight want fal sely to accus eafell ow stu- it y de ntof che atin g. Both ut tera nces benefit fr om anony mity, but the commun has go od rea son to re si st utt er anc es lik e the second . As far as Ikno w, IB EX never sai dan yt hi ng on the Wall. Ins tea d, he spok e in th e news gr ou p as soci ate d wit h my clas s. By design , the newsg rou p was ope n to an yo ne at Yal e who wa nt ed to speak. Unl ike the Wall, how eve r, the tech nolo gy allo wed users to call th em se lves whate ver th ey want ed. “IBE X,” of mwa sjus tli ke cou rs e, was aps eudony m. For purposes of the Wa ll, apseudony an on ymo us speech —yo u di d no t have to us e your real name. But in a new s- gr ou p a pseudo nymo us po sti ng is qu ite differe nt from an anonym ous pos t- r of a ps eudon ym. In the ing . Ov er time yo u ca n come to know the characte er, Mad Ma cs, Cliff Clav en , class that year, along wi th IB EX, we had SpeedRac of the clas s might Alie ns, bl ah, and Ch risto pher Rob bi n. While members kn ow wh othe se pa rt ic ipants were (w eall knew who Mad Ma cs was ,but onl y a few of us knew Spe edRa cer) ,eac h pseudo ny m had a char acte r. The cha ract er of IB EX wa sbad; this much wa scle ar from the star t. Be fo re IB EX ap pe ared , li fe in the spac e flou ri shed . At firs t peo ple were tim id , but po li te. Brave so ul swo ul dpo st anide aor ajok e, an dconversatio nwoul dcon - tin ue ar ound th e idea or jok e for a bi t. Afte r a cou ple of weeks th e conve rs a-

120 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 105 105 cy ber spac es tio n woul d bec om e qui te inte nse . Pat terns of exch ange began . Peop le had .Peopl e st umbled as they spo ke, but they we re qu es tion s; oth ers had answers be gi nn ing ,slowl y, to speak. Some thi ngs abou t how th ey spok e wer e imme diate ly notice able . Fir st, wo men sp ok e more in thi s sp ace than they did in cl ass .Maybe not more in a 42 Second, hel pe rs qui ckl y de vel ope d stat ist ical ly si gni fica nt se ns e, but more. an ddiff erenti at ed fr om thos ewho re cei ved th eir help .Soon aclass deve lo ped on lin e—a re al cla ss tha t identi fied itself as such and spoke as a cla ss in a way that a tea cher dre am s of in re al spa ce ,and in a way I had neve r known . Icoul dno treal lysay. Una Sm ith ma yha ve be enaca t- Wh ythi sha ppened aly st .Isai dthat Itaught this co ur se three times. Each time (with ou tmy int er - ven tion at all) there was an Una Smi thparticipating in the new sgr ou p. At Yal e she was a re al per so n, but af ter Yal e I tho ught of her as a type .She was alw ays a wo ma n fro m ou tside the cl ass; she was always ext re mel y kn owl ed geab le ab ou tthe Net an dabo ut USENE T; and sh ealw ay swande re din to my(vi rtual) cl ass and beg an tel lin g the oth ers how they should behav e. When som eo ne violat ed anorm of the Net, Unawoul dcorrect them. Often this ins tru ct ion was .So on th eclass wou ld not tak en te rribly well (thes ewe re, aft er all, law students) rally to defe nd the inst ru cted and to chall enge her todefend he rru le s. An dof co urs e, ex pert that she was, sh e usu all y had an answer that di d def end the ru lesshe ha ddi ct ated. Th is exch an ge so onbecame afocus of theclas s.Unahad draw nthe ir ange r, and the cl ass gai ned cohe sivene ss as aresul t. Abo ut a month and a hal f into the co urs e, the grou p rea ched an ape x of the mome nt well. Early on so rt s. It bec ame th e bes t it wo uld be. I re member aspri ng afte rnoo nInotice dth atsom eone had posted the first line of apoem . By the end of the day , with out an y coo rdination, the cl ass had finis he d the now there was rhyme. Th in gs poe m. The re hadbe en rhythm to the exc hanges; hummed in the news gro up, and peopl e we re ge nu inely surpr is ed about this spa ce. It was the nth at IBE Xappe ared. Ithi nk it wasjus tafte rweha ddis cus sed an onymi ty in cl ass ,so ma yb ehis la te rclai ms to ha ve bee nse rvin gape da gog - ical role wer e tru e. But he appea re d after one of our classes— ap pe ared , it of the clas s. Not an atta ck se emed ,jus ttois su eanatta ck on ano ther member onhiside as, but onhim .So vic iou sand so extens ive was this att ack th at when I rea d it, I did n’ t know qu it e how to understand it. Could it have bee n rea l? Almos t immed iat ely, con versat ion in the grou p die d. It ju st stopp ed. No one said any thin g, as if ev eryo ne wer eafr aid that the monster tha thad ente re d our sp ace wou ld tu rn his fury on one of the m next. Un til, tha t is ,the vic tim res ponded , wi th an ans wer tha t evince d the wo unds of the attack. IBE X’s wo rds ha d cu t. Th e victi m was ang ry and hu rt, and he attacked ba ck .

121 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 106 106 CODE 2.0 But hi s salvo only insp ired ano ther ro und of vicious ne ss ,eve n mor e vile th an the fi rst .Wit hth is, ot he rmem be rsof the class could not resi st joi ning in. IB EX was att ac ked by astr ing of char acte rs in the class as cowa rd ly fo rhi ding be hin d a pseu do nym and as si ck for wh at he ha d sai d.No ne of this ha d any effe ct. IB EX came bac k, aga in an dagai n, with an uglin ess that wa sasextrem e as it was unrel ent ing. The space had been changed . Con vers ation fe ll of f, peo ple drifte d aw ay . with what had happ ene d; So me no dou bt le ft bec au se they were disgusted oth er s di d no t want to be IBEX’ s ne xt ta rget. The re was a brief pe rio d of life in the sp ace as peop le rall ied to atta ck IBEX .But as he came ba ck aga in and aga in, each tim emore vic ious tha nthe last, most simply left .(On eti me IB EX in the wee k bef or e, he ca me bac k to prot es t th at he had been wronged; but some on ewe arin gth ewh it esheet of cl aime d, he had not posted anything, IBE Xha dposte dinIBEX’s na me, sothat he, the re al IB EX, had been def amed . The clas s had little sy mpath y.) But it wa s not ju st the onl ine cl ass that ch ange d. As we met face to face ea ch wee k, I felt th e at mo sphere bend . Peop le felt th e creatu re in the ro om, at the Yale Law School .This was tho ugh no one co ul dbe lie vehe was astudent thei r clas smate , hid ing beh ind a smi le or a joke in real sp ace, but vic iou s in cybe rsp ac e.And the ver yideathat this ev il was hid de nunder asm il echa nged how peo ple felt ab out smil es. So me cal led this the“D avid Lyn ch effe ct,” an allu sion to the di rec tor who port ray s the ro t of soc iety jus t under freshly painted faça des. We felt in that class the ro t of ou r commu nit y jus t un der the su rface of smiling and func - tio nal stud ents. Th ere was a (rel ativel y tam e) Jake Baker in ou r midst. The nity—c spa ce had pe rmitted behav ior that de st roye d commu ommu nit y tha t the spac eitsel f ha dcreat ed. Communi ty had be en creat ed in pa rtthroug hthe to hide he sitation, abi li ty to hide —to hi de be hind a beni gn pseu donym; or ed it ing, in the wr iti ng ;tohide your rea ct ion; tohide tha tyou were not pay in g at ten tio n.Thes e anon ymi ti es ha d ma de the commu nity what it was. But the sa me an ony mit y th at crea ted the commu nity gave birth to IBEX as well, and thu s to ok the co mmu ni ty aw ay. Seco nd Li(f/v)e(s ) in the fir st edi - Thes efo ur places th at Ihave just de sc ri bed were all described tio n of thi s bo ok, each in ju st abo ut the same ter ms. Th ey’re old stor ie s,and th e lesso ns the y tea ch are sti ll preci sely the le sson this chap ter is me ant to co nvey. But I do n’t mea n to sugge st th at th ere’s been no inte re sting prog re ss in the cyb ersp aces tha tthe Inter ne thas ins pired. The las tfive ye ar shav ewit -

122 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 107 107 cy ber spac es nes sed an exp los ion in cybersp ac es, much more dramat ic than an yt hi ng I im agin ed whe n I first wr ot e this boo k. In on e se nse, th ese sp aces are no thi ng re all y new . They hav e fan cy new te chnolog ythat ,becau se com put er sare fast er and bandwi dth is broa de r, func - tio ns mu ch better than the ir earl ie r ve rsions. But the MM OG sp ace I des cri bed in Ch apte r 2 was ins pired by real places . Wh at’ schang ed ,howe ver, is si ze. AsJu lian Di bbe ll des cri bed itto me,the qu es tion is doe s si ze matte r in thes e kinds of spa ces ? And I thi nk it doe s. The text- based wor ld is na tu ra ll y li mite d in size .The lim it is no t so muc h text versus gr aphi cs as it is limited cul tur al ac ces sib ilit y ve rsus a muc h bro ad er acc essib ili ty. Tha t 43 make s for la rg er spac es . The re sul tis “so meth in gso cially ri cher inalo tof ways ,”“not somuc hthe which will als o som ed ay look part icu lar aff ord ance s of 3D gra ph ic imagery, pret ty crud e.” Mass iv el y Mul ti pl e Onl ine Rol e Pl ay ing Ga mes (a gain , MM OGs , or MMORP Gs ) have beco me a whol e ind ustry . Lite rally million s sp end hun - dr eds ,some ti me sthou sand sof ho urs each year in thes espac es alo ng with lit - li ves .Wh il e liv in g thes e second era lly bil li ons of do ll ars to live the se second li ve s, of cours e, they are al so li vi ng a li fe in real spa ce. Wh en they’ re playing the MMOG Wo rld of Wa rcr aft, they are at the same time play ing fathe r or wif e in re al space. They have thu s no t le ft the real worl d to go to the se othe r pla ces. But the yinte gra te th eoth er pla ces int otheir real world li fe, an dthelast n in the percent five year s has seen an explosio age of real-w orl d life that is li ved vi rtua ll y. Thes e“ga mes” can be di vi ded rough ly into two ty pes .In on etype ,people “pl ay” aga me tha thasbee ndefin ed byothers. These are “role-pla yi ng ga mes. ” Thus ,Wo rld of Warc raf t is a role -pl ayi ng game in which people comp ete to ga in wea lth and sta tus (m aking it not so diffe rent from real life). Gra nd The ft Aut oisaga me in whi ch peopl eengag ein akind of virtual crime .These ga me s al lhave astr uc tu re to them, but they di ffe rin the de gree to wh ich pe ople can cu st omiz eor creat etheir own char ac ter sor env ironme nts. Th eva st ma jor it y of on lin egam es are ro le-p lay ing gam es in th is sense .One site tha ttracks th ese 44 co mmu nitie s est imat es 97 perc ent are role- playing games of some sor t. Th eseco ndtype invol ves much mo re const ructio n. The se sp ac es pro vide .In ad dition to so cia l- com mun iti es in whic hpeo ple at ami ni mum socialize izi ng, th ere is cre ative and co mmerc ial activ ity. Dependin g up on the game, th emi xam ong th ese activi ti es di ffers subs tantially .But they all aim to crea te

123 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 108 108 CODE 2.0 avirt ua lworl dthat in spi re sareal com munity withi nitself. These games are the vir tua l an extens io n of the MOO s I desc ribed above. Bu t they extend man ipul atin g com mun ity of a MO O bey ond tho se who feel co mfortable te xt .Th es e worl ds are gr aphica lly real, ev en if they are virtual. Of co ur se ,with in bo th of the se ty pes of MMOGs ,ther eis cr eativ it y.The An d wi th in bot h, di ff erence s betwee n them are simp ly a matt er of degree. ne rat es ove r the re is comme rce. Seco nd Li fe —de sc ribed mo re below—ge 45 amont h. Ag gr egat ed across “$ 4, 00 0, 000 U.S. ininte rperso na ltr ansactions” games, as Edwa rd Ca stro nov a descr ibes, there is a great deal of commer ce pro duced by thes e vi rt ua l wor ld s. “Th ecom me rce flowgener ated bypeopl ebuying and selling money an d am ounts to at oth er virt ual items (that is, mag ic wands , sp aces hips, armor) 46 least $30 mil lio n ann ually in the Uni ted State s,and $1 00 million globa ll y.” And mor e inte resti ng (and bi zar re) is Ca str onov a’s estim ate of the gr oss nation al prod uc tper ca pita pro duced in va rious vir tual worlds. Ev erQues t, for ex am ple, ha saGDP which is abou tha lf tha tof “the Car ibbe an Islan dNati on 47 An d the GD P per cap ita of No rrat h“was about the sam e as of Domi ni ca.” 48 Bulg ar ia’s and four time s hig her than China’s or India’s.” For my purpo ses here, howev er, I want to fo cu s on the se cond type of MM OG, and two of th ese in parti cul ar. The firs t was an early le ade r in this spa ce—T here. The second is a gr owi ng and extraordinary succe ss—S econ d Lif e. Se con d Life is , as its we bsite des cr ibes, “a 3-D vir tu al worl d entir el y inthe sense that the expe rience se em s bu ilt andown ed byit sre si den ts. ” 3- D thr ee dim ens io nal—t he cha ra cters and th e objects ap pear to be in three virt ual di me nsio ns . A wo rld in the sense that the ob jects and pe ople ar e Bui lt render ed by comp ute rs . by its res idents in the sense that Se con d Life mere ly provide d a pla tf or m upon whic h it s resid en ts built th e Se cond Life of Second Life res - wo rld .(And no t jus t a few .On any gi ven day, 15 percent 49 id ent s are ed itin g the scr ipts that make Secon d Life ru n. Tha t pl atf or m or ig ina ll y ren der ed be aut iful gre en fi elds. Residen ts acquired lan d in that worl d, and bega n building s in th e struc tur es. ) And owne d by its resident sen se th at the stuf f that the reside nts of Seco nd Life build is th eir s—both or the house) ,an d an y the “p hysic al ”th in g its elf (th e car ,or the surfboard, int ell ectu alprop ert yright which might beem be dded in tha tthing tha tthey ha ve built. It is this last feat ur e that cont rast s mo st in teresti ngly (fo r me at least) wi th the other MMOG that Ime ntion ed, The re. The re was also acom munit y site . Bu t it was a rad ic al ly di ffe rent (and les s succ es sfu l) wor ld fr om Se cond Lif e. It was to be ce nte red ar ou nd cor porate franchi ses—Sony or Nik e, for

124 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 109 109 cy ber spac es ex ample ,were exp ec ted to set upshop in There. People wo uld also be allo wed to crea tethi ng sinThere ,and when they so ld or gav ethem away ,There would get aper ce ntage. The space its el f cam emuch more pre -fa b,but ther ewa ssig - nif icant op port unit y for cu sto mi zat io n. It s foun ders cra ft ed the rhe tor ic of Ther e at leas t arou nd (at least their unders tandi ng of ) the ide al s of the Unit ed States. The excha nge ra te for bei ng the year the United Sta te sCons tit u- There -bu cks was 1787 to1—1787 O of The re exp lained to a cla ss I was tio n was wr itte n. And as the then-CE te achi ng, th e va lues of th eAmeri can repu bl ic info rmed th e valu es of The re. My stu dents we re skept ica l. And one fan ta stica ll ybrig ht st ude nt, Cathe r- The re in e Crum p, gave the CE O a bi t of a rou gh ride . She asked whether woul dresp ec tth eprin ciples of the Firs tAmen dment. “Of cour se,” respond ed the CEO. “Would to put asign on his la nd? ”“Of acitiz en of Ther ebeallowed co urse. ”“Wo uld she be al lowed to buy land next to, say, Nike? ”“Of cou rs e.” “W ou ld sh e be al lo wed to put a sig n up on her land next to Nike that says ‘Ni ke use s swe atshop labor’ ?” “Umm. I’m not sure about that.” So mu ch for the Fir stAmend ment. Or mo re releva ntl y to Seco nd Li fe, Cru mp as ke d, “Who ow ns the IP [in tel lec tu al prope rty ] in the des ig ns a ci tizen creat es ?” “The re do es .” “Who ow ns th eIPin th edes ig ns Ni ke cre at es?” “O f cour se, Ni ke do es .How could it be any oth er way?” We ll ,it cou ld beanot her way if you fol lowed the pri nc iples of the Am eri can Con stitu tion, Cru mp suggested, which said IP right s get ve sted in“a utho rs or inve ntors,” no t in corpor ations. There ’s real pro ble m, how eve r, wa s str uct ura l. It is the sa me pro ble m of any plann ed or cen tr aliz ed eco no my. There was to be bui lt by There ,Inc. And there in was its pro ble m. The st ru ct ures of th es evirtual wor ld sar eext rao rdi - nari ly comp lex. The co st of bu ild ing the m is immens e, and th us The re, Inc. fa ced a huge cap ita l co st in making There ru n. nto Seco nd Lif e(like allnew na tio ns )out sour ce dth at co st of con structio it s ci tiz ens. When yo u buy la nd in Second Life, yo u get an emp ty fiel d or des erted is land . Yo u then ha ve to buy, barter, or build to make it habita ble. The re ’s anec onomy to buil ding it ,and it can behard work .But thethin gsyou bu ild you can sel l. An d ag ain , the desi gns you make are yours . More tha n 10 0, 00 0 peop le now inhabi t, and const ru ct, Seco nd Lif e. Fo r the m,the gam e is what it says . Thes e cu rrent ru le s, how ever, are the produ ct of an evolution in Sec ond Lif e. In the fi rs t pub lic Al pha te sti ng of the site that wou ld beco me Se cond Lif e, there was no concep t of la nd ow ners hip. Eve rything was pub lic. The ow ner shi p of land be gan with Be ta tes ting, whe n al l use rs coul d claim the pu bl ic land at a pric e. When the la nd was claimed, the use r coul d se le ct

125 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 110 110 CODE 2.0 whe the r oth ers co uld creat e objects, for the land. La ter sc ri pts, or lan dmarks . the opt io ns we re extended In vers io n 1.1, th er e wa s a fai rl y major ch ang e to the phy sics of land . Whe reas be fore use rs were free to tel eport anywhe re, now, to avoid ha ra ss- me nt , ow ne rs of land co ul d dec ide whe the r othe rs cou ld “trespa ss” or not— eit he rbyset ti ng adefault togr ant or de ny ac ces s, or by adding ali st of peo ple ap plie donly to the fir st 15 who wer efre eto visi t.Th es erest ri cti on s, however, was free to fl y, ev en if the me ter s above th e proper ty. Beyond th at , anyone ow ner di dn’ t wa nt them on th e pr operty. Now th islast res tr ict io nhasan int eres ting pa ral lel to th ehistory of Amer - 50 prope rty law in th e Ame ri can tra di - Fre e Cu lt ure, ic an la w. As I des cr ibe in ti onco ns idered the own er of lan dth eowner of the space from thegro un d“an 51 Thi scr eated an obv iou sconfl ict whe nairpl ane s in def ini te ex ten t,upwa rd s.” ap peared .Did the pil ot of an ai rp lane tresp ass wh en he flew ov er you r la nd? The ac com moda ti on th e law ev en tu ally dr ew was bet ween fl yi ng very lowan dfl ying ve ry hi gh. It wa snot tres pas si ng to fly ver yhig hov er som eone’ s lan d;itwa sanu is ance to fly very lo wove rsome one’s land .So som ething lik e the so lu ti on tha t Sec ond Li fe ac hiev ed was also achieved by the la w. But notic ethe im po rtant diff ere nce. Inreal space ,the la wmeans you can be pena lized for viol ati ng the “hi gh/l ow” ru le . In Second Life , you simp ly can ’t vi ola te th e15 -me te rrul e. Th erule is part of th ecode. Th ecode con trols the rule ornot, ho wyou ar ein Secon dLife .The re is n’t achoice about obeying an y more th an the re’ s a choi ce abo ut obeying gravity. So cod eis law here .Tha tcode /l aw enfo rc es its contr ol dire ctl y. But ob vi - ousl y, thi sco de (lik ela w)change s. The key is to rec ognize that this ch ange in and valu es of the cod e is (unli ke the law s of nat ure ) cr afte d to reflect choices the co de rs. Con si de r anoth er illu st rati on of the sam e point. As I sa id, Seco nd Lif e Lif e owne rs hip of tha t gi ves the creat ors of Int ell ect ua l Pr op erty in Second 52 in side an d ou tsid e Seco nd Life. prop ert y—both (As one of the fou nd er s des cri bed ,“Ou r law ye rs shoo k thei r hea ds, but we decided the futu re of our 53 co mpa ny isn ’t tie d up in our own ing what our us ers cr ea te.” ) Tha t’ s the sa me wi thIP in real sp ac e: Unl ess yo u’ ve signed you rrigh tsawa yto acor po - ra tion (d on’t!) ,whe nyou crea te in re al spa ce, the law au toma tic al ly gi ves you a copyr ig ht in yo ur cre ativ it y. In bo th spa ces, too, you have the right to giv e tho se ri ghts awa y. I ru n a nonpro s that ma kes it fi t call ed Creative Common sim pl efor cr eator sto signa lthe fre edom sth ey wa nt to run with their cr ea tiv - it y. In re al space, when yo u use a Cre at ive Co mmon s lic ens e, you ma rk you r they hav e. co nten t with the lice nse yo u want. User s the n kno w the freedoms If a rig ht is viol ated ,it gets remed ied throu gh the law.

126 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 111 111 cy ber spac es Secon d Lif e has tak en th is idea one step fu rthe r. Cr eat or s in Se cond Lif e can mar k the ir con te nt with th e lice ns e they want . But the wi zar ds of this selec ted coul d aff ec t wo rld are expl ori ng the ide a tha t the lice nse they’ve dire ct ly wha t othe rs can do wi th tha t cr eativ ity. If conte nt is mark ed with a Cre ativ e Comm ons lic en se , then som eone can take a pictur e of it without with a licens e, the n if you tr y to ex pre ss pe rmis sio n. Bu t if it is not marked take apic tu re of it, th eobjec twi ll be invisibl e. He re again, the co de exp res ses the la w mo re eff ec tively than the la w in real spac e ever cou ld . The Int ern et As I sai d, we can dist ingu ish cybersp ac e from the Inte rne t. But the point of ,isstill tru eof theInt er - thi scha pt er ,howev er clea rwith res pec tto cy berspace ne t.The reare archi tect ural feat ures of the Inte rnet that embed ce rta in va lue s. Tho se fe atu res ca n al so ch ange , and if they do, the values the Inter net pro - mo tes wi ll be diffe rent. The most sig ni ficant examp le of this is one I onl y me ntione d in the firs t edition of th is boo k, but whi ch was at the center of The Future of Ide as .Th is arch itects Jer om e Sal tz er, is the “e nd- to-end ”pri nci pl e desc ri bed by network 54 The end -to-end (“ e2e ”) pr inciple is a Da vidCla rk, an dDavid Ree din 1981 . de si gn phil oso phy ab out ho w netw orks shoul d be bu ilt. It coun sels th at a net wo rk shoul dbe kep tas si mple as po ssibl ean dthat the in tell igence re quir ed in ane twor kbe vest ed in the ed ge, oren ds of anetwork, at least so farasth at ’s po ssi ble . As I’ve alread yde scri bed, the Int ernet em bod ied th is pri nci ple by keep in g the fun cti onalit y of TCP/IP fo cus ed quite narr owly— that is, on th e sin gle fu ncti on best-e ffo rts del ivery of pac kets of data. What tho se packe ts do, or who th ey’ re meant for ,is not aco ncer nof the prot ocol. Just deli veri ngpack ets is the en d. the n, is tha tpeo ple can inn ovat efo rth is One cons equence of this design, owner .If you want ne tw or kwi tho ut any nee dto co ordi na te with an ynetwork to develo pan appl icat ion to delive rvoic eacros sIP, the nall you ne ed to dois to wr ite the appl ica ti on to use the TC P/ IP prot ocol s to send da ta acr oss the net wo rk in a way th at wi ll mak e you r app lication run. a valu e that enco ura ges inno vation in ap plications This des ign embeds the cos ts of dev elo ping fo rthe netwo rk. It doe ssoboth bec au se it minimizes new app li ca ti ons (you don’ t need the has sle of as kin g or clearing per mis sion own er . wit h any one) and bec au se it avo id sst ra te gic behav io r by the network Con si de raga in the id ea of devel op in gaVoice-ove r-IP app lication. If the net - wo rk is ow ned by the telephone companies, they would not be excite dabout

127 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 112 112 CODE 2.0 an app li cat io n that wil l canni ba li ze their telephone marke t. Th us,if pe rmis - sion were requ ired be fore the VO IP appl ication coul dbe dep loye d,wemig ht wel l exp ect th eVOIP app li cati on not to be deployed—eith er becau se so me - on edev elo ped it, but itwas bl oc ked ,or bec ause smart develope rs kne witwas awast eof time to devel op it, becau se it would be blo cke d. As Susan Cra wford has in large par t co me desc rib es, “The mi rac ul ous gr owt h of the Internet at ion aga inst high er lev els. ...Innova tor satth eap pli- from th enon discrimin stable exis ten ce of the cat io n lay er ha ve bee n ab le to ass ume th e continued 55 low er lay ers.” The network em pow ers The val ue here is innov ati on and comp etition. en ti tl es all of th e wid est ran ge of inn ova tor s—u ser s of the network—and them to inno vate for th is ne twork. An y innovat ion can be depl oyed on the net wo rk (so long asit re spec ts the TCP /IP pro tocol s). If us ers of the ne tw ork like the inno va ti on, th en the innovat io n is a succes s. is re spec ted—this Si mul tan eo us ly— at least so long as the e2 e principle des ign dis abl es the pot ent ial ly mos t powe rful actor in the ne twork, the net - work own er ,fr om int erfer ing with th eopport uni ty for innovat ion wit hinthe net work .The netwo rkowner might not like the stuff being dev el ope d, but e2 e dis abl es the opp ort un it y to blo ck tha t devel opment. In the same way tha t the ori ginal TCP/IP network coul d be eff ec tive ly cha nge dso th at“ga ps” in in fo rmat ion about that ne twork could becl osed, th e its e2e char acte r. Ind ee d, the TCP /IP netwo rk cou ld be chang ed to remove ve ry too ls tha t Ides cri bed in Chap te r 4could have this eff ect .For exa mpl e, a across its ne tw ork net wo rk ow ne r cou ld sca n the pac kets th at were traveling an d bloc k an y pac ke t that did n’t come from a kn own , or appr ov ed, ap plica - tio n. To get on that list ,ap plic ation de velope rswoul dha ve tocontac tthe net - wo rk ow ner and ask to be inc luded on the list. That chang e to the wa y the ver sions of it Int ernet fun cti ons is comp le tely technically Indeed, possible. are bei ng purs ued for bo th compet it ive and secu rity reas ons . Tha t is, som e ne tw or ks, kee nto co nt rol the kin dof ap plication sthat ru non the ne tw ork fo r applica tion s (a gain, co mpe ti tive rea sons, cou ld us e thi s to blo ck disfavored thi nk of tel epho ne compa ni es bl oc king VO IP). Othe rs, kee n to avoid vir use s or ot her tro ub le on th eir ne two rk, coul dsimply de cide to block ev er ything to the same res ul t: th at innov a- mak e lif e simp le. Eith er re ason wou ld produce tio n on the Inte rne t wo uld be sti fled. As wi th th e sto ries abou t“cybe rspace, ”this cas e about the Inte rnet als o demo ns tra tes the lin kbetw ee narc hi tec ture and pol icy. End- to-en dis apa ra - digm for tec hnol ogy that embeds valu es .Which architecture weenc ou ra ge is achoi ce abou twhi ch po lic ywe enco urage. This is true eve nin the contex tin whic hthe Inte rnet is no ta“place ”— ev en wh ere, th at is, it is“jus t” ame dium .

128 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 113 113 cy ber spac es HO W AR CHIT ECT URES MA TTER AND SP AC ES DI FFE R The spa ces Ihav ede sc ri bed he re are diff eren t. In some pl aces the re is comm u- nit y—a set of norm sth at are sel f-e nfo rcing (by mem bers of th ecom munit y). en ce hel p and nontransi Fe ature ssuc has visib ilit y(as oppose dtoano nymity) cre ate tho se nor ms ; anon ymi ty , tra nsie nce, and dive rsity mak e it har de r to nit y. cre ate commu In pl ac eswh ere co mmu nity is notfully se lf-e nfo rcin g,norms are su ppl e- me nted by ru les imp osed ei ther thro ugh co de or by the rel eva nt sov er ei gn. ts may further some normative end, but at times they can be Thes esupplemen ni ty bu ilding. in ten si on with the go al of commu If we had to si mplify this div ers ity of spa ces byfi ndi ngadi mensi on alon g whi ch we co ul d rank them, one such dim ension might be ea ch group ’s am enab il ity to contr ol. So me gro ups on this list can be contr ol led only thr ou gh nor ms —.l aw .cy ber, fo r ex ampl e. The only technology for cha ng ing beha vi or th ere —gi ven my commi tment not to monitor and punis h bad beha vi or —wa s the no rms of the stud ents in the law scho ol cl as s. Othe r gr ou ps are ame na ble to oth er tec hnol ogies of control. Indeed, as we mo ve fro m .la w. cybe r to CC to La mbda MO O to AO L to Seco nd Li fe, the abilit y to of co ntro lincrea ses ,th ough, of course ,th at abi l- use thes eot her technologies ity is const ra ined by compe ti ti on. If the code makes the pl ace no longe r at tra cti ve ,peop le will leav e. Th us, in CC and AOL, th e ar ch ite cts coul d us e tec hnolog y to cha ng e be ha vi or .But if the ch ange is too far rem ove dfrom what most me mbe rsth ink may si mp ly leave. Th e threat of tha t cons tra int the sp ace is abou t, members tu rn s upo n th e alt ernat ive s, of cou rse .As blog s have fl ou rishe d, a space like CC wou ld have relat ively littl e marke t pow er. AO L’ s marke t pow er is mor e co mp licate d. The re are man y alt ernat ive ISPs , of cou rs e. But once you’ re a me mber of one, th e cos ts of mi gr ati ng are significant. rea ll y MOO th e story is even mo re com pl ica ted . Nothing In Lambda bi nds peo ple to a par ti cu lar MOO. (There are hund red s, an d mos t are fre e.) Bu tbe cause ch aracters in aMOO are ea rne drather tha nboug ht, an dbeca use thi s take s time and ch ara ct ers are no t fungible, it bec omes in crea sin gl y har d rs of asu cc es sfu lMOO tomove el sewhe re. They have the right to fo rmembe el y, with ex it ,but in the se ns e that Sovi et cit ize ns ha d the right to exit—nam wor ld . non e of the asse ts they had bui lt in thei r particular Fi nal ly, Se co nd Life of fers the po tenti al for the most contr ol. Co de re gu- lat es expe ri ence in Secon d Life more than in an y of the ot her four sp aces, and th ein ti mac yof ex per ien ce in Sec ond Lif epulls people into the spa ce and ma kes esca pe costly. Aga in, the re are limits tothe con trol, bu tthe contr ols are

129 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 114 114 CODE 2.0 mo re fi nely art ic ula ted here than in an y of the other contexts .And if Philip Life ,is to be believed, Ros ed ale, th eCEO of Second the con trol thr ou gh co de to me: he re wi ll only bec om e more su btly ex press ed. As he described we can, [O]ur fe eli ng is...that we shou ld agg ress iv ely mo vein to cod eanything beca use of the enhanc ed scala bi li tyitgive sus. And we sho uld execut epolicy out - side of code only whe n abs olutel y necess ary or unf easibl e. Th er e are th ings where we lo ok at the m and we say, “We ll ,we ’ll be able to do that in code so me 56 da y,bu t fo r toda y,we’ re just go ing to do it by han d.” BETTER TO REGU LATE REG UL AT IN G CODE I’v esur ve yed ara nge of cyb erspa ce sto make cl ear the el eme nts of regu lation wit hi n ea ch . One incre asi ngly important ele ment is code. In cybe rs pa ce in part icu lar ,bu t ac ros s the Int ernet in gene ral, code embeds valu es. It ena ble s, or not,cer tain cont ro l.And as ha s been the foc us of this part, it is als o a to ol cont ro l, at least in the cas es I’ve surv eye d— of co nt ro l—not of gov ernment but in ste ad contr ol to the end of what ever sovereign does the co ding. Thes e st or ies su gge st a tech niqu e, and on ce we see the ide a, we’ll re cog - nize the technique in man ydif ferent contexts of regulation. If Secon dLife can use co de tobet ter contr ol beh avi or, wh atabout first-life? If AOL can use code to bet te r contr ol fr au d, wha t abo ut Amer ica off- line? If th e Inte rn et can use the de si gnof e2e to be tt er enab lecomp etit ion, what do es that teach regu lato rs the pr actice of on the gro und? How do the se tec hniques of policy inform po licy mak ers? The ans wer is th at po li cy mak ers ha ve done the same in rea l spa ce for a long ti me .Ju st as Cha pter 5de scri be dre gu lator susingcod eto make behav ior mor eregulab le, sotoo hav eregula to rs used code to directly cont rol be havior. Con si de r a fe w obvi ou s examp le s: Tapes The mo st sign ifica nt feat ure of digital med ia is tha t cop ies ca n be pe rf ect. Digi tal med ia is ju st da ta, and data is ju st a string of 1’s and 0’ s. Com pute rs co pied a str in g of data ha ve com pl ex alg or ithms to ver if y that when they’ve they ’ve co pied that st ring preci sely . This feat ure thu s cre at es a new ri sk for sel ler s of conte nt. Wh il e the co de of ana log copy ing te chno logy meant that acopy was ade graded ve rs ion of the ori gina l, the code of dig it al techn olog ie smeans that aco py co uld beidentical

130 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 115 115 cy ber spac es to th e ori ginal. Th at me ans the threa t to content is prov ide rs fr om“copies” gre ater in the di gital wor ld than in the anal og world . Dig it al Aud io Tec hnol ogy (DAT ) was the firs t te chnol ogy to expos e this copy co ntent per fectl y. ris k. Like any digital rec or ding, it ca n, in principle, Conte nt pro vide rs were thus ter rif ied that pirac y fr om DAT ta pe s would to add new laws to des troy the ir indu stry ,so th ey lo bbi ed Congress effectively pro tec t the m fr om the dig ital thre at. Con gr es s coul d ha ve responded to th ei r re qu es t in any nu mber of ways . It cou ld have us ed law to reg ula te beha vi or directly, byincreas ing the pe na lt y fo r il le gal copy ing. It co ul d hav e funded a pu blic ad camp aign aga ins t ille gal co pyi ng or fu nded prog rams in sc ho ols to disc ou rage stu dents from buying co uld have taxed blan ktap es pi ra ted ed iti ons of pop ul ar reco rd ings .Congress 57 Or and then tr an sferr ed the revenu e to ow ners of cop yrighted mater ial . Con gres s cou ld ha ve tri ed to reg ulat e DAT techn ol ogy to weake n the thre at ogy prese nted for cop yr ig ht. that technol Co ng re ss chose the latt er two. The Au dio Home Rec or di ng Act both taxed ction te chnolo - blan k tap es sl igh tly an d reg ul at ed the code of dig ital reprodu gies dir ec tly. The Act requ ir es prod ucer sof digital record ing dev ices to instal l ed system to monitor th e a code-bas a chi p in the ir sy ste ms that impl ements 58 The chi p wo ul d allow a li mi ted co pies of any cop y made on that ma chi ne. nu mber of pers onal co pies ,but oncop ies of co pies, the quality of th erec ord - ing wo uld be de gr ade d. Congre ss in esse nce requ ired that the co de of dig ital th at were “nat ur al” in the co pyi ng be mo difi ed to re store the imperf ections earli er co de. This agai n is Con gre ss reg ul at ing code as a me ans of regu lating behav - ior —ma nda ting tha tmulti plecopi es be imper fect as away to mi nim iz eillega l copy in g.Lik ethe tel eph oneregula ti on,thi sregul ati on su cceeds be cau se ther e are rela tiv el yfew manu factu rer sof DAT techno logy. Again, given ali mi te dtar - get, the go vernm en t’s regulat ion can be effecti ve, and the effect of the go ver n- me nt’s reg ul at ion is to make mo re regula ble the prim ar y ta rge te d be havi or—c opy right inf ri ngement. Telev isi on s By the mid -1990s, n par en ts’ con cern abo ut the effect that viole nce ontelevisio , and Co ngre ss ha s on th eir kids had caugh t the attent ion of Congress resp on de dth rou gh le gis lat ion .Bu tgi ve nth estate of First Amendment la w, it sto block violence on televis ion dir ectl y. wo uld have been dif fic ul tfo rCongres Thus, Con gr ess soug ht a way to bl ock violence on tel ev ision ind irectly. It soug htto re quir ethat those bro adcas ting tel evision conte nttag their co nte nt

131 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 116 116 CODE 2.0 wi th labels that signal ed the level of violence in the fil m, and it mandat ed a technology tha t the tel ev ision indu st ry develop to block cont ent on the bas is of th ose lab els. This was the “V-C hip ,” mand ated aspart of the Te le comm unications Act 59 blocking Th e V-ch ip wou ld fac ilitat e the aut omatic of te le vis ion of 1996 . that have no t yet be en com plete ly broa dcas ts, base d on cr iteria of content de term ined .The cru de st pro posals invo lve somet hing lik etheMo tio nPict ure edenv isio nselec tio ns Asso cia ti on ’smo vie rating syst em; the mo re sophisticat bas ed on a muc h ri ch er set of factors. Thi sag ai nisCong ress re gu lat ing cod etoaffect atarg et ed beh avio r(pro - vi din g vio lent progr amming ) rather than re gu lating that beh av ior direc tly . The co ns tra int on di rect reg ulat ion her e is similarly a re gu lab ilit y pr obl em . comes from co nstit utiona l lim its , But the la ck of reg ulabi lit y in this context gy. The co n- by the technolo not the inabili ty to tr ac k tho se bei ng regulated st rai nt of th e Const it ut ion thu s pus hed Co ngr ess to require tec hnolo gy to em po wer parents. By giv ing parents more powe r to discrimi na te, Congr es s ind irec tly dis cou ra ges an ill (e xpo sure to viole nce) that it is cons tit utio nall y 60 unab le to regu lat e dir ec tly. Ant i-Ci rcumv ent ion Wha teve r pr ob lem the cont ent indu st ry had with DAT tapes ,no doub t they lo ok tin y co mp ared wi th the pr obl ems the conte nt indu stry has with digital con ten t and the Intern et . Alt ho ug h DA T make s perfect copie s possib le, it do es n’ t mak e di str ib ut ing tho se perfec t copies any eas ie r. That honor fell to the In ter net. No w dig ital tec hnol ogy not only as sured pe rfec t copies of the or igin al, it als o made it tri vi al to di str ibute those digital cop ies for fre e. As Ide scr ib emo re inCha pte r10, one res pon setothis “fea tu re ”of di gi tal techn ologie s is “d igita l ri ghts manage ment” technology. DRM technolog ies add co detodigital cont ent that di sabl esthe simp le ability to copy or dis trib - ute th at co nte nt—at le ast wi tho ut the techn ical permi ssion of the DR Mtec h- nol og y itself . ade d from App le ’s iTunes Thu s, th e so ngs I’ ve purc has ed and downlo mu si c sto re are pro tec ted by Appl e’s “fairp lay” DRM technolog y. That te ch - s, but it nol og y per mi ts me to copy th e song to a limi ted nu mber of machine re st ri ct s my abili ty to copy th ose song s broad ly. co de. The “c opy ”fu nc tio nis produ ce d Th is re str ic ti on is ef fe cte dthrough thr ou gh co de; the DRM techno logy modifies , or qualifies , that “copy” fu nc - tio na li ty .Itis th us aclass ic ex amp le of code being deplo yed torest ore control over someth ing th at (d if fere nt) code ha d dis abled .

132 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 117 117 cy ber spac es The se systems of DR M are pr ivat el y crea te d. Bu t in 1998, the y got an s. In the Digit al Mille nniu m im port an t subs id y of pr otec tio n from Congres Cop yrig ht Act, Co ngres sbann ed the crea tion and di str ibut ion of tech no log ies “pr oduce d for th e pu rp ose of circu mventing a technolog ica l me asure that ef fec tively contr ols ac ce ss ”to a cop yr ig hted work , or “prima ril y des ig ned or afforde dbyate chn o- pro duced fo rth epu rpo se of ci rcu mv enting protection 61 By log ical mea sure th at ef fecti vely pro tects a rig ht of a cop yr igh t ow ne r.” ban nin g th is co de, Cong re ss ai med to add support to the cod e conte nt cre - at or s were dist ribut ing to pr ot ect thei r co nte nt. Thus, by direc tly regulating co de, Co ngress ind ir ectly reg ula ted copyr ight infringe ment. Sin ce this enac tm ent, there has been no en d to troub le an d li tig ati on opy Control su rr oun din g it. Begi nni ng in 1999, th e DVD-C Associ ation be gan su ing ind ivid uals and websi te s that fac ilitat ed ac cess to a program, 62 In Ju ly 2001 , 27- DeCS S, whic h coul d be used to dec ryp t data on DV Ds. Dmit ry Skl ya rov was arres ted whi le gi vi ng a ye ar- old Rus sian pro grammer pr ese nt ati on in Las Vega s bec ause the company for in Ru ssi a he worked had prod uc ed so ft wa re th at enab led pe ople to cir cumv en tthe acc essprote c- 63 Sk lyar ov spen t si x ti on techn ol og ie s buil t int o Ad obe ’s eB ook syst em. ed to ret urn to his fa mily mon ths in an Ameri can jail before he was permitt in Ru ssi a. The ef fe ct of th is reg ulat io n is hard to me as ure. The Elec tr onic Fron tie r Fo und ation has ca talo ge dit sview of th elaw’s ef fect five ye ars aft erthe lawwas 64 And while the EFF ’s vi ew may not be universal , th ere is a fairly en acted . un iv er sa l surpri se at the ra nge of ca ses that have been brou ght unde r the imagined stat ute. (I doubt the framers that gar age do or com - of the DMCA pan ie swo ul dbe su ing to pr ot ect th ei rautomatic door ope ners from comp e- 65 ) tit ion unde r the DMC A (th ey lo st). Br oa dc ast Flags As bro adc ast tel evisio n moves to digital television, copy right hold er s ha ve bec ome co nce rned abo ut the ri sk they face in broadcasting co pyrighted con - ten t. Unlike an or din ar ytele vi si on broad cast, the qualit yof adi gi ta lbro ad ca st is pe rfec t, so cop ies of di gi tal bro adc asts coul d likew is e be perf ect. An d the on a free digital network spre ad of perfec t cop ies of dig ita l bro adcasts (the In ter net ) ter rifi es co py ri ght hol ders. Thei r re sp onse is si mi lar to th e re spons e with DAT te ch nolog ie s.Fir st in the FCC, and now in Cong ress , copyr ig ht holde rs have pus hed the go ve rn- cing digital broa d- me nt to ma nd at e tha t an y techno logy cap able of reprodu cas ts be arch itec ted to resp ec t a “br oa dcas t fl ag.” If that fl ag was tu rn ed on,

133 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 118 118 CODE 2.0 then th e tec hnol ogy wou ld be requi red to block any copy of that co nt ent. ced. As Susan Craw - The con te nt co uld be pl ay ed ,bu t it cou ld n’t be reprodu fo rd describ es it, The broadc ast fla g rule , dis till ed to its essence , is a mand ate that all consum er ele ctro nic s ma nu fact urers and inf orm at ion tec hnolo gy compani es ensur e tha t any de vi cethat to uches dig ital te levi si on conte nt “r ec ognize dand give ef fect to” ri ze d onwar d di stribu ti on . The the flag by pro te cti ng conte nt ag ains t unautho FCC clai med tha t the rule woul d pr ote ct dig ital tele vi sio n (“ DTV” ) bro adca sts 66 from mas siv e re di stribut io n ov er the Inter ne t. There is a lo t to sa y abou t the br oa dcas t fla g, and if I were doing the say - 67 But for our pu rp os es, it is the form ,no t sub - ing , mo st of it wo uld be ba d. fl ag that is rel evant. This is the most dir ec t exa mple stan ce , of th e broadcast pr imary behav io r: law re gu la ting of a re gul at ion of code des ig ned to control co de to mak e be ha vio r bett er. {T XB2} In each cas e, the government directs an inte rmediary that has so me powe r over cod e to change tha t co de to ef fec t a chang e in behavior. Whethe r that chan ge inco de wil leffect achang ein be havior depend supon the powe rof the part icu lar app li cat io n. If th e appl ic at ion is a MOO, or an online dis cus sion is si gni fi cant ly behavior , the pow er to control spa ce lik e Co unsel Connect Life, the exit costs for aus ercould li mited .If the app lic ation is AO LorSecond wil l thu s be gre ate r. And if wel l be hi gh er. Th e scope for ef fect ive re gulation the ap pli cati on is th e Int ernet, or any dig ital tech nol ogy produce d or sold in is great er still. Co de the Uni ted Sta tes , th en the powe r of the regulator bec ome s law eve n if there remai ns a cap acity to escape the regu la ti on of that co de. The se exam pl es po int to a gene ral quest io n ab out how re gulati on will func tion. Th at gene ral poi nt requi res ma ny signific ant qualif ica tions. To s on any regula tor y pol icy will un ders tand the eff ect of cod e requ irement that is “pr of ound ly requ ire , as Po lk Wa gne r wri tes, an unde rs tanding 68 dyn ami c. ” Par t of that dyna mi c,of co urs e, is res is ta nce .Indiv id uals ca n ac t to re si st the force of code di rectly .Orindi viduals can act to res ist the force of code itse lf is not nece s- co dethro ug hco de .AsTi mWu has ri ghtly described, n. Agun is abit sa ri ly reg ul ati on enh ancin g— code ca nbe used to fo il regulatio ies vention of cod e.It works wo nders to dest roy the peace. Circum technolog pr otocol s ar e code . They weake n rules reinfo rc ing co ntrol. P2 P filesharing ar e code . Th ey unde rmi ne the effect iveness re gula tio ns tha t of copyright re st ri ct the freedo m to dis tr ibut e cop yrigh ted works. Whe the r a par ticu la r

134 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 119 119 cy ber spac es re gula ti on wil lbe ef fecti ve, the n, requir es conside ration of th ese inter acti on s, an d an y code-ba sed re si stanc e it mig ht enge nder. As Wu puts it, The rea son that co de matte rs for la wat all isits capa bi lity to def ine beha vi oron a mass sc ale. Thi s capab ility ca n mea n constr ai nts on beh av ior, in whi ch case code re gu lates .But itca nal so me an sh aping be hav io rinto leg ally adv antage ous 69 fo rms. In this second sen se, code fu ncti ons “as an ant i-r egu lator ymecha nism :a grou ps wil l us e to their adva n- too l to mi nimize the costs of law that certain 70 tag e. ” Mo re fun da me nt ally , these comp lic ati ons sug ge st tha t a mor e ge ner al te chno log y, fra mewo rk is neede d. I’v e highligh ted an interaction between po licy ,an d the la w in thi s chap te r.That inter acti on su gg ests a much broa de r mo de l. In th e next chap te r, I desc ri be that model. In the chap ter following that ,we wil l ret ur n to the dynamic of code regul ation to cons ide r one othe r im port an t qua lif icati on.

135 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 120 S E V E N e w h a t t h i n g s r e g u l a t E WAS AL SO ON E OF THE MOS T S ILL WAS AN E NGLI SHMAN . H M TU ART OHN J in Am eric a. His wr itings rang ed from inf lu ent ial po li ti ca l phi los ophers imp or ta nt wor konlo gic toastill str ik ing text abo ut sex ual equ al ity , Th e Sub - continuing ject ion of Wo men . But perhap s hi s most im portant inf lue nce .Publ is hed in 185 9,this On Lib erty co mes fro m a relat ively short book ti tled powe rful arg ument for ind ivi du al liberty and dive rsity of tho ught rep re se nts an imp or tan tvi ew of liberal and libe rtarian thinki ng in the seco nd hal f of the nin eteen th ce nt ury. “Li be rtar ian,” howe ver, has a speci fic me an ing for us. For mo st ,it assoc i- 1 Go vern men t, in th e mo dern liber - nts ag ains t gove rnmen t. at es wit h argume action is not. Thus , the good tari an’s vi ew, is the thr eat to libe rty; private pow er. Curb the exc esse s of li be rt ari an is focused on redu ci ng gove rnment’s gov er nm en t, th eli bertari an sa ys, and you will ensur efr eed om for your so cie ty . Mil l’svie wwas not so narr ow .He was adef ende rof libe rt yand anoppo - nen tof for ces th at suppre ssed it, but those forces we re not confi ned to go ve rn - me nt. Li be rty, in Mill ’s vie w, was threat ened as muc h by no rm s as by govern ment ,as much byst igma and int olerance asby the threa tof sta te pun - is hme nt . His objec tive was to arg ue ag ainst these private fo rces of coe rcion. ing norms , beca us e, in Eng - Hi s work was a def ense ag ai nst libe rty-s uppress lan d at tha t ti me ,these were th e re al threat to libe rt y. Mil l’s met hod is imp ortant, and it shoul d be our own as well . It asks , to as k- Wha tis thethreat to liberty ,and how can we res is tit? It is not limited ing ,Wh at is the th reat to liber ty fro mgove rnmen t? It unde rstand stha tmor e th an governm this some thing ent can thr ea te n libe rty , and that sometimes mo re ca nbe pr ivate ra th er th anst ate action. Mill was no tconcerned with th e sour ce of the th reat to lib erty .His conc ern was with libe rty. 120

136 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 121 121 wh at thin gs reg ulat e Th rea ts to lib er ty cha nge .In England ,norms ma yhav ebe enthe th rea tto fr ee sp eec hin th elate nine teen th century ;Itake it th ey are not as muc hath reat today. cen tur y, the th re at to In th eUnite dSt at esin the fi rst two decad es of the twentieth fr ee sp eec h was sta te suppr essi on thr ou gh cri mi nal pen alti es for unpopu la r spee ch ;the stro ng protec ti ons ofthe First Amen dm ent now make tha tpar ti cular 2 wa s found ed on the idea that the The lab or movement thr ea t les s sig nif ican t. ma rke tis some times athr eat to liberty —not so much bec ause of low wage s,but 3 ace rtain kind of fre edom . be ca us ethe ma rke tfo rm ofor ga niz at ion itself disables In oth er societ ie s, at ot her ti mes, the mark et is akey to liberty, not the ene my. Thus ,ra th er th anth ink of “liberty ’s en emy ”in the ab st ract ,we sh oul dfocu s ar tim e and upon a par tic ula r thr eat to libe rt y th at migh t exist in a particul pl ace .And th is is espe cia lly true wh en we thin k abo ut liberty in cyber spa ce. I be li eve th at cy berspac ecr ea te sanewthr eat toliber ty ,not new inthe sense tha t 4 bu tnew in thesen se of ne wl yurge nt. We of it be fore, no th eori st ha dconceived ce. Tha treg - are com ing to un derst andanewly power ful regulator incyberspa ul ato rcou ldbe asigni fi ca nt thre at to awid eran ge ofliberties, an dwedo n’ tyet und ersta ndho wbest tocon tro lit . din thesoft - Th is regul ato riswh at Ica ll “co de”— th eins tru ct ion sembedde war eor har dw ar etha tmake scyb erspa ce what itis. This code is the “bu ilt env i- 5 An dif in th emidd le .” ron ment” ofsoc ial lif ein cyb ers pace. It is its “ar chitecture of theninete ent hcent ury the threat tolib erty was no rms, and at th estart ofthe twe nt iet hitwas st at epowe r, and duri ng much of the mid dle tw entie th it was th e how in the t is that we must come to und erstand ma rke t, then my argumen twent y-f irst cent ury itisadi ff eren tre gul at or—code—t hat shou ld be our cur - re nt conc ern . But no t to th e excl usi on of oth er si gn if icant“r eg ula tors .” My ar gu me nt is not tha tth er e’s on ly on eth rea tto lib er ty, orthat we sho uld fo rget othe r, more tr ad itio nal thr eats. It isin ste ad tha twe mu st add one mo re in cr easi ngl ysali ent th re at to the list. An d to see th is ne w, sa lie nt threat, I be lieve we need a more gen eral understand that foc uses on mo re in g of how reg ul ati on works—one th an th e sin gle infl uen ce of any on e for ce such as go ve rn me nt, no rms , or the mar ket, and inste ad int egr at es the se facto rs in to asi ngle accou nt . 6 ding. This chapte r is a ste p tow ard that more gener al understan It is an inv ita tion to think bey on dthe thre at to li berty from government power. It isa map for this mo re general unde rs tand ing. A DOT’ S LIF E Th er e ar e man y ways to th ink abou t “regula tion.” I wa nt to thin k about it fro m the pe rs pect ive of someone wh o is regul ated ,or, what is dif fe rent, con -

137 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 122 122 CODE 2.0 st ra ine d. Th at som eo ne regulat ed is rep res ented by this (pathe tic) dot— a that mig ht have the effect crea tur e(yo uor me )sub ject to di ffer en treg ulations By desc ri bi ng the of con strain ing (or aswe’ll se e,ena bli ng) the dot’s behavior. var io us const ra ints that mi gh t be ar on this ind ividual, I hop e to show you so met hi ng abou t ho w thes e constr ai nts fun ction toge the r. Here the n is the do t. How is thi s dot “reg ulated ”? Le t’ s start wit h somet hi ng ea sy: smo ki ng. If you want to smoke, what co nst raints do youfac e? What fac to rs reg ulate your de cision to smok eor not? One cons traint is le gal. Insom epla ces at lea st, law sregul ate smoking —if be sold to you . If yo u are under eigh te en, the la w say s th at cig are ttes cannot yo u are unde r twe nty -si x, cig arett es cannot be sold to you unle ss the selle r ch ec ks yo ur ID . Laws als o regul ate where smoking is perm itt ed —not in for in stance . In the se tw o O’ Hare Ai rp or t, on an air pl ane, or in an elevator, wa ys at le ast, la ws aim to direct smoki ng beh avior. They ope rate as a kind of co nstrai nt on an ind ivi du al who wants to smoke. But laws are not the mo st si gni fi cant con strain ts onsmo ki ng. Smokers in the Uni ted St ate s ce rt ainly feel thei r freed om regu lated ,even if on ly rarely by courts are sti ll qu ite rare. the law. The re are no smoki ng po li ce ,and smoking Nor ms say that on e Ra th er, smok er s in Ame rica ar e regu la ted by norms. do esn ’t light a cig aret te in a pr ivat e car without first asking permi ssio n of th e othe r passe nge rs . They al so say, howe ver, th at one needn ’t ask permi ssio n to smok e at a picnic. Nor ms say that oth ers can ask you to st op smo ki ng at a re sta ur an t, or that you ne ver smo ke duri ng ame al .These norms eff ec tace rtain co nstr ain t, and this cons trai nt reg ul ate ssmoking behavior. La ws and nor ms are stil lnot the only forc es regu la tin gsmok in gbeh avio r. The market isal so acon stra int .The price of ci garettes is aconstra in ton your Lik ew ise abi li ty tosmoke —cha ng ethe pri ce ,and you chan ge this con straint. of widel y va rying wit h qual it y. If the ma rke t suppl ie s a var ie ty of cigarettes qu al ity and pri ce, yo ur abil ity to sele ct the kind of ciga rett e you wa nt incr ease s; increas ing choi ce here reduc es cons tr aint.

138 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 123 123 wh at thin gs reg ulat e Fin al ly, there ar ethe con strai nts cre ate dby the tec hnol og yof ci ga ret tes ,or 7 Nic ot ine- tr ea ted ci ga re tte s are by the tech nolo gi es af fec ti ng th eir supply . add ict ive an dther ef ore cr ea teagre at er constrai nt on smok in gthan un treat ed ci gare tte s. Smokel ess cigar ett es pres ent less of acon stra in tbecaus ethe ycan be sm ok ed in more pl ace s. Cig arett es wi th astrong od or prese nt mo re of acon - st rai nt becau se they ca nbe smok ed infe we rpl aces .How the ciga rette is,how re—a ff ec ts the con - it is designed , how it is bu ilt—i n a word , it s architectu st rai nt s fa ced by a smo ker. Thu s, fou r const rai nts reg ulat e thi s pat hetic dot—the la w,socia l nor ms, the marke t, and arc hi tect ure—a nd the “regul ation” of this dot is the sum of the se fo ur const ra in ts. Change s in an y one will affect the re gul ation of the othe rs; some may un der mine oth er s. who le. So me cons tr aints wil l support 8 and the Thus ,“cha nges intec hno logy [ma y] ushe rin changes in ...no rm s,” othe r way arou nd. A compl ete view , ther ef ore, must consid er the se four mo dal it ie s togeth er. So thi nk of th e fou r tog ether li ke thi s: In thi s dra wi ng, each ov al repr esen ts one kind of cons trai nt ope rat ing on our path et ic do tinthe center. Eac hco nstraint impos es adiff er ent kind of co st on the do t fo r en gag ing in the rel evant behavior—in this cas e, smoking. Th e cos t from norm s is di ffer en t fr om the marke t cost, whi ch is di ffe re nt fro mthe co st from la wand the co st fr om the (cance rou s) arch ite ct ur eof cig - are ttes.

139 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 124 124 CODE 2.0 Th e constrain ts are dis tin ct, ye t they ar e plain ly in te rde pe nde nt . Ea ch the others. Tec hn ol ogies can under mine nor ms and can su ppo rt or oppose laws ; the y can als o suppo rt the m. Some co nstrai nts ma ke oth ers possi ble; oth er s make some im pos sib le .Const rai nts wo rk togethe r, thoug h they func - tio ndi ff ere ntl yand th eef fe ct of each isdistinc t.Norms constrain thr oughthe the price tha t through sti gma that a co mmuni ty impose s; marke ts co nstrain the yimpose ; they exact ;arc hit ec tures co nstra in throu gh the phy sical burdens an d la w const rains thr ou gh the pu nis hmen t it threatens . We ca n ca ll each co nstr ai nt a“reg ulator,” and we can think of ea ch as a dis ti nct mo dali ty of re gu lati on. Each mod ality has aco mplex nat ur e, and the in ter act ion am ong the se four isalso hard to describe. I’ve worked throu ghthis But for no w, it is eno ugh to comp lex ity mor e co mp lete ly in the ap pendix. see th atthe yar eli nked and th at, in asense ,they co mbin etoprodu ce the reg - ulat io n to whi ch ou r pathe ti c do t is subject in any gi ven area. We can us e the same model to desc rib e the regulat io n of beh avi or in 9 cybe rsp ace . La wregu lates be hav ior in cybe rsp ac e.Copyr igh tlaw,de fama tionlaw ,an d obs cen it y la ws al l cont inu e to thre ate n ex pos t sanctio n fo r the viola tion of leg al righ ts .How well la wreg ulat es, or how efficiently, is adiff ere nt qu es tion : In some cases it does somor eefficie ntl y, in so me cases less. But wh ether be tter or not ,la wcont inu es tothreat en acertain cons equence if it is defi ed. Legi sla - 10 11 12 pr ose cu tors threat en; co ur ts conv ict . tu res en act; Norm sals oreg ul at ebehav ior incybe rspa ce. Talk about De mo cra tic pol - iti cs inthe alt.kni tt ing news gro up ,and you open you rsel f to fla ming; “spoof” 13 talk too so meon e’s ident it yin aMU D, and yo umay find yours elf “toade d” ; mu ch in a di scu ssi on list, and you are li kely to be pla ced on a comm on bo zo filte r.In eac hcase ,aset of understa ndings con strain behav ior, again throu gh 14 the threat of ex post sa nc ti ons imposed nity . by a commu Ma rk ets re gulate beha vior in cyber sp ace. Pri ci ng str uc tu res con strain ac cess ,an d if th ey do not, bus y si gna ls do. (AOL learn ed this qu ite dram ati - 15 pl an.) call ywhe nitshi ft ed from an ho urly to afl at-rate pricing Area sof the Web are be ginn ing to ch arge for access, as onli ne serv ices hav efor som etim e. Ad ver tis ers reward po pul ar sites; on lin eserv ices drop low- popu latio nforums. Th ese beha viors are all afunc tio nof marke tcon stra ints and mar ket opp or tu - nit y. They are all ,in this sense ,reg ulati ons of the market. Fin al ly, an ana lo g for arch itectur e re gulat es be ha vi or in cy bers pace — what it is co ns tit ute a that make cyberspace cod e. Th esoftw are and hardware se tof co ns tra ints onhow yo ucan beha ve. Th esub stance of the secons traints may var y, bu tthey are experi enc ed as con dit ions on your ac cess tocyb erspa ce. In so me pl aces (onl ine servi ce s su ch as AOL, for instance) you mu st ente r a

140 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:27 AM Page 125 125 wh at thin gs reg ulat e pass word be fore you gain acc ess; in other pl aces you can ente rwh ether ide n- 16 In som e pl ace s the tra ns act io ns you eng age in pro duce trac es tif ie d or no t. tha t li nk the tra nsac ti ons (the “mo use dropp ings”) back to you; in othe r 17 In som epl ace syoucan pla ces this link is achi eved only if yo uwant it to be. can hear (thr ou ghencr yp - cho os etosp eak alan guage th at only the recipient 18 19 The co deorsoft wareor in ot her place sencry pt ion isno tan opti on. tio n); arch itec tu re or pr ot oc ols set thes efea tures ,which are sele cted by code write rs. They con str ain some beha vi or by maki ng other behavior pos sib le or im pos - sibl e. The co de emb ed s cer tain valu es or mak es ce rtain valu es im pos sible. In thi ssen se ,it to ois reg ulat io n, just as th earchitect ures of real-spa ce cod es ar e re gul ati ons . As in re al sp ace ,th en, these fou rmoda lit ie sre gulate cyb ersp ace. The same he omits the co nst rain tof bal ance ex ist s. As Will ia mMitch ell put sit (though the marke t): Archi tect ur e, law s, and cus toms mainta in and repre sent whate ver bala nce has be en str uck in real spa ce. As we cons truc tan dinh ab it cybe rsp ace commu nities , we wi ll have to make and mainta in simil ar bar gain s—t hou gh th ey will be emb od ied in softw are str uct ures and elec troni c acce ss controls ra the r tha n in 20 arch it ect ur al arr ang eme nts . La ws, norm s, the mar ket, and architec tures int era ct to bu ild the en vi ron - me nt tha t “Net ize ns ” kno w. Th e co de writer, as Ethan Katsh pu ts it, is th e 21 “archi te ct.” But ho w ca n we “ma ke and mai ntain ”this ba lanc e betw een mo dal itie s? Wha t too ls do we have to ac hieve a dif feren t cons tru ction? How mig ht the mi x of rea l-s pac e val ues be ca rried ov er to the world of cyb ersp ace ? How mi ght the mi x be chang ed if change is desired? ON GOVER NMEN TS AN D WA YS TO RE GULATE I’ ve de scr ibe d four co ns train ts tha t I’ ve said “regulat e” an in div idu al . But the se sep ar at e co nstra in ts obviou sl y don’t si mply exi st as give ns in a soc ia l li fe. Th ey ar e neithe r found in nature nor fixed by God . Eac h can be the m is com plex. La w can chan ge d, th oug h the me chan ics of changing rol e in this mech anics, and my aim in this sect io n is to ha ve a si gnificant de scr ib e tha t role. A simple ex amp le wil l sugges t the mor e general poin t. Sa y the th eft of ca r radi os is a prob le m—not big in the scale of things , but a frequ ent and co stl y enou gh pro bl em to make mo re regula tion necessar y. One resp on se

141 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 126 126 CODE 2.0 migh t be to in crease the pen alty for car radio thef t to life in pris on, so tha t th e risk fa ce d by thieves ma de it suc h tha t this crime did not pay . If radio th ie ves rea lized th at th ey ex posed themse lves to a lifet ime in pri son each tim e the y stole a rad io, it mi ght no long er make sense to them to st ea l nt con stit ute d by the threat ened punish ment of law rad ios. The constrai we are try ing to st op . to st op th e behavior wou ld no w be enough Bu tcha ng ing the lawis not th eonl ypos sib letech nique .Ase cond migh t be to chan ge the rad io ’s arc hitect ur e. Imag ine that radio man uf act urers pro gr am rad ios to wo rk only with a sing le car— a securit y co de that elec- tr oni call ylo cks the radio to th eca r, so that, if the radio is remo ved, itwill no it make s th e long er wor k. Th is is a co de co ns trai nt on the th eft of radios; as a constr aint on the rad io no lo nge r eff ect ive onc e sto le n. It to o fu nctions ra dio’s thef t,andlik eth ethr ea ten ed puni sh ment of life inpriso n, it coul dbe r. effe cti ve in st oppi ng th e radio- st ealing behavio Thus , the same con stra int can be achie ve d thr ough dif fer ent mea ns , The thr eatened punish men t an dthe diff er ent mea nscos tdiff er en tamounts. of life in pr is on ma y be fisca lly mo re costly than the ch ange in the ar ch itec- con tinu e to steal ture of ra dio s (d epen ding on how ma ny pe op le actually iv e, it may be ra dios and how many ar e caugh t). Fr om this fisca l perspect mo re ef ficie nt toch an ge code tha n law. Fiscal efficiency may als oal ign with the expr essive content of la w—a punishment so extreme would bebarbar ic t respon se . for a crim e so sl igh t. Thus, the va lues may well track the efficien Co de would be th e bes t mea ns to re gulat e. The cos ts, ho weve r, ne ed not ali gn so we ll. Tak e the Sup rem e Court ’s 22 It is li kel y tha t hy poth eti ca l exa mple of lif e in pr iso n for a park in g ticket . wh atev er cod e con str aint might matc h thi s law con stra int, the law con - par king viola tio ns we re th e stra int would be more efficie nt (if reducing on ly aim ). Ther e would be ve ry few victims of th is la w bef or e pe opl e con - result” would conflic t y. But the “efficient for med thei rbehav io rappr opriatel wi th ot her values. If it is bar ba ric to incarcerate for life fo r the th eft of a rad io ,it isal lthe more bar bari cas ape nal ty for aparking violat ion. The reg- ul ator has a ran ge of mea ns to effe ct th e desired con strain t, bu t the val ues tha t th ese mea ns ent ail ne ed not align with their ef ficiency. Th e eff icient answ er may we ll be unjus t—th at is , it may con flict with value s inherent in the norms ,or law (c on st itut ion) ,of the so cie ty. La w-tal ktypi cal ly ign ores the seoth er reg ul at or sand how law ca naffe ct th eir reg ulat ion. Many speak as if law must simply take the oth er three co n- 23 stra int s as giv en and fas hio n itse lf to them. Isa y“a sif” bec aus eto day it takes only aseco nd’s thou ght to seethat this nar ro wn ess is absurd. Th er e we re tim es wh en these other constraints were

142 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 127 127 wh at thin gs reg ulat e tr ea te dasfixe d—when the constr aints of norms were said to be imm ovabl e 24 t to be essentia lly or the mar ket was though by gov ern ment al ac tio n, 25 or the cost of chang ing real- spa ce code was so hig h as to unr egulab le, 26 Bu t we see now tha t make th e tho ug ht of us ing it fo r re gulation ab surd . 27 Th ey ar e, asla wis, cha ngea ble ,and sub ject to th es econ stra int sare pl astic. reg ulation . The exa mple sare obv io us an dman y. Thin kfirs tabout the ma rket: ta lkof a“fr ee marke t” notwi thstand ing ,there isno more heav ily regu lated aspe ct of 28 Th emar ket is re gulate dby lawnot just in its elem ents —it is law tha t our life. en forces co ntr ac ts ,es tabl ishe s pr opert y, and re gu lates curre ncy—b ut als o in con straint on ce rta in its ef fec ts. The la w use s taxe s to incre ase the market’s be ha vi ors and sub sid ie sto redu ce it scon str aint on others. We tax cig are ttes in part to redu ce th eir co nsu mp ti on, but we su bs id iz e tob acco prod uction to incr ease its supp ly. We ta x al co hol to reduce its cons umpti on. We su bs idize chil d ca re to re duc e the cons tra int the ma rket pu ts on ra isi ng chil dr en. In man ysu ch way sth econst rai nt of la wis used to change the co ns tra ints of the mark et . La w ca n als o chang e the re gul at io n of archit ect ur e. Think about the 29 Ma ny of the “di sab led ”ar e cut off Ame ri cans with Di sabi li ti es Act (AD A). fr omacce ss to muc hof the worl d. Abu il ding with onl ysta irs is abu ild in gth at is in acce ss ib le to a pe rson in a wheel chair; the stairs are a cons tra int on the dis abl ed perso n’s acc es stothat bu ild ing .But th eADA in part aim sto change that co nst ra int by req uir ing buil de rs to ch an ge the de si gn of bui ldi ngs so that the di sab led are not exclu ded. Here is a re gulatio n of real-s pace co de ,by law , to chan ge th e co nstra int tha t real -spa ce code creates. Ot her examp les are ev en bett er. from the ar chite ctur e of • Som e of the pow er of the Frenc h Revol utio n derived Par is: The cit y’ s small and win di ng stree ts we re ea si ly ba rri cad ed, ma ki ng it possib le fo r revolut iona ries to tak e control of the city with relativ ely little ab so lu te st re ng th . Lo uis Napo leo n II I unde rstoo d thi s, and in 1853 he to ok 30 Paris was reb uilt, with wide boul eva rd s an d mu ltip le ste ps to change it. passa ges , maki ng it imp ossi ble fo r ins ur gen ts to ta ke con tro l of the city . • Every sc hoolch ild learns of L’Enfant’ s des ign to ma ke an inva si on of Wa shi ng - to n diffic ul t. Bu t mo re int er es tin g is the place men t of the Wh it e Ho use re la - tiv e to the Ca pitol .Th e dist an ce bet ween them is one mi le, an d at th e tim e it The dis tance wa s a mile thro ug h dif fic ult terra in (th e mall was a swamp). was a bar rie r mea nt to tilt th e int er co urse be tw een Con gr ess and the pr esi - de nt by ma ki ng it margi na lly mo re diff icu lt for the m to connec t—and the re by more diffi cult fo r the execu ti ve to cont ro l th e leg is la tur e.

143 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 128 128 CODE 2.0 • This same id ea ha s in flu en ce d the plac ement of const it ut ional cou rts in Europ e. Thro ug ho ut Europ e con stitu ti on al co urts we re plac ed in ci ti es other than the cap it al . In Ge rman y th e court is in Ka rl sruh e ra ther tha n Berl in; in the Cz ech Rep ub lic it is in Br no rat her th an Pra gu e. The rea son aga in is ti ed to th e const rain t of geograp hy : Pla ci ng consti tuti on al court s far away from th e lat ter le gisl ature s and execu tives was meant to minim iz e both the pressure tw o bod ies could pla ce on the co urt an d red uc e the court’ s temp tation to bow to it . • Th e pr incip le is not li mit ed to hi gh politi cs. Desi gn ers of par ki ng ga rag es or st ree ts wh ere chi ldr en may play place sp eed bump s in the roa d so th at dri vers mu st sl ow do wn . Th ese str uc tur es have the sam e pur po se as a spee d li mi t or driv in g too fas t, bu t th ey operate by modifyi ng ar chi tec tur e. a nor m against • Neith er is the prin ci ple li mit ed to virtuo us regu lati on: Robe rt Mo ses bui lt br id ges on Lon g Islan d to block bu ses , so that Afr ican Ame ricans , who de pe nde d primari ly on pu blic tran sp ortat ion, coul d not ea si ly get to publi c 31 beach es. That was regul ati on th rou gh arc hit ect ure, invi di ous ye t fa mi liar. • No r is it limit ed to gover nme nt s. A ma jor Amer ican ai rli ne no tic ed tha t pas- se nge rs on early Mond ay mor ni ng fli gh ts we re fr ustr ated wit h the time it too k to ret rie ve bags fro m the pla ne. They wer e much mor e an noy ed tha n othe r passe ng er s, eve n tho ugh it too k no long er tha n av era ge to re trie ve th e ba gs from th es e fli ghts .The compa ny began parkin g th ese fl igh ts at gates fa r- the r aw ay fro m bag gag e cla im, so that by the ti me the pas sen ge rs arr iv ed at bagga ge claim , th ei r bags wer e th ere. Frust ra ti on with the ba gga ge han dl ing sy st em was elimin at ed. • A lar ge hotel in an Ameri can city received many comp la ints about the sl ow - ne ss of its el ev ato rs. It in st alle d mir ro rs nex t to th e el eva tor do ors. The com - plai nts end ed . • Few are likely to re cogn iz e the lea di ng regulat ion- thro ug h-ar chi tec tur e pro - pone nt of the 20t h ce ntu ry—Ralph Na der. It is ast onishi ng to day to read hi s acco unt of the st ruggle to ge t sa fet y st anda rds en for ced upon auto ma kers. Nad er ’s whole obj ectiv e was to ge t the law to for ce car manuf actu rers to bui ld sa fe r cars. It is obv io us today that the code of cars is an essenti al part of aut o 32 sa fet y. Yet on this ba sic point , ther e was fun dam ent al di sa gr eem ent . • Neal Ka tyal ha s ex ten sive ly con si dere d the relati ons hi p of ar chi te ct ure to law , fro m the de plo ym ent of str eet lig ht s to th e desig n of publ ic criminal 33 The 2000 Sydn ey Oly mp ics, for exam pl e, “s elf- sp aces to maxi miz e vi sibi lity . 34 An d ar ch itects have ed arch it ect ure to re du ce cr ime .” co nscious ly employ be gun to iden ti fy pr in ciples of design that can minimi ze cr ime—calle d 35 “Cr ime Prev en tio n Thro ug h Env ir on menta l Desig n.”

144 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 129 129 wh at thin gs reg ulat e In ea chexample, an arch ite cture ischa nged so asto rea liz ediff ere ntbe ha v- io r. The archi tec ture eff ect s that dif fe rence .As a sign above one of the port als at the 193 3 Chicago Wor ld ’s Fai r put it (th ough it was spe akin g of sci enc e) : 36 s: Tec hno logy Ex ecut es :Man Confo rms.” “Sc ie nc eExplore Law can chang e soci al no rms as well ,though much of our constitu tio nal 37 Edu cat io nis the most jur isp rud enc esee ms dedi cat ed to forget ting ju st how . obvi ou sexa mp le. As Thur good Mar sh all put it ,“Edu cation isnot the te achin g of the three R’s .Educ ati on isthe tea chi ng of the overal lcitizen sh ip,tolearn to 38 Edu - liv etoge ther wi th fello wcit ize ns, and abo ve al ltolea rn to obe ythe law.” chil dre ninto cat io nis ,in pa rt atle ast, aproc ess thr ough which weind octrinate cert ain no rms of behav io r—we te ac h them ho w to “say no” to sex and drugs. Wetryto bu ild wi th in th em ase ns eof wh at is corre ct. Th is sense then regu lates them toth elaw’s end . Plai nly ,the conten tof muc hof this ed uc atio nis regu la ted by law. Co nse r- va tiv eswo rr y, fo rexa mpl e, that by teachi ng sex edu cation we chan ge the norm or not, th e law is certai nly bein g of sexual abs tine nce .Whet her that is correct us ed to change the no rms of chi ld ren. If conserv ati ve s are cor rect , th e law is eli min ati ng abs tine nce .If libe rals are correct, the law is bei ng used to instil l a norm of saf ese x. Eithe rway ,norms have their ow nconstraint, andlaw is aim - in gto chang ethat const rai nt . To sa ythat law plays aro leisno tto say that it al way splay saposi tive ro le. The law can muc kup nor ms as well as impr ove th em, and Ido not cl aim th at 39 Th epo in tis just tosee th e th elatter res ult ismor ecommo ntha nth efor mer. ro le ,not topr ai se orcri ti ciz eit . In each cas e, the law choo ses be tw een di rect an d in di rect re gul atio n.Th e ques tion is : Wh ic h mea ns bes t adv an ces the regu lat or’s goal , subj ec t to the co nstrain ts (whet her normativ eor mate ri al )that the regu lato rmust rec ognize? Myargu ment isthat an yanaly si sof the strategies of regul ation must take into acc ou nt the se dif fe re nt modal iti es . As Polk Wag ner puts it, foc usin g on on e add it io nal modali ty: [J ]u st as the choi ce of a leg al rule will invo lve ana lyti c tra de offs between the fami li ar cat ego ries of proper ty rul es an dlia bi li ty ru les, the in cor pora ti on of legal pr ee mp tion rules in th ecybe rs pace cont ext wil lrequ ire asim il ar ex er cise along an additi ona ldim en sion—the imp act tha tthe leg al ru le wil lhave on cor resp ond ing 40 re inte rface) . sof tware re gul ati on(and th us the eff ect onthe law-softwa Or again ,“le gal po lic y propo sal s uns uppor ted by pr edic tions of techno - 41 log ical res po ns eare deepl yinc ompl et e.” And th esame can besai dge ne ra lly abo ut the int er act io n betw een an y mo dality and any pol icy propos al .

145 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 130 130 CODE 2.0 We can repre sent the poi nt th ro ugh a modif ica tio n of the se cond fig ure: As Wa gne rright ly insi st s, again ,the int er actio namo ng these mod alities is dyn ami c, “requ ir ing consi derat ion of not only ...le gal adju stme nts, but al so 42 The reg ul ator .” pre dicting th eres po nsi veeffe ct ssuch cha nges will stimulate am ong modali ties of see ks an “equi li bri um,” const antl yco nside ring tr ade-offs re gul ati on. The poi nt sho uld be fami liar, and the exa mpl es ca n be mu ltiplied. Seatb elt s : The gove rnment may want citiz ens to wea r sea tbel ts mo re 43 of ten . It cou ld pass a la w to requ ire the weari ng of se atbel ts (law re gu la tin g ns to cre ate a be havi or directly ). Or it co ul d fu nd pub lic edu catio n campaig sti gma against tho se who do no t we ar seatbelts (l aw re gu lating socia l nor ms as amean sto re gulati ng be havi or). Or it coul dsub sid ize ins ura nc eco mpa nie s to of fer redu ced rate s to sea tbel t weare rs (la w re gu latin g the ma rket as a way aut omatic se atbel ts ,or of re gula ting beh avior ). Fina lly ,th elaw could mandate ig nit io n- locking sy ste ms (ch angi ng the code of the automo bil easame ans of reg ul at ing be lting beh avior ). Each action might be sa id to ha ve so me ef fect on seatb elt use; eac h ha s some co st. The question for the gove rnme nt is how to get the mo st seatb el t use for the lea st co st.

146 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 131 131 wh at thin gs reg ulat e Disc rim inatio : The dis ab led bea r the bu rd en of sig - n aga in st the disa bled 44 Th e gov ernme nt might ni fic an t soci al and ph ys ical barr ier s in daily life. deci de to do so methi ng abo ut tho se barr ie rs. The traditio nal ans wer is law regulat ing behavi or dir ec tly : a la w ba rring discrimination on the bas is of ph ys ical di sabil it y. Bu t the law co uld do more. It cou ld ,for examp le, educate nor ms to regul at ebeha v- ch il dre ninorde rtoch ang esoc ialnorms (re gulating the ma rket io r) .It couldsu bsi di ze compa nie sto hi re the disabl ed (re gulating to regulate behavi or) .Itco uld re gu lat ebuild ing code stomake bui ldin gs mo re acc es sible to the disab led (regula tin g“na tural” or real-space codes to re gu lat e ina - be havi or) . Eac h of th es e reg ulat ions woul d have some effect on discrim tio n an d wo uld ha ve a co st. The government would have to weig h the costs ag ai nst the bene fits and sel ect the mode that regu lates most eff ec tiv el y. : The gov er nment is obs ess ed wi th re du cing the cons umptio n of Dr ugs ill ici tdr ugs. Its main str at egy has been direct regul ation of beha vio rthrou gh the thre at of barb ar ic pr iso nterms fo rviolation of the dr ug law s.This policy has ob vi ous costs and non- obv ious ben ef it s. But most in ter est ing for ou r pur pose s are the non -obv iou s co st s. As Tracey Meare s persuasi vely arg ue s, of ille ga l dr ugs is the on e effe ct iv e st ruc ture for reg ulati ng the cons umption 45 The se are so cia l str uc tu re of the co mmuni ty in wh ich an indiv idu al live s. what I’ve cal led so ci al no rm const rai nts: standard ia te behav ior s of appropr ni ty—w hether throu gh sha me,exclu - en forced by th e sanct ions of a commu sion , or force . Jus tas govern ment can ac ttostreng then th ese soc ial nor mcon str ain ts, it 46 On e wa y sh ou ld be obviou s that gover nme nt can also act to weake n the m. ni ties within which these nor ms ope r- to do thi s is by we akeni ng the commu 47 ate .Thi s, sa ys Me ares ,is what the ex trem esan ctions of the cr imina llaw do. that wo uld In the ir extr em ity andef fe ct, the yunde rm ine the socia lstructures su pport this socia lpoli cy. Th is is anind irect effect of the direct regula tion of law, an d at some poi nt thi s ef fec t may ove rw helm the effect of the law . We mi ght cal l thi s the La ffe r Cu rve for cri minal law . The ne t effec t of thes e di ff erent con st raints cannot be de duce d a pr io ri. The gov ern me nt act s in man y ways to regul ate the cons umption of dr ugs .It the cons um p- su pport s extensi ve pub li c edu cat ion camp aig ns to stigmatize beh avior). It sei ze sdr ug sat ti on of drug s(reg ul ati ng socia lnorm sto regulate the reby reduci ng th esu pply, incr ea sing the price ,and pr esum ably the border, And at tim es red ucin g de ma nd (reg ulat ing the ma rket to regu late behavior). it has ev en (a nd grote squ ely ) reg ul at ed the “code ”of dr ugs (by, for ex am ple, them mo re dange rous and fi el ds wit hparaqu at), making spra ying marijuana 48 th er eby incr eas ing th econs tra int on th ei rco nsumptio n. All of thes etog ether inf luen ce the cons um pti on of drug s. But as advocates of le gal iz ation arg ue,

147 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 132 132 CODE 2.0 they also inf lu ence th einc idenc eof othe rcriminal behavior as well. The pol - icy ma ker must assess the net eff ect— wh eth er on the whole these re gulati ons red uce or increas e soc ia l costs . : One fi na l ex am pl e will complete th e acc ount. Sin ce Ab ort ion Roe v. d a woman ’s cons tituti onal righ t to an abo r- the Co urt has recognize Wa de, 49 t fr om seeki ng to Thi s right , ho wev er, has no t stop pe d gov ernmen tio n. elimi nate or re du ce the nu mber of abortions. Again, th e gov ern ment need not rely on dir ect re gul ation of abor tion (which under Roe wo ul dbeun con - sti tutiona l). It can instead use indir ect mean s to the same end . In Rust v. the Court uphe ld the powe rof the gover nment to bias the provi sion Su lli van, of fam il y plannin g adv ice by fo rbid ding doct ors in “go vern me nt- fu nde d” 50 This is cli nics from mention ing abo rt ion as a metho d of family plann ing. a regu lat ion of so ci al norm s (within th e social structure of med ic al care) to Mahe r v. Roe, re gul ate be ha vio r. In the Co urt up held th eri ght of th egove rn - 51 This is th e use of me nt to dis ab le sel ect ivel y medic al fu nding fo r abor tion. Hodgson the ma rke t to regul ate be hav io r. An d in ta, the Cour t v. Minneso up hel dthe ri ght of th esta te toforce min or women towait forty -ei gh thou rs 52 Thi s is th e us e of real -spa ce co de (t he con- bef ore gett ing an abo rtio n. notwi th - st ra ints of ti me )to regul ate acce ss to abortion. Roe In all thes eways, standi ng , the go ver nme nt can reg ula te the beh avior of women wanti ng ab or ti ons. 53 wa ys. In each of th es e examp les, la w func tion s in tw o very di fferent Whe n its ope ra ti on is dire ct, it tell s ind ividuals how to behave and thre ate ns When its op era tio nis in di rect , pu ni sh me nt if th ey dev iat efro mthat behavior. 54 The reg ul ator selec ts it mod if ies one of the other st ru ctures of cons traint. fro m amo ng th ese va ri ou s techni qu es acc ording to the re tu rn fr om ea ch— bo th in eff ici ency and in the valu es that ea ch might express . Wh enwese eregul ati on in thi smore ge ner al way ,we can see mo re clear ly eiscont ing ent. We get astronge rse nse of how the un regu lability of cyberspac how the stat ecould in terv en etomak ereg ul ation work, and we sh oul dal so ge t asens eof the incre ase ddang ers pre sent ed by this mo re expansi ve sense of reg - ula ti on. In parti cu lar, we shou ld ha veastronger sen se of th edange ritpr ese nt s to con st itut io nal valu es .The nex t sect io n co nsiders one su ch thr ea t. TH E PROBL EMS OF INDIR EC TION In 198 5, aft er years of inac ti on, Co ngress pass ed the Low Leve l Radioa ctive of nu clear waste. Wast e Po licy Amend ments Act to deal with the problem 55 So meon e needed to tak e and store nuc lear waste. Aft er su ff ici ent pr odd in g by the gov ernment, a nu mber of sta te s fo rmed a compac t, wh ich Co ngr es s

148 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 133 133 wh at thin gs reg ulat e the n rat if ied, impl ement ing a number ents and inc entiv es for of requirem state s to dea l with the nu clear waste they produ ce. The de tails of th e ov erall pl an are not im port an t here . It is enough to for re gu - fo cus on ju st one part. To induc e stat es to fol low fede ral guidelines lat ing nuc lea r was te, Cong re ss gave them a choic e: Eithe r enac t ce rta in regu - la tion sor“t ake title” toth espent nuclea rfuel. Thi swas a“your money or your life ” re gula tion, for th e fuel to whi ch the states would take titl e was no t an was essen ti al ly as set but agre at lia bi lity .In aver yheavy -hand ed way, Congress fo rcin g st at es to pass the reg ula tio ns it wanted. The Sup reme Co ur tstru ckdown thi spart of the law .In ef fec t,the Cou rt hel d,Con gress wa s co mma ndee ring the state legisl atu res to ena ct Cong res s’ s la w. Congre ss itsel f, of course , had the power to enac t thos e reg ula tions dir ec tly. Bu tit did not have the power to order states toenact laws. Ind irectio n he re was not al lo wed . This case — New York v. Unite d Stat es —do es not stan dfo rth ebr oad prin - ci pl e that go ver nment mu st reg ul at e only directly, or even for the principle that in direc t re gulati on general ly is disfavored. The cas e was focu sed qu ite narr ow ly on the que sti on of indi rect ion as it invol ved th e sta tes . The mos t sta nds fo risth eidea th at sta tes ,asindependen Ne w Yor k tsoverei gnsdeser ving of spe ci al const it ut ional resp ect, ca nno t be co -opted to the fe de ra l gov er n- me nt ’s en ds—tha t whe n the feder al gove rnme nt has a progra m it wants to car ry out ,it mu st put its own name behin d it. does n’t estab li sh age ner al cons titutiona ,it New Yor k But whil e lprinciple do es sug ge st why indi rect ion shou ld be a more ge ner al conce rn. Ind irect io n mis direc ts re sponsi bi lity . Whe n a gove rnme nt us es othe r st ru ctu res of const rain tto ef fect acon strain tit could impose di rec tl y, itmu d- politic al di es the res po ns ibil ity for th at cons tra int and so unde rmines gov er nm ent, ind i- ac co un tabili ty. If transp arenc y is a valu e in cons titutional 56 rec tio n is its enem y. It confu se s re sponsi bility and henc e confus es politics . andi ng s are possibl e in other cont exts as well. Think Su ch mi sunderst The federal ag ai n abo ut the cas e of go ve rnme nt helps to fund famil y Ru st. 57 plan nin g clinic s. (“Hel ps ” fund , not compl etely fund s.) Be for e 1988 thes e ated topics, includ in gabo rtio n. cl in ics gave ad vi ce onawide range of birth-rel about ab ortion Do ct ors in fa mily plan ning clinic swou ld advise their patients when ever the y felt such advi ce was pr oper. The Re ag an adm ini str ati on want ed to change that, so it or de re d (the here) doctors in those clinics to not dis cus s det ai ls of how are not important abor tion as a met hod of fami ly plan ning with their patients. If ask ed, the abortion do cto rs were to say, “Th e pr oject doe s not consider an app rop riate 58 me th od of fa mi ly planni ng.”

149 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 134 134 CODE 2.0 The aim of thi sreg ulat io nwas cl ear :tored uce th eincid ence of abortion. It di dth is byusing do ctors tost eer pat ients away from abo rtio n. Adoct orhas a gre at deal of pow er ove r a patie nt in a co nt ext like this, and the pa tient nding agains t abortion. wo uld most likely bel ieve th e doc tor was recomme But not ice the tec hni que . The federal gove rnme nt could hav e stated its ow n pos it io n ab ou t ab or ti on . It could have put up posters an d bill board s say in g th at abo rtio n is wron g, or it could ha ve use d space in its clini cs to ad ver ti seits vi ew. Bu titch os ein ste ad to bury it spoli cy cho ice in the wor dsof al au thor it yof the doctors do ct or s. It ther eby cou ld tr ade onth epr ofession to by regula ting the indirectly advan ce its own ends. It co uld reg ulat e abortion do cto rs directly. Jus t as it tri ed to use th e autho ri ty of the states to ef fect its ends in New the gov ernmen t tra de s on a misre prese ntatio n in Yo rk, But wor se th an Rust . in the fed er al ism con tex t, the vic ti m of the misrepres entation her e doe s not even re ali ze th at the mi sre prese nta ti on is a policy choic e. The pa tient is from the go v- unl ik ely to hear the do ctor’ s stat ement as a political broadcast er nmen t; she is most lik ely to he ar it as a medical op in ion .Not only is the re expres se d, but the re is a con fusi on abo ut wh o is re sponsi bl e for the opinion als o con fusi on ab out whe ther it is an op in ion at all . Rus t v. Sulliv an is one of the gre at emb ar ras sme nts of the Sup re me Cou rt —the case pro ving Just ice Sc al ia’s rule that any issue ge ts dist orted once 59 Bu tmy argu me nt here do esn’t depend it ge ts near the que stio nof abo rt io n. wa s righ t. My aim is to bri ng out a certai n sen sib ili ty upon wheth er Rus t si mply poi nts the way. abo ut re gu lat io n; Rust Co nsi der a th ird ca se . Unt il 1948 deed s coul d incl ude cove na nts (p romi se s) th at the property cove red by the deed coul dnot be sol dtope ople of a parti cu lar race . Th e pu rpo se of these prov is io ns was cl ear : to ef fec t an d for example , pre ser ve segrega ti on. Th ei r use was ext ens ive. It was estimated, 60 Shelle y v Kra emer that when stru ck thes e provi si ons dow n as uncons titu - ti on alunder the equal pr otection cl ause, 25 perc ent of the prope rtie sin sout h 61 had bee n pro hi bit ed fr om sal e to African Chicago Ame rican s. As awfu las such prov isi ons were ,th eyhad acertain integr ity .Th eycl early stat edth eir purpos eand were tra nsp aren tab ou tthe val ues th ey af firme d. No on e cou ld pret end th at the se greg ati on they eff ected was som ehow an acci - den tal by -pr odu ct of dec is ions made el sew here. Al th ou gh th ey we re priv ate co ve nant s, they were enforce dby the state and, indeed, th eir meani ng derived fro m the sta te. They sa id :This soc iety is racist. Whe n the Co urt str uck these pro vis ions dow n, ho wever, the questi on be cam ewha two ul dreplac ethe m. Few expe cted that the attitud es behind thes e of a single court jud gmen t. So cov enant s would sudd enly di sap pe ar because

150 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 135 135 wh at thin gs reg ulat e when the Court end ed di rect se gre gati on, we shoul d expect ind irect segreg a- tion to em erg eto re pl ace it. for Su re eno ug h, aft er 1948 loc al co mmunities shift ed their te chnique pre ser vi ng se gregat io n. Rathe rthan cove nants, th ey used architec tu re.Com - mu nit ie swere de sign ed to“brea kthe fl ow” of residen ts from one to anothe r. it ie s.Ra ilr oa d Hi gh wa ys witho ut eas ycros sings were pla ce dbet wee ncommun nie nces of ar chit ect ur e tr ac ks were used to divi de. A tho usand tiny inconve ts . Nothing for ma lly an d zon ing re placed the expre ss pre ferenc es of covenan 62 pro hi bited int egr at io n, but infor ma lly ,mu ch did. Lo cal gov er nmen ts thu s di d somet hi ng very much like wh at th e feder al Ru st and tri ed to do in New Yo rk: gov ern men t di d in No longer ab le to effec t segr egat io ndire ctly ,th eyuse dzon in glaws—geographic al architec tu re, or real- spa ce co de —t oeff ect it indi rect ly.They buil ttheir commu nities an dde sig ned the ir street s to mak e it hard fo r int eg ration to occur, and the tiny in co nven - se par ate . ie nce sof zo ning regul ati ons su cceed ed in keep ing co mmunities What is mo st sig ni fi cant is tha t now, ev en mor e tha n with it Rust , bec ome s very dif ficul t to see the link be tw een the regul ation and its co nse - qu en ce. The cont inui ng seg rega tio nof these commun ities is de scribed asthe pro duc t of “ch oice.” Indiv idu al s choo se to li ve in on e neigh borho od ra the r tha nano th er .In ast ric tsens e, that is cor rect ,but thei rchoi ces are made inth e fa ce of co sts tha t th e stat e has impo sed . It is easier to re main segre gate d, so ntha smove d pe op le choo se todo tha t. But itis only easie rbecause governme mo un tain s to make it that way. Here th e go ver nment is reg ul ati ng ind ir ec tly by using th e st ructu re s of re al- sp ace co deto effec tits end s, bu tthis re gu lation ,again, is not see nasre g- ul atio n. Here th e gove rnme nt gets an effec t at no politica l cost. It gets the be nef itof what would cle ar ly be an ill egal and con trove rsial regu la tio nwith - out even having to admi t an y regu lati on exis ts . is co mm ande ering the powe r of In all th ree cas es, the government 63 ano th er moda lit y— an oth er st ruct ur eof constraint—to effec titsown en ds. This in it sel f is no t nec es sari ly improper. The re are ple nty of ex am ples that an yone wo ul d cons ider pr ope r. A require ment that stre ets be wel l lit, for ins tan ce , is a re gu lat ion des ig ned to reduce cr ime, and no one wou ld think r. No rdoe sall su ch regulation tha tregu lat io nimprope hide it spedi gree. Th in k ag ai n abo ut spe ed bum ps–t he y are exa mple s of indirect n. Like a regulatio win di ng ro ad, the yuse the code of st reets to kee pdown the speed of acar .But no one be lie ve s the no one is foo led ab out the so urc e of this regulation; . bu mps are accidental Thu s, the po int is no t ag ainst indi rect reg ul ation gene ra ll y. The point is ins tead abo ut tran spa rency. Th e sta te has no right to hide its agend a. In a

151 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 136 136 CODE 2.0 con stitutio nal de mocr acy it sreg ula ti ons shou ldbe publi c. And thus, oneissue rai sed by th e pr act ice of indi rect reg ul atio n is the gen eral iss ue of pu blici ty. aren tmeans when tr ansp arent Sh ould the st ate be pe rmi tt ed touse no ntransp me an s are ava ila ble ? WH ERE THIS LEADS ar gu ing that ard Indu stry Stand Aft er Ipubl ished an es say inthe (then ex ist ing) 64 th e fol lowing lett er was sent to the edi tor : “co de is law,” Typi cal for aHar vard La wPr ofes so r. ...Less ig mis se sth eentire fore st whi le dan cing am ong the tre es ...Whi le hi sriff on West Coa st Code (f rom Sili con Va ll eyPr ogr am- is ver y cleverly mer s) vs. Ea st Co ast Code (fr om gov ernm ent lawyers) cra ft ed, it co mple tel y avoi ds the re al di ff ere nc e between the two . The go od pro fes sor seem s to app ly the wo rd“regulat ion” equal ly to th e eff orts market of pri vate en ter pr is es to control th e be hav ior of the ir cust omer s through ent ag encie stocontrol the beh avi or of all cit - me chani sms and th eeffort sof governm iz en s thr ough for ce of law. So lon gasth ecr ea tors andpurvey or sof Wes tCoast Cod e(n omat te rho wself - ish , mo nopo listi c, demonic or in comp et en t they ma y be) do not car ry gu ns and 65 bad ges, I will choose the m ove r the enf orc ers of East Coast Cod e an y time. Wh et her or not I’ve miss ed the “real differ ence ”betwe en cod eand law, the y.The au thor gen ius in th is lett er is th at its au tho rclea rly sees the real similarit s that “priv ate understand (the pre si de nt of an Int er ne t-rela ted business) en ter pr ises” try to “control the beha vior of their custo mers, ”an dhe wr ites th at th ey use “ma rke t me ch anis ms ” to ac hieve that co ntrol. (Technica lly, I wa s sp ea ki ngabo ut arc hit ect ures to ac hiev ethat eff ect ,but never mind. Whe the r mark et s or arc hi tectu re s, the poi nt is th e same.) He the ref ore se es that the re is “re gula tio n” beyond law .He ju st has hi sfavorit ebetween the tw o(c or por ate ex ecut iv e th at he is ). What this au thor sees is what we all must see to unde rs tan d how cybe r- spa ce is reg ul ated and to see how law migh t regu late cybers pace .I’ve arg ue d has a range of tools that it us es to reg ul ate, in thi s ch apte r tha t government and cyb ers pace expa nds that range. Ind irectly, byregu latin gcode wr iti ng, the go vernme nt ca nachi eve re gulat ory end s, often with out suffe ri ng thepoliti cal co nsequ ences tha t the sa me end s, pu rsu ed directly, woul d yield. We sh ou ld wor ry about this. We should wor ry ab ou tare gi me that makes inv is ibl ereg ula tio neasi er; we should worry abo ut aregi me that make sit ea s- ie r to re gul ate. We sho uld worry abo ut the first becau se invisibilit y mak es it

152 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 137 137 wh at thin gs reg ulat e hard to re si st bad reg ul at ion; we shou ld worry about the seco nd beca use we do n’ tyet —a sIarg ue inPart III —have asens eof the values pu tatrisk bythe incr easi ng scope of eff ici ent reg ulat io n. Th at’s a lot of wor ri es, no do ub t. But befor e we go fu rther with these wor ries, we cou ld consi der in more det ai l the conte xts within wh ich these wo rr ies bec ome rea l.

153 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 138 E I G H T l i m i t s i n o p e n c o d e t h e WORKS AND ABOU T THE INC RE ASI NG I’ VE TOL D A ST ORY ABO UT HO W REG ULATION , re gul abil it y of the In ternet that we sho ul d exp ec t. Th es e are, as I des cribed , chang es in th e arc hit ec ture of th e Net that will bet ter enable go vernm ent’ s cont rol by mak ing be havior mor eeas ily monitored—or at least mo re tr ace - able . These cha nges wil l eme rg e ev en if gov ernm ent does noth ing. Th ey are the by -pr odu ct of ch ang es made to enab le e- commerce. But they will be cement ed if (o r wh en ) the gov er nme nt reco gnize s just how it coul d mak e the netw or k its tool . That wa s Pa rt I. In this pa rt, I’v e focu sed up on a dif ferent reg ul abil - ity— th e kin d of re gulat ion tha t is eff ect ed through the arch ite ctur es of the spa ce with in wh ich one li ves .As I argued in Cha pter 5, th ere’ s nothing new about th is moda lity of regulat ion: Governm ent s hav e use d ar chit ec tur e to reg ulate beha vio r for eve r. Bu t what is new is it s sign if icance . As life mo ve s ont o th e Net, more of lif e wil l be re gulate d through the se lf -conscious desig n of the spa ce within which li fe happens. Th at ’s not nece ssarily a bad thi ng. If the re wer e a code-ba se d way to st op drun k driv ers, I’d be all fo r it. Bu tneit he ris this pervas ive co de -b ased regula tion benign. Due to the ma n- ner inwhic hit fun cti on s, regu lati on by code can inter fere wit hthe or din ar y demo cra tic proc ess by which we hold regulato rs acc ou ntable. Th e key cr iticism that I’v e iden tified so fa r is tr ansp arency .Cod e-b as ed re gu lati on— es peci all y of peop le who are not the msel ve s te chnical ly expe rt— ri sk smaki ng regulatio are im pose dfor pa rt ic - n inv isible. Controls ul ar pol icy reaso ns , but peop le exp erience these contr ols as natur e. And tha t ex per ien ce, I su gge st ed, could wea ken democrat ic resolv e. Now that ’s not sa yin g much, at leas t about us. We are al re ady a pr ett y ap at het ic politi cal cul ture .And the re ’s nothing about cybe rspac e to sug ges t 138

154 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 139 139 th e limi ts in ope n code thi ngs are goin g to be diff er en t. Inde ed, as Castranov a ob serv es about vir - tua l world s: “How str ange, th en ,th at on e does not find much dem ocra cy at all in syn theti cworl ds. No tatrace ,infact. Not ahint of ashadow of atrace. of It’ s not th er e. Th e typica l gov er nanc e mo del in syn thet ic wor ld s consists iso lated moment s of op pr essi ve tyr an ny emb edde d in wid es pr ead anar - 1 chy. ” Bu t if we coul d put as ide our own ske pt icism abou t our dem ocr acy for an d cyberspac a mom ent , an d foc us at leas t upon as pect s of the Internet e nt ally, th en I thin k we wi ll all reco gnize a tha t we all agr ee ma tt er fundame poi nt th at, on ce re cogni zed , seems obv ious: If code regulate s, th en in at le as t some cri ti ca l co ntex ts, the kind of cod e th at regulate s is critical ly import ant . By “k ind ” I mea n to dis tin guish bet ween two type s of cod e: open and cl ose d. By “open code ” I mea n code (b oth soft ware an d hard war e) whose ent at lea sttoone kno wle dg ea ble abou tthe te ch nol - fu nc ti on alit yistranspar ogy . By “cl ose d code,” I mean code (both software and hardware) whos e fun ctiona lity is op aque. One can guess what closed code is doin g; and with enou ghoppor tu ni ty to test, one mi ght wel lreve rse enginee rit. But from th e techno log y it se lf ,the re isno rea so na ble way to disce rn what th efu ncti onal - ity of the tec hno lo gy is . The term s “o pen” an d “clo sed” cod e will sugg est to many a crit ical ly im po rtant deba te abou t ho w softwa re should be develope d. What mos t call the “open sour ce softw are mo veme nt,” bu t which I, follow ing Richa rd Sta ll - man , cal l th e “fr ee so ftwar e mov em ent ,” argues (in my view at least) that th ere are funda me ntal values of free dom that de mand tha t so ftwar e be deve lo pe d as fr ee softwa re. Th e oppos ite of free sof tware, in this sense , is pr opr ieta ry soft wa re, where th e deve lop er hides the fu nct ion al it y of the soft wa re by distrib utin gdig it al object sthat are opaqu eabou tthe un derly in g desig n. I will de sc ri be th is deb at e mor e in the bala nc e of thi s cha pte r. But im por ta ntly, the poin tIam maki ng abo ut “open ”ve rsus “clos ed” code is dis - tin ct from th e poi nt abou t how code gets cr eat ed. I perso nally have ver y side you are str ong views about ho w co de should be creat ed. But whatever on inthe “free vs. pro pr ieta ry softwa re ”deb ate in ge neral, in at le as tth econ - text s I wi ll ide nt if y her e, you shoul d be abl e to agree with me fi rs t, that open cod e is a co nstr ain t on stat e pow er, and seco nd, th at in at le ast some case s, co de must, in the re levan t sens e, be “open. ” To se t th e sta ge for thi s argume nt, I want to describe two cont ex ts in wh ich I will argue th at we all should agree that the kind of co de depl oy ed mat ters. Th e ba lan ce of the cha pte r the n makes th at argu ment.

155 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 140 140 CODE 2.0 BYT ES THAT SN IFF In Chapter 2,I desc ri bed tec hnol ogy that at the time was a bit of scie nce fic - even less fic tion al. In ti on. In th e fi ve years sin ce, th at fic tio n has become 19 97,th egove rn men tan nounced aproj ect calle dCa rnivo re. Ca rni vor ewa sto be a technol ogy that si ft ed thr oug h e-mail traffic and co llected just thos e e- ma ils wri tt en by ortoaparticu lar an dna med indiv idual. The FB Iin tended to use this tech nol ogy, pu rs ua nt to co urt ord ers, to gathe rev ide ncewhile inv es- tig at ing cri me s. In pr in cip le, th ere’ s lots to pr ais e in the ide als of the Car ni vore de sig n. The prot ocol s req uir ed a jud ge to appr ove this surveill an ce. The technolo gy was inten de d to coll ect da ta only abou t the targ et of the inv est iga tion . No on eel se wa stobeburd en ed bythe tool. No one else was to have their privacy co mp ro mis ed . But whet he r the tec hnol ogy di d what it wa s sa id to do depe nds upon its 2 The con tr act the gove rnme nt let wi th the co de. An d that co de wa s clos ed . th at th esource ven dor that dev elo ped the Carni vor eso ftware did not require fo r the sof tware be made publ ic .It inst ead per mitted the ve ndor to keep the co de secre t. Now it’s ea sy to unde rstand wh y the ve ndor wanted its co de kept secr et. In ge neral, invit ing ot hers to lo ok at yo ur code is mu ch like inv iting the m to yo urhou se for dinn er :Ther e’s lots you need to do to make the pla ce pres en t- ab ou tsecu - abl e. In this ca se in part icu lar, the DOJ may have bee nconcerned 3 Butsubsta nt iv ely, how eve r, th evendo rmigh twant touse comp on ent sof rit y. the soft war ein oth er so ft ware pr oject s. If the code is pub lic, the vend ormigh t lo sesome adv ant age from th attr ans pa re ncy. The se adv antag esfor the vend or me an that it wo uld be mo re costly fo r the gover nmen t to ins is t upon a tech - nol og y tha t wa s deli vered wi th its sou rce code rev eal ed. And so the que stion ng the gover nment gains from hav ing the sh ou ld be whe th er the re’s somethi sour ce code reve aled . An d her e’ s th e obvi ou s poi nt: As the governmen as it t quic kly learned tr ied to sel l the idea of Carnivore ,the fa ct that its code was secr et was costl y. to trying to bui ld tru st arou nd Mu ch of the govern men t’s eff or ts we redevoted its claim th at Car ni vo re di d jus t wh at it said it did . But the ar gu me nt “I’ m t, so tru st me” doe sn’ t have mu ch weight. fro m the gov ernmen And th us ,the ain, a va lu abl e tech - ef fort s of th e gov ernme nt to dep loy th is technology—ag nol og y if it did wha t it sa id it did —were hamp ered. I don ’t know of any st ud y that tri es to eval uate the cos t th e go ve rnme nt fa ce dbe cause of the skept icism ab out Carnivo re versus the cost of dev elo pin g 4 Carn iv ore inan open wa y. Iwou ldbe sur pr is ed if th egove rnme nt’ sst rate gy

156 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 141 141 th e limi ts in ope n code ma defi scal sense .But whethe ror no titwas cheape rto devel opclos ed rathe r that the govern ment ha s an th an open cod e, it sho uldn ’t be co ntroversial to make its pr ocedures —at leas t in the conte xt of in dep end ent obligation or dinar ycrim in alpro sec uti on—tr ansp aren t. Ido n’t mean that thein vestig a- tor needs to revea l the th ing s he thi nks about whe n decid ing which sus pe cts to tar ge t.I mea n inst ead the pr oc edu re s for in va ding the priva cy inter es ts of or di nary cit ize ns . The on ly ki nd of co de that can do that is “ope n co de.” And the sma ll of govern ment po int Iwant toinsi st upon jus tnow isthat wh ere transparency act ion matte rs , so too sho ul d the ki nd of code it uses . This is not the cla im co de should bepubli c. Ibeli eve there are le git im at ear ea s that al lgo ve rnment wit hinwhic hth egove rnm ent canact se cretly. More parti cularl y, wh ere tran s- pa re nc ywould inte rfere wi th th efunc tion it self, then ther e’s agood arg ument ways in wh ich a poss ible ag ai nst tra nsp arency . But there were ve ry limited cr imi na l sus pect co ul d more effec tivel y evade the su rve ill ance of Ca rnivore jus t beca use its code was open. And thus, ag ain, ope n code sh oul d, in my vi ew, hav e bee n the norm. MACH IN ES THAT COU NT Bef ore Novem ber 7, 2000, ther e was ver y littl e discu ssion among nat iona l po licy make rs abo ut the techno logy of voting machines. For mos t(and Iwas gy see me d tr ivia l. Ce r- wit hi n thi s major it y), the qu es ti on of vo ting technolo tai nly ,there cou ld have been fast er technologies for tal lying avote .And th er e co uld hav ebee nbette rtech nologi es to ch eck for err ors .Bu tthe id eatha tan y- gy was not an idea tha t thi ng impor tant hun g upon th ese de tails in technolo ma de the co ve r of the front page of the New York Ti mes . Th e2000pre sid enti alel ect ion ch ang edall th at .Mo re sp ec ifical ly,Flo rid a demonst rat ethe ex perience in 2000 chang ed all that .Not only did the Florida for tabulating imp er fec tio nintraditi on al mech an ica ldevices vo tes (exh ibi t1, in equal it y that the han ging chad) , it also de mons trat ed the extrao rdinary hav ing diff er en tte chn ologies in diff ere nt part sof the state would produ ce. As Bush v. Gore, Ju st ice Ste ve ns de scr ibed in his dis sent in almos t 4 per ce nt of pun ch- card bal lots were di squ al if ied, while on ly 1.43 pe rc ent of op tica l scan 5 bal lo tswere dis qua lif ied . An das on est udy est imat ed, changi ng asing le vote 6 on ea ch mac hine wou ld have chang ed the outc ome of the election. Th e 2004 el ectio n mad e things ev en wors e. In the fou r years si nce the Flo ri da deb acle, afe wcomp anies ha dpushed to deploy new elec tr onic vot ing ma chin es. Bu t th ese vot ing ma chi nes seemed to create more anxiet y am ong vot ersthan le ss. While mo st vot ers are not techies, everyo ne has asen se of th e

157 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 142 142 CODE 2.0 ob vi ou s quea sin es s tha t a total ly elec tronic votin g machine pr od uc es. You your vote .The mac hine stan dbef ore ate rmi nal and press butt ons toindicate d. But how do the vote has been recorde co nfi rms you r vot e and then reports know? And eve n if you’re no t consp ira cy- yo u know ? How co ul d anyone th eo ry -o riented en ou ghto be li eve tha tever yvoting machi ne is fixed, how can an yone know th at whe n the se vo ting mac hin es check in with the ce nt ra l se rver ,the se rver rec ords their vo te s acc ur ately? What’s to guara ntee that the numb er s wo n’ t be fu dg ed ? The mos t ext reme examp le of thi s anx ie ty was pr od uced by the le ad ing el ectr onic voti ng com pa ny, Diebo ld. In200 3, Diebo ldhad bee nca ught fudg - Mem os leak ed in gthe numbe rs ass ociate dwit htes ts of its vot ing technology. to the publ ic sh owed that Di ebo ld ’s manageme nt knew the machines wer e fl aw ed an d int ent io nally cho se to hi de that fact. (Th e comp any then sued in fringe ment. The st ud en tswho had pu bl is hed th ese mem os —for copyright st ud en ts wo n a cou nt ers ui t ag ai ns t Di ebold.) Die bo ld in its ways . The compa ny That in cide nt see med only to harden co nti nued to re fu se to reve al an ything about the code that its ma chines ran. It refu sed to bid in cont exts in whi ch such trans paren cy was re qu ired . And when you ti ethat refu sa lto it sch ai rm an’s pr omise to “de liver Oh io” for Pre s- id en tBush in200 4,you have al lthe maki ngs of aperfect trust st orm. You con- tro l the ma ch ines ; yo u won’ t show us how the y work ; and yo u pro mi se a part icu lar res ult in th e elec tio n. Is there any dou bt peop le woul d be su spi - 7 ci ou s? Now it tu rns ou t that it is a ve ry hard que stion to know how elec tronic vo ting ma ch ines sh ou ld be des ig ne d. In one of my own du mbe st mom ents sin cetu rn ing 21, Itol daco ll ea gu ethat th ere was noreas on to have aconf er- ence abo ut elect ro ni c vo ti ng si nc e all the is sues we re “per fec tly obvious.” They’re not pe rf ectly obvi ous. In fac t, they’re very difficul t. It se ems obv iou s receipt. But if to some that, like an AT M, there sho uld at leas t be a printed there ’s a pri nted rece ipt , th at would make it sim pl e for voter s to sel l their vo te s. Mo reove r, there ’s no reas on the receipt ne eds to refle ct wha t wa s co un ted .Nor doe sthe rec eip tnece ssar il yreflect what was trans mitted to an y ce ntra lta bula ting au tho rity. Th equest ion of how best to des ign thes esy ste ms ab solute gar ba ge about this tu rn s out not to be obv io us. And havi ng uttered poi ntbefo re, Iwon’t ent er her ein to any consi dera tio nof how bes tthis mig ht be archi tec ted. But ho wev er asyst em isarchi tect ed ,the re is anind ep end ent point about the ope nne ss of th e code that co mpr is es the sys te m. Ag ain, the pr oce du re s used to tabulate vot es mus t be tr ansp arent. In the no ndigital wo rld , tho se pro cedu res were obv ious .In the digital world, howev er they’re architected ,we

158 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 143 143 th e limi ts in ope n code nee dawayto ens ur eth at the ma chine does wh at it is said it wil ldo .On esi m- ple way todo that is ei ther to open th eco de tothose ma chines ,or ,atamini - dent inspe ctor s. Man y mu m, requ ire th at that code be certi fied by indepen wo uld pre fer th e la tter to the former, just becaus e trans parency her e mig ht My ow n intu ition about that incr ease the cha nce s of the code being hacked. is dif fere nt. But wh eth er orno tthe code is co mpletely open ,require men ts fo r to func tion, the cod e for the cert ifi cat io n are obv iou s. And for certi fication techn olog y must—i ope n. n a limi ted sense at least—be {T XB 2} Bot h of the se exa mpl es ma ke a si mil ar poin t. But that point, how ev er,is not un iv ers al. There are times when code need sto betra nsp aren t, even if there are time swhen it doe sno t. I’m not tal king about al lcode for whate verpu rpo ses. I don ’t th ink Wa l*M art need s to reve al the code fo r cal cu lati ng cha nge at its sh ou ld have to rev ea l the cod e chec k-o ut co unte rs .I don ’t even th ink Yahoo! fo r its In stant Me ssag ing servi ce. But I do think we al l shoul d think tha t, in cert ai n con texts at least, the transp arency of open code should be a requ ir e- me nt . This is a point th at Phi l Zi mme rmann tau ght by his pra ctice mor e tha n mann wr ot e and rel eased to th e Net a pr ogr am ca lle d 15 ye ar s ago . Zimmer PGP (prett ygoo dpriva cy) .PG Ppr ovid es cry pto graph icprivacy andauth en- tic at io n. ButZimmer mann recogni zed that it wou ld not earn trus tenough to pro vi de these servi ce s well unl ess he ma de availabl e the source cod e to the pro gram. So fr om the begi nni ng (ex cep t fo r a brief laps e whe n th e pr og ram 8 )the sour ce code has be enavailable for was ow ned by acomp an ycall ed NAI any one to review and ve rify. Th at pub lici ty has bu ilt confi den ce in the co de — acon fid en ce th atcould nev er hav ebee nprodu ced bymere com mand. In this as his pur pose was to ca se, open code served the pu rpo se of the programmer, bu il d co nfi dence and tr us t in a sy ste m tha t would support priva cy and aut he nt icat ion. Ope n code worked . this The har d ques ti on is wheth er th ere’ s an y claim to be mad e beyond mi nimal one. Tha t’s th e que sti on fo r the balance of this chapte r: How do es ope n co de af fec t regul abi li ty ? CO DE ON THE NET I’v e spe nt lo ts of ti me tal king abo ut “code.” It’s time to be a bit mor e spe cific abo ut what “co de” in the conte xt of the Inter net is, in what sense shou ld we co nside rth is code to be “ope n,” and in wha tcontext sits ope nn ess wil lma tt er. As I’ ve me nti oned , the Int erne t is cons tr uc te d by a set of proto cols toge ther refer red to as TCP /IP. The TC P/ IP suite in clu des a lar ge nu mbe r of

159 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 144 144 CODE 2.0 pro toco ls th at feed di ff erent “la yers ”of the ne twork. Th e standa rd mod el for des cri bin g la yers of a netw ork is the ope n sy stems in te rconne ct (OS I) ref er- en ce mod el. It desc ri be s seve n netw ork laye rs, ea ch repres enting a“fu nc tion pe rf ormed when dat ais tr ansf erred betwe en coope ra ting applica tion sac ro ss ” the ne twork. Bu t th e TCP /IP sui te is not as wel l articul ated in tha t mo de l. Ac co rd in g to Cr aig Hu nt, “mo st de sc ri ptions of TCP/ IP define thr ee to fiv e fu ncti on al levels in the pr oto col archi te ctu re.” In my view, it is sim ple st to 9 Fro mthebot tomof desc ri be fo ur fun cti on alla yers in aTCP/IP ar chite ctu re. t,and ap plica - the stac k up, we ca n cal lth ese the data lin k, netwo rk, transpor 10 tio n la yer s. Three lay ers consti tut e th e essent ial plu mbing of the Inte rnet, hidd en in the Ne t’s wa lls. (Th e fau cets work at the next laye r; be patien t.) At the very in the data li nk laye r, very botto m,just above th ephy sica llayer of th eInternet, fe w proto cols opera te, si nc e th at ha ndles loc al netwo rk in tera ct ion s ex clu- si vely . Mo re prot oc ols exi st at th e nex t layer up, the ne twork laye r,whe re the IP protocol is do minant. It route s data betw een hosts and acr oss network whi ch path the data shou ld take. At the next la ye r up, the lin ks, deter mining tra nsp or t la yer, tw o di ffere nt pr ot oco ls do minat e— TCP and UDP. Thes e ne got iat e th e flo w of data be twee n tw o netw ork hos ts. (The dif fe rence be tween the two is re liabi lit y—UDP of fe rs no relia bility guar antee .) The prot oc ols togethe r fu ncti on as a kin d of odd UPS . Data are pa ss ed fro m the ap plica tion to the tra ns port layer. Th ere the dat a are place d in a (v irtua l)box an da(v irtu al) lab el is sl apped on. That la bel ties the conte nts of the bo x to par ti cul ar pr oc es ses .(This is the work of the TCP or UDP proto - co ls .) Tha t box is then pass ed to the network lay er, whe re the IP pr oto co l put sthe pac ka ge into ano ther pac kage ,with its own label. This la bel incl ud es the ori gi na ti on and de st ina ti on add re sses. That box the n can be fur ther of th elocal ne tw or k wr app ed at the data li nk layer ,depen din gon th especifics (w het her ,fo r exampl e, it is an Eth ernet network) . The wh ole pr oce ss is thu s a bi zarre pa ck ag ing ga me:A new box is adde d th e proc es s at tha t la yer . at each laye r, and a new la bel on ea ch box describes At the oth er end ,the pac kagi ng pr oc es s is reve rs ed: Like a Ru ssia n doll, each pac kage is ope ned at the pr oper lay er, un til at the end th e machine rec ov er s the in iti al app lica ti on da ta. On to p of th ese three lay ers is the appl ication la yer of the Inte rnet. He re 11 prot ocols “p roli ferate. ” Th ese incl ude the most familia rnetwo rk app lica tion pr otoc ol s, suc has FTP (file tr ans fe rprot ocol, aprot ocol fo rtran sf errin gfi les) , SMT P(simple mail tra nspor tproto col, aprotocol for transferri ngmail), an d HT TP (hype rtext tr ansfer pr otoco l, aprot ocol to publish and read hyp ertex t doc umen ts ac ro ss the Web) .Thes eare rules for how aclient (your com put er)

160 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 145 145 th e limi ts in ope n code wil linte ract with aserver (w here the data are), or with anot her com pute r(in 12 peer -to -peer se rvices ), and th e other way around . The se fo ur la ye rs of pr ot oco ls are “the Int er net.” Buil ding on simp le bloc ks, the syst em mak espos sib le an extr aordinary range of inte ra ction. It is per haps not qu ite as amazin gasnat ur e—th ink of DN A—b ut it is buil ton the si mple, an d the compo unds will astou nd. sa me pr incip le :keep the el ements When I spea k about re gu lati ng the code, I’m not ta lking about chang ing the se core TC P/I P pr otoc ol s. (T ho ugh in princip le, of cours e, they co uld be 13 In myviewthes e re gul ated ,and oth ers have sugg es ted that they shou ld be.) co mpon ents of th e netw ork are fixed . If you requ ired them to be dif fer ent, ng the gover nmen tchan g- yo u’d bre akth eIntern et. Th us rathe rth an imagini ing th e co re, th e qu es ti on I want to cons ide r is how the gover nme nt might gy that add sregula bilit y, or (2 ) ei ther (1) co mp le ment the core wi th technolo re gula tes app licati on sthat connect to the core. Both wi ll be impo rta nt, butmy foc us ison th eco de tha tplugs into the Inter net. Iwill call th at code the“ap pli - all the code that im ple ments ca ti on space ” of th e Int er net. This includes sers, oper ating sys tem s, TCP/I P pr otoco ls at the appl icat ion laye r—brow en cr ypt ion mo dul es, Java, e-mail syst ems ,P2P, whatever elem ents you want. The que st io n for the ba lanc e of this chapter is: What is the cha ra cte r of th at co de tha t make s it susc ept ible to reg ulat ion? OF CODE ON THE NET A SH ORT HIS TORY of cou rse ,the re were very few appl ication son the Net. The In the be ginning, Net was no mo re than a pr oto co l for exchan gin g data, and th e origina l pro - gra ms simply too kad vant age of this pr otocol. The file transfe rprotoco l(F TP ) 14 the ele ctr onic messa ge proto co l(SM TP) wa sborn early in the Net’s histor y; wa sbo rn soo nafte r. Itwas no tlong bef ore aproto col to displa ydir ect orie sin d. And in 199 1 the mos t fam ou s of a grap hi cal way (Go pher) was develope pro toco ls —the hyp er tex t trans fer pr otocol (HT TP) and hyper te xt mark up e bi rth to the Worl dWide Web. lan gu ag e (HTML)—gav Ea ch pro toc ol spawned many appl ic ations .Since no one had amonopol y ly on its imple mentation. Th er e we re on th e prot oc ol, no one had a monopo many FTP ap pli cati ons and many e- mail serv ers . There were eve n a large 15 nu mb er of browse rs. The prot oc ols were op en stan dard s, gai nin gtheir bless - in gfr om sta ndard sbodie ssuch asth eInternet Eng ine ering Tas kForce (IETF) rs could buil d an d,later, the W3C .Onc eaproto col was specifie d, programme pro grams that utiliz ed it. Much of the so ftw are imp le me nti ng thes e pr ot ocols was “ope n,” at le ast ini ti all y—th at is ,th esour cecode for the software was ava ila ble alo ng with the

161 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 146 146 CODE 2.0 16 This ope nnes s was re spo ns ibl e fo r much of the earl y Net ’s ob ject code . en ted an d lea rn gr ow th . Oth ers could explo re how a program was implem in the fut ure. fro m that exampl e how be tte r to imp le me nt the protocol The Wo rld Wi de Web is the be st ex ample of this point. Again, the co de that ma ke s a web page appe ar as it doe s is cal led the hype r text ma rku p la n- 17 Wi thHTML, yo ucan speci fy how aweb pa ge will app ea r gu age ,or HTML. an d to wh at it wil l be link ed. The or igi na lHTML was propo sed in199 0bythe CE RN res ea rche rs Tim 18 It wa s desig ne d to ma ke it ea sy to li nk Bern ers- Lee and Robert Cai lli au. obviou s that docu - do cume nt s at a res earch fac ili ty , but it qu ickly became men ts onan yma ch ine on the Inter netcould be linked. Be rners-Le eand Cail - liau mad e bo th HTM L and its companion HTTP freely availa ble for anyone to ta ke. And tak e the m peopl e did, at first sl owly , but the n at an extra ord inary rate . Peo ple sta rted bu il di ng web page s and linking the m to othe rs. HTML bec ame one of the faste st -gr owin gcom puter lan gu ages in the histo ry of com - put in g. Why? On e imp ortan t rea so n was tha t HT ML wa s al way s “op en.” Even toda y, on most browse rs in distr ibu ti on, you ca nalways reveal the “so urce” of ope n: You can a web pag e and see wha t mak es it ti ck. The source remains it as you wish .Cop yr ight law ma y pr ote ct dow nloa d it, cop y it, and improve it ve ry impe rf ectly . the so urce co de of a web pa ge , but in reality it protects HT ML beca me as po pu lar as it did primar ily becau se it was so eas y to copy. An yo ne,at an ytime, cou ldloo kunde rthe hood of an HTML docu me nt and learn how th e author pro du ced it. proper ty or cont ract but fre e code and acces s—cr ea ted Op en nes s—not the bo om th at ga ve bir th to the Int ernet that we now know. And it was this bo om that th en attra ct ed the att enti on of commerce. With all this activ ity , co mmerce rig htly rea soned, su rely there was mon ey to be made . ia l model for pro du cin g sof tw are ha s bee n dif - His to ri cal ly th e commerc 19 fe ren t. Thou gh the hist ory beg an even as the op en co de mov eme nt co ntin - ued, co mmercia l softw are vendors wer e not about to produc e “fr ee ” (wha t mo st cal l “open so ur ce ”) sof tw are. Comme rcial vend ors produ ce d softw ar e travel ed with out its source and was prote cted agains t that was clos ed—that mo di fi cat io n both by the law and by its own code. By the second ha lf of th e 199 0s—marke d mos t fa mou sl y by Micros oft ’s al so ftw are ven - ommerci Wi ndows 95, wh ic hca me bund led Inte rnet -savvy—c do rs be gan pr odu cing “app li ca ti on sp ace ” code. This code wa s incre as ing ly code “on” the In te rnet. But for co nne cted to the Ne t—i tinc rea singly became the mos t part, th e cod e rema ined clos ed .

162 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 147 147 th e limi ts in ope n code Th atbe gan to chang e, how ev er, around the tur nof the cent ur y.Especia lly emerg ed th at were do m- in th econ text of pee r-to -peer serv ic es, technologies y, the protocols thes e technol ogies inant and “op en.” More importantl tha t the dep en ded up on wer e unreg ul at ed . Thu s, for examp le, the protocol peer -to -peer cl ie nt Gr okst er us ed to share content on the In te rnet is its el f an open sta nda rdth at any one can us e. Many comm ercial ent ities tr ied to use tha t in .But eve n if stan dard ,at least unti l th e Su preme Court’s decision Gro kste r th at dec ision in spire s ev er y comm er cia l en tity to aban don the Stre amCa st net wo rk, nonco mme rci al imp le me nta ti ons of th e prot ocol will still exis t. Th esa me mix be twe en open an dclosed ex ist sin both browser san dbl og- ion of the gin g soft ware. Firefo x is the more pop ular current implementat Mo zill a tech nol ogy—the techno logy that origina lly dro ve the Netsc ape ft ’s In te rnet Explorer br ow ser . It com pet es with Microso and a ha ndf ul of al bro wsers. Li kew is e, WordPress oth er commerci is an op en- sou rc eblogg ing to ols. too l that compe tes wi th a hand fu l of other pr opr ie tary blogging Th is recen t gro wt h in open code bu ilds up on a long tra di tion. Part of the motiv at ion for that tradi tio nisideo logi cal, or values based. Ri cha rd Stall - man is the inspi rati on here .In 1984, St al lman began the Free Sof twar eFoun - hur da tion wit h the aim of fue lin g the growth of free sof tware. A MacArt Fel low who gave up hi s career to co mm it himsel f to the caus e, Stallm an has dev oted the last tw en ty ye ars of hi s life to free softwar e. That work beg an a free oper ating sys tem . By wit h the GNU projec t, wh ic h so ught to develop excep t a kernel . it needed, 19 91 , the GNU pr oje ct ha d ju st abo ut everything That fi nal chal le nge was tak en up by an unde rgra duate at the Univ er sit y of He lsi nk i. Tha t year, Li nu s Torva ld s pos ted on th e Intern et the ke rnel of an ope rati ng sys tem. He invited the wor ld to extend and exper ime nt with it. Pe op letook up the chall eng e, an dslow ly, throug hthe ea rly 199 0s ,marry - ing the GNU pr ojec t wi th Torvald ’s kernel, they built an oper ating sy ste m— GNU/L nu x wa s in ux. By 1998 , it had be co me ap pa rent to all that GNU/Li goi ng to be an impo rtant compe ti tor to the Micr osoft ope ra ting sys te m. Mi cro so ft may ha ve ima gi ned in 1995 that by 20 00 th ere wou ld be no othe r se rver oper at ing sy stem av ail ab le ex cep t Wind ows NT, but whe n 2000 ca me ar ound, there wa s GN U/Linu x, present ing a serious threat to Micro soft in the se rv er mark et. No w in 2007, Li nu x-b ased web servers continu e to ga in mark et share at the exp ense of Mic roso ft syste ms . GNU /Linux is amazi ng in ma ny wa ys. It is ama zing fir st be ca use it is the - . Linu s Torv alds rej ect ed wha t or et icall y im pe rfe ct bu t pr acti ca lly superior 20 comput er scie nce to ld hi m was the ideal oper ating sys tem des ign, and ins tead bui lt an op erati ng syst em that was designed for asingle pro ces sor (a n In tel 386) and not cro ss-pl atfo rm-compatible. Its creati ve devel opm ent, and

163 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 148 148 CODE 2.0 the en erg yit inspi red, sl owly tu rned GNU /Linux int oan extraord in ari ly pow - erf ul sy st em. Asof th is writ ing, GNU/ Linux ha sbee npo rted to atleasteight - een dif fere nt compu ter arch it ecture platfo rms —fr om the origina l Inte l pr oces so rs ,toApple ’s Power PC chip ,toSun SPARC chips, and mo bil ede vic es 21 Cr eativ eha ck ers have even port ed Lin uxtosqu ee ze usin gARM proce sso rs. desig ned to spea k on toAp ple’s iPo dand old Atari sy ste ms. Al th ou gh initially on ly one lan gua ge, GN U/L in ux ha sbeco me the lingu afr anc aof fr ee so ftwar e ope rati ng sys tems. Wha t ma kes a sys te m op en is a com mitmen ers to t amon g its develop keep its core co de publ ic —to keep the hood of the car unl ock ed. That com - mitm en tis not just awis h; Sta llman enc oded it in ali cense that set sth eterm s that co ntr ol the fut ure use of mo st free software. This is the Free So ftw are (GPL), which requ ires that an y cod e Fou ndati on’s Gene ral Pu blic License lic en sed with GPL (as GNU /Li nux is) keep its sou rce free. GNU /Linu x was dev elo ped by an ext rao rdi na ry co ll ecti on of ha cke rs wor ldwide only be cau se its cod e was open for others to work on. 22 An yo necan tak eit and use Its cod e, in oth er wor ds, si tsinthe commons. it asshe wishes. Anyone can take it and co me tounder stand how itwo rks.The co deof GNU/Li nu xis li kea re se arch prog ram whose res ults ar ealwa ys pu b- lished fo r oth ers to see. Everythi ng is pu bl ic; anyone, without hav ing to se ek the pe rmi ss ion of anyone els e, may joi n the project. This pro jecthas been wil dly more su ccess ful than anyone ev erim ag in ed. to build afree ope rati ng In 199 2, most would hav esaid th at it wa sim possible aro und the world. In 2002, no one coul d doub t it sy ste m from vol unteers anym ore. But if the im possi bl ecou ld bec ome possi bl e, then no doub tit co ul d bec ome impos sib le agai n. And certai n trend s in computi ng technology ma y cre ate pr ecis el y this th re at. For exa mp le ,con sider the way Ac tive Serv er Page s (AS P) co de works on the netw ork. Wh en yo u go to an ASP page on the Inte rn et, th e se rve r runs a prog ram—a scr ipt to gi ve you access toadat abase, for example, or aprog ram to ge nera te ne wdat ayou need .ASPs are increa singly po pular way stoprovide pro gram func ti onalit y. You use it all the time when you are on the Inte rnet. But the co de th at ru ns ASP sisno ttec hnicall y“dist ribute d.” Thu s,ev en if tore lease it th eco de is prod uced using GPL ’d code, there’s no GPL obligation to an yon e. The ref ore, as more and more of the infrastr ucture of ne tw orke d life beco mes gov erne d by ASP, le ss and less wil l be effectively set fr ee by fre e lic en se . “T ru ste d Comp uti ng” cre at es anoth er thre at to the ope n co de ecology . La unc hed asare spo nse to vi rus and secu rity thre ats within ane two rked en vi - computing” isthat th epl at form ronm ent, th ekey te ch nica lfe at ur eof“trusted

164 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 149 149 th e limi ts in ope n code bl ock spro gr am sth atar enot crypto gra phica ll ysigned orve rif ied by the pla t- r, you r fo rm. For exa mple, if yo u want to ru n a prog ram on your compute comp ute rwo uld firstver ify tha tthe pr og ra mis certi fie dbyone of the aut hor- iti es reco gniz ed by the comput er oper ating syst em, and “inco rpora t[ ing ] ha rdw are and sof twa re . . . sec uri ty standards appr ove d by the cont ent 23 If it isn’t ,the program wo ul dn ’t run. s.” pro vi der s themselve In pri nc ip le, of cou rse , if the cos t of certif ying a prog ra m were tiny , this will limi tat ion mi ght be unpr obl emati c. But the fear is that this re st riction It is not eas y for a cer tifying ope rate to effec tively blo ck open co de projects. au tho rit y to act uall y kno w what a pr ogra m do es ; that mea ns cer tif ying they ca n’t tru st. An d tha t in auth orities won’t be kee n to cert ify pr ograms tu rn wil l ef fect a sign ifi ca nt di scr imi nati on again st op en code . REG UL AT IN G OPEN CODE projec ts— —whet he rfree sof tw are or open sourc esoftware Open cod eprojects sha re th efeat ur ethat th ekno wledg ene cessary to re plicate the pro ject isin ten ded alw ays to be avail abl eto ot her s. There isno effort, through law or techno logy, fo r the deve loper of an op en code proj ect tomak etha tdevelopm ent exclusi ve .And , mor eimport ant ly, the capac ity to replicate and red ire ct the evoluti on of aproje ct pr ov id edin it smos tef fic ie nt fo rm is also always pres er ved. Ho wdoes this fac taf fect the reg ulabi lityof code? In Ch apter 5, Iske tch edexa mples of gov ernm ent reg ul atin gcod e.Butth ink ag ai nabou ttho se examp les: How doe ssuc hre gula tion work? nt tell s the tel eph on e comp any some th ing Consi de r tw o. The go vernme tells televisi on ab out how it s ne two rks are to be de si gned, and the government ma nuf actu re rs what kind s of chi ps TVs are to ha ve. Wh y do these reg ulatio ns wor k? The answ er in eac h case is obvi ou s. The code is reg ulab le only beca use th e cod ewr it ers can becont ro ll ed. If the st ate tells the phone compan ytodo so me - thi ng, thephone comp any isno tlikely to resist. Resi stance would brin gpu nish - me nt; punis hme nt is exp ens ive; ph one compan ies, like all oth er compan ies ,wa nt to reduc e the cos t of do ing bu si ne ss. If the stat e’s regulati on is rati ona l (th at is, effe ct ive) ,itwil lset the cos tof diso beying the stat eabove an ypo ssib le bene fit. If the target of regul ati on is arati onal acto rwi thi nthe reac hof the stat e, th en th e of the net work re gulati on is like ly to have its int ended effect. CALEA ’s regulation ar ch ite ctu re fo rtel ephone sisan obvi ous ex ample of this (se eCh apt er 5) . An unm ov abl e, an d unmo ving, targ et of regu lati on, the n, is a go od sta rt Reg ulab le tow ard regul abi lity. An d this st atement ng corollary: has an interesti networks. When the govern - cod e is clos ed code .Thi nk agai n abo ut telephone

165 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 150 150 CODE 2.0 men t in duces the tel ephone soft ware, users net wor ks to modi fy thei r network or not. Youpick upth e ha veno choi ce ab out whet her to ado pt thi smodification phone, yo uge tth edia lto ne the phone comp any gives you. No one Iknow hacks the te leph one company’ s cod e to bui ld a diff erent net wo rk design. Th e sam e wit hthe V-ch ip—I dou bt th at many peo ple would risk des tro yingtheir te levi sio n by pullin gout the chip, and Iam cert ai nthat no one re -bur ns th echip to bu ild in adi ffer ent fil tering techno log y. reg ulati on works bec aus ewhen the tar get of In bot hcases the go vernment’s the regula tion comp lie s, cu stomer scan do little but ac cept it. Op en cod eisdi ffer ent .We ca nsee so met hing of the differenc ein ast ory told about Netsc ape an d th e by Ne ts cap e’s for mer legal co unsel , Peter Harter, 24 Fr en ch. In 199 6, Nets cap erel eased apr ot oco l(SS Lv3 .0) tofaci litat ese cu re electro ni c com mer ce on the Web .The esse nc eof it sfunc tion is to pe rmi tsecu re exchan ge betw een abr owser and aserv er. TheFr ench were no thappy withthe securi tytha t SSL ga ve; th ey want ed tobe ab le tocrack SS Ltran sacti ons. So they re qu est ed that Net sc ape mod ify SSL to enable thei rspyi ng. Ther ear eple nt yof con strai nts on Ne tscap e’s ab il ity to modify SSL—n ot the lea st of whic hbeing that Net scape has given SSL over to the public, in th efo rm of apublic st and ard .But as su me fo rasec ond that ithad not. Ass ume Ne tsc ape rea llydid control the standard sfo rSSL and in theory co uld mod ify the code to could comp ly wi th th e en able Fr en ch spying .Would that mean tha t Netscape Fr en chdemand? No .Tec hnic al ly, it co ul d comply by mo di fy ing th e code of Netscap e Com- mun ica tor and then pos ti ng a new module that enable d hac kin g by a govern - ment. But beca use Net sca pe (or mo re gen erally, the Mo zi lla proje ct ) is open modul e that woul d re pl ac e the so urc e, an yo ne is free to bui ld a co mpeting Fr en chif ied SS Lmodu le. Th atmod ule wo uld compete with ot her modu les. Th e mod ule that wins wou ld be the one user s wanted. Users don ’t ty pic ally want a mod ule that enabl es sp yi ng by agovernm ent. The poi nt issi mp le,but itsimpl ic at io nis pro foun d. Tothe ex tent th at code Govern men tcan demand, is open cod e, th epo we rofgove rn me nt is con strained. go ve rnment can thre aten, but wh en the tar get ofits regula tion is plastic, it ca nnot re lyon it starg et re mai ni ng as it want s. Sa yyo uare aSov iet pr op ag an di st, andyo uwa nt to get pe op le to re ad lotsof inform ati on about Pap aStali n. So youdec lare that every bo ok pu blish ed in th e Sov ie t Union mus t have a chapt er devo ted to Stalin. How likely is it th at suc h book swil lactual ly affect what peopl ere ad? Book sareopen code :They hi denot hing ;th ey reveal th eir sou rc e—t he yare the ir sour ce! Aus er or adopt er of abook always ha sthe choic eto read on ly the

166 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 151 151 th e limi ts in ope n code ch ap te rs she wants . If it is a book on elect roni cs, then the reader can certa inly ch oose not to rea d th e chap te r on St ali n. There is very little the st ate can do to mod ify th ereader’s powe rinthi sres pect. Th esa meidea lib er at esope ncod e. The govern men t’srules are rules on ly to the ext en tthat they impo se re st rict ions that adopt ers would want. Thegove rn - ment maycoor din ate sta nd ar ds(like “d ri ve on the right”), but it certa inl ycan not that cons trai n user s in way s they do not wan t to be co n- im pos e sta ndards check on the gov er nm ent ’s reg- st rai ned .This archit ec ture ,then, is an important is cont ro l, but the user is ula to ry power. Ope ncode means open co ntrol—there 25 aw areof it. Closed co de fu ncti ons diff erent ly. With cl osed code , users can not easi ly mo dif yth econtr ol that the code come spa ckaged with .Hackers and very so phi s- ti cated prog ramme rs ma y be able to do so, but most user s woul d not kno w wh ic h part s were requ ired and whi ch parts were not. Or more precise ly, users wou ld not beable tosee the parts require dand the parts not required becau sethe so ur ce co de does not co me bu ndled wi th closed code. Closed co de is th eprop a- gan di st’ sbes tstr ate gy— not asepar ate ch apter that the user can ignore, bu taper - zed infl uence that til ts the story in the directio n the si st ent and unrecogni pr op agandist wan ts. So fa rI’ve played fas tand loose with th eidea of a“u ser .”Whil eso me “user s” of Fi refo xcou ldchan ge it scod eifthey di dn’t lik ethe way itfunct ion ed,th evast majori ty could no t. Fo r mo st of us , it is just as fe asi bl e to chan ge the way nu xoper ates. Mic ro soft Word funct ions as itisto chang ethe way GNU/Li But the dif fe re nce he re is th at th ere is —a ndlegally can be— aco mm un ity of deve lopers who modi fy open code , but there is no t—or lega lly cann ot be— a com mun it yof devel oper swho mod if yclosed co de, at leas twitho ut theowner ’s per miss ion. Th atcul tu re ofdev elo pe rs isth ecritical mech anis mtha tcr eate sthe that culture, there’d be little real di ffer - ind epe nde nce wit hin op en code. Without en cebe tw een the regulabi lity of open and closed code. Thi sin tu rn imp lie sadif ferent sort of lim it on this limit on th ereg ulability of cod e. Com mu nit ies of de vel ope rs are likely to enable some types of dev iat ions fr omrul es imp ose dby gov er nme nts. For exam ple, they’r equite like lytores istthe of fi na nc ial sa fet y. They’ re ki ndofre gu latio nby the French to enable the cracking less lik el yto disabl evi ru sprot ec tio nor sp am fi lters. WH ERE THIS LEADS so far has tak en a si mpl e path. In an sw er to thos e who say tha t My ar gument the Net ca nno t be regulat ed, I’ ve argu ed that whether it can be regula ted dep en ds on its arc hit ect ure . Some arc hitectures wou ld be reg ul able , othe rs

167 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 152 152 CODE 2.0 wo uld not .I hav e then arg ued that gover nment coul d take a role in de ci ding whe the r an arc hitect ure wou ld be re gulab le or not. The gove rnm ent cou ld take ste ps to tr ansf or m an arch it ect ure from unre gu labl e to re gulab le, both indi re ctly (b yma ki ng behavio rmor etrac eable) and directly (by usin gcode to wan ts ). dire ct ly ef fec t the con tr ol the gove rnment Th e final ste p in this pr ogres si on of regu lab ili ty is a con stra in t that is power to regul at e co de , to only now bec omi ng sig ni fic ant. Gover nment’s ma ke be ha vior with inthe code re gul abl e, depe nds in pa rt on the cha ra cter of the code .Ope ncode is les sregu lab le tha nclos ed code; to the ex ten tth atcode power is reduced bec ome s op en, go ve rnment’s . Take fo r examp le the most promi ne nt re ce nt cont ro ve rs y in the are a of , P2P file sharing is an co pyri ght —pee r-t o-peer fil es hari ng .As I’ve described ap pli cati on that run s on the ne tw ork. Filesh arin g ne tw orks li ke Stre am Cas t are si mp ly prot ocols th at P2 P app li cati ons run. Al l th es e proto cols are ope n; an yo ne can bui ld to the m.And beca us e the techn ology for bu ilding to the m is widel y ava ila bl e, wheth er or no t a partic ular company buil ds to the m does. demand do es n’ t aff ec t whe ther th ey wi ll be bui lt to—but Thus, imag in efor the mo men tth at th ereco rd ing ind ustr yis suc ce ssfu lin dri vin g out of busin ess ev er y bus iness that supports P2P files harin g. Th e ind ust ry won ’t be suc ce ssf ul in dr ivi ng P2P out of exis te nce. This is be ca us e op enco de has ena bl ed no nc ommerc ial actors to sus tain the infr as tr uct ur eof ia l infr as truc tu re. P2 P shari ng, witho ut the commerc Th is is not, obvi ousl y, an abs olute cla im. I am di sc ussi ng re lati ve, not abs olu te ,reg ulabi li ty .Eve nwith op en code, if the gove rnment thr eat ens pun - ishme nt s that are sev ere eno ug h, it wil l in duce a certain co mp lianc e. And ev en wit hopen code, th etech ni qu es of identi ty, tied tocode tha thas bee ncer - ti fi ed as compli an t, wi ll still giv egov er nment pl en ty of power. Th us,much of the worl d the argu ment fro m Part I surv ive s thi s point about open code—if bec ome scer ti fica te-r ic h, reg ula bi lit ysti ll increas es. Th esame concl us ion fol - low sif more co de were bu rned into hardw are rathe rth an le ft to ex ist as sof t- 26 ware . Then, eve n if the co de were open, it woul d not be modifiable . But when des igning an archi tec tu re for cyber spac e, the mar gins ma tte r. , The val ues of a giv en spa ce are not onl y th e values of spee ch, au tonomy control .As John Pe rr y ac cess ,or pr iv acy. They may al so be values of limited Bar lowputs it, th ey are th eva lues of acert ain bug being pro gramm ed into the ar ch ite ctu re of the Ne t—a bug tha tinh ibit sthe power of govern me nt to con - tro l the Net pe rfectl y,eve n if it doe s no t disab le that pow er entir ely . For some ,the ob ject ive is to bu ild code that disa ble san yposs ible gov ern - me nt al co ntro l. Th at is no t my object ive. I certainly believe th at go ve rnme nt mu st be co ns tr ai ned , and I end orse the constraints that op en cod e impos es ,

168 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 153 153 th e limi ts in ope n code but it is not my ob ject ive to dis ab le government gene ral ly. As I’v e ar gu ed alr ea dy, and as th enex tpar tmake spla in ,some val ues can be achie ve donl yif go ve rn ment inte rven es. Gov ernment has a rol e, eve n if not as subs tantial a rol eas it woul dwis h. We need to und erst andth is role ,as well as how ourval - ues mig ht be adva nc ed in the cont ex t of theWeb . On e con st ra int see ms clear in thi s acco unt. As I ar gu e more exte ns iv el y late r in the book, even if op en code doe s not dis able gover nme nt’ s pow er to On the ma rgin, open re gu late compl ete ly, it cert ainly ch ang es tha t power. cod e reduc es the rew ard fr om bu ryi ng regulati on in the hi dden sp aces of co de. It func tions as a ki nd of Freedo m of In for mation Act for netwo rk re g- ulat io n. As wi th ordi nary law ,ope n code req uire s th at la wma ki ng be pu blic, Sor os ought an d thus that la wma king be tr anspa re nt. In a sens e that George to un der stand ,open co de is a fo und ati on to an open so ciety. Even th is is an imp or ta nt—s ome mig ht say an ess ential—che ck on the t. But whether or not one is for tr ansp aren cy ge ner all y, powe r of gov ernmen my aim so far is just to map out the li nks . Regul ability is cond it iona l on the chara cter of th e code , and ope n code chan ges that chara cte r. It is a lim it on go ve rn ment’s po we r to regu lat e—no t nec es sar ily by de featin g the pow er to re gul ate, but by ch an gi ng it.

169 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 154

170 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 155 P A R T T H R E E n t a m b i g u i t i e s l a t e Th e story so fa r has fo cuse d on re gula tion— both the chan ging re gula bil - and the distinc tiv e way in it y of be ha vi or in cybe rsp ace (it is in creasing) wh ich be ha vi or in cyb ers pa ce wil l be regula te d (thr ough cod e). In th is Pa rt, I app ly th e ana ly sis dr aw n so far to thr ee area s of so cial and pol itic al lif e that wi ll be af fected by th ese chan ges—i ntelle ctu al pr op- er ty, priv ac y, and free spe ec h. In eac h of the se areas , I wil l ide ntify val ues tha t ar e rele va nt. I will then ask ho w tho se valu es tra ns la te to life onl in e. In some case s, the value s ca rry ov er qu ite di re ctl y, but , in ot hers, they pr oduce what I call ed in Ch ap ter 2 a “laten t am biguity .” Th at amb iguity fo rces us to ch oos e ns of th e va lue at sta ke. My aim is not betw ee n tw o very dif fer ent conceptio to ma ke th at choi ce , bu t inst ead simpl y to th row at least two option s int o re lie f. I hav e anoth er objec ti ve in eac h ch apter as we ll . In my view, th e most impor tan t les son abou t la w in cybe rspace is the nee d for law to acc ount fo r the regu lato ry ef fect of cod e. Just as the wise regul at or ac co unts for th e way the mar ket inter ac ts wit h le ga l re gu lation , so too the wise regula to r inte racts with le ga l regu - mus t ac co unt for the way s in which te chnology lati on . Th at inte ract ion is oft en counterin tuitive. But unless a regula tor

171 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 156 156 CODE 2.0 ta kes this intera ct ive ef fe ct in to acc oun t, the regu lation— whe ther to con - tro l beh avi or or to prot ec t certain libe rties—will fail. To know wha t va lue s are re le vant ,however ,we nee d a method for car - rying valu es into a new cont ext. I begin th is part with an ac count of tha t met hod. The val ue s I wi ll de sc ri be are part of our tradi tion, and they ne ed to be int erp reted and mad e real in this context. Thus, I be gin this pa rt wi th on e app ro ac h that the law has developed for recognizi ng and re spec t- pr acti ce I call “tra nsl ati on.” A ing thes e val ues. Th is is the interpretive to earlier co mmi tm ent s to val ue. Laten t tra nsl ator pra ctices a fidelity amb igu itie s are thos e inst anc es whe re fid elit y run s out. We hav e nothing to be fai thfu l to ,beca use the choi ces we now fac e are choi ces that our fo r- 1 be ars di d not.

172 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 157 N I N E t r a n s l a t i o n A ROH IB ITI ON , IN THE LAT E T THE HE IGH T OF A PREV IOU S WA R ON DRU GS —P began us in g a techn iqu e of po lice work that 19 20 s—t he feder al government 1 Lif eha dju stbegu nto start led ma ny bu tprov ed qui teef fecti ve: wiretapp in g. mo ve onto th e wires, and ,in an ef fort to take advan tage of the ev ide nce that thi s new med ium migh t yi el d, the gove rnmen t began to tap phone s without war ran ts . Becaus e law enf orce me nt off ici al s the msel ve s were conf licte d about the ethi cs of wire tappi ng, taps were used spar ing ly. None thel ess ,for thr ea ts per - cei ved to be extremel y gr ave ,the tec hniqu e was deplo yed. Ille gal alcohol, the obs es si on of the age, wa s ju st such a threat. The most famou sof the se tap sled to th e192 8Sup re me Cou rt ca se Olm- st ea d v. United State s .The gover nment wa sinvestigating on eof th elarg es til le - ns in the na tion. Aspar t gal liq uor impo rt, di st ri buti on, and sal es organizatio use d by of th e inv estigat ion, the govern men t began to tap the telephones dea ler sand th ei rage nts. The se were priv ate phon es ,but the taps were alw ays 2 se cured withou t tre sp assi ng on the prop erty of the targe ts . Ins tea d, the taps we re pla ced on the wi res in pla ce s wher e the gover nment had rightf ul acce ss to th e pho ne lines. Us in g thes e tap s, th e gove rnment rec orded ma ny hour s of conv er sations 3 pag es, accor ding to Justice Louis Brandeis) , (7 75 typ ewritten and it used in the cas e. The def en dants cha l- the se record ings to con vi ct the defe ndants that the gove rnme nt ha dviol ated leng ed the use of th ese reco rding s, claiming the Con st it ut io n in sec uri ng the m. The Fourth Ame ndme nt protec ts “pe r- sons ,hou ses, papers, and effects, aga inst un reason able searche sandsei zu res ,” an d this wire ta ppi ng, the def endants argu ed, was a violatio n of their righ t to be protec ted fro m unre aso na bl e searc hes. 157

173 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 158 158 CODE 2.0 Under th en-e xis ting law , it wa s pl ain that to ent er the ap ar tm ents of al le ge dboo tl egger Roy Ol mst eadand hi sass ociates and search the m(at le as t tors woul d ha ve ne ede d a whil e th ey we re gone ), the governmen t investiga war ra nt, that is, th eywoul dhav eneede dthe app ro val of ajudge or mag istr at e be fo re invad ing th ede fenda nts’ pri vacy. Thi siswhat the Fo urt hAm en dme nt papers, an deffec ts ) houses, had co meto me an— tha tcerta in pla ces (persons, wer e prot ect ed by pre sump tively requ iring a warrant before they co uld be 4 Here th ere ha d been no wa rrant, and he nce, as the de fe nda nts inv aded. ar gued ,the searc h had bee n il leg al .The ev ide nce ha d to be exclu de d. Wemi gh tpau se to ask why .If werea dthe te xt of the Fourth Ame ndm ent caref ul ly, it is ha rd to see ju st where a warrant is required: (a) The rig ht of the peopl e to be secure in thei r pe rso ns, house s, pap ers, and eff ec ts , aga in st unre asonabl e searc he s and se izures, sh al l not be viol ated , and (b) no Warra nts sh all iss ue, but up on pro ba bl e ca use, sup port ed by Oa th or aff irmat ion, an dpart icu larly descr ib in gthe pla ce to besearched, and the pers ons or thing s to be sei zed . The Four th Amendme nt isre all ytw oco mm and s. (I’v eadd ed “a” and “b ” righ t (“the right of the to help mak e th e poi nt.) The first say s th at a certain Peo ple to be secure ”) shal l not be vi olat ed; the secon d limits the co ndit ions und er whi ch a war ra nt shall be iss ued . But the text of the ame ndme nt do es not stat earelationshi pbet we en the fir stpart and the secon dpart. And it cer - ta in lydo es not say tha tasea rch is un reas onable if itis not suppo rte dby awar - 5 ran t. So why th e“war rant requ ire me nt”? we mus t go ba ck to its fr aming. At To ma ke se nse of the amendment, wa s tr es pa ss that time, th e leg al prote ct ion again st th e in va sion of privacy law. If som eon eente re dyo ur proper ty and rifled thro ugh you rstuff, th at per - trespass. so n viol at ed you r com mon law rig hts against You cou ld su e that The citizen. per son for tre spa ss , whe th er he was a police officer or private 6 thre at of su ch su its gav e th e po li ce an ince ntive not to invade you r priva cy. Ev en withou tawar ra nt, ho wev er ,atre sp as sin gpolice offi cer mi ght have a numb er of defe nse s. The se boi ldown to whether the se arch was “re ason abl e.” eness. First, th ede ter - But the re were twoim port ant fa ct sabo ut this reasonabl mi nati on of re aso nable nes s was mad e by a ju ry. Neigh bors and peers of th e in some case s of fi cer ju dg ed whet her hi s be havi or had been pr oper. Second, re aso nable nes swas found as amatte rof law—tha tis, the judge woul dins tr uc t the ju ry to find that the se arch had been re asonab le .(Fo r exam pl e,wh en th e officer found cont ra ban donthe prop er ty of th edefendant, whethe rthe re was 7 su ff ici ent suspici on befo re the searc hor not, the se arch was reaso nab le .)

174 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 159 159 tran sl ati on Th is regime create dobv ious ri sks fo ran offi cer be fo re hesea rch ed so me - on e’s pro pe rt y. If he se arched and fo und nothing, or if a ju ry thou ght late r that hi s se arc h had no t been re asonab le, the n he paid for his ille ga l be hav ior by bei ng hel d perso nal ly li ab le for the ri gh ts he had violated. But the re gime al so of fered ins urance agains t this lia bilit y—th e wa rra nt . If the off ice r secu red a war rant from a judg e be fore he made his search, the war rant im mu ni ze dhi maga in st tres pas slia bility. If he then found no con tr a- ban d or hi s searc h turned out to be unr eas onabl e, he stil l had a def ense to a su it. Cre at in g ince nti ve s wa s one aim of the origina l sys tem .The law gav e an if he wa s unce r- of fic er an incent iv e to obtai n a war rant be fore he searched; to avoi d al l ris k of lia bili ty, he co uld first ch eck his ju dg me nt tai n, or wanted to haza rdthe gam ble, by as kin gajud ge. But if the off icer was sure, or wanted ll y unr eas on - then not ge tt ing a warr ant did no t mak e the searc h automatica ab le. He was at ris k of incre ased liabil ity, but hi s liabil ity was all tha t was at stak e. The weak link in thi s syst em was the jud ge. If ju dge s we re to o la x, the n 8 an d weak ju dges we re a conce rn for the war ran ts woul d be to o easy to ge t, fr amer s. Unde rBri tish ru leju dg es had been appointe dby the Crow n, and by the ti me of the Re vo lu tio n, the Cro wn was the ene my. Having se en much abu seof the powe rto is sue wa rr an ts ,the fram ers were not keen togive jud ges g wheth er the gove rnme nt’s searches co ntr ol in det erminin wer e re as onab le. In par tic ul ar (a sIdes crib ed in Ch apter 2), the fra mers had in min dso me had iss ued “gene ral warra nt s” fam ou scas es in whi ch judges and th eexecutive gi vi ng go vernme nt of fi cer sthe power to search gener all yfor obj ec ts of con tra - 9 In mod ern terms ,th ese were “fish ing expedi tio ns.” Bec ause the officers ba nd. ha dwar ran ts, th eycoul dnot be su ed ;be ca use the judges were la rge lyim mun e fro m su it ,they cou ld not be sued. Beca us e no on e coul d be su ed, the re wa s a te mptati on for abuse. The fra mers wanted to avoid just such judge -mad e abu se .If the re was to be immu nit y, it wou ld come from aju ry, or from asuc - ce ssf ul se arch . This is the ori gin of cl au se (b) of the Fo ur th Ame ndme nt. The fram ers req ui red tha t ju dge s, wh en iss uing war rants, name particu lar ly “th e pla ce to so that ju dg es wou ld not be se arched ,and the persons orthing sto be seized,” be able to iss ue warra nt s of gen era l power . The imm unity of th e wa rra nt wo uld be li mited to part ic ular peopl e and pl aces, and only when prob able cau se exi sted to is su e th e war rant. This con st it ut io nal regi me wa sde sig ned tobala nce the pe ople ’s inte re sts in pri vacy agains tthe legi ti mat eneed fo rthe gover nmen tto sear ch. Th eoff i- cer had an ince nt iv e to ge t a wa rrant (to avoid the ris k of pe rso nal liab ility);

175 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 160 160 CODE 2.0 the jud ge ha darul eth at res tr icte dthe conditions und er which he coul dis sue awar rant; and to gethe rthe sest ru ct ur es limit edof fici al inva sions of pri vacy to cas es that prese nted a st rong reas on to invade. That mu ch is backg ro und. Bu t no tice wha t follow s. The or iginal reg ime pres uppo sed agreat dea l. Mos tobv iou sl y, it pres up - pose daco mmon-law was the threa tof leg al lia bil ity sys te mof tr es pa sslaw—it for officers fro m tres pa ss la w tha t crea ted the inc entives to see k warr ants in the firs tplace. Thi spres upposi ti on pla ced prop erty at the core of the Consti - tu ti on ’s origina l pr otect io ns . Eq ual ly imp or ta nt, the regi me pres uppos ed much abo ut the te ch nol og y bec au se th at wa s on trespass of the time. The Fou rt h Amen dment focuses the pri mary mo de of searc hi ng at the time. If it ha d been poss ible sim ply to view the co nt ent s of a ho use without going inside, the re st ricti on s of th e Fou rt hAme nd ment wou ld hav e ma de little se nse. But the prote ctions of the ame nd me nt di d mak e sense as a way to dra w th e bal ance betw ee n go ve rn- me nt ’s power to se ar ch and th e peopl e’ s right to pr ivacy give n the reg ime of tr espa ss lawand pri va cy -inva ding tec hnol ogies that prevailed atthe end of th e ei gh teen th centu ry. Pre sup po sitio ns —wh at is take nfor granted or consi de red undeba ta ble— 10 How do we re spond when suc hpres uppositions chang e? Ho wdowe chang e. of certain pre suppo sit ion s when re ad a te xt writ te n agains t a background tho se presu ppos it ion s no longe r apply? For Am eric ans, or for an y nat ion wit h a cons titution some two hu ndr ed nal int erpr eta tion .Wha tif yea rsol d, th is isthe centr al pr oble mfo rco nstitutio sta te gove rnme nts, forexamp le, we re simp ly toabolish rights agai ns ttresp ass ? 11 What if tec hnolog ies for Wou ld the amendme nt be read any dif fer ently? so dramati cally that no one would eve r nee d to sea rchin g wer e to change en te ran othe r’s pr oper ty to kno wwhat is kept th ere? Shou ld th eame ndm ent then be read diff eren tly? The hi sto ry of the Supreme Co urt’s treat me nt of such qu estions la ck s a strateg ies com peting per fec tly cl ear patte rn, but we can ident ify two distinct fo r the Cour t’s atte ntio n. On e strate gy is focus ed on wha t the framer s or fo under swo uld hav edo ne—the .The second str ate gy of one-s tep originalism th at st rate gy aims at find ing a cur rent re adin g of the origin al Cons titution pre ser ve s its or iginal me aning in the prese nt con text—a stra te gy that I ca ll tr ans lat io n. Bot h st ra tegi es are pre sent in th e wireta pping ca se. Whe n the Ol mstead any warr ant, the the pho ne s of the def end an ts without go ve rn ment tapped ewa spe rmis sib le Cou rt ha dtodecide whe ther the use of this kind of evidenc or con si ste nt with the pri nci pl es of the Fourth Amend ment. The def enda nts

176 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 161 161 tran sl ati on sa id : Th e go ve rnment Th e govern men t mu st get a warr ant to tap phones. sa id :The Fou rth Amend ment si mp ly does no t app ly. The go ve rnment’s arg ume nt was qui te simple .The ame ndm en t pr esup- pose dth at thegove rnment wou ld be tresp assin gto search, and it was reg ula t- . But be caus e ing the co ndit io ns unde r whi ch of fice rs could trespass a tresp ass, th e gov er nm ent is wire tapp ing is an in vasi on of priva cy without ab le to tap the de fe nd ants’ phone s without ever en te ring th eir pro per ty ; the am endme nt the refo redo es no tappl y. It simply does not rea ch topro te ctinva - sion s that are inv asi ons wi tho ut tres pass. In an opi ni on wr itte n by Ch ief Jus tice (and The Sup reme Co urt agreed. fo rm er Pre si de nt) Wil li am How ard Taft, the Court fo llow edth egov ernm ent. The amendme nt doe s no t fo rbi d what wa s done her e. Ther e wa s no searchi ng. The re was no sei zu re. The eviden ce was secu red on ly bythe useof of th eamendmen the sens eof hea ring an dth at onl y.The language tca nn otbe exte nd ed an d exp an ded to in clu de tel ep hone wires reachin g to the whole 12 wo rld fro m the de fen dant’ s ho use or of fice. This con clu sio n was rec eived with surpris e and sho ck. Alre ady much of to th e wi re s. Peop le were begi nni ng to un dersta nd wha t it life ha d moved me an t to have int ima te contact “onl ine ”; they coun ted on the te lep hone sys - comp anies , hav ing telephone tem to prot ec t th ei r int imat e sec rets. Indeed, pl edge d not to st ro ngly fou ght the authori ty that the gover nment claimed, 13 Thi s resi st an ce no twi th- as sis t the go ver nm ent excep t as requ ired by law. stan din g, th e Cou rt conc luded tha t the Cons titution did not inte rf ere with wa s in vasi on s of thi s so rt. It wo uld no t have done so whe n the Cons titution wri tte n;it di d no t do so at the ti me when the case was decided. But the dis sent wri tt en by Ju stic eBrand ei s(there was als oadissen tby Jus - tic es Ho lmes ,Sto ne ,and Butl er) had a diff ere nt view. As with Taf t’ s opinion, the fo cus wa s fidel it y. But hi s fidel ity was qu ite diff ere ntly conc ei ved . Bran dei s ac kno wl edg ed th at the Fo urt h Am endme nt, as or ig inal ly writ - 14 ten , ap pl ied only to tresp ass. But it did so , he arg ued, bec aus e when it was wri tten tre spa ss was the tech nol ogy fo r in vading pr iva cy. Tha t wa s the fram er s’ pr es uppos it io n, but tha t pre suppos ition had no w chan ged. Gi ven to rea d th e this ch ang e, Bran deis ar gue d, it was the Court’s respon sibility circ um sta nce s am endme nt in a way tha t prese rved its mea ning, changed st an din g. The aim mus tbeto tr an sla te th eoriginal notwith pro tec tions into a 15 con text in wh ich the techno log y for invading privac y had cha nge d. Th is en t’s pro - Amendm wo uld be done, Br and ei s ar gu ed, by apply ing the Fourth tres pass es. tec tio n to invas ions tha t were no t themselves These tw oopini ons mark two di fferen tmode sof co nst itut io nal inter pre - tati on . Taft fi nds fid eli ty by si mply rep eating what th e framer s did ; Bran deis

177 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 162 162 CODE 2.0 fi nd s fid elit y by find ing the current equival ent to what th e framers did.If we fo llowed Taft, Brand ei s argu ed, we woul d defeat the pr otectio ns for pri vac y that the fram ers origi na lly set; if we fo llowed Bra ndeis, Taf timp li ed ,we woul d be addi ng somet hing to the Const it uti on that the framers had no twri tten . Part isans on both side sclai med that theopinionof theoth er wo uld have “chan ged” the mea ni ng of the Const it ut io n. But whose opinion, the Cour t’ s of the Four th or Ju st ic e Bra ndeis’ s, wo ul d re al ly “change” the meaning Ame nd me nt? To answ er th is questi on ,we must fi rst ask: Change rela tiv eto wha t?What Cer ta inl y Bra ndeis is th e base li ne aga inst whi ch this cha nge is a change? would have ag re ed tha tin1791 an yfin di ng by the Cou rtthat the am endm ent rea ched beyond But when som ethin g tre spass wo uld have been improper. pre su pp os ed by the ori gina l ame ndment has changed, is it cle ar tha t the Cou rt’s pr oper resp onse is to act as if no thin g has chan ged at all? for th echa nge dpr esup position.He off er ed Bran de is ’s meth od accounted are ad ing th at chang ed the scope of the am endme nt in orde rto ma intain the ame ndme nt’s prote ct ion of priva cy. Ta ft, on the othe rhand, of fe re dare ad ing that main tai ned the scope of the ame ndmen t but changed its pr ote ction of pri va cy. Ea ch rea din gkept so me thin gco nst ant ;each also ch ang ed so me thi ng. The qu est ion is: Wh ic h rea di ng pre served what fidelity demand s should be pre ser ved ? We migh t be tter see the poi nt thr ou gh a somew hat styliz ed re- cr eation . Im agi ne th at we coul dqu an ti fy pr ivacy; we could thus de scri be the cha nge in the qua nt it y of pr iv ac y that an y change in technology migh t bring . (R ober t t about why priv acy is not Pos t has giv en an abso lut el y pers ua sive argumen 16 ) Im agine that in qu an tif iab le, bu t my pur po se s here are simp ly il lu strative. 17 91 prot ec ti ng ag ain st ph ysical tr espa ss pro tected 90 percen t of perso nal pr ivac y. The go ve rnm ent could st ill stand on the stree t and list en th ro ugh ope nwi ndow s, bu tthe inva sio npre sented bythat threat was small, all things co nsi de red. For the mo st part, a regi me that protec ted agains t tr es pas s al so pro tec ted pri vacy. When te le phone scame along ,how ever, this prote ction cha nged .Alot of pri vate infor ma tion was put out ac ro ss th e phone lines. Now, if ta pping was snoop - no ttre spas s, mu ch les sof pr iv ate lif ewas pro tected from government ing .Rat he rtha n90 pe rc ent bei ng pr ot ected bythe amen dmen t, only 50per - cen t wa s pro tect ed . Bran dei s wanted to re ad the amendme nt so that it protec ted the 90 pe r- cen t it or iginal ly prot ect ed—even tho ugh doing so requ ired tha t it protec t ag ai nst more than simpl e tresp ass. He wanted to rea d it dif fere ntly ,we could sa y, so that it prot ec ted the same.

178 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 163 163 tran sl ati on Th is form of arg um ent is com mo nin our cons titut ion al hist ory, an dit is 17 It is an ar gumen t th at ce nt ra l to the bes t in our co nstit utiona l tra dition. re sp on ds to cha nged circ umstance s by proposing a read in g tha t ne utra lize s It is an argu ment invok ed and pr ese rves an ori ginal meaning. tho se changes 18 an dit isaway to ke eplifein acon - by jus tice son bot hthe right and th eleft, sti tu ti ona l pro vis io n— to make cer tai n that cha ng es in the worl d do not chan ge the mea ni ng of the Co ns titu ti on’s text. It is an argu me nt, we ca n say, Amen dme nt gav e in that aims at tr ansl at ing the pro tec ti ons that the Fourth 179 1 int o th e same set of pro tecti ons at any time lat er in our his tor y. It ack now led ges th at todo this theCour tmay have to read th eame ndmen tdi f- fere ntly, bu t it is not rea di ng the ame ndment differ ently to imp rov e the ame nd me nt or to add to its pro tec ti ons. It is read ing th e amendm ent diff er- ently to acco mmoda te the cha nge s in prote ctio n that have result ed from chan ges in tech no logy. It is tr ansl ati on to pres erve meaning. If th ere isajustic ewho des erv es cyber spa ce’ sprai se, if there isaSu preme Cou rt opi nio n that sh ou ld be the mo del fo r cybe r activists in the futu re , if there is a fi rst ch apt er in the fig ht to protect cybers pac e,it is this ju stice, this op ini on, and this case. Br and ei sga ve us amod el for reading th eConst itu ti on It isame thod to pr eserv eits mea ni ng, and its values, acros stime an dcontext. th at rec ogni zes wh atha schang edan dacc omm odates tha tcha nge topres er ve so me th ing of what the frame rsorig inally gave us. Itis amet hod that transl at es th eCons tit ut ion ’s me ani ngacro ss fun dam entally differ ent conte xt s—wh et her dist ant as we ar e fro m the fr amer s or as dist ant as the y are as tem porally cybe rsp ace is fro m real sp ace . But it was Taf t’s opi ni on that beca me law and his na rrow vie w of the Fourt hAm en dm en tthat prevai led. Ittook fo rty years for the Supre me Co urt 0 ye ar s befo re to embra ce Brandei s’ s pi ct ure of the Fourth Amend ment—4 19 was over rul ed. The cas e ove rru ling it was . Katz v. Unit ed St at es Olm stead Char les Katz was suspect ed of transm itt ing ga mbling info rm at ion to cli ent sin other states by tel eph one. Fede ral age nts recorded his ha lf of seve ra l of hi s tele ph one cal ls by attac hing an eavesd ropping device to the outsid e of a publ ic phone booth whe re he made his calls. Katz was convi ct ed on th e uph eld th e conv iction on the bas is of this evi de nce, and the cou rt of appeals Olm stead bas is of . Ha rvar dLa wSchoo lPr of es sor Lau renc eTribe wa sin vol ve din the case at the be gin ning of his leg al ca ree r: eCo urt Justi ce Potte rSte wa rt, Ifound myse lf wor king on As a[l aw ]cl erk to Suprem crimin al in a ca se in volv in g th e go ver nm en t’s el ec tronic surveil lance of a suspected th eform of ati ny devi ce at ta che dto the ou ts ide of apubl ic tele phon ebooth. Beca use

179 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 164 164 CODE 2.0 th e invasi on of th e sus pe ct’s pr iva cy was accom plish ed wi tho ut physi cal tres pass re ly ing Govern ment argued, in to a “con sti tut iona lly pro tect ed are a,” th e Federal Olm stea d, upo n th atther ehad bee nno“sea rc h” or “se izure ”and the refore the Fourth Am en dme nt “rig ht of the peopl e to be secu re in th ei r person s, houses, pap ers, and effe cts ,aga ins t un re aso na bl e sea rch es and seizure s” si mpl y did no t ap pl y. an dto hold theFourt h At first ,the rewe re only four votes to ov errule Olms tead ppi ng. I’m pro ud to Am en dme nt app li cab le to wiret appi ng and elect ro nic eavesdro sa ythat ,as a26 -ye ar- old kid, Ihad atle ast alitt le bit todowit hch angi ng that num - be rfro mfour to seven— and with th earg ument ,fo rm ally adop ted by aseve n-Justi ce y in De cemb er 1967, that the Fo urth Am end ment “p rotects pe opl e, not majorit pl ac es ”[389 US at 351]. In tha t deci sio n, Sta tes, the Supre me Co ur t Katz v. United fina ll yrepudia ted Olm stead an dthemany dec ision sthat had reli edupon it, reason - ing tha t, given th e rol e of el ectr oni c tele co mmun icat ion s in mo dern lif e, th e [First Am en dme nt] pur pose sof pro tecti ng fre espe ech aswell as th e[Fou rth Amendm en t] pu rpo ses of prot ecti ng pri vacy req uir e treat ing as a“searc h” any in vasi on of a per - 20 so n’ s co nfi de nti al tel ep ho ne com muni cat io ns,with or wit hout physi cal trespass. follo we dBr an dei srat her than Taft. Itso ught area di ng Katz The Cou rt in of the Fo ur th Amen dme nt that ma de sen se of th e ame ndme nt in a change d again st tres pa ss to pr op - co ntext .In the fr amers’ co nt ext of 1791 ,protecting er ty was an eff ectiv eway to pr ot ect against Ka tz trespass toprivacy, bu tinthe co ntext of the 196 0s it was no t. In the 19 60 s much of in timat e life was con - duc ted inpl ace swh ere prope rty ru le sdid not rea ch (in the “e the r,” for exa m- pl e, of the AT &T tele pho ne netwo rk). And so a re gime tha t mad e privacy han gon pro pert ydidnot prot ect pri vac yto the same degree th at theframers sought to remed y that by linking the ha d inte nded . Jus ti ce Stew art in Kat z Fou rt hAme nd ment to a mo re direct pr otection of pr ivacy. The li nk wa s th e ide a of “a rea sonabl e expe cta tion of pri va cy .” Th e cor e 21 val ue ,Ste war t wrot e, was the pr otect io n of“peopl e, not pl aces.” He nce, the be to protec t people where th ey have a reas on ab le cor e tech nique should ex pec tati onof pr ivacy .Wh ere thi sisthe cas e, the gover nment ca nnot inv ade Am endme nt. that spa ce wi th out sa ti sfy ing the requ ireme nts of the Fourth Th er eis muc hto adm ir einStew ar t’s opin ion, at least toth eexten tthat he is wi lli ng to fa sh io n to ol s for pre serving the Cons titu tion’s mea ning in chan ged circu mstan ce s—or agai n, to the exte nt that he attemp ts to tr ans late the pro tec ti ons of the Fou rth Amendme nt int o a moder n conte xt. Th er e is 22 als omu ch to que stio n. Bu twe ca nput th ose qu esti on sasi de for the mome nt s. an d fo cus on one fea tu re of the pr obl em that is fair ly unco ntentiou Whil e lin es wi ll be hard to dr aw, it is at le as t fair ly clea r that the fr am er s mad eaco nsc ious cho ice topro te ct pri va cy. This wa snot anissu eoff the tab le

180 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 165 165 tran sl ati on of thei r origi na l debat e or a qu esti on they did not noti ce. And this is not the “r ight to priv ac y” that cons erva tiv es compla in about in the cont ext of the This is the right to be fre e fro m sta te in trus ion into the righ t to abortion. “sa nct ity” of aprivat ehome .Sta te -enfor ced thr eats to indi vidu alpriv acy wer e and Stew ar t at the cen te r of the movement that led to the repu blic. Brandeis whe re the ea rlier st ruc tu re had simp ly ai med toeffe ct tha tchoi ce in contexts gr ow n ineffec tu al. Tran sl at ions lik ethe se arefai rl yst ra igh tforw ar d. The ori gi nalva lue scho- se n are fair ly cl ea r; th e way in wh ic h co ntexts unde rmine the orig ina l appli - cat ion is ea sily graspe d;andthe readi ng sthat woul drest ore the ori gin al va lu es are fair ly obviou s. Of cou rse , suc h case s often requ ire a certa in inte rp retiv e co ura ge —a wil li ngn ess to prese rv eint erpretive fidelity by chang ing an inte r- pret ive prac tice .Bu t at lea st the di rect ion is clear, eve n if th e me ans ar e a bit 23 uns eemly. Thes e are the ea sy case s. Th ey are eve n ea sie r whe n we are not tr ying to ca rry valu es from some distant pas t int o the futur e bu t in stead ar e si mp ly When we know wha tval ues we car ry in gval ues fro mone cont ex tinto another. wan t to preserv e, we need only be cre at ive ab out how to pres erv e them . Cyb ers pac e wil l present many such ea sy cases. When court s confron t the m,they should fol lo wthe exa mple of Bra ndeis :Th ey sho uld tr ans late ,and they sho ul d pus h the Supre me Court to do likewi se. Where circu mst ances ha ve ch anged to nul lify the prote ctions of some origina l right, the Cour t sh ou ld ad opt a read ing of the Consti tution th at res tores that right. But som e ca ses will not be so easy .Sometime s tran sla tion will not be an opt io n,and somet im es the valu es that transl ation wou ld tr ack are va lu es we no lo ng erwant to pres erve .So meti me swe cann ot tell which values tran slati on wo uld selec t. Th is wa sthe prob lem inCh apter 2with the worm ,which made es re ve als an the poi nt ab out la tent ambi gui ti es. Chan gin g context s sometim be tw een two ambi gui ty lat ent in the ori ginal cont ex t. We mus t the n choose dif fe ren t value s, either of whi ch co uld be said to be cons is te nt with the orig - ina l valu e. Since eithe r way co uld be said to be right, we can not say th at th e or ig in al conte xt (whe ther now or two hu ndred years ago) decid ed the cas e. Pr of es sor Tri be de sc ri be s an ex amp le in a found in g article in the law of 24 cybe rsp ace ,“The Co nsti tuti on in Cyber sp ace.” Tr ibe sketc he s a met hod of re ad ing the Co nst itu ti on in cybersp ac e th at aims to make th e Cons tit ution ca lly neutr al.” Th eobj ect ive is to adopt readin gs (or perhap seven “te chnologi an ame ndme nt) that make it plain that changes in technol ogy are not to ch ang e th e Co nsti tuti on’s mea nin g. We must always ado pt re adi ngs of the Con st itu ti on tha tpre serve its ori ginal values .When deal ing with cyber spac e, jud gesare tobetransl ators :Different technologies are the differ ent la ngua ges ,

181 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 166 166 CODE 2.0 and the ai misto find areading io nthat prese rve sits me aning of the Constitut 25 fro m on e wor ld ’s techno logy to ano ther. This is fid eli ty as tr ans lati on. Thi s kind of tra ns lat ion sp ea ks as if it is jus tca rr yin gover some thing that has alread ybeen said .It hides the creat iv ity in it sact ;itfeig ns ace rtai npo li te or re sp ec tful de ference. Thi swa yof rea di ng decisions political the Con sti tuti on insi sts that the important ha ve alr ea dy bee nmad ean dal ltha tis re quir ed is aki nd of technical adjustm ent .Itaims to keep the piano in tu ne as it is moved fro m on e conc ert hal l to anoth er . But Trib eth en off ers an exam ple tha tmay make thi smeth od seem empty. The que st io n is abou t the meani ng of the con fron tatio n clau se of the Six th Am endmen t—t he defend ant’s ri ght inacriminal tr ial “t obe con fro nted with th ewitne sses again st him. ”How, Tri be asks, sho uld were ad th is cl ause tod ay? At the time of th e fo undi ng, he ar gu es , the te chnolog y of conf ron ta tio n was si mpl e—c onfront at ion wa stw o- wa y. If awit ness con fronte dthe ac cu se d, This was aneces sit ygive nto thewitness. the accus ed, of nec ess ity ,confronted usbythe tech no logy of the ti me. Bu tto day it is poss ib le fo rconfr onta tion to be one-w ay— th e wit ness confr onts the ac cused, but the ac cus ed nee d not co nfr on t th e wit ness. The qu es tio n then is whethe r the co nfrontation cla use 26 req ui res one -w ay or two -w ay conf ro ntation. Le t us gr ant th at Tri be’s de sc ri ptio ns of the avail ab le tec hn ol ogies are cor rect and that the fr ame rs embr aced the onl y confrontation cla use that thei r tech nology per mitt ed. The re al questi on comes in step two. Now tha t confro ntati on— te ch nol ogy al low s two pos sibi lit ies— one-wa y or two-way whi ch do es the Co nsti tuti on requ ire ? The Cou rt’s answe r in its 1990 decis io n in Mary land v. Craig was cle ar : The Co nst itu tio n requi re s only one -wa y co nfr onta tio n. A confro ntat ion cl au sereg ime th at per mits on ly on e-way co nfro ntat ion, atleast whe nthe reare str ong intere sts in not requi ri ng tw o, is a fair tra nslatio n of the or igina l 27 claus e. As amatte rof po li tical ch oice, Icer tainly like this answer .But Idonot see its sour ce . It seems to me th at thi s is a ques tion the frame rs did not decide , and aques ti on that if prese nte dtothe mmight well hav ediv ided the m. Gi ve n the techn ol ogy of 1791, they did not have to decide betwee n one- wa y and two -w ay confro nta tio n; gi ven the conf lict of values at stake, it is not obv iou s how th eywo uld have decided it. Thus, to speak as if there were an answ er he re tha tth efra me rs gave us is abit mis lea din g. The framers gave no an swe rher e, an d,in my vie w, no answer ca n be dra wn from wh at they said . a lat ent Li ke the wo rm in Chap te r 2, the co nfr ontat io n cl ause presents 28 amb igui ty. Cons titut io nal la w in cybers pac e wi ll reveal many mo re such lat entambigu itie s. An dth es eamb iguitie soffer usachoice: How wi ll we goon ?

182 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 167 167 tran sl ati on Choi ces arenotte rri bl e.Itis no tadi sas te rif wemustmak eadecis ion — as lo ng as we are cap abl e of it. But here is the nub of the proble m as I see it. of ou rcou rts, As Iargu ein more de tail inPart IV,give nthe curre nt attitudes an dourlegal cultu re ge ne ral ly,cons titu tiona lch oices are cos tly .Weare bad at mak ing them; we are no t li kely to ge t bette r at it soo n. abou t how to pr oce ed—w he n the tra ns la tion When there is no answer leav es open a que sti on— we have two sorts of res ponses in con st itut ion al prac tice .One res pon seis pa ss iv e: Th eco ur tsimpl yle ts the legi slatur edec ide. thatJu stic eSca lia presses in the context Th isis th eresponse of the Fo urt eent h ”th eCo nst i- Amen dm ent .On mat te rs that, tothe fra mer s, wer e“und ebatable, 29 In th is ca se, on ly th elegis la ture can en gag ean dpres s tut ion doe snot spe ak. qu es tion sof co nst itu ti onal valu eand thus sa ywhat the Co nstitu tio nwill con- tin ue to mean. The se cond res po nse is more acti ve: The cou rt finds a way to articu late co nst itu ti onal va lue s th at were no t pres ent at the foun ding . The cou rts help at lea st add thei r spur a conv ersati on about th es e fu nda men tal valu es—or foc usadeb ate that may ultimate ly be re sol ved voi cetothis conve rsa ti on—to el sew her e. The first re sp on se is awa yof doin gnoth ing; the secon dis awayof exci ti ng adia lo gu eabou tcon st it ution al values asameans to confr ont ing and 30 re so lvin g new que stions . My fear about cyb er spa ce is tha twe will re spon din the fi rst way —t hat the cour ts, the in sti tu tio nsmo st resp onsi ble fo rarticu lating cons titu ti on al valu es, import wil l st an d back wh ile iss ues of consti tutional ar e legis lativ el y dete r- mi ned .Mysens eisthat they willste pba ck becau se th eyfeel (as th ebal anc eof ace has rais ed. th is boo k arg ues) th at these are new questio ns th at cybersp Thei rnew ness wil lmak ethem feel po lit ical, and whe naqu est ion feel spolit - ic al, cour ts ste p aw ay fr om re so lv ing it. Ifear th is not be cau seIfea rlegisl ature s, but be ca use in our daycons titu - tio nal di sc ours e at th e level of the legi slatu re is a ve ry thin sort of discou rs e. that bec ause the Supr em e The phi lo soph er Be rnard Wi ll iams has argued Cou rt has tak en so cent ral a rol e in the articul ation of cons titutio nal va lu es, 31 legi slatu re s no longer do . Whet her Wi ll iams is correct or no t, th is mu ch is s is fa r below th e clea r: The const itu tio nal di sco urse of our presen t Congres valu es level at whi ch it mu st beto addre ss the qu estio ns about co nstitutional that wil l be rais ed by cybersp ac e. How wecould re ach be yond th is th inn ess of di scou rs eisunclear .Con sti - tu ti on al th oug ht has been the domai nof la wyers an dju dges fo rtoo long. We hav ebeen trapp ed by amod eof reason ing that pretends that all the impor ta nt ques ti ons hav ealrea dy be enan swe red, th at our job now is simply totran slate them for mo de rn ti mes . As a re su lt, we do not qu ite know how to pro ce ed

183 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 168 168 CODE 2.0 whe nwe th ink th ean sw ers are no tal re ady there. As nations acr os sthe wor ld st rug gle to expr ess and em brace co ns titutio nal values, we, wi th the oldest writ te nconsti tuti ona ltra dit ion, hav elos tth epra ctice of embrac in g, art ic ul at - ing , an d decid ing on cons ti tu ti onal valu es . I re tu rn to th is pro bl em in Cha pt er 15. For now, my point is simp ly that cybe rs pa ce des cri pt ive . Tr ansla ti on is one way to deal wit h the choices But in the fou r pre sen ts. It is one way of findi ng equ iv alenc e acros s contexts. ap pli cati ons tha t fol lo w, I pres s th e qu estio n: Is the past en oug h? Ar e ther e 32 that we mu st make? cho ices the fr amers did no t add ress ?Are they choices

184 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 169 T E N e c t u a l p r o p e r i n t e l l t y R EEV ES IS AMO NG THE BEST RESE ARCH ASSISTA NTS HAVE HAD .(B UT AL AS , I H AR OLD Ear ly into his second yea r ’s beco me a priest!). the la w has now los t him—he at the Unive rsit y of Ch ic ago La w Sc hool ,he came to me with an ide a he ha d for a stu dent “co mme nt” —an art icl e that would be publis hed in the law 1 Th eto pic wa stresp ass law in cybe rs pa ce—w he th er and how the law re vi ew. sh ou ld prot ect ow ne rs of spa ce in cybe rs pa ce from the kind s of intr usion s th at trespa ss la w pro tect s agai nst in real sp ace. His initial ide a was si mp le : 2 The la w sh ou ld grant “o wn - There sho ul d be no tresp ass law in cybers pac e. er s” of sp ace in cy berspa ce no lega l pr ot ectio n again st in vas ion; they shou ld be forced to fend for themselve s. 3 But it co n- Ree ve s’s idea wa s a bi t nu tt y, and in the end, I think, wrong . tai ned an insi ght th at was qu ite br il li ant, an dthat shoul dbe ce ntr al to think - ing abo ut law in cybersp ac e. The idea—m uc h more br ie fly and much les s eleg antly tha n Re ev es ha s put it —is thi s: Th equ est io ntha tlaw shoul dask is, What means would bring ab out the mos teffic ient set of pr ot ecti ons for prope rty interests in cy bersp ac e? Two so rts of pr ot ec tion s are possible. al pr otectio n of One is the tradition law —th e la w def in es a spac e wh er e others should not ente r and punis hes is afenc e, atechn ol ogi cal pe op le wh oenter non et hele ss. The ot her protection othe r things) dev ice (a bit of co de) tha t (among blocks the unw ante d fr om aw, in the fo rm of tre sp as s en te ri ng .In re al sp ac e,of co urs e, we have both—l law, an d fe nce s tha t su ppl ement that law . Both cos t mon ey, and the ret ur n fro m ea ch is no t nec essar ily the same . From a social pe rspec ti ve, we wou ld at th e lowest cost . (In eco - wa nt the mix tha t provid es op tim al protection nomi cs- sp eak, we wou ld want a mi x such that the marginal cos t of an addi - tio nal uni t of protec ti on is equ ival ent to the marg inal ben efit. ) 169

185 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 170 170 CODE 2.0 The impli cati onof this idea in rea lsp ace is that it some time smak essense to shi ft the bu rde n of pr ot ect ion to citiz ens rath er th an to the state. If , for ex ampl e, a fa rmer wa nts to store some valuabl e seed on a rem ote par t of his far m, it is bette rfor hi mto be ar the co st of fe ncing in the seed than torequir e the poli ce to pa tro lth eare amo re consi stently or to increase th epu nish me nt fo r tho se they ca tc h. The qu esti on is al ways one of balance be tw ee n the cos ts an d be nef its of pri vat e pro tec ti on and state prot ection. Ree ve s’ s in si ght about cybe rspac e fol lows th e same li ne. Th e opti mal pro te ction for spac es in cy bers pac e is a mix bet we en public law and priv ate fen ces. The questio n to as k in de te rmin in g the mix is wh ich pr ote ction ,on the ma rg in, costs less .Reeve s argues th at th e costs of law in th is cont ext are extr emely high— in pa rt be ca use of the costs of enf or ce ment, but also be cause it is hard for the la w to dis ting uish bet ween legit imat e and ill egit i- that mig ht “use” th e mat e uses of cybers pac es. There ar e ma ny “agents” spa ce of cyb ers pac e. Web spide rs ,which gath er data for web sea rch engine s; browsers, wh o are se arch ing acr os s th e Net fo r stuff to see; hacker s (of the go od sor t) who are testi ng the lo cks of sp ac es to see that they are locked ;an d (of the bad sort) who ar e brea king and en tering to st eal . It is hard , hackers ex an te, for th e law to know which ag ent is using the sp ace legi tim ately and wh ich is no t. Legi tima cy dep ends on the in tentio n of th e person grant ing ac ce ss. So tha tled Reeves to hi sid ea :Sin ce the int ent of the “own er ”isso cru ci al he re, and si nce the fe nces of cyber sp ac e can be ma de to re flect th at inten t che ap ly, it is bes t to put all th e inc enti ve on the owner to define acces s as he wi she s. The ri ght to br ow sesh ould beth enorm, and the burde nto loc kdo ors 4 sh ou ld be placed on the owner. Now put Reev es ’s arg ume nt asi de, and think for a secon d about som e- but is very much the sam e ide a. thi ng that wi ll see m com ple te ly different Thin k abo ut “the ft ”and the pr otec ti ons that we have ag ains t it. myhouse. Noone steal sit .If Ilef tmybike out •Ihave astack of firewo odbehind ov er ni ght, it wo uld be go ne . •Afrie ndtold me that, in afavo rite beac htown, the city use dto fi nd it impossible y woul d im mediat ely be picked . Bu t now, he pr oud ly to pl ant flow ers—the re po rts , af ter a lon g “com munity sp irit ” campaign, the flow ers are no lon ge r pi ck ed . • Th ere are spe ci al laws about the thef t of au to mobile s, plane s, and boats. Ther e are no sp ec ial la ws about the theft of skyscr apers. Ca rs, plane s, and bo ats ne ed pro tecti on. Skys cra pe rs pretty much tak e car e of them selve s.

186 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 171 171 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y Many th ings protec tpr opert yagai nst thef t—diff ere ntly .The ma rket pro - (it is che aper to buy your own than it isto haul mi ne aw ay ); te cts my firewood th emar ketisaspe ci althrea tto my bike (w hich if ta ken is eas ily so ld). Nor ms so met imes prot ect flo wers in a park; sometimes they do not. Natu re some - s aga ins t time s con spi re s with thieve s (ca rs ,planes ,an d boats) and sometime them (s ky scr ap ers). Th es e prot ec tions are not fixe d. I could lock my bike an d th ere by use re al- sp ace code to mak e it harder to st eal. There cou ld be a shorta ge of fir e- wo od; demand wou ld inc reas e, maki ng it harder to prote ct. Pub lic cam pa igns abou tci vic bea uty might stop flow er th eft; selec ting adis tinctive flo wer mi ght soph is ti ca te d do thesam e. Sop histi ca ted loc ksmig ht make sto len cars useless; ban kfraud migh tmak eskys cr apers vulne rab le. The point is not that prote c- tio ns are given, or unc hange ab le , bu t tha t they are multipl ied and their mo dal it ie s diffe rent. Pr ope rt y is pr otecte d by the sum of the di ffer en t pr otect ion s tha t law , nor ms, the mar ket , and re al -spa ce cod e yield . This is the imp li cati on of th e ar gum en tmade inChap ter 7. Fr om the poin tof view of the state ,we need law on ly when the other three mo dali ti es leave prop ert y vul ner abl e. From the po int of vie wof th ecit ize n, real- sp ace co de (such as locks )is nee de dwhe nlaws and norms alone do no tprotect enou gh. Understand ing how property is pr o- tec ted me ans und er st and ing how thes edifferent protections wor ktog ether. Ree ve s’s idea and the se ref lec ti ons on firewo od an d skys cr ape rs poin t to the dif fe re nt way sth atlaw mi ght pr otect “prope rty” and sugges tth erang eof Th ey al so invite a qu es tion kin ds of prope rty tha t law mig ht try to protect. Breyer and many othe rs: Shou ld law that has bee n ask ed by Justi ce Stephen 5 pro tec tsome kind sof pr opert y—i nparticul ar, intel lectual pro pe rt y—a tall ? Among the kinds of prop er ty law might prote ct, my fo cus inthis ch apter 6 Of all the dif fe re nt type s of wil l be on the prope rty pr otect ed by cop yright. tha tcyber - pro pe rty, thi stype is sai dto be the mos tvul ner able to the changes spa ce wi ll bri ng .Man y beli eve that intell ectual prop erty cannot be protec te d in cybe rs pace . And in th e te rms that I’ve sket ched , we can beg in to see wh y mus t be wro ng. on e mi ght th ink this, but we wil l soon see that th is thought DEMI SE ON THE REPOR TS OF COPYR IGHT’S Rou ghly put, cop yri gh t give s a cop yr ig ht hol der certain exclus ive rights ov er the work , includ ing , mo st famo us ly, the exclus ive right to copy the work. I ha veacopy rig ht in this bo ok. That means ,among other righ ts, and sub je ctto so me impo rtant ex ce pt io ns ,yo u canno t copy this book without my pe rmis - sio n. Th erigh tis prot ec ted to the ext en tth at laws (and norm s) sup por tit, and

187 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 172 172 CODE 2.0 it isthreate ne dto the ex te nttha tte ch nolo gy make siteas yto co py. Str en gt hen the la wwhi le ho ldi ng te ch no log yconst ant, and the rig ht is str on ger. Proli fe r- and the right is at e copy in g techno logy wh il e ho ld ing the law constant, we ake r. In thi ssens e, copy ri ght has al way sbe en at war with tec hnol ogy .Bef or ethe inte rest in his an author’s pr inti ngpre ss, th ere was no tmu ch need to protect cr ea tive wor k. Copyin gwas so expe nsive that natu re itsel f protec te dthatinter - ie s for est . But as the cost of copyi ng dec re ased, and th e sprea d of technolog cop ying inc rea sed, the thr ea ttoth eauth or ’s con trol in creased .As ea chge ner - at io n has deliv ered a tec hnol ogy bette r than the last, the abil it y of the cop y- rig ht hol de r to pro tec t her int ell ec tu al prop erty has been weake ne d. Un ti l re cently ,the law ’s resp on se to thes e chan ge s ha s bee n mea sur ed and gr adu al. Wh en tec hnol og ies to rec ord and reprod uce sound em er ged at the turn of the last ce ntu ry, com po sers were th reaten ed by them. The law respon ded by giv ing com posers anew, but lim it ed, right toprofit from rec or di ng s. Whe n ra di o beg an bro adc as tin g mus ic, the co mpos ers wer e he ld to be ent it led to com pensa tion for the pu blic per form anc e of thei r work, but pe rfo rme rs we re gs. Con gre ss de cid ed not com pensa ted fo r th e“per form an ce” of thei r recordin not toremedy tha t pr oblem .Wh en ca ble televisio n st arte drebro adc ast ing te l- scom plai ned ev ision bro ad cast s, the cop yrigh tholde rsin the origi nal broadcast th ei rwor kwas bein gexpl oited with out co mp ensati on .Cong ress res pond edby gr an tin g th e co pyri ght hold er s a ne w, but li mit ed, right to profi t from the hted conte nt reb roa dca sts . When the VCR made it simp le to record copyrig fro m off th e air, copyri ght holder s cri ed “pi racy.” Congre ss de ci de d no t to res po nd to th at co mpl ain t. Som etim esthe cha nge in tec hnol ogy inspi red Con - gr es sto cr eatenew ri ght s,and some tim es not. But th rough out this his tory ,new the spread of cul tur e. tec hn ol ogi es hav ebeen em brac ed as they hav eenabled {T XB2} Dur ing the same peri od ,nor ms about copy righted als o ev olved .But content zed li ke the si ngle , defini ng fe atu re of thes e norms can perhaps be summari content r co uld do wi th the cop yrighted this : that a consume that he leg al ly hewant ed to do, withou tever tr ig ger ing the lawof copyrig ht. own ed anything Thi snorm was true al mo st bydef init ion until 1909, since be fore then ,th elaw made of copyri gh ted co nt ent did n’ t re gulate “copie s. ”An y use the co nsumer rights of copy right. wa sthe ref ore hig hly unl ikel yto tri gg er any of the exclusive Af te r 1909, tho ugh th e law tec hnic ally regul ated “copies,” the tech nol og ie s to e. There was a struggl e ab ou t Xer ox ma ke copi es we re br oa dly availabl 7 ma chines , whi ch fo rced a bi t of re form, but the fi rst re al conf lict that cop y- rig ht law ha d wit h co nsu mer s hap pened when casse tte tape s made it easy to co py record ed musi c.Some of that copy ing was fo r th e pu rpose of makin g a

188 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 173 173 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y “m ixed tap e,” and som ewa ssi mpl yfo rth epurpo se of avoi di ng th eneed to buy de ci ded not to le g- the ori gi nal re co rd in g. Afte rmany year sof debate, Congress is lat eaban onho me tapi ng. Inste ad ,inth eAud io Home Record in gAct, Con - gr ess sign al ed fai rly cl ear exe mptions fro m copyright for such con sumer that th ey were the norm among co nsumers act ivi ty. The se change sre inforced work. Giventhetech - lega llyfree to do wh at ever th ey wa nte dwith copyrighted to doeit her did no logie smo st consu mer shad acc es sto ,thestu ff they wanted no t tri gg er copyri ght (e .g., re sell thei r books to a used bookst ore ),or if it did, the law was mo difi ed to protect it (e.g., casse tte tape s). Aga in st th ebackgr ou nd of the se grad ual chan ges in the law, alon gwith the pra ct ic alnormthat, inthe main, the law did n’t reach consumers, the ch an ges of digi tal tec hn ology were aconsi dera ble shock. First, from the persp ecti ve of tech - nolo gy, digital tec hno log ie s, unl ikethe iranalog sist er, enable dpe rfect co pies of gr eat er. Secon d, also an ori gi nal wor k. The ret urn fr om copy ing wa s therefore of the Inter ne tenab led ,th edig ital technology fro mth epers pe ctiv eoftec hnology con tent to be fre ely (an deff ec ti ve ly an ony mo usly) distr ibuted acro ss theInter ne t. The ava ila bil ity of cop ies was theref ore greate r. Third, from the persp ecti ve of nor ms, consumers whohad in ternal ized the norm that they co uld do wit h“th eir con ten t” whate verthey want ed used the se new di gitaltools to ma ke “t heir con - help ed fuel ten t” ava ilabl e widely on the Int ernet . Co mpa ni es such as Napster ,but the prac tice existe dboth before andafter Napste r.And fourt h, th is behavior the bas e technology fr om the pers pect ive of law, because of the In tern et di dn’t being shared on the Intern et,or rev ea lan yt hing abo ut the nat ure of the content ab out who was do ing the shari ng ,there was little the law could do to st op thi s ma ssi ve “s hari ng” of content .Thu sfif th, and fr om the perspect ive of cop yrig ht hold ers , di gital tec hn ol ogi es and the Int ernet were the pe rfe ct st orm fo r th eir nof “co pies ” busin ess mo del :If theymade money by cont rolling the di stributio of cop yr ig hted co nte nt, you could wel lunders tand why they viewed the In tern et as agrave threat. Ver y qu ickl y, and qu it e ea rly on, the conte nt ind us tr y res pond ed to this was a more agg res sive re gime of reg ul ation. thre at .Their fi rs t lin e of defense Bec aus e, the pr ed ic ti ons of cyb erspace mavens notwithstanding, no tev ery one wa s wil ling to conce de that co pyri ght law was dea d. Intell ect ua l proper ty lawy er sand intere st grou ps pu shed ear ly on to have la wshore upth epr ote c- tio ns of int ell ec tu al prope rty that cybersp ace see med ce rtain to era se . LAW TO THE RES CUE The ini tial re spo nse to thi s push was a Wh ite Paper produced by the Com - me rce Depa rt ment in 1995. The paper outlined a se ries of mo dif ica tions

189 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 174 174 CODE 2.0 aim ed , it sai d, at rest oring “bal ance” in intellectual pr operty law. Ent itl ed “Intell ectua l Prope rty and the Nat ional Info rma tion Infras tr uct ure ,” the repo rt so ug ht to res ta te ex isti ng intel lec tual property law in terms th at anyo ne co uldund ers ta nd ,as well asto reco mme nd changes inth elaw in response to po inted ou t, the quickly the ch anges the Ne t wou ld bring. But as scholars 8 The report no more “rest ated ”ex ist ing law than Sov iet fir st part was a bust. hi st or ian s “ret old ” stori es of Stal in’s ad minis tration. Th e resta tem ent ha d a al prope rt y protec - til t, ver y de fi ni tely in the di recti on of inc reased intellectu tio n, but it prete nde d that its ti lt was the natur al lay of the land. For our pur pos es, howev er, it is the recom men dation s that wer e most sign if ica nt. Th ego vernment four res po nses to the th re atprese nted pr oposed by cyber space .In th e terms of Chap ter 7,th ese respon ses sh ould be fam ilia r. The fir st resp ons ewastra di ti onal .The gove rnm ent pr opos edcha nges in 9 The se the law of copyr ig ht to “cl ari fy” the rights that it wa s to prot ect. chan ges were inte nd ed to be tt er def ine the right s granted und er intel lec tu al pro pert y la w and to further su pport these righ ts wi th clar ified (a nd pos sibl y gre ater ) lega l pe na ltie s for thei r violat io n. The second re spons e ad dress ed norms ,spec ifi cal ly cop yi ng no rms. Th e re por t re comm en ded in creas ed edu ca tio na l effor ts, both in sch ools and l prope rty an d the amo ng the general pu blic ,abou t the nature of intellectua of pr otect ing it .In the te rms of Chapter 7, th is is th e us e of la w importance to cha nge norms so th at norms will be tt er support th eprotectio nof intel lec - by direct regu la tio n of tua l prope rt y.It is an ind irect re gu la tion of behavior no rm s. The thir d and fo ur th re sponses and the mark et. The mix ed te chnology sub sidies an dsp ecial le gal re po rt call ed fo r le gal suppor t—thr oug h financial schemes. ”Th ese “schem es ”were si m- prot ec tion —of “c opy rig ht management ply tec hno logie s that wou ld mak e it ea sier to contr ol access to and use of at some len gth late rin co pyri ghte dmat er ial .Wewi ll exp lo re th ese “schemes” example of ind ir ec t re gu la - thi s chapte r, bu t I menti on them now as another of a certa in sof twa re tio n—u si ng the mark et to su bsi di ze the development too l, an d using la w to re gu lat e the pr op erties of othe r softw are to ols . Copy - rig ht ma nage me nt syste ms wo uld be suppo rted by govern men t funding and by the threat of cr imi nal sanc ti ons for anyon e depl oying sof tw are to cra ck 10 them. Co ngre ss fol low ed the reco mmendat ions ofth e1995 Whi te Pap er in some Mil len ni um of the Digital re spec ts . The mos t impo rtant was the enactment Cop yr ight Act in 199 8. Tha tsta tute impl emented directly atio n the recommend that “techn ol ogi cal prote ctio nmea sur es ”be pr otecte dby law. Co de that some - on e imp leme nts to cont ro l ei ther acc es s to or use of a copyr igh ted wo rk got

190 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 175 175 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y spe ci al lega lprote ct ion unde rthe DMC A: Circumv entio nof tha tcod e,sub ject to afe wim po rt ant exce pti ons, cons ti tut ed aviol ation of th elaw. We will return to the DM CA later. The po in tjust now, however, isto rec - abo ut th e pres umption ogn ize so methi ng im portant under lying the White Pa per .The 19 95 pack ag eof pr oposa ls was ascatters hot of tech niqu es—s om e norms, and lots of suppor t for chan ges in la w, so me support for changing chan gi ng th e co de of cy berspa ce to mak e it be tter abl e to prote ct inte lle ct ua l prop erty. Per ha ps no thi ng bett er tha n this could have been expe cted in 19 95 —t he la w pro mis ed a bala nc e of res ponses to deal with the shif ti ng bal - an ce bro ug ht on by cybe rspa ce . Ba la nce is att ractive ,and mod era tio nse ems ri ght. But somethin gis mis s- h. The Whit e Pape r proc eed s as if the pro ble m of pr o- ing fr om this approac te ct ing int ellect ua l pr oper ty in cyb erspace was just lik e th e probl em of as if the fou r con - pro tec ti ng intel lec tual proper ty in re al sp ace. It proceeds st rai nt s wou ld ope rat e in th e same pr oportion s as in real sp ace ,as if nothing had cha nged. fu ndamental : the role that co de pla ys in the But so me thing funda mental ha s changed pro tec ti on of int el lec tu al pr operty . Code can, and in creasing ly will, disp la ce e. Pr iva te law as th e prim ar y def ens e of intelle ctu al pr ope rty in cyberspac fe nces, not pub li c la w. The Whi te Pape rdi dno tsee this .Bu il tinto it sscatte rshot of id easis one id eatha tthe that is cruc ia lto its appr oa ch bu tfundame nt al ly incor rect—the natu re of cy bersp ace isana rch y. The White Paper pro mis esto str eng then la w in ev er yar eait can. But itap pr oa che sthe question lik eaship ba tteni ng down fo rasto rm: Wh at ev er happen is real, damag ewil lbe s, the threat toco pyright do ne, and the best we can do is ride it out. This is fund amenta lly wr ong .Weare not enter ingatime whe ncop yr ig ht en tering a tim e is mor e thre at en ed tha n it is in real space. We are instead when co pyr ig ht is more effec tively pr ot ec ted than at any time since Guten - be rg.The po wer to regul at eac ces stoand use of copyrighted ma ter ial is ab out to be per fec ted . Wha teve r the ma vens of the mid -19 90 s may hav e tho ught, pro perty th ebig gest gi ft of cyb ersp ace is abou tto gi ve holde rs of copyrighted pro tec ti on they have ev er known. In su ch an age , the re al que sti on for law is not, how ca n law aid in tha t prot ectio n? but rat her, is the protec tion to o grea t? Th e maven s we re righ t whe nthey pre dic ted that cy be rs pace wi ll te ach us tha teverythin gwe tho ugh t 11 abo ut co py righ t was wr ong . But the le sson in the fut ure wi ll be tha t cop y- but rig ht is pro tec ted fa rtoo wel l. The probl em will ce nter not oncopy-right on co py- du ty—th edu ty of owners prop erty to mak eth at prop - of protected er ty acce ss ib le.

191 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 176 176 CODE 2.0 Tha t’s a bi g claim. To see it, how ever, and to se e the cons equenc es it en tai ls, we need consi der three exampl es. The first is a vis ion of a re se archer fro m Xe ro x PAR C (a ppr opria tely eno ugh), Mark Stef ik, an d his id ea of 12 The se cond is an impli cati on of a wor ld dom ina ted by “t rus ted syst ems.” tru ste dsys tems. The third isan unrec kon ed cost tothe path we are now on to “p rotec t int ellec tu al pr op erty .” The exampl es wil l throw into relief the thre at that the se changes pr esent for valu es that ou rtra dit ion cons ide rs fu nda me n- tal .The ysho ul dfor ce usto mak eachoic eabo ut those values, and abo ut th eir pla ce in our fu tu re . FOR IN TELLEC TH E PROMISE TUA L PRO PER TY IN CYB ER SPA CE It al l dep ends on whet her yo u re al ly und er stan d th e ide a of trust ed sy s- tem s. If yo u don’ t und ersta nd them, then this wh ol e ap proac h to com - is utterly un th ink able. If you do me rc e and digi ta l pub li shing unde rst and them , then it al l fol lo ws easily . Ral ph Me rkle, qu ot ed in Ste fi k, “Let ti ng Loose the Light ”(19 96) ie s, co nt ent In what we ca n cal l the first generat ion of dig ita l te chnolog ow ners we reuna ble tocontr olwho copi edwhat. If you have acopy of acopy - righ ted ph oto rend ere din agrap hi cs fil e, you cou ld make unlimited cop iesof that file with no eff ec t on th e ori gi nal . Whe n yo u make the one -h undr edth hcopy ra the rtha n copy, noth ing would indic at eth atitwa sthe one- hundredt the fir st .And as we’ve desc ri bed ag ai n an d again, in the origina l cod e of the In ter net ,there was no thi ng to reg ula te how or to wh om co pyrighted co nte nt was di st ri bu ted .The functi on of “copy ing” as it was develop ed by the cod er s who bu il t it, eith er in compu te rs or ne tworks , aim ed at “co py ing ”—not at “co pyi ng” with specif ied pe rmis sions . This char ac ter to th e functi on “copy” wa s not uniqu e to cyber spa ce. We an d I’ve alrea dy have se en a tec hno lo gy that pre sented the same problem, 13 descri bed how asol ut io nwa ssubs eq uen tly buil tin to th etechnol og y. Digita l Au di oTa pe (DAT )tech nolo gywa sth ou ght to be athre at to copyr ight owners . Some peo ple argu edfor A nu mber of solut io ns to thi s threa t were proposed. by law ). Some , hi ghe r penal tie s for il legal cop ying of tapes (direct re gulation su ch as Ri cha rd Stal lman, arg ued fo r a tax on blank tap es, with th e pro cee ds co mpe ns at ing cop yr igh t hol ders (ind irec t regu lation of th e marke t by law ). So me argu ed for bet te reduc at ion to stop il le gal copies of tap es (indire ct reg- ulat io n of no rms by law) .Bu t some arg ued for a chan ge in the cod e of DAT ma chin es th at wou ld bl oc k unli mi ted perf ec t copying.

192 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 177 177 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y The tax and code regu lators won. In lat e19 92,asacom pr om is ebe tw een th e tech no lo gy an d cont ent in dustr ies , Congr ess pa sse d the Audi o Hom e and bla nk DAT Rec ord in gAc t. The act fi rst impo sed a tax on both recorders med ia, wit hthe revenu esto be used to co mp ens at ecopyright hold ersfor the ex pec ted cop yrigh tinfr ing ement enabl ed bythe tec hn ol ogy. But more int er- es ti ngl y, the Act req uire dma nufa cture rs of DAT techn olo gy to in clude aSer ial Syst em, whi ch wou ldlimit theabil ity of DAT te chno logy Cop yMa na gement to copy. That li mi twa sef fec ted thro ugh acode in ser ted in co pie smad eusing , the tec hnology DAT te chn ol ogy. From an original would alwa ys perm it a dig ita lcopy could nofurther co py. But fro macopy made on aDA Trecorder, be mad e. (An ana log cop y co uld be ma de, thus degr ad ing the qu alit y of the was thus desi gn ed to cop y, but no t a perf ect digital copy .) The technology break the “co py” fun cti on unde rcer ta in conditions, so as to indi rect ly pro te ct e an y was to minimiz co pyri ght owners. Th e net eff ec t of the se two changes lity of th etech nol - ha rm fr om th etech nology ,as wel las tolimit the functiona ogy whe re it woul d be expec ted that functi on al ity woul d enc ou ra ge the vio - lat ion of cop yrigh t. (Man y think the ne t eff ect of this regul ati on al so kil le d DAT techno logy .) 14 He was no tke en Some thing lik eth esame ide aani mat ed Stef ik’s vis io n. was to mak e it his objective to make th e qua lit y of cop ie s decre ase . Rather, 15 po ssi ble to tr ack and cont rol the copi es of digital conten t th at ar e ma de. Thin kof the propo sal li kethi s. Tod ay, whe nyou buy abook, you ma ydo an ynum ber of thin gs wi th it.You can read itonce or one hundr edtime s. You pag es in it or sca n it into yo ur can lend it to a fri end . Yo u can pho tocopy co mp uter .You ca n burn it, use it as a pape rw eight, or sell it. You ca n st ore it on yo ur sh el f and nev er onc e ope n it. Som eof th ese th in gs you can do becau se the law giv es you th eri ght to do th em —yo ucan sell th ebook, fo rexa mpl e, because lawexpli cit ly th ecopyright your use of the phys ical book limi ts the cop yri ght ow ne r’s ri ght to control af ter the “first sale.” Other th ing syou can do bec au se there is no ef fe ctiv eway to st opyou. Abo ok sell er mi ght sel lyo uthe book at one price if you pr om is e to rea d it once, and at a dif ferent pr ic e if you want to read it on e hund red ti me s, but ther eis nowa yfor th esel le rto know whe the ryou ha veobeyed the co ntra ct . In pr incip le , the sel le r cou ld sell a police office r with ea ch bo ok to fol low youarou nd an dmake sure yo uuse the book as you prom ise d, but the co st s of this cont rol wo uld pl ai nly ex ceed any bene fit. But wha tif each of the se ri ghts co uld be cont rolle d, and each unbu ndle d and sold separat ely? What if, th at is, thesoft ware it self co uld regu lat ewhet he r you rea d th e bo ok on ce or one hu ndred times ; whethe r you cou ld cut and paste fr om it or simply rea ditwith out co pying; whe th er you cou ld se nd it as

193 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 178 178 CODE 2.0 anattache ddoc umen tto afriend or sim ply kee pit on your ma chin e; wh ether you could use it in anot her wor k, fo r you could dele te it or not; whether anot her pur pos e, or no t; orwhethe ryou co uld sim pl yhave iton your shel f or ha ve it and use it as well ? Ste fik de sc rib es anetwor kth at ma kes such un bund ling of rig hts pos sibl e. of cop yr ight ed mate ri - He de sc rib es an arc hite cture that would allow owners als to sel laccess totho se mat er ial sonthe ter ms they wan tand wou ld enf or ce tho se con tr ac ts . Th ede tai ls of th esyste mar enot im po rtant her e(it builds on the encr yp - 16 bu t its ge ner al ide a is easy tio n ar chi tectu re I de sc ribed in Chap ter 4), eno ugh to des cribe. AstheNet is now, basi cfu nct ions like copy ing and ac ce ss ar e crud ely re gulat ed in an all -or- noth ing fashio n. You genera lly ha ve the rig ht to copy or no t, to gai n ac ce ss or not. But a more sophi sti ca ted sy ste m of right s coul d be bu ilt into th e Ne t— not in to a diff erent Ne t, but on top of the existi ng Net. This sys te m wou ld fu nc tio n by dis cr imi na tin g in th e intercourse it ha s with ot he r syste ms. A sy st emth at contro ll ed ac cessin this more fine-g rained way woul dgra nt acc ess acc es sin the same way . to its res ources only to ano ther sy stem that controlled and cop yr ighted mate rial wou ld be A hi erarch y of sy ste ms wo uld develop, tr ad ed on ly among sy st ems that pr oper ly control led acc ess. In such awor ld, the n,yo ucould get acc ess, sa y, toth e New Yo rk Tim es and pay adif fe re nt pri ce dep endi ng on ho wmu ch of it yo uread. The Times co uld de te rmi ne how much you read, whe th er you coul dcopy portion sof the news - pape r,whe th eryou co ul dsa ve iton yo ur hard disk, an dso on. But if the cod e the Times yo u us ed to acce ss the site di d not ena ble the control Ti me s wo ul d no t let you onto its site at all. In shor t, sys - deman ded, th en th e Ti mes te ms wou ldexch ang einfo rma tio nonl ywi th oth ers that could be truste d, and of the sys tems. the pro to col s of tru st wou ld be bu il t int o the architectures Stefi k cal ls this “tr us ted sys tems,” and the nam e evokes a he lpf ul ana log . Thin k of bonded cou ri ers. Someti me s you want to mail a lette r with som e- th in gpa rti cul ar ly valua bl ein it. You cou ld simply give it to the pos tof fice ,but the post office is not a ter ri bly rel iabl e sy stem; it has rel ativel y little cont rol n. So inst ead of goi ng ov erit semp loye es, an dthe ft and los sare not uncommo to the post offi ce, you coul d giv e yo ur letter to a bond ed cou ri er. Bon de d co ur ie rs ar e insured, and the insu ra nc e is a cost that constr ains the m to be rel iab le. This rep uta tio n then mak es it poss ib le for sen de rs of va lu ab le ma te - rial to be ass ured about usi ng their serv ic es. As Stefik writes : wi th tru sted sys te ms ,a sub sta ntia l part of the enfor cem ent of a di gita l cont rac t is ca rrie dout bythetrus te dsyst em .[T]h eco nsum er doe sno tha ve the opt ion of

194 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 179 179 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y di sre gard ing a di gi ta l cont ract by, for exa mple ,mak in g unautho riz ed co pi es of awor k. Atru sted syste mrefus es toexe rcise ari ght that is not sa nct ione dby the 17 di gi tal cont ract. Th isiswhat astructu reof truste dsys te ms does for own ers of intel lect ual pr ope rty . It is a bond ed cour ier that ta kes the thin g of value and cont rol s ac cess to and us e of it acco rding to the orde rs given by the pr incip al. Imagin e for a mo ment th at su ch a str uctu re emer ged ge ne ral ly in cy be r- la w? spa ce. How wo uld we th en thi nk abou t copyright An imp ortant poi nt abo ut copy ri ght lawis that, thoug hdesig ned in pa rt to pro tect au th ors, th e co nt rol it was des ig ned to create was nev er to be pe r- has nev er accor de d Cour t no ted, cop yr ight “p rotection fe ct .As the Supreme 18 the copyr ig ht ow ner compl et e cont rol ove r al l poss ible us es of his work.” Th us, th elaw grant son ly partic ul ar exc lusive ri ghts, an dthose ri ghts are sub - jec tto import ant li mitat io ns, su ch as “fair us e,” limited te rms, an dthe fir st sal e do ctri ne. The la w th reat ened to puni sh violato rs of copyright laws —a nd it n of peopl e to compl y— was thi s threa t tha t indu ced a fai rly hi gh proportio bu tthe la wwas nev er designed tosimpl ydo the autho r’s biddin g. It had pub - lic pur pos es as well as the autho r’s int erest in mind . Tr us ted sys te ms prov ide authors with the sam e sort of prot ec tion. d use of their mater ial, th ey can Bec au se aut hor s can restrict unauthorize thus achie vewhat copy - ext ract mon ey in exch ange for acc ess. Tru sted systems the law doing rig ht law aims to ,but they can achi eve this prot ection without the restr ic tin g. It permit samu ch mor efine-gr ai ned contro love racces sto and use of prot ected mate ri al than the law per mits, and it can do so with out the ai d of th e law. Wha tcopy right seeks todo using the threat of lawan dth epush of norms, orders othe rs to re sp ec t the tr us ted sy ste ms do thr ou gh the code .Co pyright rig hts of the cop yrigh thol der bef ore using his prop erty; tr us ted sy ste ms giv e ne ed ed to reg - acces sonly if rights ar erespect ed in the first plac e. The controls ulate this acce ss are bui lt in to the sys tem s, and no us ers (exce pt hacker s) have the lawby cod - achoice abou twhe ther to ob ey them .The code complements ify in g the rules ,mak ing th em more ef fi cient. Trust edsys te ms in thi sse nse are aprivatiz ed alte rnat iv eto cop yright law . Th eyne edno tbeexcl usi ve; th er eis no rea son not to use both law and trus te d sy ste ms. Nev erth el ess, the co de is ef fect ively doing the work th at the la w wa s des ign ed to do . It imp le me nts the la w’ s protectio n, through co de , far more ef fec tively tha n the la w di d. What cou ld be wr ong wi th th is? Wedonot worr y whe npe ople put dou - ble bolt son th eir doo rs to sup plem ent the work of the neig hb orho od cop. We

195 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 180 180 CODE 2.0 do not wo rry wh en the ylo ck their cars an dtake th eir key s. It is no tan offen se to protec tyo urself ra ther tha nrel yon th estate. In deed ,in so mecontex ts it is to ld hi m, “Never tel lalie, nor avi rt ue .Andr ew Jackson’s mot her ,for example, take what is not yo ur ow n, nor sue an ybod y for sl ander, as sault and batter y. 19 Se lf-su ffi cie nc y is streng th and goi ng to Alwa ys se ttle the m cas es yo urs el f.” the la w a sig n of we aknes s. There are tw osteps toansw eri ng thi sque st ion. The fi rs trehea rs es afa mi l- iar but forgot ten point abo ut the natu re of “proper ty”; the second ma ke saless prop ert y. To gethe r fa mil ia r,but central ,point abou tthe nature of intellectual they sug ges t why perf ect cont ro l is not the co ntrol that la w has giv en owne rs of in te lle ct ual pr op erty .An dto gether they su gg est the potenti al proble mtha t co pyri ght la w in cybers pac e wi ll cre at e. TH E LIMIT S ON THE PR OTEC TION OF PROPERTY Th ereali stsin Ame ri ca nlegal his tor y(circa 1890– 1930) were sch olars who(i n 20 Atthe par t)em phasi zed the rol eof the stat einwhat wa scalle d“private law.” time they wrote , it was th e“pr ivat e” in private la w that go t all the emp has is. Fo rgott enwas the “law ,” as if “pr operty” and “contract ”ex isted in dep en den tof the st ate . The re alis ts’ aim was to under mine thi sview .Cont rac tand prop er ty law , 21 If yo u breac h a cont ra ct wit h me, I they ar gued ,ga ve pr ivat e pa rti es power. can hav ethe cour tor der the she rif f to fo rce you to pay; thecon tra ct give sme ac cess to th e stat e pow er of the sher if f. If your contra ct with you r emplo ye r sa ys that it may dism iss you for bei ng late, the n the pol ice can be ca lle d in to ejec tyou if you re fu se to leave .If yo ur lease for bid syou to hav ecats ,the nth e lan dlo rd ca n us e th e po wer of the co ur ts to ev ict you if you do not get rid of the cats . Th es e are al l instanc es wher e co ntrac t and prope rt y, howev er gr ou nded in pr iva te acti on, gi ve a priva te pers on an entitlement to th e sta te. No doubt th is po we ris just ified in many cases; to call it “law ”isno tto call it unjust . The great es t pro sper it y in hist ory has been created by a syste m in contr act and pr op - whi ch priv ate par ti es can order their lives freely through ert y. But whe ther jus tified in th e main or no t, the realists argued that the 22 co nto ur s of th is “l aw ”sho uld be archi tected to be nefit so ciety. This is not comm uni sm. It is not an at tack on priv ate pr ope rt y, and it is not to say th at th e st at e creat es we al th (put your Ayn Rand awa y) .The se ar e clai ms abo ut the relat ionsh ip betw een pr ivate law and pu blic law , and they sh ou ld be unc ontr overs ial . Pr ivat e la w cre ates pr ivat e rig hts to the exte nt tha t the se priv ate righ ts se rve some co ll ec tiv e go od. If a priva te righ t is harmfu l to a col lec tive goo d,

196 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 181 181 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y then the stat e has no reas on to crea te it .The state’s interes ts ar e ge ner al, not part icu lar .It has areaso nto cre ate rig ht swh en thos erigh ts ser ve acomm on, rat her than pa rt icu lar, end. The ins ti tu ti on of priv ate pr opert y is an applica tion of this point. The st at e has an int eres t in def in in g ri gh ts to private pr operty bec au se privat e pro pert y help s pr odu ce a gener al, and pow erful ,pros pe rity. It is a syste m for of societ y. No rel ati ons that gre atly bene fi ts all members or de ri ng ec onomic oth er sys tem th at we ha ve ye t dev ised be tter orde rs eco nomic relations . No 23 oth er sys tem, some bel iev e, co ul d. But eve n with or di na ry pr oper ty— yo ur car , or you r house—p rop ert y rig hts are nev er abs olu te .Th ere is no pr ope rty that does no t ha ve to yie ld at so me poi nt to the in teres ts of the sta te . You r land may be ta ke n to bu ild a hig hway , you r ca r se iz ed to carr y an acc id ent victi m to the ho sp it al, you r dri vewa ycr oss ed by the po st ma n, yo urhou se ins pected byhealth ins pe cto rs . we cal l“private proper ty” is asyste m In coun tle ss ways ,the syste mof property th atbalances ex cl usive cont ro lbythe indi vidual agains tce rtain co mmo nstate en ds. Whe n the latt er co nfl ic t wi th the fo rmer, it is the for mer tha t yie lds . This bal ance, the real ists arg ued , is a fea ture of all pr ope rty. But it is an y. The bal an ce of righ ts propert espec ia ll y im portan t featu re of inte llectual wit h intel lec tu al pro pert y dif fers from the bal ance with ordin ary real or pe r- 24 And a very son al pro per ty . “In form ation ,” as Boyl e puts it , “i s di fferent .” ob vio us fe atu re of in tell ect ua l pr opert y sh ows why. When prope rt y law give s me the ex clu siv e right to us e my hou se ,the re ’s a ve ry goo d reas on for it. If yo u used my house whil e I did, I woul d ha ve les s to use .When the law gi ves me an exclu sive right to my apple, tha t to o mak es se nse .If you ea t my app le ,the n I canno t.You r us e of my prope rt y ordina rily redu ces mine . inte rfere s with my use of my pr ope rty .You r co nsu mption The law has a goo d rea son, then, to give me an exclu si ve right ove r my per son al and rea l pr operty .If it di d not, I would have little reas on to work to pro duce it .Or if I did work to pr odu ce it, I wou ld th en spe nd a great dea l of my ti me try in gtokee pyo uaw ay .Itisbetter for everyon e, the arg ument goe s, if I ha ve an exc lu si ve ri gh t to my (r ig htly acq uired ) prope rty, be cau se the n I 25 ha ve an incen tive to prod uce itand not wast eall my time tryi ng to de fend it. Th in gs ar ediffer ent wi th in tell ect ua lpr ope rt y. If you“ta ke ”my idea ,Isti ll 26 ha ve it .If Itell you an ide a, yo uha ve not deprived me of it. An una voi dab le tion, as the econom ist slike yis that it sconsump fea tur eof in tellec tual propert to put it, is“n onriva lr ou s. ”You rcons ump tion do es not lesse nmi ne. If Iwrite asong ,yo ucan sin git wit hou tma king it impossible for meto sing it. If Iwrite aboo k, you can re ad acop yof it (p leas edo) without disabl ing me fr om read - in gan othe rco py of it. Id eas ,at their core, can beshar ed with nored uction in

197 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 182 182 CODE 2.0 the amo unt th e“o wn er” cancons ume .This diff ere nce is fun dam enta l, and it od si nce the fo und ing. has bee n understo Jef fer son put it bett er th an I: If na tu re has mad e an y one thi ng less suscep ti ble th an al l ot hers of ex clu siv e prop erty ,it is th eact ion ofthe thi nking po wer cal led an idea, which an in div idu al ma y excl us ive ly po ssess as lo ng as he ke ep s it to hi msel f; but the moment it is di vu lg ed, it fo rce sitself into th epossess ion of every one, and the receiver ca nno t dis pos ses shi mse lf of it.It spe culi ar cha ra cte r, too, is tha tnoone possess es the less, becau se ever y ot he r poss es s th e wh ole of it. He who receives an idea from me, re ceive s instru ctio n himse lf with ou t lesseni ng mine; as he wh o lites his ta per at mi ne, re cei ve sligh twith ou tdark eni ng me. Tha tid ea sshou ld fr eely sp rea dfrom one toanot her over the gl obe ,for the mor alan dmutua linstr uc ti on of man, and nt of his co nd iti on, seems to have been pe cu liarl y and benevo lent ly improveme de si gne d by na ture, whe n she mad e them, like fire, ex pansib le over all spa ce, with ou tlesse nin gtheirdens it yat any point, and lik ethe air inwhic hwe bre athe , mo ve ,and hav eou rphysic al bein g, inc apabl eof confine ment or ex clusiv eappro - 27 pr iat io n. Inve nti on sthen cann ot ,in natu re, beasub jec tof pro pe rty . Tech nic all y, Jeff erso n pre sents tw o co ncepts : One is the pos sib il ity of exc lu din g oth ers fro m usi ng or ge tt ing acces s to an idea, which he def ines as ely pos se ss “ac ti onof the thi nki ng powe r...which an in di vidual may exclusiv as long as he keeps it to hi msel f.” This is the questio n whethe r ide as are “ex clu dabl e”; Je ffe rson af fi rms that an idea is“excludable” unt il “t he momen t it is div ul ged .” The oth er co nce pt is wh ether my use of a div ulge d id ea le ssens your use of the same idea . Thi s is the qu est io n of wh ether divu lged id eas are “riv al - 28 Ag ai n, Jef ferson sugge sts tha t, on ce th ey are divu lge d, id eas ar e not rou s. ” “riv alrous. ”Je ffe rs on be lieves th at th eact of divu lging/ shar ing has mad eid ea s bo th none xcluda bl eand non rivalr ous, and that there is little tha tman can do 29 to chan ge th is fact. In fa ct, sh ared idea s are both none xcl uda ble and nonri va lrous . I can —I can keep them secr et, or exc lu de peopl e fro m my sec ret idea s or writings I ca n do so is bu ild fe nces to kee p peopl e out. How easily, or how effectively, ure of pro tection ate chni cal qu es ti on. It dep ends on th earchitect that agiven co ntext pr ovide s. But giv en thepro per tec hnolo gy, there is no doub ttha tIcan keep peo ple ou t. What Icanno tdo isto exclu de peo ple from mysha re did eas or wri ti ngs simpl y becau se they are no t my secrets anymore. My sh ar ed idea s are “nonriva lr ou s” goods , too. No te chnology (tha t we kn ow of ) will eras e an id ea from your head as it passes int o my hea d. My

198 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 183 183 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y kn owi ng wh at you know do es no t les sen you r kno wing the same thing. Tha t ydif fere nt. Unlik e fact is agi ven in the wo rld, an ditmak es intelle ctual propert g I can ta ke from ap ple s, and unl ike ho uses , onc e shared , ideas are somethin yo u wit hou t diminish ing what yo u have. It doe snot fol low, how ever, that there is none edfor pr ope rt yrights ove r 30 Just be cau se you can have what I hav e without ex pre ss io ns or inven ti ons. less en in g wh at I hav e do es not me an that the state has no reas on to cr eate rig hts over idea s, or over the ex pre ssi on of ideas. If anov el ist ca nn ot sto pyou fro mcop ying (r ath er th anbu ying )her bo ok, then she may hav every littl eincent ive toprodu ce mo re books .She ma yha ve as much as sh ehad be fore yo utook the work she produced, but if you tak eit wit ho ut payi ng ,she has no moneta mor e. ry incen tive to produce No w, of cou rse, th einc en tiv esanautho rfaces ar equ ite compl ex, and it is 31 Butgene ral iz ation sdo not have no tpos sibl etomake simple gen era liz at io ns. to be perfec tto make apo int: Even if so me autho rs write fo rfree, itis sti ll the cas e tha t th e law need s some int ell ect ual pro perty rights . If the la w did not .The law ha s a rea so n pro tec t au th orsh ip at all ,the re wou ld be few er authors to pro tect the rig hts of auth ors, at le as t insofa r as doin g so giv es them an inc enti ve to pr odu ce . Wi th ordi na ry pr op erty, the law mus t both cr ea te an in ce nti ve to prod uc e and protect th e ri ght of possession; with intel lectual pro pert y, th e la w nee d only cre at e th e ince ntive to produ ce. This isthediff erence be tw een the se two very diff erent kind sof pr ope rt y, ly af fect s the natu re of intelle ct ua l pr ope rt y an d this diff erence fu ndamental l prope rty to protect law. Whi le we pro tec t rea l and persona th e ow ner fr om intel lectual harm an d give the ow ner an ince ntive , we protect pro perty to ensu retha twecre at easuffi cie nt in cent ive to produc eit. “S ufficien tin ce nt ive, ” ”And inturn we can say th at how eve r, issomet hi ng less tha n“per fe ct control. the id ea l pr otec ti ons of int ell ec tual prope rt y law are some thin g le ss tha n the ide al pr otec tions fo r ordi nary or re al pr op erty. This diff erence be tween the nat ure of intel lec tu al pr ope rt y and ordina ry pro pert y was rec og ni zed by our Constitution, wh ich in article I, sec tion 8, claus e 8, give s Congres s the power “to promote the Prog ress of Scie nce and use ful Art s, by sec uring for li mit ed Ti me stoAu tho rs and In ve nto rs th eexclu - ries.” si ve Ri ght to the ir respec tive Wr it ing s and Discove Note the speci al str uc ture of this clause. Firs t, itset sfo rth thepreci se rea - son for th epowe r—to prom ote th epr og ress of scien ce and usefu lar ts .Itisfor tho se re aso ns, and tho se re asons only, that Congres s may grant an excl us iv e ri ght. And sec ond, no te the spec ial tempor ality of this right: “fo r lim it ed Tim es .” The Co nst itu ti on does not all ow Congress to gra nt au thors and in ven tor s pe rmanen t exc lu sive rig hts to their wr itings and dis co ve ries , on ly

199 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 184 184 CODE 2.0 32 )It tim es can be ex te nd ed. limi ted rig hts .(Tho ugh apparently tho se limited doe snot give Con gres sthe power togi vethem aperp etual “prop ert y” intheir wr iti ng sand discov eri es ,onl yan ex clus ive righ tover the mfor alim ite dtime . The Con st it ut io n’ spro tecti on for inte ll ect ual pro perty then isfun da men - tal lydi ff er en tfrom its pro tecti on of or di nary prop erty. I’ve said tha tall prop - ert y is gran ted sub je ct to the limit of the public go od. But eve n so, if th e to nati onal iz e all prope rty after a fiftee n-ye ar te rm of go ve rn ment decided it to co mpens ate the owne rs . By ow ner shi p, th e Const it ut ion wou ld require co nt rast ,if Congr ess set the copy rig ht te rm at fifteen years ,there woul dbeno after the fiftee n yea rs were up. clai m that the go ver nment pay compensation In tellec tua lpr ope rty rig ht sar eamono polythat the state gives to pro duce rsof n of it. Afte r a limited inte ll ectu al prope rt y in exc hange for th eir productio time ,the pr odu ct of thei r work becomes the pub lic’s to use as it wants .This m at the core of our Con stitution ’s prot ectio n of int ell ectua l is Co mmunis se ns e of that te rm. pro pert y. This “pr opert y”is no t pr op erty in the ordinary ts hav e And thi sis tru efor re aso ns bette rthan tradit ion aswe ll. Ec onomis lo ng un de rsto od th at gra nt ing propert yrights ove rinfo rmatio nis dang er ous 33 Thi s is not bec au se of lefti st leani ngs among econom is ts ; (to say the lea st). it isbecau se eco no mi sts are consequ enti alists, and their objectiv ein gra ntin g an y prope rt y righ t is simp ly to fac il itate produ ct ion. But th ere is no way to kno w,in pr inciple ,whet her incre asi ng or decreasing the rights gran ted under in te lle ct ual pr ope rty la wwill lead toan increas ein the producti onof int ellec - tu al prop er ty. The re asons are comp le x, but the po int is not: Incr ea sing inte l- the pr ogr es s of to “promote lec tu al prope rt y’s pro tec ti on is no t guaranteed sci en ce and us eful arts” —i ndeed ,of ten do ing so wil l stifle it. The bal ance that in tell ect ua lpr op erty la wtr adi tion al ly st rik es is between thepr ot ection sgr ant ed th eauthor and the pub lic useor acce ss grant ed every - to pro du ce . Bu ilt on e else . Th e aim is to give the author suffi ci ent in centive int o the la w of intel lec tu al pr operty are limits on the pow er of the author to 34 co ntr ol us e of the id eas she ha s cre at ed. A cla ss ic exa mpl e of the se limits and of this pu blic us e dime ns ion is the rig ht of “fai rus e.” Fai ruse isthe ri ght to us ecop yr ighted mate rial, rega rd les s of the wis hes of the ow ne r of that mate rial .A co pyright gives the owne r ce r- tai nrigh ts; fair use is alim itat io non those rig hts. It gives you th eright to cri t- ici ze th is book, cu t sec ti ons from it, and repro duce the m in an ar ticl e at tac kin gme. In th ese ways and inothe rs, you have th eright to usethis bo ok ind epen dent of how I sa y it sh ou ld be us ed. Fai r use doe snot nece ssari ly work agai nst the aut ho r’ sintere st— or mo re as acc uratel y, fair usedo es no tnece ssa ri ly work again st the interest sof authors aclass. When fair us epr ot ect sthe ri ght of revi ewers to criti cize boo ks wi thout

200 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 185 185 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y the permi ssi on of aut hor s, then more crit ics criticize .And the more crit ici sm ther eis, th ebett er th ein fo rmatio nis about what book speople sho uld buy. The bett er the inf or mat io n is about what to buy, the more peopl e wi ll bu y it . Auth ors as a who le benefit fro m the syst em of fair use, even if particu lar aut hor sdonot. The la w of cop yri ght is fill ed wi th su ch ru le s. Anothe r is the“firs t sale ” doct rine. If you buy thi sbook, you can se ll it to someo ne else free of any co n- 35 Th is doc tr in ediffers fro mth etr aditio nin ,for st rai nt Imigh tim pose on yo u. ex ampl e, Europe , wh ere there are “moral rights ”that gi ve th e cr ea tor pow er 36 exa mpl e—lim it ed I’ve alre ady mentio ned another ov er su bsequ ent use. ter m. The creato rcan no text end the ter mfor which the la wwill pr ovide pro - tec tio n (even if Congre ss can) ;tha t is fixed by th e stat ute and runs out wh en the st atu te runs out. Taken toge ther, the se rul esgive the cr eator signi fi cant—but not pe rfec t— co ntr ol over th e us e of wha t he pr odu ces . They give th e pub lic som e acce ss , but not co mp le te acc ess. They are bal anced diffe rently fro m the bal ance the la wstrikes for or dinar ypr op erty —by design. Th ey are co nstitu tion al ly struc - tu red to hel p bu ild an intel lect ual and cul tural common s. The law str ike sth is bal ance .Itisnot abala nce that would ex ist in nat ur e. wo uld have ve ry little pr otec - With out the law, and befor ecyber spac e, authors tio n; wit h the law ,they have si gni fi cant, but not perf ect, protec tio n. The law giv esau tho rs som ething they othe rwise would not have inexch ang efo rlimit s as a whole . on th eir righ ts ,secu red to be ne fi t the int ell ectual commons ITU TES FOR PU BLIC LAW PRI VAT E SUBST and acces s. Wha t about So co pyri gh t la w st ri kes a ba lanc e be tw een control we expe ct that any of thelimi tswil l th at ba la nce wh encodeis the law? Should rem ain ? Should we expe ct code to mir ror the lim its that the law im poses? Fa irus e? Lim ite dterm? Wo ul dpr ivate code bu il dthese “bugs ”into its prote c- tio ns? The poin tsh oul dbe obvi ous: When in te lle ct ua lprope rty is protec ted by co de, nothi ng requi res that the same balanc e be str uck. Nothin g re qu ires the ow ner to gran tthe ri ght of fai rus e. Sh emight all ow individ ual sto br ow se fo r fr ee, as a bo oksto re doe s, bu t she mig ht not. Whethe r she gra nts th is rig ht contin gen tupon priv ate dep en dson wh eth er itpro fi ts her. Fair us ebecomes gai n. Mo re imp orta ntly , it bec ome s cont ingent upon the priva te ga in of aut ho rs indi vidual ly ra th er than author s as a class . Th us ,as pr iva tize dlaw, truste dsyste msreg ula te inthe sam edom ai nthat co pyri ght la w regu lat es .But unl ik e cop yr ight la w, they do not gua ran te e the

201 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 186 186 CODE 2.0 sa me lim its onco pyri ght’spr ote ct ion. Tr usted sys tems give the producer max - imu m contr ol ove r th e us es of copy ri ghted wo rk—ad mittedl y at a che ape r co st , thus perh ap s pe rmi tt ing ma ny more authors to pub lish . But they giv e au tho rsalmost per fect co ntrol in an area in which the la wdid not. Cod eth us di spla ces the bal an ce that cop yri gh tlaw str ikes by displacing the lim its the law im pos es. As Daniel Be nlo li el puts it, [D] ec en trali ze dcon te ntpr ovid ers are ...pr iv at izing the enfo rce me ntauthor it y wi th st ri ct tec hno log ical sta nda rds , und er whi ch indiv id ua ls wo uld be banne d from acce ss and use of part icular digital con tent in a wa y tha t mi ght overrid e 37 legi ti mate fair use . So far my de scr ip ti on si mply se ts la w agains t co de:the law of copyr ig ht ei th er comp lem en ted by, or in co nflict with , pr ivate code. You may not yet be conv in ce d th at we should con sid er this a co nflic t, be cause it has always be en th e cas e th at on e ca n exe rci se more con trol over a copy right ed work tha n the law gives you the right to exe rcise over the co pyr ight .For examp le, if you own a pa in tin g tha t is in the pub lic do main , there’s no requir ement fo r yo u to let anyon e see it .You cou ld lo ck it in your bedroom and never let th e world of the val ue of an yo ne see it ever .In a sen se, you ’v e thu s deprived this paint in g bein g in the “publ ic domain.” But no one has ever th ough t tha t th is in teractio n be twee n the law of trespass and co py right has creat ed any impor tant conf lic t.So wh ysh ould anyon ebe tro ubled if co pyr igh town - ers use code to lock up th eir co nt ent bey on d th e balan ce the law of copy - ri ght str ikes? If thi s is wh ere yo u’re st uc k, then let me add on e mor e pa rt to the stor y. mven tion provi si on. above, th eDMC Acon ta ins an anti-circu As Ime ntioned That part of the law fo rbid s the circu mv enti on of some tech nical pr ote ction prote c- mea sur es; itfor bids th edeve lopm ent of tools to cir cumv en tte chnical ons re gardl es s of tion as well. Most imp ortan t, it forb ids these cir cumventi th e pur pose of the ci rcu mv en tion . Thus, if the under lyi ng use yo u wo uld mak eof acopy righ te dwork—i f you could get access to it—is a“fa ir use ,” the DM CA still makes it an offe nse to circ umve nt te chni cal prot ection s to get ht gra nts “fai r use, ” whi le acc ess to it. Thu s one par t of th e la w of copyrig anoth er par t of copy righ t re moves at lea st som e fair use libe rt y whe re th e 38 by techni cal mean s. fa ir us e has bee n removed Bu t so what , the skept ic will ask. Wh at th e law giv es , th e law ca n ta ke away ,can ’t it? No it can’t , and that ’s th e po int . As the Su prem e Co urt has indic at ed, co pyr ig ht law is con sisten twit htheFi rst Amen dment on ly be ca us eof cert ain

202 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 187 187 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y im port an t limitat io ns bu il t int o the law. Removing wou ld those limitations then rai se imp or tan t First Amend ment qu es tions . Thus , whe n the law acts wit h co de to re mov e the law ’s pro tecti on for fa ir use, this should ra is e an imp orta nt que st ion— at least for tho se conc erned abou tmaintain ing the ba l- an ce that cop yrig ht law st ri kes . Cou ldn’ t the co de be chan ged But maybe th is conf lic t is just te mporary. to pr ote ct fair us e? The an swer to that ho pe ful(an dagai n,hope ful bec ause mymai npo int is is no ,notdirec tly. ab out wheth er in cent ives to prot ec tfair use exist) question or inte nt. Tha t ju dg - about purpose, Fai r use inh erently requ ire s a judgment me nt is beyond . Ind irectly, how ev er , fair the ke n of even the be st computers use could be prot ecte d. A syste m tha t allowe d an in divid ual to un lock the mark in gthe usedwork tru sted sy st em if he cl ai med th euse wa sfai r(perhaps wit h a tag to mak e it po ssi bl e to tra ce the use ba ck to the us er) cou ld pr ote ct us ers a“fair us elice ns e,” fa ir use .Or as St efik de sc ri be s, asys tem that granted al lo wi ng them to unloc kth econ ten tanduse in suran ce bac kin gthe li cense to 39 But th ese alt er nat iv es aga in pa y for an y mis us e, mig ht al so pr ot ect fair use. re ly on struc tur es bey on d co de. With the code itself , ther e is no wa y ade - qu ately to po lice fai r us e. Some wil l res po nd that I am lat e to the par ty : Cop yr ig ht law is alr ea dy be in g dis placed , if not by code then by th e private law of co nt ra ct. Thr oug h ar e incr easingl y the use of clic k-w rap , or shri nk-wr ap, lice nses , authors deman din gth at purc hase rs, or lic ensees ,waive rights that co pyrig ht law gav e eng in eer, th en th es econ tra cts the m. If co pyrig ht law giv es the rig ht toreverse- mi ght ext rac t a pro mise no t to rev erse -eng inee r. If co pyrigh t law gives the the pu rchas er wants afte r the fir st sa le , rig ht to dis pos e of the bo ok however then a co ntrac t migh t re quire th at the user waive that right. And if thes e te rm sin the cont ract atta ched toever ycopyrig htwor kare en for ce ablemerely by being “attach ed” and “kn ow ab le, ”then al ready we have th eab ili ty thro ugh co ntra ct la w to re wri te th e bal ance that copyright la w creat es . Iagre eth at th is race topr iv at ize cop yri ght lawth rou gh con trac tis alr ead y fa ralon g,fueled inpa rti cu lar bydec is io ns such as Jud ge Fr ank Eas te rb ro ok’s Pr oC D v. Zei denb er g in .Bu t cont ra cts are not as ba d as code. Contra cts ar e a fo rm of law . If a te rm of a cont ra ct is incons is te nt with a valu e of copyright la w,yo uca nref us etoobey it and let the other side get acourt toenfo rce it .In so me cas es ,cour ts ha ve ex pres sly ref used to foll ow a con tr act te rm pre cis ely 40 becau se itisincons ist ent with acop yri ght la wvalu e. The ult ima tepow erof a con tra ct de pend s upon th e deci si on by a court to enforc e the cont rac t or not .Alt hou gh cou rt s tod ay are rel ati vely eager to find way s to enf orce the se co ntra ct s,th ere isatleast hope that if the other side makes its ca seve rycle ar,

203 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 188 188 CODE 2.0 41 As Stefik wr it es, tru st ed sys tems “di ffe r co urts coul d shi ft dir ec tion ag ai n. fro m an ord inary cont ract in criti ca l ways .” [I ]n an ord inar ycon tr ac t, co mpl iance is no tau tomat ic; it is there spons ib ility of the agre ei ng pa rt ies .There may be pro vi sio ns fo r moni tori ng and ch ec king on com pli anc e,but the act ua lres ponsi bi li tyfor acti ng in acco rdance wi th the term s fal ls on the part ies . In addit ion, enf orcem ent of the co ntr act is ult imate ly the 42 prov inc e of the co urts . r proble ms the re are whe n co n- The sam e is no t tru e of co de . Whateve trac ts repl ac e co pyri ght law, the problems are worse when cod e dis pla ces co pyri ght la w. Again—w here do we cha lle nge the code? When the softw ar e pro tec ts withou t rel yi ng in the end on the state, whe re can we cha lle nge the na tu re of th epr ote cti on ?Where can wede mand balanc ewh en th ecode tak es it away ? I don ’t me an to ente r the ex tremely s de bate about whethe r contentiou thi s chan ge in co nt ro l is good or appr opriate. I’ve said too mu ch about th at 43 For ou rpur pose shere, the po int is simp ly to reco gniz easig nif i- els ew her e. pe rfect co nt rol overhow can tchan ge .Code now mak es poss ible increasingly cu ltur e is spread . Reg ulat io ns hav e“been fair ly cons iste nt . . . on the side of 44 ex pan din g the po wer of the owners to co ntrol th e use of the ir pro du cts .” An dth ese re gulations inv ite ademand for perfect con trol ov er howcultu re is spre ad. The ri se of contr ac ts qu al ifyi ng copy ri ght law and the ris eof co de qu ali - fy ing co py rig ht la w rai se a que sti on tha t the law of copyrig ht ha s not ha d to an sw er bef ore. We hav e nev er had to choose whe th er authors shou ld be pe r- mi tted pe rfectly to cont rolth euse of their in tell ectual prope rty ind epe nd ent of the la w, for suc h co ntr ol was no t poss ible. The balance stru ck by the law was the bes tthat au tho rs co ul dget. But now, code gives authors abette rde al. The que st io n fo r leg al pol icy is whethe r this be tter deal makes pu bl ic sens e. Here we co nfront th e fi rst lat ent ambig uit y within the law of copyright. law al ready decide s this qu es - There are th ose who wo uld sa y that copyright or fo r it. But in my view ,th is is a tio n—w he the r again st co de-b ased control, ch oi cethe lawhas yet to mak e. Ihav emyown views about how the law sho ul d deci de th e qu est io n. Bu t what techno log y has done is force us to se e a choice that was not made befo re .See the choi ce, and the n make it. d Pu t mo st dir ect ly : There has alw ay s be en a set of us es of copyrighte work th at wa sun regu lat ed by the law of copyr ight. Even wit hin the bo un dary of use s that were reg ulat ed by the law of copyright, “fair use ”kep t som e use s free . Th e co re qu es tio n is why? We re these transaction s left free becau se it

204 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 189 189 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y was too co stly to mete r the m? Or were th ese transact ions le ft free because pu blic valu e ti ed to copyright? keep ing th em free wa s an important This is aque sti on the law ne ver had tore solve ,th ough th ere is supp ort fo r 45 Now the tech no logy force s us to res olve it. The qu estion, then, bo th vie ws . is ho w. Anic eparalle lto thi spro bl em ex is ts in one pa rt of co ns titut io na llaw. The fr amer s gave Co ngres s the pow er to re gu late inters tate comm erce and com - 46 At the fo undi ng, th at was a lo t of me rce tha t aff ec ts in terstat e commerc e. not al lof it. Th us, ,but beca use of the inef fi ciencies of the market, co mmerce 47 e th at they al one cou ld regu la te . the st ate s had a do mai n of commerc Ov er tim e, howe ver , the scope of inte rstate commerc e has ch an ged so that much less comm erce is now withi n the exclus ive domain of the state s. Thi schan ge has pr odu ced tw osort sof res pons es .One is to find ot he rways to authority. gi ve sta tes dom ai ns of ex cl usi ve reg ulatory The ju st ifi ca ti on for thi s res pons e is the cla im th at the se changes in int erstat e com me rce are des tr oy ing the fr amers’ visi on abo ut stat e powe r. The ot her resp onse is to con ced etheincreasi ngscop eof fed er al aut ho rity, 48 Ce rta inl y,atthe but todeny th at it is incon sis ten twi th th efram ing ba la nc e. foun ding , some comme rc e was not int ers tat e and did no t affect in ter st ate in tended that there must com mer ce. But that do es notme an that the framers alwa ys be suc haspac e. They tied the sco pe of federal pow er toamov ing tar - get ; if the targe t mov es compl et ely to the side of feder al powe r, the n that is 49 what we shou ld emb ra ce . In bo th co nte xts, th ech ang eis th esa me. Westar tin aplac ewhe re ba la nc e is gi ve n to us by the mi x of fr ic ti ons wit hin a particul ar re gu lator y doma in: Fai r use is a ba lance given to us bec au se it is too exp ens ive to mete r all use ; state power ove r co mmerce is given to us becau se not all com merce af fe cts the bala nce , we mus t disturbs int ers tat e comm erce. Whe n new te ch nology dec ide whe ther th e or igin al int ent was that there be a ba lan ce, or th at the sc ope of one si de of eac hbal anc eshoul dfaithfully track the inde xtowh ich it was or igi nal ly tied .Bo th cont ex ts, in sh ort, pres ent ambigu ity. (mysel f in clu ded) hav e stron g fe eli ngs one way or the Ma ny ob servers at all. In the con - oth er .We believ e thi s lat ent ambig uit y is not an ambiguity tex t of fede ra l po wer, we bel ieve ei ther that the states we re mea nt to ke ep a 50 do main of ex clusi ve author it y or th at th e federal gover nme nt wa s to ha ve 51 whate ver power affec ted inters ta te comme rce. In the con tex t of fa ir use, we be liev e th at either fair use is to be a mini mu m of public us e, gua rant eed 52 re ga rdl ess of the te chn olo gy, or th at it is ju st an eff ici en t co mpr omise in res ponse to an ineff ici en ttechn olog y, tobe remo ved as soon as effi ci en cy can be achie ved .

205 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 190 190 CODE 2.0 But inbot hcas es,this may make the pr obl em too easy. The best an sw er in at the framing : Per- bo th con te xts may be tha t th e qu esti on was unresolved hap sno one thou ght of th ematt er, and he nce th ere is no ans we rto the qu es- tio n of wha t they wo uld have inte nded if some centr al presu ppos it ion ha d chan ged.An dif there was noori gi nal answer, we mu st dec ide the que sti onby nd, we might expect ,of the our own lights. As Ste fik sa ys of tr ust ed sy stems—a im pl icat ions of trus ted sy st ems —“I t is a tool never imagined by the crea tor s of co pyri ght law, or by tho se who bel ieve law sgove rning intellec tual pr oper ty 53 can not be enfo rced .” ence of the pe rf ec ti on of trus ted syste ms . The loss of fair use isaconsequ Whe ther you consi de ritapr ob lem or not depend sonyou rvie wof the val ue of fai ruse. If you con si der itapu bl ic valu ethat sh ould exist rega rdle ssof the techn ologic al re gime, then the emerg ence of this pe rfection shou ld tr oubl e yo u. Fro myo ur pe rspe ctive, ther ewas avalu elatent inthe imperfecti on of the old sy ste m tha t has no w been eras ed. But eve nif you do no tth ink that the lo ss of fair useis aprob lem ,tr us te d sy st ems thr ea ten ot he r valu es lat ent in the imperf ect io n of the re al worl d. Con si de r a seco nd. TH E AN ON YMITY THA T IM PERFEC TI ON ALL OWS of years .In the colle ge I was a stude nt at an Engl ish universi ty for a number Iatt ende d, th er ewas a“b ut tery ”— ashopinside the college that ba sica ll ysold al cohol . Durin g the fi rst wee k I was there I ha d to bu y a large am oun t of About a week afte r I Sco tch (a se ri es of uni ma ginativ e gif ts, as I re member). mad eth ese purchas es ,Irec eiv ed asummons fr om my tutor tocom etal kwith him in his off ice .Whe nIarr ive d,the tutor ask ed me about my pur ch ases .Th is was , to hi s mind , an exc ess ive amou nt of alcoho l, and he wa nted to kno w whe the r I had a goo d re ason fo r buyi ng it. Ne edless to say, Iwas shoc ked at the qu es tion .Of cou rse, techn ical ly,Ihad mad e a purchase at th e col lege ,and I had not hidden my name wh en I did so (i nde ed, Iha dcharged iton mycol lege account), so, formally ,Ihad rev ealed my alco hol purc has es to the col lege and its age nts .Still, it shock ed me th at this inf or - ma tio n wo ul d be monit ored by co ll ege authori ties and then check ed up on. I co uld see why th ey did it,and Ico uld se ethe good that might come fr om it. It just nev er woul dhave oc cu rred to me that the se data wo uld be used inthis way . If th is was an inva sio n, of co urse, it was a sma ll one .Late r it was ea sy for me to hid e my binge s sim ply by buyi ng fr om a local store ra the r tha n the co lle ge bu ttery. (Th ou gh I late r le arned that the local store re nted its sp ace fro m the col lege, so who knows what deal they ha d stru ck ?) And in an y ca se ,

206 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 191 191 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y I was not bei ng puni shed. The co ll eg e was ju st conce rned . But the ex ampl e su gge st s a more gener al po int: We reve al to the wo rld a certain clas s of data abo ut ours el ve stha twe or din ari ly expe ct the wor ld not to use. What happens whe n the y use it? Tru ste d syst em s depe nd on such dat a—the y depen d on the ab ility to kn ow how peop le use the prope rty that isbeing pro tecte d.Toset pr ice smos t ef fic ie ntly , th e sys te m ideal ly sh oul d know as muc h abou t ind ivid ua ls and th ei rre ading hab it sas possible .It ne eds to know thi sdata beca use itneeds an 54 ef fi cie nt way to tr ack use and so to charge for it. But thi strac ki nginv ol ves acer tai ninv as io n. Welive nowin awor ld wh er e we th in k ab ou t what we read in ju st the way that I thou ght ab out wh at I is keeping do not exp ect that anyone bo ug ht as a stu de nt in Engl and—we tr ac k. We wou ld be sh ocked if welear ned that the library was kee pin gtabs on th eboo ks tha tpe ople chec ked out and th en using this data in some mon ito r- ing wa y. Such tr acking, how ever, is jus t wh at tru ste d sys te ms req uir e. And so the : Sho ul d th ere be a ri ght agains t this kin d of mon ito ring ? qu es tion becomes The qu es ti on is paral lel to th eques tion of fa ir use. In awo rld wh ereth is mon- no such right agains t ito ri ng cou ld not ef fe ct ively oc cu r, th ere was, of course, it. But now tha t mon ito ri ng can occ ur, we mu st as k whethe r the la ten t rig ht to re ad an onym ously , giv en to us be fore by imper fecti ons in tech nol ogies, sh ou ld be a le ga ll y pr otec ted ri ght. Jul ie Coh en arg ue s tha t it sho uld , and we ca n see qu ite dir ec tl y how he r 55 What ever its sou rce, it is a valu e in thi s wo rld that we ar gume nt pro ceed s. can exp lore intel lec tu al ly on ou r own. It is a value that we ca n re ad anony - mo us ly, with out fea rth atoth er swill know or watch or chan ge the irbe hav ior bas ed on wha twe rea d. Thi sisanele me nt of intel lectual freed om ;it is apa rt 56 of what mak es us as we are. But this elemen t is pote nt ial ly eras ed by truste d system s. The se systems nee d to mon itor ,and th is mon itori ng destroy s ano nymi ty .We ne ed to dec ide whe ther, and how, to pre ser ve valu es from today in acon text of trusted systems. Th is could firs tbe aqu estion of transla tio n: nam el y, how shou ld cha nges in tec hn ol ogy beacco mmo da te dtopres erve values from an ear lie rcont ext in a new con tex t? It is th e same ques tion that Bra ndeis asked ab out wire tap - 57 pin g. It is the qu es ti on the Court answ ers in score s of contex ts all the time . aqu estion about pr eser ving val ues when conte xts change. It is funda mentally In th econ tex tof both fair use an dre ading, Coh en has aconsi sten tanswe r to th is qu es ti on of tra ns lati on . She ar gues th at ther e is a rig ht to resi st , or “ha ck, ”tru sted sy ste ms to the ext ent that they infr inge on tradit ional fa ir us e. (O ther shav eca lle dthis th e“Coh en The ore m.”) As for reading, she argu es that

207 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 192 192 CODE 2.0 cop yri ght manag emen tsche mes mu st prot ect aright toread anon ymousl y— tha t if the y mo nit or, they must be co ns truc ted so that they pr eserve a value yie lde d by an an on ymi ty. The str at egy is the same : Cohe n identifies old ar chit ectur ebut now thre at ened by anew arc hitec ture, and th en argu es in fa vor of an affir ma tive ri ght to pro tect the origin al valu e. But he re again we mi gh t vi ew the ques tion mor e am big uou sl y. I shar e on th eoth erside is not sill y. If it’s per mis sib le Coh en’ svi ew, but the argument to use tech nology tomak ecopy ri ght ed works avail able, whyisn’ tit pe rm iss i- That data gath er ing is no t ble to gat her dat a ab out who uses wha t works? part of th ecopy rig ht itself ;itis abypro duct of the techno logy .And asour tra - dit ion has neve r had this tec hni cal capa city be fore, it is hard to sa y a choice was ma de abou t it in the pas t. PE RMI SSION CU LTU RE VS. FR EE I’v eal re ad ydesc ri bed the limi ts cop yri ght law places on itself. Th ese li mit s, as Iargued ,reflect impo rt an tva lues .Th ey expr ess the bala nce tha tcop yri gh tlaw ai ms to be . But wh at is to o of te n mis sed in thi s di scussion of bala nce is any sens e of per sp ect ive .We focus on the gr adu al shi fts in the law but miss the prof ou nd se nse in wh ic h th e signi fic anc e of the la w has chan ged. Thi schange isproduce dby the uni nte nd ed interactio nbe tween the arch i- tu re of the la w. tec tu re of di gital tec hnol og ie s and the architec ” In th e an alog wor ld, there Copy ri gh t law at its core regu lat es “copies. “copie s.” As Je ss ic a Lit ma n wer e ve ry few co nte xts in whi ch one pr oduced des cri bed mo re than a dec ade ag o, At the tu rn of the cent ury, U.S . cop yright law was te chn ica l, inc onsi st ent, and di ffic ult to unde rs tand, but it didn’t ap ply to very ma ny pe ople or very many th ings . If on e we re an author or pub li sh er of books , maps, ch arts , paint ing s, ght or producer of plays, or a sc ul pt ure, pho to gr ap hs or she et mus ic, a playwri pr in ter , th e cop yr ight law bore on one’s busi ness. Book seller s, pi ano- roll and phono gr aph reco rd pub lis hers ,mot io n pic ture produc er s, musi cians, sch olar s, y co nsumer s could go abo ut thei r busi ne ss memb ers of Cong res s, and ordinar 58 . wi tho ut eve r enco untering a copy right problem Thu s the re were man y ways in whi ch you coul d us e cr ea ti ve work in the an alog wor ld withou t pr odu ci ng a copy . Dig it al te chnol ogy , at its co re , mak es copies . Cop ie s are to dig ital lif e as bre at hing is to ourph ysi cal life .There isno way to use any conte nt in adigital

208 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 193 193 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y co ntext wi th ou t th at use pr odu ci ng a copy. When you read a bo ok stor ed on yo ur co mput er, you make a cop y (a t lea st in the RAM me mo ry to pa ge thr ou gh the bo ok). When you do an yth ing with digital conte nt, you techni - cal ly pro du ce a cop y. This te ch nical fact abou t di gi tal tec hno log ie s,tie dto the te chnic alarchi - tec tu re of the la w, pro duc es a pr ofo und shift in the sc ope or rea ch of the law of cop yri ght th at too ma ny si mp ly miss : While in the anal og wor ld, lif e was sa ns cop yr ig ht la w;in the di gital wor ld ,lif e is su bject to cop yr ig ht law .Eve ry sin gle ac t tr igge rs th e la w of copyr ig ht. Eve ry sin gle use is eithe r su bj ec t to a to be “fair us e.” The emergen li cen se or il leg al, unl ess deemed ce of dig ital of cop yri gh tla w— from tec hn olo gies has thus ra dica llyinc reas ed the domain re gul ati ng a tiny por tion of hu man lif e, to regul ating ab solute ly ev er y bit of life on a co mp ute r. Now if all youthi nkab ou tispro tect in gthe di stribut ion of pr ofessio nally cre ated cu ltu re , this might not co nce rn yo u much. If you ’re try in g to st op “p ira cy,” then a reg ime that says every use requires per miss io n is a re gime that gi ve s you a fai rly bro ad range of tools for sta mp ing out pi rac y. But thoug h you wo ul dn ’t not ic e thi s li ste ning to the de bates su rrou nd - io n of pro fes - ing copyr ight law ju st now, in fac t, prot ect ing the distribut si on all y cr eat ed cul ture is not the on ly, or even, I sug gest , the mo st impo rta nt part of cu ltur e. And indeed , from a hist orica l pe rspe cti ve, top- down, pr ofes si ona ll y produ ced cult ure is but a tiny part of wh at mak es any cu lt ur e sing. Th e 20t h ce ntur y may have be en an excep tio n to this rul e, vo ted to ma ke profes sional cu ltur e th e only leg al culture bu t no Congress wi thi n ou r so cie ty. Stan di ng al on gsi de pr ofession al cu lt ure isama teur cultu re—w her eama - te ur doe sn ’t mean in fer io r or wi tho ut tale nt, but instead cult ur e cr eate d by pe ople who pro du ce not fo r the mo ney, but for the love of wha t they do. Fr om this pe rspec ti ve ,the re is amateu r cu lture everywhe re—fr om you r din - ner tab le , where your father or sist er tell jokes that take off from the lates t Da ily Sho w; fro m your bas eme nt, whe re you r po lit ical sc anda l or the lat est permanent br oth er and his th ree best fri en ds are causing dam age to the ir ea rdr ums as the ytry tobec ome the nex tRo lling Ston es; fro myour ne ighb ors who gat her eac h Th ursda y and Su nday to sin g in a ch urch choir ; fr om you r ne igh borhood sch ools, where kid s and te achers cre ate art or music in the co ur se of lea rni ng about ou r cul tu re; from the kid s at your neig hborh oo d sch oo l, wh otear the ir pants or wear thei rshirts in some odd wa y, all as awa y to exp res s and mak e cul ture . This am ateur cul ture has alw ays been with us,ev en if it is to us to day ,as 59 Da n Hun te r and Greg La st ows ka put it, “h idden .” It is pre cisely how the

209 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 194 194 CODE 2.0 60 it is ho w cul ture ha s al ways de velope d. As im aginat ion of kid s devel ops; wri te s, Siva Vai dhya nathan (pe er-t o-p eer produ ction , one wid es pre ad dem oc rat ic cul tura l prod uction mi gh t sa y) ...mere ly echo es ho w cult ur al texts ha ve flo we d through and been ie sev eryw here for centuri es. Textsoften undergo revi sed bydi sc ursi vecommunit a proce ss si mil ar to a game of “tel epho ne,” th rough wh ich a te xt is su bs ta n- ist orted thro ugh many sm al lrev i- tia lly —som etim esal most unint enti onally—d si on s. . . . Suc h rad ical tex tu al rev isio ns have occu rre d in oth er con te xt s and ha ve hel ped build pol it ica l crit iques ,if not mov ements. ,histo rian Fo r instance Law rence Lev ine (19 88) ha s do cume nted ho w work ing-c lass pla yers and audi - en ce sin ninete ent h-ce ntu ry Ame ric aadapted and revi sed the wo rks of William ,co nce rns and ide ol og ies. An dhisto rian Eric Shake sp ear eto thei rloca lcontexts Uncle Tom’s Cabin Lot t (199 3) has sho wn ho w was rewo rke d by work ing- class itie sto aid th ecause of raci aldomi na nc eins tead of th eChri sti an whit ecommun 61 d to se rv e. lib er ati oni st me ss age th e bo ok wa s intende Impo rt an tly, too ,thi s kind of cult ural re mix ha s histo rica ll y be en fre e of re gul ati on. No one wo ul d th ink tha t as you tell a jok e aroun d you r dinne r tabl e, or si ng so ng s wi th yo ur fr iend s, or pra ct ice to become the nex t Rol ling Sto ne s, yo une ed alawy er sta ndin gnext toyou ,cle aring the rig hts to “use” th e cul ture asyou make yo ur cr eative rem ix. The law of copyright, hist or ical ly,has ia l, or bey ond bee n focu sed on com merc ial lif e. It has le ft the non commerc al, creat ivit y free of legal reg ulati on. co mmerci ies ar e re spon sible .Firs t, All thi s has now changed ,and di gi tal technolog expand edthe sco peof an dmos timport ant, digit al tec hnol ogies have radically thi s amate ur cu ltu re. Now th e cle ver remix of some po litic al event or the late st son g by your fa vori te band are not jus t somethi ng you ca n shar e with you r fr ie nd s. Dig ital techno logi es have ma de it simpl e to captu re and sh are diff ere nce betwe en thi s cre ati vit y with th e wor ld. The si ngl e most important the In ter ne t circa 19 99 and the Int ernet circa today is the exp losion of use r- gen erated crea ti vit y—f rom blog s, to podcas ts ,to videocasts, to mas hu ps ,the In ter net tod ay is a spa ce of ext raordi nary creativity. ha ve democr at ize d cre at ivity . Te chnolog Sec ond, di gi tal tec hnologies y re al .“Peo - has giv en awid erange of po tenti al cre ators the capacity tobecome 62 ple ar e waking nta tor de scribe s. fr om thei r co nsu meri st coma,” one comme As DJ Dange r Mou se pu t it at the Web 2.0 con fere nce in 20 04 , Mashi ng is so eas y.It ta kes yea rs to lear n how to play the guitar and wri te your own songs. It tak es a few we ek s of pra cti ce with a tur ntabl e to make pe opl e

210 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 195 195 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y dan ce and sm ile. It ta kes a few hours to crank out som ethi ng go od wi th som e so ftwar e. So wi th such a lo w barrie r to ent ry , eve ry one ju mps in an d st arts 63 immed iate ly bei ng cre at iv e. But thir d,and di rectly rel evant to the story of this chap ter ,to the exte nt thi s cre at ivi ty fi nds its expre ssi on on the Net, it is now subject to the re gula - it ne ed s the pe r- tio n of copy ri ght la w.To the extent it uses othe rs’ creativity, miss ion of ot her s. To the ext en tit builds upon the cr ea tivity of ot hers, it needs to be su re tha tthat creativity can bebuil tupon legally. Awhole sys te mof reg - ulat io n has no w been gra ft ed upon an ec onomy of creativ ity that until now reg ulat io n. Amat eu r cul tu re, or bott om up cu ltu re, or the has never known ia ltransa ction s—all of this is subj ec tto cu ltur ethat li ves outs ide of commerc re gul ati on in a wa y th at 30 ye ars ag o it was not. A rece nt exa mp le of thi s confl ic t mak es the point ver y concis el y. The re ’s a gen re of digital creat ivi ty ca lled Anim e Mus ic Videos (AMVs ). AM Vs are remi xes of ani me cart oon sandmusi c. Kids spend hu ndr eds, somet imes thou - san dsof hou rs reeditin gthe ani me car to on stomatch them perf ect ly tomu sic. th e mos t cr ea tive uses of The re sult is , in a wo rd , ext ra ordi nary. It is among digi tal te chnology tha t I have seen. Whi leth is ge nre of creat ivi ty is not sma ll, it’s also not hu ge. Basi cal ly one si tedomi nat es activ ity around AMV s. Th at si te has mor ethan 500,0 00mem - be rs , an d some 30,00 0 creat ors uploa dAMV conten t to the site . p Re cor ds , In Nov emb er 200 5, one pro mine nt recor d labe l, Wind-U inf or med thi s webs it e th at it wanted all Wind- Up Records artists removed fr om th esit e. Tha twas som e3,000 vide os, rep res enting at leas t250 ,0 00 hour s of volun teer wo rk by creat ors ac ross the worl d—work that wou ld ha ve ju st on e re al ef fec t: to promo te the under lyi ng artists’ work. Fro mthe perspec tiv eof the law as itis ,th is is anea sy ca se .What the kids are doi ng is ma king a der ivat ive work of th e an ime; they are dist ributing ful l cop ie s of the unde rly ing musi c; and they are synchro nizing the mus ic to vi deo—al l witho ut the permi ssi on of the cop yr ight owne rs. Bu t from th e pers pec ti ve of cu lture , th is sho uld be a very hard case. The cr eati vit y demo ns tra ted by this wor k is extrao rdinar y. I can’t sh ow yo u that cr eativ ity in a bo ok, bu t the not es point you to an ex ample that 64 yo u can se e. It is no ncom merc ial , amat eu r cre at ive wo rk—pr eci sely the of the law, but which sor t that has nev er be en subject to the regulation no w, bec au se it is li ving in digital cont ext, is monit ore d, and regu lated, by th e law. Here aga in, Ihav est rong feel ings ab out wha tthe right ans wershou ld be . But we shoul d rec og nize the lat ent ambigu ity this conflict pres ents :

211 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 196 196 CODE 2.0 Becau se of the chang es in digi tal tec hnol og y, it is now pos sible for the law nt. As lif e to re gul ate ev ery sin gl e use of cre at ive work in a digital environme this means tha t the law will incr easi ngly mo ves into a di gi tal env ir onment, re gul ate more and more of th e use of culture. Is this consis tent with our valu es? The answ er aga in co uld be fou nd firs tby tr ying to tra ns la te fra ming val - ive, it would be extr aord in ar - ues int oth ecu rrent co nte xt. Fr om that perspect il y di ffi cult to imagin e that the frami ng vis ion wou ld have inclu de d the lev el of legal reg ula ti on tha t the cu rre nt re gi me entails . Ag ain ,that co nclu sio n co ul d be qu est ion ed by re cog niz ing tha t the pos - sib il ity of such ext en sive regul ati on di dn’t exist, and so the cho ice about wasn’ t made. Tha t whe the r such ext ens ive re gul at ion should be allowed cho ice, whe n made, sh ou ld recog nize th at while the re is ext ens ive and new cult ure, that reg ul at ion creates new wealth for prof es - re gul ati on of amateur sion al cu ltu re . The re ’s a choi ce to be made abo ut wh ich fo rm of cu lt ur e we sh ou ld pro tect. Tha t cho ic e has no t ye t bee n made directly. It is one mor e cho ice we ha ve ye t to mak e. MAKES TION TH E PROBL EMS THAT PERFEC The se th ree exampl es reve al a co mmo n patt ern—one that wil l reach far bey on d copy rig ht. At one ti me we enjoy ed a certain kind of liber ty .But that from the high costs of lib erty was notdi re ctl ychosen; it was ali berty resulting 65 Thatwas the conc lu sion we dr ew abo ut fair use—t hat wh en th ecost cont rol . of con tr ol was hig h, the spa ce for fai r use was great. So too with anon ymou s laws pro te ct readi ng: We read anon ymo us ly inrea lspac eno tso mu ch because that right as becau se the cos t of tr ac king what we read is so gr eat. And it was That flouri shed free of regulati on bec au se th e sam e wi th ama te ur culture: re gul ati on cou ld not easi ly rea ch it. fal l, ho we ve r, lib erty is thr eaten ed. Th at threat Whe n co sts of control req uires achoic e—do weall ow the erosi on of an earlie rlibert y, or do we ere ct oth er limi ts to re-creat e that or ig ina l libe rty? Th elawof int el le ctu al pro perty is the fi rst exa mp le of this ge ne ral point. it will allow for agreater As th earch itec ture of th eInt er net changes, pro tec - arc hite ctures allo wed; thi s ti on of intel lec tu al prope rty tha n real-space gre ater pr otecti on wil l forc e a choic e on us tha t we do not need to ma ke in re al sp ace . Shou ld the arc hit ec ture al low perfec t control over int elle ctua l pr oper ty , or shou ld we bu il d into the architecture an inco mp let en es s that gu arantee s a certa in asp ect of pub lic us e or a cer tain spac e fo r in di vi dual freed om ?

212 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 197 197 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y Igno rin gth ese qu es ti ons will not make them go aw ay .Pre ten ding tha tthe fr amer s answe red the m is no solu ti on eithe r. In this contex t (a nd this is ju st the fi rst )we will need to mak eajudg ment about which values the arc hi te ct ure wil l pr otec t. CHO ICE S in thecontext I’v eargued th at cyb ers pace wil lop en upthree important choices whet her to allow intellectual of in te ll ect ual property: propert y in ef fe ct to be come co mpl etely proper tized (for tha tis what aperfect code regimefor pro - tect in g int el lectua l pr operty wou ld do ); an d whe ther to all ow thi s reg ime to and whethe r lat ent inles sef fic ient arc hit ec tures of control; er ase the an onymity to al low the ex pa nsion of in tel lect ual prope rty to dr ive out ama teu r cu ltu re. These choic es were no tmade by our fra mers. They are fo rusto mak enow . I ha ve a vi ew, in th is con text as in the fo llowi ng thr ee, ab out how we sh ou ld exe rcis e th at choi ce . But I am a law ye r. La wyers are ta ught to point to an act of Con - els ew her e— to the framers , to the United Nations charter, said that the re is gre ss —w hen argui ng abou thow th ing sought to be. Having no su ch au thor ity here ,I feel as if I oug ht to be sile nt. Cowardl y, not sil ent, however, is how othe rs might see it. Th ey say tha t I (intelle ct ua l sh ou ld say wha t I th ink. So in ea ch of thes e thre e app lications prop erty, pr ivacy , and free sp eech) , I will offe r my view about how thes e cho ices shou ld bema de .But Idothi sunde rsome duress and encou ra ge you an deasy to dis - to sim ply igno re what Ibeli eve .It wi ll beshort, and summary, ntly, the claim tha twe ,mos timporta card .It isthe ba lance of the boo k—and ha ve a cho ice to ma ke —that I rea lly want to stick. Ano nymi ty Cohe n, it see ms tome, is pl ainly ri ght about anonymit y, and the Cohe nThe - or em is in spi ra ti on al. How ever effic ie nt the alte rna tive may be, we sho uld certai nly ar chi te ct cybe rs paces toen sure anonymit y—or more pre ci sely, pseu - do ny mit y—fi rs t. If the code is goi ng to mon itor what I do, the n at leas t it I am less tr oub led if it sh ou ld no t know that it is “I” tha t it is monitoring. kn ow s that “1 4AH 342B D7” rea d such and such; I am deep ly tr oub led if tha t numb er is tied back to my name . Cohe n is rig ht for a seco nd reas on as wel l: All of the goo d that com es fr om mo nito ri ng co uld be achie ved whi le protectin gprivacy. It may take abi t mo re cod ing to bu ild in rou ti nes for breaking tr aceability; it ma y tak e mor e plan nin gto ensu re that priv ac yis pr otected. But if those rul es areembe dde d

213 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 198 198 CODE 2.0 upfron t, th ecost wou ldnot be ter ri bly high. It is far ch eap er to ar chit ect pr i- va cy pro tect io ns now rather than ret rofi t for them later. The Commo ns ”Imean ares ou rce th at anyone within arele va nt comm u- By “t he Commons nit ycan us ewith out see ki ng th epermis sion of anyo ne els e. Such pe rm iss ion may no tbe re quire dbecaus ethe res our ce is not sub ject to any lega lcon tro l(i t is ,in ot her wo rds ,in the pu bl ic domai n). Or it may not be requ ir ed beca us e pe rmi ssion to us e the re sourc e has alre ady been gran ted. In ei ther ca se, to more than acces s to the use or to bui ld upo n th is re so urc e requ ires nothing 66 re so urce its el f. In this sense, the que stion sabout the sc op eand rea chof cop yright law ask that it did in th e whe the r our fut ure wi ll pr otect the inte llectu al commons past .Again, it did so in the pas t beca us ethe friction was too gre at. of control But now tha t that fri ct ion is gone, wi ll we pres erve or destroy the com mons that used to exist? My vi ew is that it oug ht to be pre served. We can arc hite ct cy bersp ace to pr eserve a co mmo ns or not. (J ef fer so n but Jeff erson wrote tho ught that nat ure ha d al rea dy done the architecting, be fore th ere wa scod e. )We should choos eto arc hitec tit with acomm ons. Our gav eour away; th atcommons pas tha dacom mons tha tcoul dnot bedesigned cu ltur e gre at va lue. What valu e the com mons of the future coul d bring us is prop erty sch ola rs saw som eth in g we ar e jus t begin ning to see. In tellectual for mu ch it—l on g bef ore cybe rspa ce came along —and laid the groundwork 67 The gr eat est wo rkin th elaw of cy ber - of the argu ment wene ed to hav enow. spa cehas been wr itten inthe field of int ell ectu al prope rty. Inawid era nge of con te xts ,th ese scho larshave mad eapo wer fu lcase for the substant ive val ue of 68 an intell ect ua l co mmons. James Boyle pu ts th e ca se mos t dr amati ca ll y in his extra ord ina ry book 69 . Sh ama ns, So ftwa re, an d Sple ens Dr awi ng tog ether both cyb er spa ce and no n- cybe rsp ace ques ti ons , he spell s out the ch al le nge we face in an inf or ma tion 70 soc ie ty—pa rticu lar ly th e pol itica l ch all enge. Els ewhe re he id entif ie s our ne ed for an “e nvi ro nmenta l moveme nt” in in fo rma tion policy—a rhet oric that get speople to see the broad ra nge of values put at risk by thi smove men t to pr oper ti ze al linformat io n. Boyl e’ swo rk has insp ired many othe rs to pu sh 71 a sim ilar agend a of freed om. That fr eedom wou ld limi t the la w’s reg ula tion ov er the use and reu se of contr ol ove r use; it would free a wid e range of cu ltur e. It wo uld res is t perfect for freedom th e libe rt y re us e. It wo uld bui ld thro ugh af fi rmati ve protections

214 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 199 199 int ell ect ual pro pe rt y th at fri cti on ga ve us be fore. It woul ddoso be ca use it believes in the value sthis th e valu e in that fr ee dom by fr eedo m sta nd s for, and it wo ul d demo nstrate ti es that freedom en ab li ng the communi wou ld itsel f enabl e. But this fr ee dom cou ldbe const ru ct ed ei th er thr ou gh change sin the law to encou rage the fr ee dom or vol un tar ily. Tha tis, the la wco ul dbe rebalanced thou ght im port an t, or this proper tycou ld be redep loy edto effect the freed om tho ught imp ortant. The seco nd str at egy was the tech niq ue of the Fre e Sof tw are Mov em ent, des cri bed in Chapter 8. Usi ng copyr ig ht law , Stall man deplo yed a sof twa re the fo ur free do ms of free so ftwar e, and al so lice nse tha t both pre served dis tribute req ui red tha t th ose mod ifyi ng and di st ribut ing free software the mo di fi cat io ns freely. Thi s li ce ns e thu s effects a so ftw are co mm ons ,sinc e the so ft ware is availa bl e to all to use , and this so ftware commons ha s becom e a cr it ical ra w mat er ial fueli ng the digi tal age. More rece ntly, Sta ll man’ s ide a ha s be en copie d by othe rs see king to project, fo r exam ple , has in cybe rs pac e. Th e Wikipedia rebu ild a co mmons bu ilt —t o th e asto nish ment of mo st—an ext raordinary online ency clopedia so le ly thr ou gh the volun te er eff or ts of thousands, con tributin g essay s and pe rpet ua lly editsin apub lic wiki .The pro duc tof that work isnow protected me (ye s, I kn ow, only for a“l imi ted ti me ,” but don’ t cor rect about th at littl e any mo dif ica - det ai l) thr ou gh a copy ri ght li cense tha t, like the GPL, requires tio n to be dis tr ibu ted freely as well .(M ore on Wik ip edia in Ch ap ter 12.) And so to o ha s Crea tive Commons us ed priv ate law to build an ef fe ctiv e pu blic comm ons. Aga in, fol lowin gSta llman, Creative soffe rs copy - Common rig ht ho lders a simpl e way to ma rk their creati ve work with the freedo ms they in ten d it to ca rr y. Th at mark is a lice nse which res erves to the author so me ri gh ts, whil e dedi cati ng to the public rights that oth er wis e would ha ve ive and pu blic, they to o bee n he ld pri vat el y. As the se license s are nonexclus can bui ld up on . eff ec ti vel ybu ild acommons of creat ive resou rces that anyone Thou gh Ihave spent agre at de al of my time hel pin gtobu il dth eCreati ve Common s,Isti ll belie ve priv ate act io nal one is not enough. Yet the re is va lu e in le arn ing some thing fr om what th is private action produc es, as its les son ma y help polic y make rs recr aft copyr ig ht la w in th e future.

215 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 200 E L E V E N p r i v a c y T AR T 1 WA S THA T COD E COULD ENA BLE A MOR E REG ULAB LE HE CONC LUS ION OF P cybe rsp ace ;the conc lus ion of Part 2wa sthat code woul dbeco meanincr ea s- space. Bo th co nc lus ions were ing ly im port ant reg ul ator in that mor eregulable Contrary to the ear ly panic by cen tral to the sto ry of the previ ous chapter. co pyri ght ho lders, the Inter ne t wi ll beco me a spa ce wh ere inte lle ct ual pr op - er ty can be more easi ly pro tect ed . As I’ ve des cr ibed, that prote ction will be ef fec ted throu gh co de . Pr ivacy isasur pris ingly similar stor y. Inde ed, asJo nathan Zittra in ar gued 1 the pr obl ems of priv acy in an essa y pub li she d in the Sta nf ord Law Re view, an dco pyr ight are ex ac tly the same .With both, the re ’s abit of “ou r” data tha t it is the data co nstituting “w e’v e” lost co nt rol over. In th ecas eof co pyright, a copy of ourco pyrigh te dwo rk; in th ecas eof priv acy, it is the da ta rep re senting this los sof con - so me fa ct abou tus. In both case s, the Inter net has produced tro l: wit hcop yr ight ,bec au se the tec hno logy ena bles perfect and free copi es of co nte nt; wi th priv acy , as we’ll see in thi s chapter, bec ause the techn ology enab le spe rpe tual and ch eap monito ring of beha vior. Inboth ca ses ,the que s- tio n po li cy ma ke rs sho uld as k is what mix of la w and tec hnolog y might rest ore the pr oper leve lof con tr ol. That le ve lmus tba lance privat ean dpub li c in ter ests: Wi th copyr ig ht, the balan ce is as Idesc ri bed in the las tch apt er; wit h pri vacy ,it is as we’l l exp lo re in thi s ch apter. The big di ff ere nce bet ween copy ri gh tand priv ac y, how ev er ,isthe po li tic al the inte re sts ec on om ytha tseeks asolu ti on to ea ch probl em. With copyright, th rea tene dare powerf ul an dwe ll organ ized; with privacy, the int er es ts threat - ened are di ff us eand di sorga nize d. Wit hcopyrig ht ,the valu es on the ot her si de of protec tion (the commons, or th e pub lic domai n) are neithe r compe lling nor well underst oo d.Wi th pr ivac y, the valu es on th eother side of pr otec tion 200

216 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 201 201 priv acy Th e (s ec ur ity ,the wa ragainst terr orism) com pel ling and wel lunderstood. are re su lt of the se di ff ere nce s, as an ypo lit ic alth eorist wou ld the npre dict, is that ov er the pa st ten yea rs, wh il e we’ ve seen a lot of legislative and tec hnic al we’ve see n ve ry few that ch ang es to solve th e pro bl ems faci ng copyright, wo uld solv e the pro bl ems of pri vac y. Ye t as wit h cop yri ght, we co ul d res tri ke th e bal ance pr ote cting priva cy . th at cou ld pro duce There are both chang es in la wand changes in technology amuch mo repriv at e(and se cu re )di gi tal env ir onmen t. Wheth er we wi llreal - iz eth ese chang es depe nds upo nrec ogniz ing both the dynam ics toreg ula ti on in cybe rspace and the importanc e of the value th at pr ivacy is. {T XB 2} haschanged We will thi nk abo ut thr eeaspe cts of pr ivacy ,and ho wcyberspace ea ch of them. Tw o of thes e three wi ll be the focu s of this ch ap te r,but I be gin wit h the thi rd to help ori ent the bal anc e. PRI VACY IN PRIVATE The trad iti onal questi on of “priv ac y” was the limit th e la w pla ce d upon the abi li ty of othe rs to pene tr ate yo ur priva te spa ce. What right do es the go ve rn- me nt ha ve to ente r yo ur ho me ,or se arc h you r pape rs? What protec tion do es the la w of tresp as s prov ide ag ainst othe rs beyo nd the govern me nt snoop in g into you rpri va te stu ff? This is one mea ning of Brandeis’s slogan ,“the right to 2 From th epe rspec tive of the law ,it is the set of le gal restr icti ons be le ft al on e.” on th e powe r of oth ers to in vade a pr otected spa ce. Th os eleg al re str iction swere compl em ented by phy sical bar riers. Th elaw of tresp ass may we ll say it’ sil lega lto en ter myhouse at nig ht, bu tth at doe sn ’t me an I wo n’ t lo ck my doors or bo lt my wind ows .He re again, the protec tion on e enjo ys is the su m of the pr ot ect io ns prov ided by the fou r mo dal ities of the pr otec tions re gul ati on. Law suppl ements the pr ot ectio ns of technology, bu ilt in to nor ms, and th e pr ot ecti ons fro m the cos tl ines s of ille gal pe net ra - tio n. hav e cha nged th es e protec tio ns .Th e cost of para - Di gital te chn ologies bol ic micro phone te chn olo gy ha s dropp ed dra ma tical ly; tha t me ans it’s your win do w. On the eas ier for me to list en to you r co nve rsat ion through to mo nit or in tru si on has als o ot her han d, the cost of securit y te chn ologies to reck on, bu t th e fall en dram atica lly . The ne t of these ch anges is difficult co re val ue is not rende red ambig uou s by this diffic ulty .The ex pectat io n of pr iv acy in what is reas on ably unde rst ood to be “privat e” spaces remai ns unch alle nged by new tec hnol ogies . This sort of pri vacy doesn’t pres ent a “l ate nt amb ig uit y.”

217 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 202 202 CODE 2.0 CE PRI VACY : SU RVEILLAN IN PUBLIC iva cy in pub lic . A se con d ki nd of pr iva cy wi ll seem at first oxymoronic—pr Wh atkind of prote ctio nis th ere again st gathe ring da ta abou tmewh ile I’m on a pu bli c street, or boa rdi ng an air pl ane? Th e tradit iona l ans wer was sim pl e: No ne . By stepp ing into th e pub lic, what others came to know you relin quis hed any ri ghts to hi de or control abo ut yo u. The fac ts th at you transmi tted about you rself were as “f re e as the 3 Thelaw prov ided no le gal pro tecti on agains ttheuseof ai rtoco mmo nuse .” dat a gat hered in publ ic cont ex ts. But as we’ve see n agai n and aga in, ju st becau se the law of priva cy didn’t Facts about you whil e pr otect yo uitdo esn’ tfollo wth atyo uwer en’t protected. yo uare inpu blic, ev en if not le ga ll yprote cte d, are effe ct ive ly prot ect edby the high cost of ga thering or usi ng thos e fa ct s. Friction is thus pr iva cy’ s best fr iend. To see the protec ti on th at thi s fr ic tion cr ea tes , howe ve r, we mu st distin - gu is h be twee n tw o dime nsio ns al ong which priva cy might be comp rom is ed. mon it ored , There is a par t of an yo ne’s life th at is and the re is a pa rt tha t can be search ed .The mon ito re dis th at part of one’s da ily existe nce that ot hers se e or notice and can re spond to, if respon se is appropr iate. As I walk down th estre et, my be ha vior ismon ito red. If Iwal ke ddown the st re et in asm al lvil - quite ex tens iv ely . la ge in we st ern Ch ina , my behavi or wo ul d be monitored Thi s mon ito ri ng in both case s wo ul d be trans itory .Peopl e would notice ,for or in a dres s, but if the re were ex ampl e, if I were wal king with an elephant not hing speci al abou t my walk, if I simply blended in to th e cr owd, then I soon after—mor mi ght be not iced for the mome ntbut fo rgotten equ ickl yin San Fran cis co ,perh aps ,than in Ch ina. is the part of you r lif e tha t le av es , or is, a rec ord. Scrib - The sear chable Stu ff in you r hou se is a blin gs in yo ur diary are a record of yo ur thoughts. reco rd of wh at you pos ses s. Th e re co rd ings on your tele ph one answeri ng ma chi ne are areco rd of who call ed and wh at they said. Your hard dr ive is you . The se parts of you r li fe are not eph eme ral. They inst ead rem ain to be re vie wed —at leas t if tec hnol ogy and the law permit. Thes e tw o di mensi ons can int era ct, depe nding upon th e technolog y in by my neighbor each. My eve ry ac tion in a smal l vil la ge may be monitored s. But give nthe nat ure That mon itor ing pr od uces are cor d—in their memories. of th erec or ding tec hno log y, itis fai rly costly for the gove rnme nt to se arc htha t rec ord .Police offi cers need to poll the neighbors ;they need totriang ula te on the inevi tably inc omp lete ac co unts to figure out what par ts are tr ue, and wha t pa rts ar enot. Tha t’ safamil iar proc ess, but ithas its limits. It mi ght be ea sy to

218 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 203 203 priv acy po ll th eneigh bor sto lea rn in form ati on to he lp lo cate alost pers on, but if the gover nm ent aske dqu est ion sabo ut the po liti cal view sof aneig hb or, we mig ht ex pec t (hope?) th ere would be resi stanc e to that. Thu s, in prin ciple ,the data are there .In prac tice, they are co stly to extr act. dic all y. They not onl y ma ke Dig it al tech nologi es cha nge thi s bal ance—ra mo re beha vi or mon it or abl e; they al so make more be havior se ar cha ble . The sa me techn ologies tha tgat her dat anow gat her itin away that mak esitsea rch - abl e.Th us, inc rea sin gly li fe becom esavillage compo sed of para llel proce ss or s, ac cess ib le at any ti me to reconst ru ct eve nts or tr ack behav io r. Con si de r some fami li ar exampl es: The Int ern et In Part I,Ides cri bed the ano ny mi ty the Inte rnet originall .But le t’ s yprovided That relative ity of the “ol d be cl ea r abo ut some thi ng important: anonym day s” isnow ef fec ti vel ygo ne. Everywh ere yougo on the Intern et ,the fa ctthat Everyw he re you go whe re IP ad dres s xxx.xx x.xx x. xxx went there is recorded. yo u’ve al lo wed a co oki e to be depo si ted, the fact that the ma chine carr yin g well as all the data ass ociat ed wi th tha t co oki e we nt the re is reco rded—as that cook ie. Th ey kno w yo u fr om you r mou se dro pp in gs. And as bu sin es ses an dadve rti sers work more clos elytoge ther, the span of data th at ca nbe agg re - gated abo ut you bec ome s end le ss. Con si de rahyp othet ic al that iscom ple tel ytechnica ll ypos sible und erthe ex is ting archi te ctu res of the Net . You go to a web pa ge of a co mpa ny you data—your tr us t,and you give that compa ny every bit of your private na me , add re ss, social secur it y number, favo ri te magazines and TV sho ws ,etc. Tha t co mp any gives you acoo kie .Yo uthen gotoan other site, on eyou don ’ttrus t. You decid e no t to give that si te an y perso nal data. But there ’s no way for you to know wh eth er th ese co mpa nies are coo pe rating about the da ta they coll ect. It sper fec tly poss ib le they synchr oni ze the co okies data they crea te. And th us , th er e’s no te ch nic al reas on why onc e you’ ve gi ven your dat a once , it isn ’t kn own by a wi de ran ge of si te s that yo u vis it. In th e secti on that follo ws, we ’ll cons id er mo re ex ten sive ly how we d others, ely provide sh ould thin k ab out pri vacy in any dat a I’ ve affirmativ But for the mo ment, suc h as my nam e, addre ss , or socia l securit y number. as I mo ve ar ound in ju st foc us upon the id entity data the y’ve collected priv acy soft - “pub lic. ” Un les s you’ ve take n extr ao rdinary step s—installing wa re on yo ur compu te r, or dis ablin g co ok ies, etc.— there’s no reason you sho uld exp ect tha t th e fa ct that you visite d certain site s, or ran ce rtain sea rc he s, is n’ tknowable bysomeone. Itis. The laye rs of tec hnol ogy des ign ed

219 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 204 204 CODE 2.0 to identify “t he cus to me r” ha ve pr oduced layers of data that can be endless tra ce d back to you. Sear ch es In Jan uar y 2006 , Googl e surpri sed the gove rnmen t by doing what no othe r search comp any had done: It to ld th e gove rnme nt “n o.” The Ju stice Depa rt - me nt ha d lau nc hed a st udy of pornog raphy on the Net as a way to def end Con gres s’s lat est regu lati on of pornogr aphy. It thus wanted data abo ut how ofte n, and in what form , pe op le searc h for porn on the Inte rnet. It asked Go ogle to pro vide 1,00 0,000 ra nd om search es from its datab ase over a spe c- ifi ed pe ri od .Go ogle—u ed. nl ikeYa ho o! and MSN—refus Isusp ect that when most fir st hea rdab out this, the yasked th ems elve san It does. Cur ios ity ismo n- obvio usque stion —Go ogle kee ps search requests? it or ed ,pr od ucin gasear chab le da tabas eof the cur ious. As away to fi gur eou t 4 —ke eps a be tte r ho w to do it s jo b, Googl e—and ev ery other sea rch engin e Google copyof ev ery sear ch it ’s as ked tomake. Mo re disturbingly, lin ksthat sear ch to a speci fic IP ad dress , and , if pos sib le, to a Goo gle use rs ’ ac co unt. Thu s, in the bow els of Goog le ’s databa se , there is a lis t of all searc hes mad e by yo u wh en yo u we re logg ed into your gmail ac count, sitting, wa it ing, fo r som eone to ask to see it. The gover nment didask. And inthe no rmal course of things, th egovern - me nt ’s requ est woul d be tota lly ordi nary. It is unques tioned th at the go vern- men tget sto as ktho se with rel evant evi denc etoprov ide it for an ong oin gci vi l or cri mi nal inves tiga ti on (there are limi ts, but none really signif icant). Goo gle has evid ence ;the go ver nme nt wo ul d ordinarily have the right to get it. Mo reov er , the gover nme nt in thi s cas e ex plicitl y pr omis ed it wou ld not us ethis evide nce for any th ing moreth an evaluating pat te rn sof co nsump tion ar ou nd por n. Inpa rti cul ar ,itpr omised itwo uld n’t tr ac eany particu larly su s- pi ci ou ssea rc hes. Itwo uld ign or eth at ev ide nce—which ordi nari ly itwo ul dbe so it co uld get acces sto agg re - fre etouse fo rwh at ev er pur pos eit chos e—just gate dat a abo ut searc he s for porn. So what’s the pr obl em thi s exa mpl e il lust rate s? Bef ore search eng ines ,no one had any re cor ds of cu ri os it y;ther ewasno pe pper search engi nes lis tof que st ions asked .No wth er eis. Peo ple obsessively The vast majo rity of these are to tally wi th que stions abo ut eve rything. benig n (“mu shroom s AND ra gout ”). Some of th em show som ethin g le ss be nig nab ou tthe sear cher (“er otic pict ures AND children ”). No wthe re’s alis t of all the se que sti ons, wi th som e pro viding evidence of at least crimin al in te nt.

220 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 205 205 priv acy The gover nme nt ’s int ere st in th at list wil l incr eas e. At firs t, its de mands wi ll see mqui te harmle ss— so wh at if itcount sthenum ber of times peopl eask Go ogle to point them to ero tic pic tures? Th en, when not so harml ess, th e beha vior— sear ches that sugge stterr orism , de mand swill li nk tover yharmful or abu se. Who co ul dar gue ag ai nst rev ea ling that? Finally, when no tso ha rm - will simp ly ins ist th is les s, and wh enth ecri me is not soha rmful ,the demands is an ef fi cie nt way to enforc e th e law .“If you don’ t like th e law, chan ge it. But ion is ob vious, inevita bl e, and until you do, let us enf orce it.” Th e progress ir re si st ib le. E-mai l Elect ron ic mai lisatext -based me ssage stored in digital form. It is like atra n- scri bed te leph one call . Whe n sent fr om one person to ano ther , e-m ail is co pied an d trans mi tted fro m mac hine to machine; it sits on the se dif fe rent sions by machine s—or by ma chin es unti l remo ved eithe r by rout ines—deci peo ple . The co nt ent of ma ny e-mai l mess ages is like the conte nt of an ord inary chatte r of frie nd s. But tele phon e ca ll—u npl anned, unthi nking, the ordinary unl ike ate leph on ecall ,thi scontent is saved in ase archabl eform. Comp anie s now inve st mil lio ns in tech nol ogi es that scan the conve rs ations of emp lo ye es that bef ore were ef fe ct ively privat e. Bo th in real time and in ret ros pe ct, the co nten t of co nv ersa ti ons can beco me known. On th e th eo ry tha t they “o wn 5 em plo ye rs inc reasi ngly sn oo p in th e e-mail of emplo yees , the com pu ter ,” 6 lo ok ing fo r stu ff th ey deem impr op er. In pr in cip le, suc h moni tori ng and sear ching ar e pos sibl e with te lephone are not monito red .Tomo n- call sor lett er s. In pra ctice ,these com mu ni cations ito r te le ph on es or reg ular mail re quires time and money—th at is , hum an in te rve ntio n. And thi scost means that most won’t do it. Here ag ai n, the cost s of co ntro l yield a cer tai n kind of freed om. Co ntro llin g employ ees (o r spou ses) is one imp ortant ne w use of e- ma il te ch nol og ie s. Ano th er is the be tte r delive ry of adve rtisement . Go ogle is again the lead erhe re wi thitsnew Gm ai lse rvi ce. Gmai lcan advert ise to you as you read your e- mai l. But the advance is that the advertisement is tr iggered byth econten t of th ee- mail .Imagin eatel ev is ion that shi fted its advertisement as it hear dwhat yo uwere tal king ab out on the pho ne .The cont ent of the e-mai l—and perh ap s the con te nt of your in box generally —helps det ermine what is show nto you. To ma ke th is sys tem work wel l, Go ogle nee ds you to keep lots of data on its ser ver s.Th us the onl y thi ng wi th in Gmail that is difficu lt to do—and it is re al ly re all y dif fi cu lt—i s to dele te conte nt from a Go ogle Gm ail ac count.

221 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 206 206 CODE 2.0 Gm ail le tsyo udele te one screen at atime. But when you have 20,0 00e-m ails in you r in bo x, who has tim e? Wo uld it be diffi cu lt for Gmail to ena ble a “d ele te al l” fu nc tio n? Of co urse no t. This is Goog le! Th us, throug hthe clev er use of ar ch it ectu re, Googl e assure s mor e data is kept, and tha t da ta then bec ome s a reso urce for oth er pur po se s. If you ever get involve d in a laws uit, the fir st que st ion of th ela wy er fr om the oth er side sh ou ld be— do you ha vea Gm ail acc ount? Becau se ,if yo u do ,yo ur lif e sits ope n for rev iew . V-ma il If e- mai l beco mes a per ma nent rec ord , why not v- mail? Voice mail sys te ms of the conv er sa - nication archi ve mes sage s and rec ord the commu at tributes , so does the abilit y to s for voi ce recog ni tio n improve tio ns. As tec hnologie search voi ce reco rds .As voi ce mail syst ems shift to dig ital syste ms ,ar chiving co nten t on ce ntr al se rvers rathe r tha n $50 devices con nected tothe phone at ho me, they beco me prac ti ca l se arc h re sources . In principl e, ev er y nig ht the gov er nment cou ld sc an al l the sto red voice record ings at every tel eph one co mp any in the nat ion. Thi s sea rc h wo uld impose no burden on the use r; it co ul dbe ta rgete donand li mit ed to speci fic topic s, and it could ope ra teinthe ba ck gr ou nd wi th ou t an yone ev er knowing. Vo ic e s the NS A monitor An d why st op with record ing s? Acco rd ing to one report, 7 That mo nitor ing is auto - over 650 mil lion telephone . con versat io ns a day mat ic. It used to be of forei gners only ,but no w app are ntly the sys tem mo ni - for that bit or clu e nication tor s an extr ao rdi na ry range of commu ,searching akin to a that tri gge rs inves ti gat ive concer n. Th e system produces something we at her rep ort as well as part ic ula ri zed indicato rs . The re are , for exam ple , me asu res of“c ha tter” th at may si gnal a stor m. This mo ni tor ing ,lik e ea ch of the examp les bef ore ,cre ate s no burde n for tho se us ing atele phone .Tho se usi ng the phone don’t know som ething is lis - te nin gon the ot her end .In stea d,the syst em work squietl yin the ba ckgr ound, ni cati on in real time. searchi ng th is mo ni tored commu Vi deo gy, and has chos en to use a technolo In ea ch of th e examp le s so far, someone tha ttechnol ogy has made th ei rpriv acy vuln erabl e. Th echange isprod uce das that technol ogy evolv es to make it si mple r to mon ito r and sea rch beh av ior.

222 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 207 207 priv acy But th e same evolut ion is happeni as well. Ind ee d, it ng outs id e networks e street s, or in publi c is happen ing in the quintes sent ia lly public place—th of vi deo ve nu es . Thi s moni tor in g is th e pr od uc ti on of the cu rrent version techn olog y. Or igina ll y, vi deo ca me ras we re a relatively be nign for m of mon - relied solely upon hu ma n ito ri ng . Becau se the pro duc t of thei r monitoring int er pre tati on, there were rela tiv ely fe w contexts in which it pai d to ha ve was n’ t watching in re al time , th en the so meon e watc h. And wh ere so meone use of the se tec hno lo gi es is to trac e ba d behav ior after it happe ns .Few se em toiden ti fy th e ups etwh enaconv eni enc est ore video camer amakes it possible the att enda nt . cr imi na l wh o has murdered Di gita l tech no logy ha s cha nge d the video, howe ve r. It is now a to ol of as I’ ve described, cam era sare int elli ge nce ,no tjust atoo lto record .In London, sp re ad th rough th eci ty to moni tor wh ich cars drive in the city. This isbe ca us e non re si de nts mus t pay a spec ia l ta x to dr ive in “conges tion zo nes .” The cam- lic ense pla ce s, and the nde ter mine whe th er th eright er as re co rd an dinterpret of the system was to mini mi ze co ng es - ta xwas pa id fo rth atcar .The objective tion inLo ndo n. Its co ns equenc eis ada taba se of ev er yca rtha tenters Lond on, tied to a par ti cul ar time and lo cat io n. But the more amb iti ous use of vi deosu rveil lanc eishuman face rec ogni - ti on . Whi le the techn ol ogy rec eived so me very ba d pres s whe n first intro - 8 the go ver nme nt cont inue s to enc ou rag e compan ies to du ced in Tam pa, de velop the capa ci ty to iden tify who so meo ne is while that so meo ne is in a place. As one ve ndor adverti ses, “[f ]a ce re co gn iti on tra di ti ona lly an onymous tech nolo gy is the le as t in tru sive and fastes t biome tric technolo gy. ...There are en tirely unaware is no intr us ion or del ay ,and in mo st ca ses the subjects e’or that the ir pr ivacy ha s of the pro ce ss. They do not feel ‘u nde r surveillanc 9 be en in va ded. ” e to be fun ded by Thes e te chnologi es are n’t yet rel iabl e. But th ey continu the go ver nment runs Indeed, bot h pr ivat e in ve stor s and the gove rnment. 10 evalu at ion tests bi-an nu ally torat ethe reliability of the techn ologie s. The re mu st at lea st be so meone wh o exp ec ts that someday it wil l pos sib le to use a a tr ain. came ra to ident ify wh o is in a crowd, or who boarded Bod y Par ts not te rribly Crim inal s lea ve ev idenc e be hind, both because usually they’re gy is onl y mak - rat io nal and becau se it’s ex tre mely hard not to. And technolo ing it harder not to. With DNA techno logy, it bec omes increas ingl y dif ficu lt ly ea sy fo rlaw enf or ce - for acr imina ltoavoi dleav ing his mark, and increasing me nt to ide ntif y wi th ext remely hi gh confidence whe th er X did Y.

223 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 208 208 CODE 2.0 Some nati on shav ebeg unto cap ita liz eon this new adv anta ge .And ag ain, 11 Begin nin gin 1995 ,the Br it is hgove rnm ent started col - Br it ai nisinthe le ad. lec tin g DNA samp les to inclu de in a na tional re gis try. The prog ram was in i- tia ll ypr om ote dasaway tofigh tte rroris m. But in adec ade, its use has bec ome mu ch le ss dis cr iminati ng . In Decem ber 2005, while rid ing pu bl ic trans por ta ti on in Lo ndon, I read the fo llowi ng on a pub li c annou nce me nt pos te r: Abu se ,Assau lt, Arre st :Ou rstaff are here to help you .Sp it tin gon DLR st af fis clas - si fi ed as an ass aul tan disacr imin al offen ce. Saliv aRe cove ry Kit sar enow held on eve ry tra in and will beused to iden ti fyoff end ers agai nst the nat ional DN Adat abase . s. But it is ins ul ting . And if the And why not? Sp itt ing may be harmles too ls exi st to ide nti fy the perpe tr ator of the in sul t, why not us e the m? {T XB2} In al l the se cas es, techno logi es de si gned ei ther without as their mo nitoring ai morwith ju st lim ited mon itori ng as their capaci ty have now becom eexper t techno log ie sfor monitor in g. Th eaggr egate of th ese techn olo gies pr odu ce san ntly, as these tech - ext ra or dinary range of sear ch ab ledat a. And, more importa no logi es matu re, there will be esse ntial ly no way for anyone living within ordin ary socie ty to es ca pe this mo nit orin g. Monitor in gto produce sea rchab le dat awil lbec ome the def ault ar chitectu re for publi cspac e, as stan dard asstre et , to th e mo re lig ht s. From the simpl e ab il ity to trac e bac k to an individual tro ub lin g abi lit y to know what th at indiv idu al is do ing or like s at any par tic - ular mo ment, th e ma turi ng data inf rastruc ture pro duces a pa nopt icon bey on d an yth ing Ben tham eve r ima gi ned. “O rw el l” is the wo rd you’ re looking for .And while Ibe lie ve tha tana log ies to Or well are ju st abo ut al wa ys usel ess , let’s make one com pa ris on he re we re ce rta inl y va stl y non ethel es s. Wh ile the ends of the gov ernme nt in 1984 mo re ev il tha n anythi ng our gover nme nt would ever purs ue, it is inte re sting to note ju st how ine ff ic ien t, relative to the current range of techn ologi es, n” tha t both Orwel l’s tec hnol ogi es were. The cent ral device was a “telescree and monit ore dbe ha vior onthe other side. Bu tthe grea t bro ad cas ted content , could see . vi rtu e of th e tele scree n was th at yo u knew what it, in principle Wi nst on knew wher e to hide , becau se the pe rsp ec tive of the tele scr ee n wa s 12 tr an spa rent. It was ea sy to know wha t it couldn ’t see, and hen ce eas y to kn ow whe re to do the stu ff yo u did n’t want it to see. Th at ’snot th ewor ld we live in today .You can’ tknow whet he ryou rsea rc h on the In ter ne tis be ing moni tored. Youdon’t kn ow whe the raca me ra is try - ing to ident ify wh o yo u are. You r tel ephone does n’t make funny clicks as the

224 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 209 209 priv acy NSA listens in. Your e-ma il does n’t re port whe n some bot has searc hed it . s of The techno logies of to day have no ne of the integr ity of the te chnologie . None are dec ent eno ugh to let you know when your lif e is be ing 198 4 rec ord ed . 1984 There ’s a seco nd differe nc e as well . The gr ea t fla w to the de sig n of just ho w it was th at behav io r was being monitor was in imagining ed. The re we re no compu te rs in the st ory. The mo nitoring was do ne by ga gg le s of ing pro du ced no sim - gu ard swatc hi ng ban ks of tel ev isi ons. But that monitor ple way fo r the guar ds to con ne ct th eir int elli gen ce . There was no se arch acro ss the br ains of the guards. Sure, agu ard migh tnotice that you’r eta lking to someo ne you sho ul dn ’tbe tal ki ng to or that you’ve ente red apar tof acit y you should n’t be in. But the rewas no single guard who had acom plet epict ur e of the li fe of Winst on. Ag ai n,that “imp er fec tion ”can no wbeelim inated. We can mon itorev ery - thi ngandsearc hthe pro duc tof tha tmo nitori ng. Even Orwell couldn’t imag- ine that . {T XB2} acommon form .In eac h, the I’v esu rveyed arang eof tec hnol og ie sto identify in di vi du al act s in a co ntex t th at is tec hnicall y public. I do n’t mean it sho uld be tre ated by the law as “p ub lic ”in the sen se tha tpriv acy should no tbepro - tec ted there .I’ mnot ad dres sing that qu estio nyet. Imean only th at the in di- tha t he doe sn’t cont rol. vi du al is puttin g his wo rds or im ag e in a context Walki ng do wn 5th Ave nue is the cleares texam ple. Sendin galette ris an ot her. In both ca se s, the ind ividu al has pu t himself in a strea m of ac ti vity that he do esn ’t contr ol. The quest ion for us ,then ,is wha tlimits ther eshould be —in the na meof “p riva cy”— on the abil ity to survei l the se ac tiv ities. But even that que stion put s the matte r to o bro ad ly. By“s urveil ,” I do n’t mean surveil lan ce gen era ll y. I me an th e ver y spec if ic ki nd of surv eillance the ex ample s above evinc e. I me an what we co uld cal l“d ig ita l surveil lance.” “Di gital surve il lan ce ”is the proc ess bywhich so me fo rm of human acti v- to some specified ru le. Th eru le migh t ity is an alyze dby acompu ter ac cording sa y “flag all e-mai l tal ki ng abo ut Al Qa eda.” Or it might say “f lag all e-ma il prai sin gGo ver nor De an.” Agai n, at th is point I’m not focus ed upon the nor - e shou ld be all owe d. At mat iv e or legal que sti on of wh ether su ch surveillanc s. In ea ch of the cas es abo ve , thi spoi nt,we’re just worki ng thro ugh de finition ris sorting the cr it ical feat ure in eac histhat acompute data for some foll ow- at ion of the se arch is a tec hnic al The sophistic up revi ew by som e human. su bs tantial ly. qu es tion ,but th ere’s no dou bt that its accur acy is improving So shou ld thi s for m of moni tori ng be al low ed?

225 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 210 210 CODE 2.0 Ifind wh en Ias kth is questi on fram ed precisely like this that there are tw o po lar opposi te reac tio ns. On the one han d, fr ie nds of priva cy say that the re ’s not hin gnew here .There’ sno dif ferenc ebe tween the police rea ding you rma il , In bo th cases , a legitima te an d the poli ce’s comp ut er rea di ng your e-mail. an d re aso nab le expe ctat io n of pr ivac y has bee n brea ched . In both ca se s, the law sho uld pr otec t ag ainst th at brea ch. On the othe rhan d, friends of secu ri tyinsis tther eisafund ame nta ldi ff er - Washington en ce. As Ju dge Ric hard Pos ne r wrot e in the Po st, in an articl e 13 ) sur vei lla nc e of dom est ic defen din g th e Bush Admi nist ra tion’ s (ext ensive comm uni ca tions , “[m] ac hine col lec tio n and pro cess ing of data cannot, as suc h, inv ade pri vacy. ” Why ? Beca us e it is a mach in e that is proces sin g the dat a. Mach ine s don ’t go ssi p. They don ’t care about you r affair with your co- wo rker .Th ey do n’ t pu ni sh you for yo ur pol itical opinions .Th ey ’re ju st lo gic machines that act ba sed up on con diti ons. Inde ed, as Judge Posner arg ue s, is not a sent ie nt “[ t]h is initi al sif ting, far fr om inv adi ng pr ivacy (a computer be in g) , kee ps mos t pri vat e da ta from being read by any intellige nce of fice r.” sug gests , both Posner We ’re be tter off ha vi ng mac hi nes re ad our e-mail, becau se of the securi ty gai n, and beca use the alter nati ve sn oop —an intelli - gen ce of fi ce r—wou ld be mu ch more nosey. Bu titwou ld goto ofar tosugg es tth er eisn ’tsom eco st to thissyst em .If we li ved in a wo rld wh ere our every commu nication was mon it ore d (i f?), that woul dce rtai nly chall eng eth esense tha twe wer e“left alon e.” We woul dbelef t pa rents listenin gca re - alo ne inthe sens eatoddler is lef tinaplayr oom —with fu lly fro m the ne xt room. The re wo uld certainly be some th in g dis tinc tiv ely dif fe ren t about the wor ld of per pet ual mon ito ring ,and that diff ere nce mus t be re ckone d in any ac count of whethe r this sor t of surveillance shoul d be al lowe d. We should als oaccou nt for the “be st in tenti on s” phen omen on. Sy stems of sur ve illa nc ear ein sti tu ted fo ron erea so n; th ey ge tused for ano th er. Jeff Rose n 14 ha sca ta log ed th eabu ses of thesu rveill anc ecultu re that Brit ain ha sbe com e: Vi deo ca mer as use dto leer at wo men or fo rsensatio nal news st orie s. Or in the Un it edSta tes, th emas siv esur vei lla nce for the purp ose of trac kin g“t errori st s” 15 was als o used to track dome sti c env ir onmen tal and antiw ar grou ps. inits mo st com pe llin gform .Im agin easys - But let’ sfra me th equestion tem of dig ital surv eil la nce in which th ealgorit hm wa sknown and ver ifia bl e: We kne w, tha t is , ex ac tly wh at was being search ed for; we trust ed that ’s all that was bei ng searched for. That surve illan ce was br oad and in discr im in ate. co ul d be done on the basis of the resu lts fr om that sur - But befo re anything vei ll anc e, a court would hav e to ac t. So the mach in e would spit out bits of da ta impli cati ng X in som e targ ete d crime, an d a court woul d decid e

226 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 211 211 priv acy wh eth er that data su ffic ed eith er to justify an arrest or a mor e trad ition al se ar ch. And fi na lly, to make the sy st em asprot ect ive as we can, the only ev i- denc e that could be us ed fr om this sur veillan ce would be evid ence dire ct ed if you’r e lo ok in g for aga in st th e cr im es be ing sur veil led for .So for example, I’m not ter ror ists, you don’t us e th e eviden ce to prosecute for tax evasion. sayi ng wh at th e tar ge ted crim es are; all I’m saying is that we don’ t use the tra ditio nal rule that al lows all evi den ce gathered legal ly to be usabl e for any lega l end . Wou ld suc h a sys te m vio la te the pr ot ecti ons of the Four th Am end me nt? Shou ld it? of the value The an sw er to thi s qu es ti on depend s upon you r conception pro te ct ed by th e Fourth Amend ment. As I desc ribed in Cha pt er 6, that searches and “ge ner al wa r- ame nd me nt was targ et ed agai nst indi sc riminate ra nts ”—th at is ,sea rch es that wer enot particularized to any parti cu lar ind ivi d- ty tha t was grant ed to those engaging ual and th e immuni in that se ar ch. But tho se searc hes, li ke an y se arch at tha t ti me, impos ed bu rde ns on the pe rson be in g se arched .If you vi ewed the valu e the Fourth Ame ndme nt protec ted as the protec tio nfromth eunju sti fie dbu rd enof this in discriminate se ar ch, then probl ems. As thi s di gi tal su rveill an ce woul d seem to rais e no significant fra me dab ove ,the yprod uc eno burd en atall unles ssufficient evi de nce isdis - co ve red to indu ce a co urt to author ize a search. the Fou rth Am endm ent to prote ct a But it may be that we understand an yone, or eve n if one ki nd of di gni ty. Even if a sea rch do es not burden of priva cy hol ds tha tthe very do es n’ tnoti ce the se arch at all ,th is conception is on ly ma tched interest ide aof asea rc his anof fense to dig nit y. That dignity if the st ate ha s a go od rea son to se arch before it searches .From this pe rspe c- wh ethe r it interferes tiv e, a searc h with out jus ti fi ca ti on harms your dignity wit h you r lif e or not . I saw the se two concep ti ons of privac y pla y out agains t ea ch othe r in a D.C. A fr iend and I ha d tra gi cally commo n enc ount er in Was hington, arr an ged a“p ol ic eride -alo ng” —r iding with Distr ict police dur in gthei rordi - nar y pat rol . The ne ig hborho od we pat roll ed was among th e po ore st in the city, and aro und 11:0 0 M P . .are port came intha taca rala rm had bee ntrippe d in aloca tion close to ours. Wh en we ar ri ved nea rthe scene, at lea st fiv epolic e of fi cers were at temp ting to ho ld three youths; three of the officer swe re ho ld - ing the su spec ts fla t ag ai nst the wall , with their legs spread and their fa ces pre ssed aga inst the bri ck. we re ne ar a car alar m wh en it went Thes e thr ee we re “s uspects ”—they off—a nd yet , from the loo ks of th in gs, you wou ld have thoug ht they ha d bee n caug ht ho ld ing the Hope di amond.

227 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 212 212 CODE 2.0 An dth en an extr ao rd inar ydis rupt ion brok eout. Tothe sur pri se of ever y- on e, and to my te rr or (f or this seemed a tinder box, and what I am abo ut to no old er than se vent een, de sc rib eseemed thema tch ), on eof the three youths, atthe co ps. “Ev er ytim e tur ned aro und inafit of ang er and star ted sc reaming od, I get th rown again st the wa ll, and a an yt hin g happe ns in th is nei ghborho gu n pus hed aga inst my he ad . I’ ve neve r done any thing il le gal, but I’m con - stan tly bei ng pus hed ar ou nd by cop s with gu ns.” His fr ien d then tu rne d ar ou nd an d tri ed to cal m him dow n. “C ool it, and ev er y- man , they ’re jus t tryi ng to do thei r job. It’l l be over in a minute, thi ng wi ll be cool .” “I’m not goin gto co ol it. Why the fu ck do Ihave toli ve th is way? Iam no t on e of the se guns a cr imi nal. I don’ t de serve to be treat ed like this .Someday st atistic .What the n? ” is goin gto go off by ac ci den t— an dthen I’ ll be afucking At thi s point the cop s inte rvened, three of the m flipp ing the indig nant yo ut h aro und agains t the wal l, hi s fac e ag ain flat again st the brick. “T his will be ove r in a mi nu te .If you check out, you’ll be free to go. Ju st re la x.” In the vo ice of rag e of the fi rst yo uth was the out ra ge of dignit y de nied. or no t, the re was Whe the r reason ab le or not , wh eth er mi ni ma lly in trusive some thi ng insu lt ing abo ut thi s experi ence—all the more insult ing whe n rep eat ed, one ima gin es , ov er and ov er aga in. As Justice Scal ia has wri tten , wo nd er in g whe th er the fr amers of the Cons titution woul d hav e cons ide re d kn own as a “Te rry stop ”—s toppi ng an d co nst it utiona l the po lice practice fr isk in g an y ind ividu al whenever th e police have a reas onab le suspicion—“ I fr an kly dou bt . . . wh ether the fierc ely proud men who ad opte d ou r Fourth to be su bj ected, on mer e suspi- Ame nd me nt wou ld hav e all owed themselves 16 ci on of be ing armed and dang ero us, to su ch indignity.” And ye taga in, there isthe ar gu ment of minim alintr usion .If priv acy is a pr otect io nag ains tun jus tifie dan dexcessi ve di srup ti on ,then thi swasnoinva - l; it sion of priv acy. As the sec ond yo uth argu ed , the in tr us io n wa s minima wo uld pa ss qui ckl y (a s it did— fi ve minu tes lat er , aft er their ide nt if ic ati on to so me le gitima te chec ked out, we had lef t) ; and it was re asonab ly related un reas onable and bu rd en- en d.Pri vacy here is si mp ly th e pr ot ect io n against so me intru sions ,and thi sse arch, th eseco nd youth argu ed ,was not so unr ea - also risked a son able and burdens om e as to jus tify the fi t of anger (which mu ch gre ate r dange r) . Fro m this perspe ctiv e, the harm in di gi tal surveilla nce is eve n ha rde r to rec kon .I’m cer ta in th ere are tho se who feel an ind ign ity at th e ve ry ide a that recor dsabo ut the mare bei ng revi ewed by comp ute rs. But most wou ld re cog - ni ze a very dif fe re nt digni ty at sta ke her e. Unlike those unf or tuna te kid s ag ai nst the wal l, th ere is no re al int erfe renc e here at all . Ve ry mu ch as with

228 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 213 213 priv acy tho se kid s,if nothi ng isfo und ,noth ing will happ en. So what is the indig nity? Ho w is it express ed? A thi rd concep tio n of pri vacy is about ne ithe r pr eserv ing dig nit y nor iva cy as away to con str ain mi ni mi zing intr us io n. Itisinst ead sub stantive—pr 17 th epower of the sta te to regulat e. He re the wor kof Willia mStun tz isagu ide. St un tzargue sthat the re al pu rpose of the Fourth and Fif th Amend men tsis to the evid en ceneeded to ma kesome types of regulat ion too diffic ult by making pro secu te such vio lat ions ef fect ive ly impos sibl e to gather. This isahard id ea fo rus toimagi ne .In ou rwor ld ,the so urc es of ev iden ce ar e man y—c redit card reco rds, tel epho ne re cords, video cam eras at 7- El ev ens —s oit’s har dfor us toim agin eany crim eth at the re wouldn ’tbe some evi de nce to prose cut e. But put you rse lf back two hundre d year s when the onl yre al evi denc ewas test imo ny and things, and the rules of evide nce for ba de the defe nd ant fro m te sti fyi ng at al l. Imagin e in that context the sta te wante d to puni sh yo u for “sedi ti on.” The only good eviden ce of sed ition would be yo ur wri ti ngs or your ow n te st imo ny abou t your thoughts . If thos e two sour ceswe re el imi nat ed ,then itwou ldbe practical ly impos sib le topros ecute se di tio n succes sfu ll y. As Stun tz argu es ,thi s is ju st what the Fo ur th and Fifth Ame ndm ents do. Co mb in ed, th ey make col lec ti ng the evid ence for acrime like sedi tio nimpo s- si ble ,thereb ymaki ng itus ele ss for the st ate to try to prosecute it. And not just se di tio n—as Stu ntz argu es, the eff ec tof the Fourth, Fifth, and Six th Ame nd - me nt s was to re str ic t the scope of re gu lation that was pr actical ly pos sible. As he wri te s: “Just as a law ba nn in g th e use of cont race ptives woul d tend to en cou rage bedr oo mse arche s, so als owo uld aban onbed ro om sea rche ste nd 18 to di sc ou ra ge la ws pr ohi bit ing cont ra ce ptives .” But wer e not su ch searc he s al re ady rest ric ted by, for exa mpl e, the Firs t libel have be en unc onsti - Ame nd me nt? Woul dno talawpu nis hing seditious tu ti on al in an y cas e? In fact, th at was not at all clear at the foun ding; inde ed, it was so uncle ar that in 1798 Congre ss pas sed th e Al ie n an d Se dition Ac ts , 19 whi ch in ef fec t punish ed sedi ti on qu ite directly. Ma ny thou ght thes e law s and Fifth Amen dme nts wou ld have been unc onsti tut ion al, bu t the Fourth ef fec tive limits on thei renfo rc ement, whe the rthe sub stantive laws were con - sti tut io nal or not. In th is con ceptio n, pr iv acy is meant as a subst an ti ve li mit on govern - 20 me nt ’s powe r. Un derstoo dthi sway, privac ydoes more than protec tdign it y or li mi t int rus ion; pri vac y limi ts wh at gover nmen t can do. If thi swere the co nc eption of pri va cy, th en di gi tal surve illa nce co uld well ac com modate it. If th er e were certa in crimes th at it was in appro priat e to prose cute, we could remove th em from the sea rch algo rith m. It woul d be

229 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 214 214 CODE 2.0 ha rd toid ent ify what cr ime sconst it utionally fr om the algo - mu st be removed fro m the list alr ea dy. rit hm—t he Firs t Am end me nt cl earl y ban is hes sedition n. Maybe the rul e simpl y trac ks consti tu ti onal limitatio No wthe ke yistorecog nize tha t, in princ ip le ,thes ethr ee dis tinct co ncep - tio nsof pr iv acy coul dyi eld dif ferent re su lts dep end ing on the ca se .Asearch, In tha tca se ,we fo rexa mpl e, migh tnot be intr usiv ebut might offend dignity. wo uld have to choos eaconc epti on of pr ivacy that we bel ieved bes tcap tu re d the Co ns titu tion ’s pr otect ion. At the ti me of the fou ndi ng ,how ev er, thes e dif fe rent conc eptions of pri - vac y would not, for th e mos t pa rt, ha ve yielde d di ffer en t concl usio ns . An y sea rch tha t rea ch ed beyond the substa ntive lim its of the am end me nt, or bey on d the limits of di gni ty ,woul d also have been a distu rban ce. Half of th e fr amer s cou ld have held the di gni ty concepti on and half the utility concep - ti on ,but be cau se eve ry sea rch would ha veinv olved aviolatio nof both, all the fr amer s cou ld ha ve end orsed the pr ot ection s of the Fourth Ame ndme nt. Tod ay, howe ve r, that’ snot tru e. Today these three conc eptio nsco uld yield ve ry di ff erent re su lts. The ut ility co nception cou ld pe rmit efficie nt se ar ches . The corr ect that are for bi dde n by the dig nit y and subs tan tive con ceptions tr an sl ati on (as Bra ndeis emp loyed the te rm in the Olm stead wir etappin gcase) on to trans late. dep en ds on selec ti ng the proper concepti In thi ssens e, ourori ginal pr otect ion swere the pr od uc tof wha tCa ssSun - 21 Giv en the techno logy of t.” ste in cal ls an “i ncom pl et ely theori zed agreemen the time, th ere wa s no rea son to work out which theory underla y the con sti - tu ti onal text; all thr ee we re con sis tent wit h existin g techn ology . But as the techn olog y has chan ged ,the ori gi nal co ntext has been ch al le nge d. Now that techn ologie ssu ch as the worm can se arch without distu rbing, the reis acon - . fl ic t ab out wha t the Fou rth Amend ment protects This co nfli ct is the othe r si de of Sun ste in’s in co mp letely theo rized ag ree - agreemen men t. We mi ght say that in an y incompl etely theorized t ambigu ities will be late nt , and we can des cri be cont exts where these lat enci es emerg e. The laten t am bigu it ies ab out the pr ot ec ti on of priv acy ,for ex amp le, are bein g ren - de red pat ent by the evolu tio noftech no logy. And this in turn fo rces us to cho ose . Some wil l once aga in try to sugge st that the choice has bee n ma de —b y our Co ns ti tu ti on, in our past. Thi s is the rhet oric of mu ch of ou r co nstitu - ti onal jur ispruden ce, but itis no tve ry helpful here. Ido not thin kth eframers in a wo rld wh er e pe rf ectly wou ld protect wo rked ou t what the ame ndment non invasive sea rc he s cou ld be conduc ted .They did not es tab lis h a cons titu - tio n to ap pl y in al l possi bl e wor lds; they es tab lished a constitution for their wo rld .Whe nthe ir wor lddi ffe rs fro mours in away that reveals acho ice they did not have to mak e, th en we need to make that choice.

230 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 215 215 priv acy PRI VACY : DATA IN PUBLIC The st or y I’v e to ld so fa r is abo ut li mi ts on gove rnme nt: What pow er shoul d th egovern men thave to sur ve il our acti vities, at le ast when those activitie sar e in publi c? Th at’s the spec ial qu est ion raised by cybersp ace: Wha t lim its on “d igi tal surve il lance” shou ldthere be ?The re are, of course, many other mor e tr ad it ion al ques ti ons that are al so impo rtant. But my focus wa s“digita l su r- ve il lan ce .” In thi spar t, Iconsi der athi rd pr iva cy que stion that is clos el yrela ted, but cont rols we shoul d ve ry dis ti nc t. This is th e qu est io n of what pres umptive the hav eov er th edat athat we reve al toothe rs. The issu ehere is not primarily yreach of con tr ol of the gove rn me nt .The que st ion isthus beyo nd the ordinar the Fourt h Amend me nt. Ins te ad , th e target of this control is pri vate actors who have either gathered data abo ut me as th ey’ve obs erved me, or coll ected dat a fro m me. Agai n, let’s ta ke thi sfrom the pe rs pec tive of re al spac efir st .If Ihire apri - va te dete ct iv e to foll ow you aro un d, I’v e not viol ated any one’ s rig ht s. If I to stop me from sel lin g comp il e a li st of pla ces you ’ve be en, the re’s nothing that list. You mi ght th ink th is intru siv e. You mi ght think it ou tr ageo us tha t the law would all ow this to happe n. But again, the la w trad it iona lly did n’t the co sts of such sur vei l- wo rry much abo ut this kind of in vas io n because la nce were so high. Celeb rities and the famous may wis h the ru les were dif - fe re nt, bu t for mo st of us, for most of our his tory, there was no nee d fo r the law to inte rvene . The sa me poin tco uld be ma deabou tthe dat aIturn ed over tobusine sses or othe rs in the day s befor e the In tern et. There was nothin g in the law to limi t wh at th ese entit ie s di d with tha t data. They coul d sell it to mailing lis t com panie sor br ok ers ;th eycould us eit however they wanted. Aga in, th eprac - tical cost of doing thi ng s wi th such da ta was high, so the re wa sn’ t tha t mu ch do newit hth is data .And ,more impor ta ntly, the invas ivenes sof any such use and ju nk ma il in of dat a was relat iv ely low .Junk mai l was the main product, ph ys ical space is no t a si gni fi cant burden. But her e,aswi th “di gital surveil la nc e,” thin gs hav echange ddra ma tica lly . Ju st a co up le st or ies wi ll give us a tast e of the change: 22 repo rte d th at th ere were Chi cago Sun -Times • In the beginnin g of 2006 , the we bsi tes selli ng the reco rds of tele pho ne calls mad e fr om cell ph on es .A blog , Amer icaBlo g, demo ns trat ed the fac t by pur ch as in g the ce ll ph one re cords of Ge ner al Wesle y Clark .Fo r aro und $120, the blog wa s ab le to prove wh at mo st wo uld hav e tho ugh t impo ssib le: th at any one wi th a credi t car d co ul d fin d

231 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 216 216 CODE 2.0 som eth ing sope rs on al as the li st (an dfr eque nc yanddur at ion) of peop le some - one call s on a cell ph on e. it. This co ndu ct was so out ra ge ous tha t no one re al ly stoo d up to defend Bu t th e defen se is n’ t ha rd to con st ruct. Wesley Clark “v ol unt arily ” diale d the num bers onhi scellpho ne. Hethus vol untari lytur ned that data over to the ce ll .Bec aus ethe cel lphone co mpany coul dsell data, itma de iteas - phone company ier for the com pa ny to ke ep price s lo w( er). Clark bene fited fro m those low er pr ice s. So wh at ’s hi s co mpl aint? •Anumber of yea rs ag oIre ceiv edaletter fro mAT&T. It wa saddr essed to an old gi rl fr ien d, but th e let ter ha d not been fo rwar ded . Th e add ress wa s my then- cur re nt ap art men t. AT& Twant ed to offer her anewcredit car d. Th ey wer eabit late : She and I had broke n up eight yea rs be for e. Since then, she had mo ved to Te xa s, and Ihad mo ve dto Ch ica go, to Washing ton, ba ck to Chi cago ,onto Ne w Have n, back to Chi ca go, and fina ll y to Bo ston, where I had move d twice . My per ip at eti ci sm, ho wev er, did not dete rAT&T. Wi th gre at fa ith in my constancy, it beli eved tha t a wo man I had not eve n seen in many ye ar s was li ving with me in this apar tme nt. How did AT&T mai ntain su ch abelief? Well, flo at ing abo ut incybers pa ce is lot s of data abo ut me. It ha s be en col le cted fro m me ever since I beg an usi ng cre di t cards, te lep hones , and who kno ws what els e. The sys te m conti nuous ly tri es to up date and refine this ex tr ao rdinar y data se t—that is, it pro file s who I am and, us ing tha t pro file, dete rm ine s how it wi ll inter ac t wi th me . Thes e ar e ju st th e tip of the icebe rg. Ever ything you do on the Ne t pr o- duc es dat a. That data is, in agg re gat e, extre mel y valuab le, mo re va lu ab le to th an it is to the gov ernment. co mmerce The gove rnme nt (in norm al time s) re al ly cares only tha t yo u obey some select set of la ws .But com me rce is kee n and data do es that. With to fi gure out ho w you want to spend you r money, mas siv e amou nts of data abou t wh at you do and what you say , it be come s way . Go ogl e incr easi ngly po ssi bl e to ma rke t to yo u in a direct an d effective Gmai lpr oc esses the da tainyour e- ma ilto see wha tit shoul dtr ytosel l. Am a- zo n watch es what you br owse to see what spe cia l “Gold Box” off ers it can mak e. The re’s an endl ess list of enti ti esthat wan ttoknow more about you to ns ,oug ht the re be tter ser ve (at lea st) their inte re sts. Wh at limits ,or restrictio to be on them? We sh ou ld be gin wi th anob vious po in ttha tmig ht hel pdir ect anans we r. Th ere ’s a big dif fe renc e betwe en (1) colle cting da ta abou t X to sus s out a cr ime or a cri mi na l, (2) col lect ing data about X that will be sold to Y sim pl y to rev eal fac ts abou t X (su ch as his cel l phon e calls ), an d (3) colle cting data abo ut X to be tter mark et to X. (1) and (2 ) make X wors e off, thou gh if we

232 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 217 217 priv acy be lieve th ecrim eis pro pe rl yacrim e, the nwit h(1), Xisnot worse of f rel at iv e to where he sho uld be . (3 ) in pri nc ip le coul d make you be tter of f—it facili - tate sadv ert is ing that isbett er ta rg eted and be tter des ig ned toencou rage vol - even though un ta ry tr an sac tion s. Isay “in princip le” because it’s poss ible tha t the ad sare bette rtarg et ed, th ere are al so more of th em. On bal ance ,Xmig ht be wo rs e off wi th the flo od of well -ta rgeted offers than with a few le ss well - targ ete dof fers. Bu tdesp it ethat possibil ity, th emo tiv eof (3) is differen tfrom (1) an d (2), and th at mi ght well af fect how we shou ld respond. So le t’s begi n with the fo cus on (3): What is the ha rm from this sort of “i nvasi on ”? Arg umen ts rage on bo th si des of this ques tion. The “n o ha rm” side ass ume s tha t the ba la nce of priva cy is str uck at the lin ewhe re yo ure veal informati on about yo urs elf to the public .Sur e, inf or ma - tio n kept beh ind cl osed do ors or wr itt en in a pr ivate diary shou ld be pro - te ct ed bythe law. But when yo ugo ou tinpub lic, when you ma ke tran sa ct io ns the re or se ndmat eria lthere ,you give upany right to priv acy. Other snow hav e the righ ttocol lec tdata abo ut yo ur publ ic behav ior and do with it wha tsuits them. Why is th at ide a no t tr oub ling to these th eoris ts? The rea sons are man y: • First, the har m is act uall y not very gre at. You get a disco unt car d at yo ur loca l groc er ystore ;the store the ncoll ects da ta about wha tyou bu y.With th atdat a,the sto re ma y mark et diff erent goo ds to you or figur e ou t how better to pri ce its produ cts; it ma yev en decid etha tit shou ld offer di ffer ent mixe sof di sco unts to bet te r se rve cus tome rs .Thes e re spo nse s, the argum ent goe s, ar e the lik el y one s, bec au se the sto re’s bus ines s is only to sel l groceri es mo re eff iciently. • Se cond ,it is an unf air burde n to forc e others to ignore wha t yo u sho w th em .If data about yo uare not usa ble by others ,th en it isasif youwere re quirin gother s to disca rd what yo uhave de posi ted onthei rla nd. If yo udo not li keoth ers usi ng infor ma tio n abo ut you, do not put it in the ir hand s. • Thi rd, the se da ta act ua ll y do som e go od .I do not know why Nik e think s I am a goo d per so n to te ll ab ou t the ir late st sne aker s, and I do no t kn ow why Keds doe s no t know to cal l. In both ca se s, I su spec t the reaso n is bad da ta abou t me. I wou ld love it if Nike knew enough to le ave me alon e. And if th ese data were bet te r co lle cted and sorte d, it would . •Fina lly, in ge ne ral ,com panie sdon’ tspend mo ney collecti ng th es edata to ac tu ally lear nanythi ng abo ut you. They want to lear nabou tpe opl e like you. They want e, they would be happ yto know yo ur type ev en if to know yo ur type .In principl they co uld no tthen lear nwho you are .What th eme rcha nts wan tis away to dis - cr im inat e—o nly in the sense of be ing abl eto tell thediff ere nce be twe en sor ts of peo pl e.

233 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 218 218 CODE 2.0 The oth er side of th is argum ent, ho wever , al so ha s a po int. It begins, by th e impe rfe c- ag ai n,by not icing the valu es that were or iginally protected tion helped prese rve impo rtan t ti on of monito ring te chno log y.This imperfec su bst an tive valu es; one such va lu e is the ben efit of innoc ence. At any giv en ti me, th er ear ein noce nt fac ts ab out you th at may ap pe ar, in aparticula rcon - arti cle called New York Times te xtor to apa rtic ul ar set, gu ilty. Pete rLewis, in a “F orge t Big Brothe r,” puts the po int well : Sur veil la nceca me ras fo ll owe dthe att ract ive yo ung bl ond woma n throug h th e lo bby of the midt ownMa nh atta nhote l, kept aglas sy ey eon heras sherode the elevat or up to the 23rd flo or and pee red disc re etly dow n the ha ll as she knock ed at the door to my ro om . I have not seen the vi deot apes , but I can imagi nethe digita lre adou tsu perim pose donthe sc enes, no ti ng the exa ct tim e of th e en coun ter . That wo ul d come in hand y if someone wer e to que stion lat er why thi s woma n, who is not my wife,was visit ing my hot el roo m duri ng a rece nt bu sin es s trip. The ca me ra s la ter saw us he ading off to dinner and to the the ate r—a middl e aged , married man fr om Tex as with his arm around a prett y East Vill ag e wom an young enoug h to be hi s da ugh ter. 23 “As a matter of fac t,” Lew is wri te s, “she is my da ug hter .” On e les son of the sto ry is the bu rde n of the se monitor ed facts .The bur- den ison yo u, themon ito re d, firs tto estab lish your in nocen ce, and sec ond to as sur e all who mig ht see the se ambi guou s fa cts that you are inn oce nt. Both pr oc es ses, ho wever , are imper fect ; say what you wa nt, dou bt s wi ll re mai n. There are al ways so me wh o wil l no t bel ieve your plea of inn oce nce . Mo der nmonit ori ng onl yexa cerb at es th is proble m.Your lif ebecom esan ever -incr ea si ng reco rd ;your actio nsare for ever heldin storage, open to be ing re ve aled at any time, and theref ore at any time demand ing a jus tification. A seco nd value fol lo ws di rectly fr om this mo de rn cap acit y for ar chi ving oramo ng or within sepa - dat a. We all desi re to live in separa te comm unities, rate nor ma ti ve sp aces. Priva cy , or the ability to control data about your self , su pport s th is desire . It enab le s the se multip le commu nities an d disa ble s the powe rof one domi na nt commu ni ty to nor moth ers in to ob livion. Think, for ex ampl e, abou t a gay man in an intol er ant small to wn. The poin tcomes thr oughmo st cl ear ly when co nt rast ed wit han arg umen t 24 advan ced by David Br in. Br in arg ue s agai nst thi s conce rn with priv acy—at leas tif pri vac yis define dasthe need to block th eproductio nan ddi str ibutio n of data about oth ers. He ar gu es aga in st itbe cause he beli eves th at su ch anen d is impos si ble; the ge nie is ou tof th ebottle. Better, he suggest s, to fin dways to en sure tha t this da ta-g ather ing abi lit y is gene rally avail able. The solution to

234 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 219 219 priv acy yo ur spy ing on me is no t to bl ock you r spying, but to le t me spy on yo u—to for wha tever else you ho ld yo u acc ou ntabl e, perha ps for spy ing, perhaps mi ght be doing . Th ere ar e two rep lies to th is ar gument. One asks : Wh y do we ha ve to cho os e? Wh y ca n’ t we bo th co nt rol sp ying and bu il d in checks on the dis tr i- but ion of spy ing techni qu es ? The ot he rre ply is more fu ndame nta l. Brin assum estha tthis counte rspy - ing wo uld be us efu l to ho ld othe rs “a ccou nta ble.” But ac cord ing to whose nor ms? “Acco untab le ”is abeni gn term only so lo ng as we have conf ide nce in th ecommu nit ydoing th eacc oun ti ng. When we live in multipl ecomm unitie s, ac co un tabili ty becom es a way for one commu its view of pro - nit y to impose pr iet y on anothe r. Bec aus e we do no t live in a sin gle co mmun ity, we do not li ve by a si ngle se t of valu es. And perfect accountabil it y can on ly und erm ine thi s mi x of value s. The impe rfec tio n in pre se nt moni tor ing ena bles thi s mult ipli ca tion of pe rf ect re cor ding nor mati ve commu ni ti es. The abi li ty to ge t alon g without en ab le s a di vers it y that perfect know led ge wou ld er as e. A third va lu e ari se s fro m a concer n about prof iling. If you se ar ch within Goo gle for “mor tga ge ” in a web searc h engine, adve rtising fo r mo rtg ag es ap pear son you rcom pu ter screen. The same for sex and for cars .Adv ertising is li nk ed to the se arc h yo u submi t. Data is collected, but not ju st about the ion se arc h. Differ en t sites collect jus t abou t every bit of pers onal informat 25 And whe nyou link from th eGoo gl esearch toaweb abo utyou th at the yca n. pag e,the searc h yo u just performed is pas sed along to th e next site. Da ta col le ct io nis the do min ant acti vi tyof co mm ercia lweb site s. Some92 perce nt of the mco llec tpersona ldat afr om web us ers, which they then aggr e- 26 Os car Gan dycalls this th e“p anop tic so rt ”— avas tst ruc - ga te ,sor t, an duse. tu re fo rcoll ectin gda ta and dis criminat ing on the basis of tha tdat a— and itis 27 thi s discri minat ion, he sa ys, th at ou ght to conce rn us . But wh yshould it con cern us? Put asid eanim por tant clas sof probl em s— use .AsIsaid earlier , the mis us eof the da ta —an dfo cus in stea don its ordinary the main ef fect is sim pl y to mak e the market work more smoothly : Inter es ts an d pr od uc ts are mat ched to peopl e in a way that is be tte r tar geted and les s a wor ld where adv er tise rs cou ld int ru siv e tha n wh at we have tod ay. Imagine tell wh ich venu es pa id an dwhic hdid no t; wh ere it was ine fficien ttoadver tis e wit h bi ll board s and on br oa dca sts; wh ere most adve rtising was tar geted and sp eci fi c. Ad ver ti sing woul d be more lik ely to go to thos e people for whom it wo uld be useful inform at ion. Or so th eargu ment goe s. This is dis cr im inat ion, no dou bt ,bu tnot the di sc ri minat io nof Jim Crow .It is the won de rf ul sort of dis cri min at io n that sp are s me Ni ke ads.

235 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 220 220 CODE 2.0 But bey ond a pe rh aps flee ting conce rn about how such data affec t the con cern about how it ind ivid ua l, pr ofil ing rai se s a more sustained collective mi ght af fec t a co mmu nity . Th at co ncer nisman ipulation. Yo umigh tbe ske pt icalabo ut thepowe rof Televis ion is soob viou s,the tele vi si on adv ert is ing to co ntr olpeop le’ sdesires: when the motive is not so ob vio us? When mo tive ssoclear. Butwhat happens opt io nsjus tseem toappea rri ght wh en you happe nto want the m? Whe nthe sy ste msee ms toknow what yo uwant bette rand ear lier than you do, how can yo u know whe re these de si res real ly come from? Whet her this possi bil ity is a real isti c one, or whethe r it shou ld be a co n- argues quit eeffecti vely that cer n, are hard and ope nque sti ons .Stev en Johnson in fact thes e agents of choi ce wi ll fa ci lit ate a much greater ra nge and div er - 28 But there ’s anothe r pos sib ilit y as sit y—e ve n, in par t, cha os —of ch oi ce . we ll—pr ofi le swi ll beg in to norm al ize the population from which th enorm is what you dra wn .The obs erving wil l af fec t th e ob served .The sys te m watches do ;it fi ts yo uinto apa ttern ;thepat tern is the nfedba ck to you in th efo rm of opt io ns se t by the pat ter n; the op tions reinfo rce the patter n; the cy cl e beg ins ag ai n. A seco nd concer n is abo ut equ al ity . Pro filing ra is es a qu es tion that was late nt in the mark et unti l qu ite rec ently .For much of the ninetee nth ce ntu ry by an id eal of equ alit y. c tho ugh t was animated in the Un ited Sta tes economi In the civi lsp ace ind iv idu al swere heldtobe equal .They cou ld pu rcha se and se ll equal ly ;the ycoul dappr oa ch oth ers oneq ual terms .Fac ts about indiv id - and some of thes e fa cts might disq ualify the m fr om uals mig ht be known, for examp le, mi ght som e econ omic tr ansacti on s—y ou r prior bank ruptcy, inh ibi tyou rabil it yto mak etra ns act ions in the futu re. But in the main, the re we re spaces of rel ativ e anony mit y, and econom ic tr ansa ction s cou ld occ ur 29 wit hi n them. Over tim ethis spa ce of equ ali ty ha sbee ndis pla ced byeco nomic zo ni ngs 30 that aim at se gre ga tio n. The y ar e la ws , tha t is, that pro mote dist inct ions 31 bas ed on so cia l or eco nomic cri te ri a. is zoni ng The most tel li ng example its elf .It wa s not unt il th is cent ury that local la w was used to put pe ople into 32 seg regat ed sp ace s. At fir st , thi s law was raci ally bas ed , but wh en rac ial ly 33 bas ed zon ing was st ru ck dow n, the tec hniques of zoning sh ifted. 34 It is inter es ting to rec all just how cont entiou s this us e of la w was . To man y, ri ch and poo r al ik e,it was an af fr ont to the Amer ican ide al of equa lity to ma ke whe re you live depe nd onhow much money yo uhad .It al way sdoes, of course ,wh en pro pe rty is some thing you mus tbuy. But zo nin glaws add the The eff ect is to re- su pport of la w to th e segreg ati on impo sed by th e market. among peopl e. cre ate in law ,and the refore in soc iety ,dis tinctions

236 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 221 221 priv acy Th er ewas ati me when we wo ul dhave de fin ed our count ry as aplac ethat ai med to er as e thes e di sti nc tio ns .The hi st orian Go rdon Wood des crib es this that gave birth to th e United goal as an impo rtant el ement of the revolution 35 The en emy was so cial and legal hi erarc hy ; th e aim was a societ y of Sta tes. of socia l ra nk and the equali ty. The revolut ion was an atta ck on hier archies sp eci al pri vile ge s th ey mi ght obtain. All soci alhie ra rchi esrequ ire inf ormat io nbefor ethey ca nma ke dis crim - ina ti on s of rank. Ha vi ng enou gh information abo ut peop le requ ir ed, his tor - ical ly,fai rly sta ble so cia lord ers. Mak in gfine class distinctions—knowing, for inst an ce, whethe rawel l-d ress ed youn gman was th egentle ma nheclai med to uired know ledg e of local fashions, be or on ly a dress ed-u p trade sman—req acce nts ,cu sto ms ,and manner s. Only whe re there was relat ive ly littl emob ility co uld thes e syst ems of hi erarc hy be impos ed. As mob il it y inc reas ed, then, the se hi erarchical syste ms were challe nge d. Beyon dthe ex trem es of thever yrich an dvery poor, the abi lity to make sub tl e asth emo bility and flu id ity of so ciety made dis ti nct ions of rank disa ppeared them to o diff icul t to trac k. Prof ilin gchan ge sall this .Anef ficien tan deffe ctive system for mo nitor ing ma kes it pos si bl eonce aga in toma ke th es esubtl edistin cti ons of ra nk. Co llec t- ing dat ache ap ly and eff ici ently willtak eusba ck to the past. Th inkabout fre- qu ent fl ye r mi le s. Everyone see s the obvious feature of freque nt flyer mi le s—t he free tri ps for peopl e who fly fr eq uen tly. This reba te prog ra m is qu ite harmle ss on its own. The more int eresti ng part is th e pow er it give s to ai rli nes to di scr imina te in their servi ces. When afr equ ent fly er make sares ervat ion, the re serva tion ca rries with it a cu st omer prof ile. Th is pro fi le mig ht include about whic h sea t inf or mation sh e prefe rs or whe ther she like s vege tarian food. It al so tell s the res erva tion clerk how often thi s person fl ies. Some airl in es woul d the n dis crimina te on on . The mo st obvi ous wa y is thr oug h seat lo ca - th e bas is of this informati tio n—f req uent flye rs get bett er se ats. But such infor mation might al so aff ec t frequ ent flyers with the mos t mil es how food is al lo ca ted on th e fl ig ht—the get fir st choice ;tho se wi th the fewe st may ge t no choice. In the sch eme of so ci al ju st ic e, of co urs e, this is sm al l potato es . But my poin tismore gene ral. Frequ ent flyer syste ms permit the re-crea tio nof sy stems of sta tu s. Th ey sup ply inf ormation abo ut individuals that organiz at ions mig ht 36 val ue , and use, in dis pensi ng serv ic es. They make di scri min at ion po ssi ble becau se they rest ore info rmati on tha t mo bility des troyed. Th ey ar e way s of defe at in g one bene fit of anon ymit y—the be nefit of equ al it y. Ec on om ists wil larg ue that in ma ny context sthi sab ili ty to di scri mi nat e— in effect, to of fer good s at diff ere nt prices to diff ere nt peo ple—is ov er al l a

237 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 222 222 CODE 2.0 37 be nefit . On av er age, peopl eare bett er off if price discrimination occu rs tha n might say, if we fa cilita te if it do es not. So we are be tt er of f,the se ec onomists su ch discr iminat io n whe n we can. But th ese value s are just one si de of the equ ation. Weighe d agains t the m are the val ues of equal ity . For us they may see m re mote, but we shou ld not as sum e tha t becau se the y are remo te now they we re alw ays remote. Take tip pin g: As ben ign (if an noying) as you migh t cons ider the pr ac- ti ce of ti pp ing, there wa s a time at the turn of th e cent ury when the very ide a wa s an in su lt. It offe nded a free citizen ’s dignit y. As Vi vian a Zelizer de scr ib es it: In the early 1900s, as tipp ing beca me incr ea sin gly pop ul ar, it prov ok ed grea t mor al and so ci al contr ov er sy. In fact, ther e were nat ionwi de ef for ts, som e suc - cessf ul , by state leg isl at ures to abol ish tippi ng by tur ni ng it into a puni shable mi sdeme ano r. In countle ss new sp ape r edito ria ls and ma gazi ne article s, in eti- quet te boo ks, an d even in co urt , ti ps were close ly scr ut iniz ed wit h a mix of often open host ility. When in cu ri osi ty, amu se me nt , and am biv ale nce—and 190 7, the go ve rnm ent official ly sanct ion ed ti ppi ng by allo wing com missio ned of fice rs and enl iste dmen of the Uni te dState sNav yto include tips asan item in the ir travel ex pe ns e vouc hers, the decisi on was den ou nced as an il legit imat e end or seme nt of graf t. Pe ri odical ly, the re were call s to or ganize an ti-tipp ing 38 leag ues . {T XB2} There is a co nce pt ion of equ al ity that would be co rru pted by the ef fici ency th at pr ofi ling em br aces. That conc ept ion is avalue to be weighe dagains teffi - ci en cy. Altho ug h I bel ieve thi s value is rel atively weak in Ame rican lif e, who po int is not ab out what is strong or weak, but am I to sa y? Th e im portant by the eme rg ing abo ut the tensio nor conf lic ttha tlay dor mant until revealed techn olog y of pro fil ing . The patte rn should be fam ilia r by now , be ca us e we hav e se en the cha nge els ewhere. Once again ,the co de cha nges ,thro wing into relief acon flic tof values . because the inform at ion tha tena ble d Whe reas bef ore the re was relative equality di sc rim ina tion was too cost ly to acq uir e, now it pays to di scri mi nat e. The di f- fe ren ce —wh at mak es it pa y—i sthe eme rgence of acode .Th ecod ech an ges, the beh avior cha nges, an davalu ela ten tinthe prio rregi me is displ ace d. We co ul dre act by hobb lin gthe co de ,thus pre ser ving this worl d. We could cre ate cons titu ti onal orstat utory rest ri ctio ns that prevent amov eto the new worl d. Or we cou ld fin dways to recon ci le this emerg ing wor ld with the va lues we thi nk are fund am ental .

238 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 223 223 priv acy SO LUT ION S I’v e id en tifi ed two di st inc t thre ats to the valu es of priva cy tha t the Inte rnet nce”— th e gro wing wi ll crea te. The first is the thre at fr om “digita l surveilla cap acity of the gove rnme nt (amo ng others) to “spy ” on your act iv itie s “in calls ,to wa lking on the pub li c.” Fro m Inte rn et ac ce ss, to e-ma il,to telephone ity for in cr ea singlype r- st ree t, digi ta ltechno logy is openi ng upthe opportun fe ct burd enl ess sea rch es . The se co nd threat come sfrom the in creas ing aggr egation of data bypri - vate (amo ng other ) enti ti es .These data are gathered not so much to “sp y” as rce exp loits the sour ce of the e. So me of that comme to faci li tate commerc ). Some of that comme rc e tr ie s to dat a (We sl ey Cl ark’s cell phone numbers fa ci litate commerce with the so urc e of that data (targeted ads ). Agai nst the setwodiff ere nt risks, wecan im agine four type sof responses , in Chapte r 7: ea ch map pi ng one of the moda li ti es that I described • Law: Lega l re gul ati on could be crafte d to respond to th ese threat s. We ’l l con - si de r some of th ese lat er , but th e gen er al form sh ou ld be cl ear eno ugh. The law coul d direc t th e Presi den t no t to surv ei l Amer ic an ci ti zens wi th out rea - so nab le sus pici on , for exam ple. (W he ther the Presid ent fol lo ws the law is a se pa ra te quest ion. ) Or th e law cou ld ba n the sal e of dat a ga ther ed from cus - to mer s withou t ex pr ess per mi ssio n of the custom ers. In ei ther case, the la w direc tly. The aim of th e law co uld th rea ten s sa nctions to chan ge be havior ei th er be to en han ce the pow er of indiv idu al s to cont rol dat a about them ,or tra ns- to dis able suc h po wer (for ex am pl e, by mak ing ce rtai n priv acy- related ac ti ons ille ga l) . • Nor ms: Norm s co uld be use d to resp ond to these thre at s. Norm s amon g co m- me rc ia l ent it ies, for example, co uld he lp bui ld trust arou nd ce rt ai n pri vac y pr ot ecti ve pra cti ces. • Markets : In way s th at wi ll bec ome clearer be lo w, the marke t co uld be used to pr ot ect the pr iv ac y of indiv id uals. • Arc hitect ure/C ode: Te chn ology could be us ed to pro tec t pr ivacy. Such tech - nolo gi es are ofte n re fer red to as “Pri va cy Enh an cin g Tech nologie s. ”Thes e are tech nolog ies desi gn ed to give th e us er more te ch nical con tro l ov er da ta ass o- ciat ed with him or her . As I’ ve argued ag ai nan dagai n, there isnosi ngl esol uti on topo li cy pr ob- le ms on the Inter net .Eve ry solut io nrequires amix of at leas ttwo mo dalities . An d in the bal ance of thi s chapt er, my aim is to describe a mix fo r each of the se two th reats to pr ivac y.

239 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 224 224 CODE 2.0 No dou bt th is mi x wil l be co nt roversi al to som e. But my aim is not so much to push an ypar tic ular mixof se tt ings on these moda lity dia ls, asit is to r sol utions I demo ns tra te a cer tain appr oach . I don ’t insis t on the particula pro pose , but I do in si st that so lu ti ons in the context of cybers pa ce are the pro duc t of su ch a mix . Sur vei lla nc e sur veils as mu ch as it ca nin its fight again st wh atever itscur- The gov ernment re nt fi ght is about . Wh en tha t sur ve illance is hum an —w iretap pin g, or the like —t hen tr adi ti ona l legal li mi ts ought to apply. Those limits impos e cos ts (an d th us ,us ing th e ma rke t, reduc e the incide nce to those most sig nifican t); they as sure at leas t some revi ew .And , pe rhaps mos t imp ortantly , they build wit hi n la w enforceme nt a norm re spect in g procedure. Wh en that sur veill anc eisdig it al, howe ver, then it ismyvi ewtha tadi ff er - en t se t of re str ic tion s sho uld apply .The law sho uld sanction “dig ital surveil - lan ce” if, but only if ,a nu mb er of condi tions apply: is descri bed. 1. The pu rpo se of th e se arch enable d in th e alg orithm is review ed. 2. The fu ncti on of the al gorithm 3. The pu rpo se and the funct ion ma tch is certif ie d. 4.No act ion— in cl udi ng asubse qu en tsea rch—c an be tak en ag ai ns tan yind ivi dual without judi ci al revie w. on the basi s of th e al gorithm 5. Wi th ve ry limi te d ex cept ions ,no act io n ag ainst any indi vi dual can be pur sued Thus, if yo u’r e loo ki ng for evi dence fo r ma tte rs ou ts ide the purpose de scribed. of dru g de aling , you can’ t us e any evid ence di sc over ed for pro se cut ing credit card frau d. That de scr ibe s the leg al re st ri cti ons appl ie d agains t the gov er nm ent in or de r to enha nce pri vac y. If the se are satisfied, then in my view su ch digital su rvei llan ce sh oul d not conf lic t with th e Fourth Ame ndme nt. In add ition to th es e, there ar eprivacy en han cing te ch nolo gies (P ETs) that shou ld bebroad ly ava il ab le to indivi dual s as wel l. Th es e tec hnologies enab le ind ividua ls to ach ieve anonymi ty intheir tran saction sonlin e. Many companies and activi st gr ou ps hel p spread the se techno log ie s across the network . Anon ymi ty in th issense sim ply mea ns non- tr aceabili ty .Tool sthat enab le fo ran individual to send ames - this sor tof non -t racea bilit yma ke it possible sag ewi tho utth econt ent of tha tmessa ge being traced tothe sen der. If imp le - me nted pr op erly, the re is abs olu tel y no tech nical way to trac e th at mes sage. That ki nd of anony mit y is ess ent ial to certain kinds of comm un icat io n.

240 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 225 225 priv acy It is myview that, atle as tsolo ng as politi ca lrep ressi on re mains acent ra l featu re of to o man y wor ld gover nme nts ,free gove rnme nts shou ld recog nize a protec ted le gal right to the se tech nol ogies. I ack nowl edge that view is con - tr oversia l. Ale ss extrem evie wwould ackn ow le dge the dif feren ces be tw een the 39 an d guara nt ee a ri ght to ps eu don ymo us com - digi tal wo rld and real wor ld , mu nicat io n but not anon ymou s commun ication. In this sens e, a pse ud ony - mo us transac tion doe sn’ t obv io us ly or direc tly link to an ind iv id ual without co urt inte rv ent ion. But it co nta ins an effective fing erpr in t tha t wou ld al low the pro per author it y, unde rthe prop er cir cums tances, to trace the com muni - cat io n ba ck to its or ig inator. In this regi me, the important qu est ion is who is the autho rity ,and what pro ce ss isrequi red toge tacce ss to th eid entification .In my view, the au thority mus tbe th ego vern me nt .Thegov ern men tmust sub ject its dem and fo rreveal - eshou ld ing the id entit yof an ind ivi du al to judicial proces s. And the executiv nev er hol d the tec hni cal cap ac ity to make th at link on its own. Agai n, no on e wil l like this balan ce . Fr iends of pri vac y will be fu rio us wit h an y end orseme nt of surveill anc e. But I sh are Judg e Posn er ’s view that a sop his ti ca ted survei ll ance te chnology might act uall yincrease effecti ve pri vacy, if it de cr ea sesthe inst ances in which humans intru de on other hum ans .Li ke - wi se ,fr iend sof sec uri ty wi ll beappa lled at the idea that any one wo uld en do rse tech nolo gies of anon ym ity. “Do you know how hard it is to crac k a dr ug lo rd ’s en cryp ted e-m ai l commu nic ati on? ”one asked me. The answ er is no ,I do n’t have a re al sens e. But I car e les s about enabling the wa r on drug s than I do about en abl ing dem oc rac ies to fl our ish . Tech - nol ogie s that enab le the latt er wi ll enab le th e for me r. Or to be les s cow ard ly, te ch nol ogies th at enab le Aung San Suu Kyi to co ntinue to pus hfordemo cra cy inBu rma will ena ble AlQaeda to con ti nue to wage its terrori stwar ag ainst the Uni ted St ate s. I acknow led ge tha t. I acc ept that might lea d othe rs to a le ss ext reme po si tion. But Iwou ld urge the compromis ein favor of surveil lan ce to go no fu rth er than prot ect ed pseud on ymity. Con tr ol of Da ta The proble m of co ntrollin g th e sp re ad or mi suse of data is more complex an d ambi guo us. The re are use s of person al dat a th at many wou ld obje ct to. But many isno tall .There are some who are pe rfectly happy to reve al ce rtain dat a to certa in ent it ie s, and the re are many more wh o woul d becom e ha ppy if they co ul d tr ust th at thei r da ta wa s pr ope rly us ed. Here aga in, th e so luti on mi xe s mo dal it ie s. But this tim e, we beg in with 40 the techn ology.

241 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 226 226 CODE 2.0 As I desc rib ed ex tensively in Chap ter 4, the re is an emerg in g push to bu ild an Ident it y Lay er onto th e Int erne t. In my view, we shou ld view this Ide nti ty Lay er as aPET(pr iva te enha ncin gtechnolog y) :Itwo uld ena bl eindi - vi dual s to more effe ct ively contr ol the data abo ut the m that they re veal. It wo uld also ena ble ind ividua ls to ha ve atrus tab le ps eudo nymous id enti tytha t webs ite sand others sho uld be happy to accept. Thus ,wi th this technolog y, if a si te need s to know I am over 18, or an Ame rican citizen , or author iz ed to acces saunive rs ity li br ary, th ete chn olo gy can certi fy thi sdata withou tre ve al - ing an yt hi ng el se. Of all the change s to inf ormatio that we cou ld n practices im agin e,this wou ld be the mo st si gni fi cant in redu cing the ex te nt of red un- sary data fl owi ng in th e ether of the netwo rk. dan t or unneces A sec ond PET to enabl e gre at er cont rol ov er the use of da ta wou ld be a 41 P3P pr oto col cal le dth ePl atform for Privacy Pref erences (or P3P for sh ort) . machi ne -re ad ab le expres sion of the privacy wo uld en ab le a pre ference s of an ind ivid ua l. It wo uld enabl e an au tomati c way for an indiv idu al to recog niz e whe nasi te doe snot comp ly wi th hi spr ivacy prefe renc es.If you surf to asite that exp re ss es its pr iva cy pol icy using P3P, and it s policy is inc onsis te nt with ng upo nthe imple me ntatio n, eit her th esite or yo ur prefe re nces ,th en dependi The technolog y yo u are made aware of the probl em cre ated by this conflict. that confl ic t thu scou ld ma ke clea raco nf lictinpref erenc es .And reco gnizing is the fir st ste p to prot ecti ng preferenc es . ma chine -r ea d- The cri ti cal pa rt of thi s st ra tegy is to ma ke the se choices hits on the bill ion ab le. If you Go ogle “pr iva cy pol icy ,” you’ ll get cl os e to 2.5 We b. And if you clic k thr ou gh to the vast majo rit y of them (n ot tha t you the mos t co uld do tha t in thi s li fet ime ), yo u wil l find that they are among inc omp re hensi bl e leg al texts ar ound (and th at’s saying a lot) . Th es e policie s are th e pr odu ct of pr e-Int ern et th ink ing about how to deal wit h a po lic y pro blem. The gov ernm en twas pu she dto “solve” the pr obl em of Int er net pri - be posted eve ryw he re. But va cy. It s solu ti on was to requ ire “pr ivac y policies” do es an ybo dy read th ese po li cie s? And if they do, do they re me mbe r the m fro m one si te to ano th er ? Do yo u kno w the dif ferenc e between Amaz on’s po lici es and Google ’s? was in not re qu ir ing that thos e policies The mis take of the government also be un de rsta ndab le by aco mpu te r. Because if we had 2. 5bill ion sit es with bo th a huma n re adab le and ma chi ne rea dab le state ment of priv acy policie s, then we woul d hav e th e inf ra st ruc tu re neces sary to encourage the dev elop - men tof this PET ,P3P. Bu tbec ause th egover nment could not think beyo nd its aus e it didn’t thin k to requ ire change s of le gi sl ati ng—bec tr ad it ion al manner don ’t have that infrastr uctur e now. But, in in co de as well as le gal tex ts—we my vie w, it is cr it ica l.

242 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 227 227 priv acy The setech nol ogi es st andi ng al on e,howe ver, do no thi ng to so lvethe prob - le m of priv acy on th e Ne t. It is abs ol ute ly clear that to compl ement the se is of thr ee ve rydif- te ch nolog ies, we need legal regu lati on. But this regulation fe ren tso rts .The fi rs tki nd issub stantive —la ws that set the bou nda ri esof pri - that manda te fair va cy pr ot ecti on. The sec ond ki nd is pro cedural—laws And the third is enabl ing — pro ced ure s for deali ng wit h priv acy practices. lawstha tma ke enf or ce able ag re eme nt sbetween and corp orat ions individuals abo ut how pr ivacy is to be re spect ed. (1 ) Li mit s on Choi ce On e kind of le gisl at ion is des ig ned to li mit indiv idu al freedom. Ju st as labor law forbids ce rtain cred it la w bans ce rta in la bor co ntr ac ts, or consumer arr ang eme nts ,thi skin dof priva cy law would restrict the freedom of indiv id - uals to giv e up ce rtain asp ec ts of their pr ivacy. Th e moti vation for this limi - l—subs tan tiv ein tha tit ref le ct s ta tio nco uld either be su bstan tiv eorprocedura asu bs ta nt iv ejudgm ent about cho ice sindi viduals sho uld not ma ke, orpro ce- du ra l in th at it refl ec ts th e view th at sys tem atica ll y, when fa ced with this wi ll ch oose in way stha tth ey regret. Ineith ercase ,th ero le ch oi ce,indi viduals to wea ke n of this type of pr iv acy reg ulat io n is to block tr ansa ctions deemed pr ivacy with in a com muni ty . (2 ) Th e Pro cess to Protect Priva cy The mos t si gni fic ant no rmat ive structure ar ound pr ivacy pra ctic es wa s Edu cation, We lfa re) fr amed mo re tha nthi rty ye ars ago by the HEW (Health, Ad vi so ry Comm itt ee on Auto mated Data System s. This re po rt set out five 42 pri nci ple s th at were to def ine th e “Code of Fair Info rm ation Pra ctice s.” Thes e princ ipl es req uire : 1. The re mus tbe no per son al da ta reco rd-k eeping sy stems who se ver yexi sten ce is se cre t. 2. The re mus t be a way for a pe rs on to find out what info rma ti on abo ut th e per - so n is in a re co rd and ho w it is us ed. 3. The re mus tbe away for aperson toprev ent information abo ut the per son that wa sobt aine dfo rone pu rpos efr om being use dor mad eavail abl efor oth er pur - pos es wi tho ut the pers on’s co nse nt. 4. Ther e mu st be a way for a pers on to correct or amend a rec or d of ident if iable infor ma tio n abo ut the pe rso n.

243 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 228 228 CODE 2.0 5. Any organi zati on cr eati ng, mai nt aini ng, usin g, or di ssemi na ti ng records of ident if iab le pe rso na l data mus t as sure th e rel iabil ity of th e data for th eir inte nded use and must ta ke pre ca ut ions to pre vent mi suses of the da ta. fo rexamp le,th at Th es eprin cip les ex pre ss imp ort ant su bstan tive values— dat a no t be reus ed beyond an or ig ina l cons ent, or that system s for gathe ring da taberel iabl e— bu tth ey do n’t in ter fe rewit han in divi du al’s choi ce to relea se hi s or her own data fo r spec if ied pur poses. They are in th is sense indiv idu al the relativel aut on omy enha ncin g, and thei r sp ir it has guided y thin and ad ho c ran ge of pr ivacy leg is lat io n that has bee n ena cted bo th na tiona ll y and at 43 the st ate le vel. (3) Rul es to En ab le Choi ce Abou t Priv acy The re al chal le nge for pri vac y, howev er, ishow to enabl eamean ing fu lchoice in the di gital age. And in thi sres pect, the techn iqu eof the Am erica ngo vern - , to requ ire tex t-based priva cy policy statem ents —is a me nt so far—namely pe rf ec texa mple of ho wnot to act. Clu tte rin gthe web with inco mprehe nsible as they surf the wo rds wil l no t emp owe r cons umers to make use ful choices , it dr ive s cons ume rs aw ay from even attemp ting to und er- Web. If anything stan d wha t ri ghts the y give away as the y move from site to site. P3P would help in this res pec t, but onl yif (1) there were astron gpus hto spre ad the tec hnology acr os s all are as of the web and (2) the rep re se ntations Both ele me nts requ ir e ma de wi th in the P3P infr ast ru ct ure were enf orceable. leg al ac tion to be eff ec ted . In the fir st edi ti on of thi s boo k, I off ered a stra tegy tha t woul d, in my perso nal da tath rough a vi ew, achie vebo th(1)and (2 ): namel y,by protecting pr op ert yrigh t. As wit hco pyr igh t, aprivacy property righ twoul dcreate st rong inc enti ves in thos e wh o want to us e that prope rty to secu re the appr opr ia te con sent. Tha tcont ent co uld then bechanneled (thro ugh legislatio n) thr ough ap pro pri ate tec hnol ogi es. But wi tho ut that cons en t, the us er of the priv acy pro pe rty would beapriv acy pirate. Ind eed, many of th esame tool sthat co uld pro tec t co pyrig ht in thi s sense co uld al so be used to protect priv acy . Th issolutio nalso reco gn izes what Ibeli ev eis an imp ort an tfeatu re of pri - 44 va cy—t hat peopl e valu e priva cy dif fere ntly. It also respect s tho se di ff erent nt to me not to have my teleph one num - val ue s. It ma ybe ext remely importa be r ea sily avail ab le; you mi ght not care at al l. And as th e law ’s pre sum ptiv e to be di f- the freedom pr eferen ce is tousealegal device that gives individuals wil dl y dif fe rent fe re nt —m ean ing th e fr ee do m to hav e and have respected su bje ct ive va lue s—tha tsugges ts the dev ice we us ehere is prope rty. Apr op erty

244 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 229 229 priv acy sy ste m is de signed prec isely to permi t diff ere nces in value to be re spe cted by less th an $10,0 00, the n the law.If you won ’tse ll your Chevy No va fo ranything the la w wil l su pp or t yo u. The oppos ite le gal ent itl ement in the Ame rican le ga ltra dition is ca lled a 45 Ali abi lity ru le also pr otec ts an ent itle men t, but its pr otectio n “l iab ili tyrule.” by aliab ility rul e, th enIca n is les sind ivi du al. If you ha ve areso urce protected ed price .That price ma ybe take that re so urce so lon gasIpa yasta te-determin mo re orle ss th an you va lue itat. Butthe point is, Ihave the right to ta kethat re so urce ,re gardl ess . An ex am pl e fro m copy right la w mig ht make the point more clea rly. A der ivat iv e ri ght is the rig ht to bui ld upon a copyrighted work. A tra dition al ht ex ampl e is a tr ansl ati on, or a mov ie based on a book. The la w of copyrig gi ves the cop yr ight ow ner apr ope rty rig ht ove rthat deri vative rig ht. Th us, if yo uwan tto mak eamovie out of John Gri sha m’s la tes tnove l, you ha veto pay whatever Gr is ham say s. If you do n’ t, and you ma ke the movie, you’ ve violat ed Gri sham ’s righ ts . The sam e is no t tru e with the de rivat ive rights tha t comp osers ha ve .If a son gwri ter autho ri zes som eone to record hi s song, then anyon e els e has a rig ht toreco rd th at song ,so long as th ey fol low ce rt ain procedu res andpay a sp eci fi ed rate .Thus, whil eGri sh amca nchoose togive only one fil mma ke rthe ri ght to make a film ba sed on his no ve l, the Bea tles must allow any one to re cor dason gamemb er of the Beat les comp ose d, so lo ng asthat person pays. The de riv ati ve rig ht for novel sisthus pro tected byapro perty rule ;the de riv - at iv e rig ht fo r rec ordi ng s by a liabi li ty rul e. The la wha sal lsorts of reas ons for impo sing alia bilityrule rathe rth an a pro pert yru le. Bu tthe gener al pr inc ip le isth at we shou ld use apr ope rt yrule , at le ast whe re the “t ransac ti on co sts”of negotiati ng are low ,and whe re the re 46 An d it is my vi ew that , with a tech nol og y is no con trad ic ting pub li c value . like P3P , we co uld low er tra ns act io n cos ts enou gh to make a prope rty rule y ru le in turn wo uld reinfo rc e whateve r dive rs it y pe ople wo rk. Th at propert ha d ab out view s abou t th ei r pri vac y—pe rmittin g some to cho os e to waive thei r ri ghts and others to hol d fi rm. Th er ewasone more reason Ipushed for aprop erty ri gh t. Inmy view ,th e of the rig ht as a pro tec ti on of pr ivac y wo uld be str ong er if people co nceived pr op erty ri ght. Peo ple ne ed to ta ke own ership of th is right, and prote ct it, and pro pe rti zin gis the tradi tio nal too lwe use to identi fy and enable pro te ct ion .If that we see de fen d- privacy we cou ld se eone fr ac ti on of the pa ssion defending ing co pyri ght, we mig ht ma ke pr og re ss in protecting pr ivacy. Bu tmyprop os al foraprop ert yrigh twas resound ingly rejected by critics 47 wh ose vie wsIrespec t. Idon’t ag re ewit hthe cor eof thes ecri ti cis ms .For the

245 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 230 230 CODE 2.0 re aso ns powerf ully marshal ed by Neil Ric hard s, I especial ly do n’ t ag re e with the cl aim that th ere wo uld be aFirst Ame ndmen tprob le mwith pro per tiz ing 48 In an y case , William Mc Gever an sugg es te d an al te rnat ive tha t pri va cy . any of the re ach ed essen ti ally the same en d that I sou ght, without raising 49 co ncern s that mo st animat ed th e cri ti cs. The alt ernat iv e simpl y spec if ies that a rep res enta tion mad e by a webs ite th rough th eP3 Ppr ot oco lbeco ns ide re dabindin goffer ,which, if acce pted by 50 Th atrule, ti ed t. contrac som eone usi ng the we bsit e,bec omes an enf orceable to a re quir em en t tha t pri va cy pol ici es be ex pre sse d in a mac hine- reada ble fo rm su ch as P3P, wo uld both (1) spre ad P3P and (2 ) make P3 P as sertions ef fec tively la w. Thi s woul d sti ll be weake r th an a pro perty rule , for rea sons I 51 An d it ma y wel l enco ur age the shri nk-wr ap cu ltu re , wil l leav e to the no tes. whi ch rai ses its ow n prob lems. But for my pu rpo ses here, th is solution is a e. usefu l compromis To illust ra te aga in the dy nami cof cy berl aw :We us elaw (a requi rem ent of po lici es express ed in a cer ta in wa y, and a contra ct presu mption about tho se ex pre ss io ns ) to enc ou ra ge a cer ta in kind of technology (P3 P), so that tha t ewh atthey want . tec hnol ogy enabl es in dividu als tobe tter achi eve incyberspac It is LAW help ing CODE to perfect pr iva cy POLICY. This isnot to say, of co urs e, that wehave no pr otecti on sfo rpr iva cy .Aswe ha ve see n th rou gho ut, there are other law s besides feder al, and other regula - rs may protect to rsbe sid esthe law. At time sthe se other regulato pr iva cybet ter than law doe s,but where they don’ t, then in my view law is need ed. RED PRI VACY COMPA in the last ch apt er islike ly Th erea der who wa sdi ssati sfied wi th myargument to begi n as king poi nt ed qu esti ons. “Did n’t you reject in the las t cha pte r the ve ry regi me you are endo rsing here? Didn’t you reject an archite ct ur e tha t wo uld faci lit ate perf ect sale of inte llec tu al property? Isn’t that what you’ve cre ated he re ?” The cha rge is accura te eno ugh .Ihave en dors ed an architec tu rehe re that is ess enti ally th esa me ar chit ec ture Iquest io ne dfor inte llec tual prope rt y. Both are reg im es fo r trad ing inf or mat ion ; both make in fo rmatio n “lik e” “real” pr ope rty . Bu t wit h copyrig ht, I ar gue d aga inst a fully priv at iz ed pro perty re gim e; with pr iv ac y, I am arg uing in favor of it. What gives? The differ enc e is in th e un der lyi ng val ues that infor m, or that sho uld of intell ec tu al pr ope rt y, inf or m, infor mat ion in eac h conte xt. In the context 52 our bias shou ld be fo r freed om. Who know s what “informa tion wants” ; wha tever it wan ts, we shou ld rea dthe barg ain that the law str ik es wi th ho ld er s

246 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 231 231 priv acy of in te ll ectual pr ope rty as nar rowly as we can. We shou ld take a gr ud ging ; we should suppor t the m at titu de to pr ope rt y ri gh ts in intell ect ual property in for mation on ly as mu ch as neces sary to bu il d and support reg ime s. But (at le ast so me ki nds of) in for ma tion ab out in divi du als sh ould be trea te ddiff er ent ly. You do not st ri keade al with the lawabo ut perso nal orpri - right in excha nge vate in fo rma tio n. The la w does not of fer yo u a mo nopoly fo r yo ur pub licat ion of thes e fac ts . Tha t is what is distinct about priv acy: tion about them sel ve s. We Ind ividu al s sh ou ld be abl e to contro l informa by giv ing them the sh ou ld be ea ger to hel p them pr ot ec t that in for mation st ru ct ure s and the rig hts to do so .We value, or want, ou r peace .And th us,a re gim eth at al lows us suc hpeace by giving us contro lover private info rmat ion is are gime co nso nant with publ ic val ue s. Itis are gim ethat publ ic au thoritie s sh ou ld su ppo rt. There is a second ,perh aps more he lpful ,way of making th e sam e point. le. The mo re peo ple In tel lec tua l pr op erty , once creat ed , is no n-diminishab who use it ,th emor esociet ybe nefits .Th ebias inint el lectual prop ert yis th us, pro perl y, tow ards shar ing and freed om. Priva cy, on the oth er hand, is dim in - ish abl e.Th emo re pe ople who are given licens eto tr ead on aper son’s priv acy, the le ss tha tpri vacy ex is ts.In th is way, pr ivacy is more like real pr ope rtythan it is lik e intell ectual pr opert y. No singl e pe rson’s tr es pas s may de st roy it, but ea ch in cre menta l tres pass di mini she s its valu e by some amoun t. Thi sconc lusi on issu bject to im por tan tqu alif icat ions, onl ytwo of whi ch I wi ll des cri be here. The firs t is that noth in g in my regim e wo uld give indiv idua ls final or co mp lete contr ol ov er th e ki nds of data they can sell ,or the kinds of priv acy they can buy. The P3P reg ime wou ldinprin cipl eenabl eups tr eam contr ol of pri va cy ri ghts as well as ind ivi dua l control. If we live d, for exa mple , in a re gim e that iden tifie d indiv idu als ba sed on jur isd icti on, then tran sact io ns wit h the P3P regi me co uld be limi ted bas ed on th e rul es for pa rticula r ju ris - dic tio ns . Secon d,th ere is no re ason suc h a regi me wou ld hav e to protec t all kinds of priva te da ta , and noth ing in th e sc heme so far tells us what shou ld and on. There may be fa cts abou t shoul d not be con sidered “private” informati you rs elf that you are no t permi tted to hide; more important, the re ma y be to make (“I amalawye r,” or, cla im sabou tyou rse lf that you are no tpe rmitted “C all me, I’m a doc tor” ). Yo u sho uld not be per mitted to engage in fra ud or to do harm to oth er s. Thi s li mitat io n is an an al og to fair us e in intelle ct ua l pro pert y— a limit to the sp ace that pr iva cy may protect. {T XB2}

247 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 232 232 CODE 2.0 Ista rted this ch apt er bycla imi ng tha twith privacy th ecat is alre ady ou tof the cont rol ove r wha t bag . We al re ady hav e arc hi tec tu re s that de ny indi viduals oth er s know ab out the m; the qu est ion is what we can do in respon se . My re sp onse has been: Lo ok to the code , Lu ke . We mu st build in to the ar chi tectu re a ca pac ity to enabl e cho ice—not cho ice by hum ans but by e nego ti at ion s ma chi nes . The archite ctur e must en ab le machine-to-machin abo ut privac y so tha t indiv idu al s can ins truc t their ma chines about the pr i- va cy they want to pro tec t. But howwill wege tther e? How can th is archite ctur ebe er ec te d? Indi vid - uals ma y wa nt cyb ers pac e to pro tect their priva cy, but wha t wou ld pus h ? cybe rsp ace to buil d in the nece ssary arc hitectures is not behind an y such cha nge. Not the mark et. The po wer of commerce He re, the invisib le hand wou ld real ly be in visible. Collective ac tion mu st be take n to be nd the arc hi tec tu re s to ward this goal ,and coll ec tive action is ju st what po li tics is for. La is sez -fai re wi ll not cut it.

248 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 233 T W E L V E f r e e s p e e c h T . I T IS NO T THE HE RI GHT TO FRE E SPEE CH IS NOT THE RIGHT TO SPE AK FOR FRE E rig ht tofree access to telev isi on, or the right thatpeop le will not ha te you for rig ht to fr ee what yo u hav e to say . Str ictly spe aki ng—l egal ly sp eak ing—the sp ee ch in the Uni ted Stat es mean sthe ri ght to be free from punis hme nt bythe go ve rn ment in re ta lia ti on for at le ast some (pro bably most) speech. You can - no tbe jai led fo rcr iti cizin gthe Pr esiden t, tho ugh you can be jail ed for thre at - en ing him ;youcann otbe fined for promo tin gsegr ega ti on, th ough you will be from sp eakin g in a pu blic pl ace , sh un ned if you do .You canno t be stopped in thou gh you canbesto pped fr omsp eak ing with an FM tr ans mi tter. Speech th eUnit ed Sta tes ispro te cte d—in aco mplex, and at times con vo luted ,way — but it s cons titu ti onal pro tecti on is a pr otection agains t th e gove rn me nt. Never the less, acon stit uti ona lac co un tof fr ee sp eech that th oug hton ly of would be radic ally incom pl ete. Two societies co ul dhave th esame gove rnment t”—t hesa me pr ote ctions against gove rnment ’s wra th—b ut “Fi rs tAmendmen if wit hi none di sse nt ers are to lerat ed while in the oth er th ey are shunne d, the two soc ietie swo ul dbe ver ydiffer ent fr ee -speech More than gov er n- societies. me nt con str ai ns speec h, and more than gove rnme nt protects it. A comp lete ac co unt of th is —a nd any— rig ht must consider the full range of bu rdens and pro tec ti ons . Co ns ider, for ex ample, the “r ight s” of the dis abl ed to prote ct ion aga inst di scr im ina ti on aseac hof th efo ur mo dal ities of Chapter 7construc tthe m.The law protects the disable d. Socia l norm s don’t . The market prov id es goo ds to hel p the disab le d, but they bear the fu ll cos t of that help. And un til the law int er ven ed, arc hite ctu re did litt le to help the disabled integra te into soc iet y (th ink abo ut stairs). The net of th ese fo ur modali ties desc ribes the pro te ct ion, or “r igh ts,” th at inany particu lar con text the disabl ed have. Law migh tinterven e 233

249 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 234 234 CODE 2.0 to st ren gth en that pro tecti on— for ex amp le, byre gulati ng arc hitect ures so the y better inte grat e th e di sa bl ed. But for any given “right, ”we can use thi s mix of mod al ities to desc ribe how well (or not )that “right” ispro tecte d. In the terms of Chap ter 7, then, thes e are mo dal ities of both re gu la tion and prote ctio n. That is, th ey ca nfunct ion both asco nstra ints on beha vior and figure cap tures th e as pr ote ction s ag ai nst othe r co nstr aint s. The following poi nt. pathet ic dot fr om Chapt er 7. In th e cen ter is the obj ec t re gula te d—the Su rrou ndi ng th e indi vid ua l now is a sh ield of prote ction, the net of la w/n orms/ ma rket/ ar chit ec tur e tha t limits the con strain ts th ese mod alit ies the four inthe wou ldoth erw is epl ac eon th ein di vi dual .Ihave no tseparated sph er e of th e shie ld bec ause ob viousl y there is no direct match betwee n th e mo dal it yof co ns tra in tan dthe mo dalit yof pro tecti on. When law as pr ot ec - with law as con stra int, con st itut io nal law ov errid es or dinary tor conflicts la w. Thes emoda lit ies func ti on togethe r. Som emig ht un de rcut other s,me an - ing that the sum of prot ec tion s might see m to be less significa nt than the

250 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 235 235 free sp ee ch part s. Th e “r igh t” to pr omo te th e decr iminalization of dr ugs in the pre se nt . The law protec ts your righ t to con text of the war on drugs is an example lo ck you upif, lik e adv ocate the dec ri minal izati on of dru gs. The state cannot Geo rge So ro s,yo ust art acamp aig nfor the decrim inaliz ation of mar ij uan aor or the fed eral Friedman if, li ke the No bel Pr iz e–w inni ng eco nomis t Milton it. If the First Amen dm en t ju dge Ri ch ard Po sner, yo uwrit eartic les suggesting me an s anythi ng ,it me ans that the stat e cannot crimin alize spe ech about law ref orm. But that le gal pro tecti on doe s no t mea n that I wou ld su ffer no con se - quenc es for pr om oting le ga liza tio nof drugs. My hom eto wnnei ghbors wou ld be ap pal led at th e ide a, and so me no dou bt woul d shun me. Nor woul d the impossible tobuy tim eon te l- ma rke tnec essa ril ysupport me. It is ess entially advoc ati ng such a ref or m. Tel ev ision stations hav e th e evis io n for a speech mine would mos t like ly be ri ght to sel ect th ei r ads (wi thi n some limits); 1 St at ion salso have theFCC—an activ ecomba tant too cont rov ers ial . deemed in the wa rondr ugs —l oo ki ng over thei rshoulders. And even if Iwer epe rmit - ted to adver ti se, I am no t Geor ge Sor os. I do not have mill ion s to sp end on spo ts on aloca lstatio n, but su ch acamp aign. Imight manage afew off-hour I co uld no t aff ord , fo r instance , a camp aign on the netw orks du ring pr im e time . Fi nal ly, arc hitect ure wo ul dn ’t pr ot ect my spe ech ve ry we ll either . In the Uni ted Stat es at leas t, the re are few places where you can stan d be fo re the witho ut mos t pub li c an d ad dress them abo ut so me matte r of publ ic import peop le thi nki ng yo uanu toranuis an ce. Th er eis nospeak ers’ co rn er in ever y offline,” in th is sen se, is city; mo st towns have no town mee ting. “A merica ve rymu ch lik eAmeri caOnl ine —no tde sign ed to give indi vidua ls acce ss to a wid e au di ence to add ress pu blic matt er s. On ly prof ess io nals get to addr es s Ame ric anson pub li cissu es— poli tici ans ,scho lars ,celebri ti es, journ alis ts, and act ivis ts , mos t of whom are confi ned to single iss ues. The re st of us hav e a cho ice—l ist en, or be di spa tched to the gu lag of social lu nacy. Thus, th e eff ecti ve pr ote ct ion for co ntrov ersial spee ch is mo re co ndi - tio nal th an a view of the law alone wou ld su gge st. Put dif feren tly, wh en is less pr ote cte d than more th an law is re ck oned, th e ri ght to be a dissenter it co uld be. Let ’stak ethis exampl enow to cy ber spa ce. How is the “rig ht” to pr omote the le gal iz atio nof dr ug sincyber sp ace protec ted? Here to o, of co urs e, the law pro tec ts my rig ht of advoc ac y—at least in the United States. But it is qu ite po ssib le tha tmy spe ec hwo ul dbe ill eg al elsewher eand that per hap sIcould be pro secut ed for utter ing suc h speec h in cyberspace “in” anothe r count ry. Spee ch promot ing th eNazi Par ty, for ex ample, is legal in the United Sta tes but

251 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 236 236 CODE 2.0 2 Ut ter in gsu chspeech in cybersp ace may ma ke one liab le in not inGerma ny. Ge rman space as we ll . The law th ere fore is an imperfect prot ection. Do nor ms he lp to prote ct speech ?With the re lat ive anonymit yof cyber spa ce and its growi ng si ze, no rms do notfun ctio nwell there. Even in cyb erspac es where peo ple know ea choth er views when they kno w(or we ll ,they are li kely to be more tolera ntof dissident bel ie ve ,or hope) the dissi dent li ves thous ands of mil es away. The ma rke t als o pr ov ides a major pro tection to sp eech in cyber spa ce— re lat ive to real spac e, ma rket con st rai nt s on spee ch in cyber spa ce are ti ny. Recal l how easi ly Ja ke Bak er bec ame a publ is her, with a poten tia l readership gre ater th an the reader sh ip of al llaw book s(li ke this one) publi she dinthe la st deca de. Lo ok at the more than 50 mi ll io n blog s that now enabl e mill ion s to ex pre ss the ir vie w of wh atev er. The low cos t of pu bl is hing me ans pub lis hing is no lon ger a bar rie r to speaki ng . As Eben Mogl en ask s, “Will the re be an unp ubli shed poet in th e 21st Cent ury? ” But on top of this list of prot ec tor sof sp eech in cyber space is (onc eagain) archi tec ture. Rel at ive ano ny mity ,decent ral ized dis tribution, mu ltiple points of acc es s, no ne ces sar ytie to geo grap hy, no simple system to ide nti fy cont ent, 3 —all thes efea tu re san dcon se quen ces of th eInterne tpro- too ls of encryp tio n toc ol make it dif fic ul t to cont rol speech in cybe rspa ce. Th e archite ct ur e of cyber space is the rea lprote cto rof spe ec hther e; it isthe re al “First Amen dm ent 4 in cybe rspace ,” and th is Fi rst Amendmen t is no local ord inance. Jus tthin kabou twhat thi sme ans.For over 60yearsthe Unite dState shas bee nthe ex po rte rof acertai npo liti cal ideo logy, at its core acon ce ptio nof free spe ech. Ma ny hav e cr iticiz ed this co nc eption : Some found it to o extrem e, Nor th Kor ea— othe rs not ext reme eno ugh. Repres sive regimes —China, mpla ine dof cu l- re jec ted it direc tly ;tol er ant reg ime s—Fr ance, Hun gary—co Scand inav ian cou ntries—pu zzl ed ov er tu ral decay ; egal itar ia n re gi mes—the how we co uld th ink of ours elv es as free whe n only th e rich can spea k an d is re pressed . por nography This debat e ha s go ne on at the po lit ic al lev el for a long tim e. And yet, as if und er cov er of night ,we have now wir ed th ese nations ure with an architect of co mmu nic at io n tha t bui lds wi thi n their bo rders a far strong er Fir st Ame nd me nt th an our ideol ogy ever advanced. Nations wake up to find tha t thei r teleph one lines are too ls of free expres sion, that e- mail carr ie s news of tha t im ages are no lo nge r the th ei r borders, thei r repre ss io n far beyond mon opo ly of stat e-run tel evi si on stati ons but can be tra nsmitt ed fro masim - ple mod em. We hav e export ed to the wor ld , through the architec tu re of the Int er net, a Firs t Am endme nt more extrem e in co de than our own Fir st Ame nd me nt in la w.

252 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 237 237 free sp ee ch Thi s ch ap te r is ab out the regula ti on of spee ch and the prot ect ion of also in real spa ce. My aim is to obs ess sp eech in cybe rs pace— and therefore archi tecture an d the freed om it ma ke s po ssi- abo ut the rel at ions hip between bl e, and abou tthe sign ific ance of law in the co ns truct ion of that archit ectur e. in lpolitics It is to get you to see how thi sfreed om is bu il t—the co nstitutiona the archi tec tures of cy berspa ce . I sa y “pol it ics ” beca us e thi s bui ldi ng is not ove r. As I ha ve ar gu ed (o ve r an d over ag ain), ther e is no sing le arch it ect ure for cyberspac e; ther e is no Int ern etmigh t gi ve nor ne cess ary stru ct ure toits design. The first-ge neration wel l have bre ached wa lls of co ntro l. But there is no reason to belie ve that archi tec ts of the seco nd gene rati on wi ll do so, or not to exp ect a second ge n- era ti on to re buil d con trol. There is no reas on to think, in othe r words , tha t thi s in it ial flash of fre ed om wi ll no t be short- lived. And there is ce rta inly no ju st if icat ion for act in g as if it wi ll not. We can alre ad ysee the beg inni ngs of th is re constr uct io n.The arc hitec ture tu re bef ore mad e re g- is bei ng remade to re -regu lat e wh at re al- spa ce architec sp ace . ulabl e. Already the Ne t is cha ng ing from free to controlled Some of th es e ste ps to re -regul at e ar e ine vita bl e; som e shift back is un avoida ble .Be fo re the change is comple te ,however, we must understand the fr eedo ms th e Ne t now pr ovi des and dete rmine which freed oms we mean to pre ser ve . And not just preserv e. The arc hit ect ure of the Inte rnet, as it is rig ht no w, is perhap sth emos timpor ta nt model of free sp eech since th efou nding. This e-mail and web pages. Two hun dred years mo del has impl ic ati ons fa rbeyond the Net ha s taught us wh at the af ter th e fra me rs ra tifie d the Const itution, mea ns . If we take th is me aning se rio usl y, th en th e Fir st Fi rst Amendment Ame nd me nt wi ll requ ire a fai rly ra di cal restr uctur ing of the ar chitec tu re s of 5 sp eech off the Net as well . But al lof th at is gett ing ahea dof the story .In the bal ance of this chap te r, Iaddress four di st inc tfree speech incybers pa ce questions. With ea ch, Iwa nt to con si der how “f ree speec h” is reg ulate d. The se stor ies do not al l hav e the sam e cons ti tut io nal sig ni fi can ce. But of this bo ok—how the yall il lus tr at ethe dyn amic at the core of th ear gument techn olog y inter ac ts wi th law to creat e pol icy. H: PU BLIC ATI ON TH E RE GULAT OR S OF SPEEC Flo ydAbra ms is one of Ame ri ca ’s le adi ng First Amen dmen t la wye rs .In 1971 6 he wa sayou ng pa rtn er at the law firm of Cahi ll, Gordon. Late inth eev enin g of Mond ay, Ju ne 14, he rec eived acal lfr omJames Goodale, in-hou se cou ns el

253 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 238 238 CODE 2.0 with Al exa nd er for th e . Go od ale asked Abram s, together New Yo rk Ti me s Ne w Yo rk Tim es Bic kel ,aYa le La wSc hoo lpr ofe sso r, to defe nd the inalaw su it that was to be filed th e very nex t day . had just re fu sed the gove rnme nt’s requ es t tha t it Th e New York Ti mes ceas e al l publi cati on of wh at we now know as the “Pentag on Pape rs ” and 7 These pape rs, of De fen se. re tur n the source doc uments to th e De partment mos tly from the Pe nt agon’s “His tor y of U.S. Dec isio n Mak ing Pro ces s on 8 Th ei reva lu - Vie tnam Po li cy, ”eva luat ed U.S. pol ic yduring the Vietnam War . at io n was ve ry nega ti ve , and th eir concl usions were devas tating . The pape rs ma de th e go ver nme nt loo k extre mely bad and ma de the wa r se em unwin nabl e. Ne w York Time s by so me one who did The papers had bee n given to the and hel pe d thi nk the war was un wi nnabl e; who had worked in the Pe ntagon at firs t but, ov er tim e, ha d wri te the re por t; som eone wh o was no t anti-war co me to see the imp os sibi lit y that the Vietnam War was. Thi ssom eo ne was Dan iel El lsber g. Ell sberg sm uggled on eof the 15copi es of the pa pe rs fro masafe at the RAND Corp orat ion to an off site photo cop ier . The re, he and a co lle ag ue, Ant hon y Russo, ph ot oc op ied th e pap ers over a 9 Ell sberg tri ed wit ho ut succ ess to mak e the pape rs peri od of sev er al we eks. Recor d. He eventu all y pu bli c by havi ng th em re ad into th e Cong ressional repor ter Neil She ehan in the hope that the con tact ed the New Yo rk Ti mes Ti mes woul dpu blis hthem. Ell sb erg kne wthat this was acrim inal ac t, but for hi m the war itself was a crimi nal act; his aim was to le t the Am erica n pe ople se e ju st wha t kind of a cri me it was. Times edi to rspo redover the pa per s, wo rk - Fo rtwoandaha lf mo nth sth e ing tover ify the ir au thent ici ty and accu racy. Afte ran ex tensive review, th eed i- tor s determined to pub lish the firs t of tha t th ey were authe nt ic and resolved 10 a ten -part ser ies of ex ce rp ts and stori es on Sunday, Jun e 13 ,197 1. On Mo nd ay afte rno on, on eday after th efirs tinst al lm ent appe ar ed, Atto r- ney Ge ne ral Joh n Mi tch el l sent a tele gr aph to the New York Time s stating: I re sp ec tfully re qu est that you pub lis h no fur ther info rmat io n of this char ac ter for the re tur n of the se doc u- an d ad vi se me that you have made arr angements 11 men ts to the Depa rtm ent of Defe ns e. Ti mes When the fai led to comply ,the gove rnme nt file d pa pe rs to enj oin fro m the docu - the pape r from conti nuin g to publi sh stori es and excerpts 12 me nt s. clai ms were simpl e: Thes e pap er s conta ine d go ve rn- The gove rnment’s me nt secre ts; they were sto le n fro m the possess io n of the governmen t; to

254 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 239 239 free sp ee ch pub li sh the m woul d put man y Ame ri can sol die rs at ris k and em bar ras s the ssm en twas about embarra Un it ed Stat es in the eyes of the wor ld. Th isconcern nt arg ued, woul d mo re th an me re vani ty: Emba rras sme nt, the governme we aken our ba rgai ni ng po si ti on in the effo rt stoneg otiate apea ce .Beca us eof the harm that wo ul dcome fr om further publica tion, the Court should step in to st op it. .Pas tcou rts ha dstop ped the pub - The argu ment was no tunpre cedented lica ti on of lif e-th rea te ning texts, especia ll y in the contex t of war . As the Nea r v. Mi nn eso ta, Sup reme Cou rt sai d in for ex amp le, “no one wou ld que s- to it srecrui ting tio nbut that agovern men tmight prevent actu al ob struction ts or the numbe rand serv ice orth epubl icat ion of the sai li ng da tes of transpor 13 lo cat ion of tro ops .” aga in st pre ced ent was Ye t the qu est io n was no t ea sily re solved .Standing If the First Ame ndme nt meant anythin g, it an in crea singly clea r command: me ant tha t the go ver nment gener all y cannot exerc ise the powe r of prior 14 “Pri or re st raint ”is whe nthe go vern men tgets acour ttost op pub - res traint . lic at io nof some ma terial ,rat her tha npu nish the pu blishe rlate rfo rwhat was ill eg al ly pub li shed .Su ch a pow er is tho ught to prese nt much gr ea te r ris ks to 15 At torn ey Ge ne ral Mi tc hell was as ki ng the Cour t to a sys tem of free speec h. ex erci se this power of pr io r res tr aint. Th eCo urt st rugg le dwith the ques tion, butres ol ve dit quickly .It strug gle d 16 but wh enit re solv ed the question ,it did so becau se theco stssee me dso high , rea ding, the Cons titu - qu ite squ arely agai nst the government. In the Court’s tio n gave the Ne w Yor k Ti mes the ri gh t to publ is h without th e thre at of prior re st rain t. Pen tag on Pap er s The is a Firs tAme ndmen t classic —a stri king re mi nde r of ho w po werfu l a co nst itut ion can be . But even cl assics get old . An d in a speec h that Abrams gave arou nd the time the fir st editio n to th is boo k was publ ished ,Abra ms asked an incredi bl equestion: Is the case re all yimpor tant any more ? Or has te chnology re ndered this protectio n of the First Amen d- me nt unnece ssa ry? Abram s’s ques tion was mot ivat ed by an ob vi ous point: Fo r th e govern - men t to su cceed in a claim that a pri nting should be st opp ed, it must show ible that th e Co urt m so signific “ir re para bl e ha rm”—har ant and irrevers 17 mus t in ter vene to preve nt it. s on th e pub li ca - depend But that showing ti on no t occu rr ing— if th e Pent ag on Papers had al ready been publ ished Chica go Tribu the gov er nm en t could ha ve claime d no compelli ng ne, by th e New Yo rk Tim es int er est to stop its pub lic at ion in th e . Wh en the cat is n do es not return the al re ady out of the ba g, preve nt in g fu rth er publicatio ca t to the bag.

255 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 240 240 CODE 2.0 Th is poin tis made clear in acase that came after —a case Ne w Yo rk Tim es .Inthe late 1970s ,the tha tco ul dhave been inven te dby alawprofessor Progr es - si ve com miss ioned an art icle by How ard Mor land about the wo rkin gs of an fir st subm it ted the manu script to the De part ment of Prog re ss ive H-b om b. The in tu rn br ou gh t an inj unc tion to bl ock its pu b- En erg y, and the go ve rnment g: to give to the worl d th e li catio n. The go ver nm ent ’s clai m wa s compellin se cret s of how to bui ld a bomb wo uld make it poss ib le for an y te rro rist to an nihi late any cit y. On March 26, 1979, Judge Robe rt Warren of the We ste rn Di str ict ofWisc ons in agr eedand issue datemp orar yrestra ini ng or de renjoin - 18 ing the Pro gr essive from pu bl ish ing the article. Unl ike the Pentago n Pap ers case, th is cas e did n’t race to th e Supreme Co urt .Ins tea d, it stew ed, no dou bt in part because the district ju dg e hear in g the case un der st ood the great ri sk thi s pub licatio n pre sented . The jud ge did sto p the pu bli cati on whi le he thou ght throug h the case. He th ough t fo r two and a half mo nths . The publ is her s went to the Court of Appe al s, an d to th e along .No co urtint erv ened. Su prem eCou rt, ask ing each tohurr ythe thinking Un ti l Ch uc k Hansen, a comput er prog ra mm er ,ran a“Des ig nYou r Own age letter in wh ich hede tailed H-B omb ”co ntest an dcirc ulat ed an eig hteen-p hi s unde rstand ing of how an H-Bomb r 16, 19 79, the works . On Septembe Pre ss- Con nec ti on of Madi son, Wi sconsi n, pu blished the le tter. The ne xt da y the go ve rnme nt move dtowithdr aw its case, con ced ingthat it was now mo ot. 19 The comp ell ing int ere st of the gover nment ended once the secret was out. Note what this seq ue nc e impl ie s. Th ere is a ne ed for the cons tit uti onal thereisarea l ts only because pr otec tion th at the Pen ta go nPa pers ca serepresen and a publ ish er co ns tra int on publ ishi ng. Publi shing require s a publisher, can be punish ed by the stat e.Bu tif the ess enc eor fa cts of the pu blication ar e pub li shed els ewhe re first, th en the need for cons titutional prot ection disap- pear s. Once the piec e is pu bl is hed, ther e is no fu rthe r legal jus tifica tion for su ppres sin g it. So, Ab rams as ks ,would the cas ebe impo rta nt to da y? Is the cons tit ut iona l pro tec ti on of th e Pe ntagon Pa pers case still ess ential ? 20 Sur pris in gly, Floyd Abrams sugg ests not . Toda y the re’ s a wa y to ens ur e in aski ng aco urt to su p- that the gove rnme nt ne ver ha sacom pellin ginterest to pu bl ish the Pentag on pre ss pu bli cati on. If th e New York Ti mes wanted Pa per s to da y, it cou ld ens ure th at the pape rs ha d bee n previous ly pu bl is he d or one of a mill io n blog s. simp ly by le aking th em to a USE NE T newsgroup, Mo requi ckly than it sow nne ws pa per is dist ribute d, the papers wo uld the nbe pub li shed in mil lio ns of pl ac es acr oss the wor ld. The need fo r the cons titu - ti on al prot ect ion wou ld be er ased, because the arc hit ecture of the sys te m gi ves an yo ne the pow er to publ ish qu ic kly and anonymously.

256 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 241 241 free sp ee ch Thu s the arc hit ec ture of th e Ne t, Abr ams sugge ste d, elimina te s the need went on, the Net pr o- fo r the const itut io nal pr ot ect io n. Eve n better, Abrams tec ts ag ain st pr ior re stra in t ju st as the Con sti tuti on did —b y ensu ri ng tha t stron gcontrols on inf orma tion ca nnolon ger be achieved. The Ne tdoes what ethat the tr ut h publi catio nof the Pen tag on Pap er swa sdes igne dto do—ensur do es not rema in hid den. But the re’s a sec ond side to thi s sto ry . On Jul y17, 1996, TWA Flight 80 0fel lfromthe sky te nmile soff the south - er ncoast of Center Moric he s, Ne wYork .Two hundred and thi rt ypeopl ewere States lau nched the (the n) kil le d. Im med ia tely aft er the ac ci dent the United of the Nati on alTr an s- la rg est invest iga tion of an air pla ne cra sh in the history po rtat ion Safe ty Bo ar d(N TSB ), spen di ng$27 mi lli on to di scov er the causeof to have been a me cha nical fa il - the crash , whic h even tu al ly was det ermined 21 ure. Thi swas not, how ev er ,th eview of the In tern et. From th ebeg inn ing, sto - iles that were seen to hit the air - rie s circu lated abou t “fri endly fire ”—miss plan e. Do zens of eyewi tnes se s report ed that they saw a streaking lig ht sho ot the plane jus t be fore it went down . The re we re st ories about mis sile toward 22 The Net by the Navy seve nty miles fr om the cra sh sit e. tes ts co nducted clai med that the re was acove r-u pbythe U.S. govern ment tohide its invo lve - me nt in one of the worst civi l ai r di sas te rs in Ame rican histo ry . deni ed th es e re por ts. Yet the mo re the gov ernm ent The go ver nment 23 And the n, den ied them, the more cont rary “ev ide nc e” appeared on th eNet. as a fi nal straw in the sto ry,there wa s a re port, pur po rtedly by a gov er nm en t e evidence sug- ins id er, cl aiming that indeed th ere wa s a consp iracy—becaus 24 ges ted that fr iendl y fire ha d sho t down TWA 800 . The for me r pre ss se cr etar y to Pre sid en t John F. Ken nedy bel ieved this re por t. Inaspee chin Fran ce,Pi erre Sali nger ann ou nc ed th at his go vernment was hi di ng the fac ts of the cas e, and tha t he ha d the proof. I reme mb er th is event well .I was talki ng to a colle agu e just af ter I hea rd alea din gcon- Sal in ger ’s rep ort. Irec ou nted Salin ger ’s repo rt to thi sco lleague, Weboth were at st itut io nal scho lar fr om on eof thetop Am erica nlawschools. ns about cr ed - a los s abo ut wh at to beli eve .There were cros s-cutting intuitio ib il it y. Sali nge r was no nut, but the story was certain ly loony. Sal inge r, it tur ns out ,had been ca ugh tby the Net .He had been tr icked by the fl ip sid e of the poi nt Floy dAbrams has made. In a wor ld whe re ev eryone ca npub lish ,it is very hard to kno wwhat to believe. Publish ers are als oeditors , an ded it or sma ke deci si ons abo ut what to pu bl is h—decisions that ordina rily are dr ive natleas tinpart bythe qu est io n, is it tr ue? State ments can not ve rify thems elve s. We ca nn otal way stell ,from asen te nce reporting afac tabout the

257 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 242 242 CODE 2.0 25 So in ad di ti on to our own exp er ience wo rld ,whe th er tha t sent ence is tr ue . an d know led ge of th e wor ld , we mu st rel y on stru ctures of reput ation that the claim with bu ild credibili ty. When so methi ng is pub lished , we as sociate sa ys that al iens hav ekidn appe dthe Pres - th epu blish er. If the New Yor k Times fr om astory with the iden tic al wo rds pu bl ishe d dif ferently ide nt, it isviewed Na tio nal Enqui rer in the . When a new tec hno logy come s alon g, how ev er , we are lik ely to lose our be ari ngs. Th is is no th ing new .It is sai d that the word phony come s from the bi rt h of the tel epho ne—the phon y was the con art ist who used the ph one to trick peo ple who were fami li ar with fac e-to -fac e co mm unica ti on only . We sh ou ld expec t th e sa me unc ertai nty in cybers pac e, and exp ec t tha t it too, at fir st ,wi ll sh ak e exp ec tati ons of cred ibi lit y. of th e Ne t that we can not Abrams’s argument then de pend s on a feature take for granted. If there were credi bi lity on the Net, the import an ce of th e ed. But if spe ech on the Ne t Pent ago n Paper s case wo ul d indeed be diminish lack scred ibi lity, the pr otect io ns of the Co nstitution again bec ome imp ort an t. “Credi bi li ty ,” howe ver ,isnot aqua li ty th at is legi slated or coded .It come s from in stitu tions of tr us tth at he lp the reader separate reliable from unr elia ble sour ce s. Fli ght 800 thus ra ises anim po rt ant question: Ho wcan we rees tab li sh 26 cred ibi li ty in th is sp ace so that it is no t lost to the loon s? In the fir st edi ti on of thi s boo k, that qu es tio n could only be ans wer ed hy pothet ic all y. But in th e time sinc e, we’ ve begun to see an answ er to this qu es tion emerge .An d th e word at the cen te r of that answ er is: Blog. At thi s wr it ing , th ere are more than 50 million weblog s on the Inte rne t. There ’s no single way to de sc ri be wh at thes e bl ogs are. They diff er dra ma ti - ca ll y, and pr oba bl ymo st of wha tgets wri tten th ere is jus tcrap. But it iswro ng to jud ge a dyna mi c by a sna psho t. And the stru ctu re of authority that this dyn ami c is bu ild ing is somethi ng very new . “a ma teur ,” At their be st, bl og sare insta nces ofamat eur journ alism —where ag ain , me ans not seco nd rat e or inf eri or , but one who doe s what he doe s for the lov e of th e wor k an d not the mon ey. These journalists write ab ou t the wor ld —s ome fro m a pol iti cal pe rs pecti ve , some fr om the poin t of vie w of a parti cular intere st . Bu t they al l tri ang ul ate across a rang e of oth er writ ers to nt ,orare port ,that add sso mething pro du ce an argume new. Th eet hi cof th is spa ce islin king—o And wh il ethis li nki ng is not f po int ing, and commenting. “fai rand balanc ed, ”it does pro du ce avigorou sexch ang eof ide as. Th es ebl og sare ranke d. Serv ic es such as Tech no rat iconst an tly cou nt th e bl og spac e, watc hin gwho links to who m, an dwhich blogs produ ce th egrea t- con tribute to an econ omy of ideas tha t est cred ibili ty . And these rankings buil ds a disc ip lin e around th em. Blo ggers get author ity from the cita tion

258 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 243 243 free sp ee ch ot hers giv ethem; that aut hor ity att rac ts at tentio n. It is ane wrep uta tion sy s- tem, es ta bl ish ed not by ed itors or CEOs of media co mpa nies, bu t by an rs. ex traord in ari ly diver se rang e of co ntributo And in th e end, thes e ama teur journa lis ts hav e an eff ec t. When TWA fl ig ht 800 fel l from the sk y, the re were theories about cons pira cie s that were fi lt er ed th ro ugh nostru ct ur eof cre di bi lity. Today, there are more stru ctu re sof 60 Minut cred ibi li ty .So wh en Dan Rathe r pr odu ced a le tter on CBS’s es pu r- port ing to establ ish a ce rtai n fr au d by the Pres ide nt, it took the blogos phe re was fa ked. Mor eincr ed - 24 hour sto establi sh this me dia com pa ny’s evidence ed ge what blogs had es tab - two weeks to acknowl ibly, it to ok CBS almost 27 Th e col lab orat ive work of the blog s uncov ere d the truth, and in the lished . pro ces s emb ar ra ss ed a ve ry pow erfu l media company. But by cont ras t to the some th in g im portant be havi or of that me di a comp an y, th ey demon strated abo ut how the Net had mat ured . This col labo ratio n co mes wi th no gu ara ntee s, except the gu ara ntee of a pro ces s. The mos t ext raordi nary col labo rative proc es s in the contex t of con - ten t is Wikip ed ia . Wi ki pedi a is a free onl ine encycl opedia, cre ated sole ly by vo lun tee rs.Lau nch ed at the be gi nni ng of 20 01 ,these (lite ral ly thous an ds of ) volun te ers have now creat ed over 2mi lli on art icles. The re are nin emajo rlan - gu age ver sio ns (not inclu di ng the Kli ngo n vers ion ), wit h about half of the tot al art ic les in Engl ish. The ai mof the Wi kip ed ia is neut rali ty .The cont ributor sed it, an dreed it, to fram eapie ce neu tr ally. So metimes that effort fails—partic ula rl ycontr ov er- sia ltop ic scan’t hel pbut att ract fierce conflic t. But inthe main, th ewo rk is an unb elie vab le su cce ss. Wi th no thing mo re than the eff ort of volu ntee rs , the ia eve r writ te n ha s be en mo st used, and perhap s the mo st usef ul encycloped cre ated thro ugh mi lli ons of unco ordi nate d ins tances of coll abora tion. Wik ip ed ia ,ho wever, can ’t guara nt ee its res ults .It ca n’t gu ar antee th at, at But of cou rs e, no an y parti cula r mo ment, there won’ t be er rors in its entries. in one stud y that rand oml y col lec ted on e can ma ke tha t gu arant ee . Indeed, the re were ju st as En cyc loped ia Britan nica, en tri es fro m Wikipe di a and from 28 man y err ors in as inWi kiped ia. Brit ann ica But Wik iped ia is open to a cer tain ki nd of ris k th at Brit an nica is not— mali ciou snes s. InMay 20 05,th eent ry to an artic le abo ut Jo hn Sei gen thale rSr. was defa ced by a pr ankst er. Becau se no t many peopl e we re monitor ing the en try, it to ok fo ur mon ths befor eth eerr or was noticed and corre cte d. Se ige n- th al er was n’t happy abou tthi s. He, un ders tandabl y, com plai ned tha tit wa sthe a tha t wa s to bl ame. archi tec ture of Wikipedi Wi kip edi a’s arc hite ctur ecould be di ffere nt. But the les so nhe reis not its fa ilu res .Itisinste ad theextraor din ary surpri se of Wi kipedia’s succ ess. There

259 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 244 244 CODE 2.0 is an unpr ece den ted collabo ra tion of peo ple fro m around th e worl d work - ing to con ver ge upon tr uth ac ros s a wide range of top ics. Tha t,in a sen se, is to pol ice wh at scien ce doe s as well. It us es a diff erent kin d of “peer review” it s result s. Th at “pee r re vi ew” is no guarant ee eith er—South Kor eans, for Hwang scientists, ex am ple, wer e quite co nvin ce d that one of th eir leading to clone human stem ce lls. They Wo o-Su k, ha d dis cove re d a technique bel iev ed it beca use pee r-revi ew ed journals had repo rted it . But wh eth er righ tto believe it or not, the jour na ls we re wrong .Woo-S uk wa safrau d, an d he hadn’ t clone d ste m cell s, or anyt hi ng el se worth the atten tion of the worl d. Bl ogs do n’ t coo rdi nat e any co ll abo ra tive pro ce ss to tr uth in the way Wi kipe di adoes .Inasen se, the vot es for any partic ul arposit ion atany par tic - ular mo me nt are al ways unco unt ed, while at eve ry mome nt they ar e alw ays ta ll iedon Wik ipe dia .But eve nif th ey ’reuntall ied, re ader sof bl ogs le arn to tri - an gu late on th e tr ut h. Just as wi th wi tnes ses at an acciden t (thoug h bett er, sin ce th ese witnes ses hav e reputat io ns), th e rea der con stru ct s wha t mus t be worries true from a ran ge of vi ew s. Cass Sunste in rightly that the norms amo ng blo ggers have not evolv ed enoug htoin clude inte rna ldiv ersity of cita - 29 Th at ma ywell betr ue. Bu twhat eve rthe no rmal read in gpra cti ce isfo r tion . or di nary iss ues , the diversi ty of the blogos phere gives rea de rs an ext re me ly wid e ran ge of vie ws to consi der when any major is sue—s uch as tha t which me rge s. When ti ed to the matur ing reputation st un g Sali nger—e sys tem that co nst an tl y tempers inf luenc e, th is me ans that it is easier to ba lance ex tre me vi ew s wi th the cor rec ti on that man y voices can bu il d. Acred ibil ity canthu semerge, tha t, while not pe rf ect, is at le ast dif ferentl y en cu mber ed .NBC Ne ws mu st worr yabout its bo ttom lin e, bec au se it sre port - ing incre asi ngl y res po nds to it. Blog s don’t have a bottom line. They are —in the ma in— ama teu rs. Re putati on con str ains both, and the com pet itio n d ea ch . We be twe en th e two for ms of jour na li sm has in creasin gly improve ha ve a rich er enviro nment for free speec h to day than five year s ag o—a com - me rcial pre ss temper ed by bl og sregu lat ed byatechnology tha t of reputation gu id es the reader as mu ch as the wri ter. Er ror swil lremai n. Ev eryone has afavori te exa mpl e—min eisth eridicu - the In te rnet.” The stor y lous st or y abou t Al Gore cl ai ming to have “invented ori gi nate d with a CN N int erv iew on Marc h 9, 1999. In th at int erview , in res pon se to a que st ion abo ut what was different about Gore ove r Bra dley, Go re sai d the fol lo win g: Dur ing my servic ein the United State sCongre ss, Itook the ini tiati ve in cr eating the Int er ne t. Itoo kthe init iat iv ein mov ing fo rwar dawho le ra nge of init iat ive s

260 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 245 245 free sp ee ch that ha ve prov en to be impo rta nt to our co untr y’ s eco no mic growth and env i- 30 ro nme ntal pro tect ion, imp ro vem ents in our ed ucat iona l system. As isclea rfr omthe cont ext, Go re is st ati ng not that heinven ted th etech - nol og y of the Inte rnet, bu t that he “to ok the initiative in moving for war d a to th e count ry . But the who le range of init ia tiv es”tha t hav e been important st or ywas reto ld as the clai mthat Gore “invented the Int ernet.” That ’s how the Int er net jou rnal is tDec la nMc Culla gh repeated ittwo week slater :“[T]h evice pre sident offere d up a whoppe r of a tall tale in wh ich he claime d to have uck. In a2003 inve nt ed the Inte rn et. ”That char act eriz at ion —pl ainly false—st Bend or st udy of the medi a’ shandling of the st ory, Ch ip Health and Jo nathan co nclud e, “W esho wthat the fal se versi on of Gore ’s stateme nt dom ina te dthe tr ue one in mains trea m po lit ic al dis cou rse by a wide margin. This is a cle ar 31 fa il ure in th e ma rke tp la ce of ide as, whi ch we docume nt in detail.” The on ly redeemi ng pa rt of th is st ory is tha t it ’s sim ple to do cum ent the fal si ty—bec au se of th e In tern et. Seth Finkelstein , a pr ogr amme r and anti - cen sorware act ivis t, has crea ted a pag e on the Inter net col lecting the orig inal 32 Hi s is th e mode l of th e ver y about it. inte rvie w and the sub sequ ent reports be st the In terne t coul d be .That virt ue, how eve r, didn’t car ry to o far beyond the In tern et. SPAM AND PORN REG UL AT IONS OF SPEECH: For al l ou r talk ab out lov ing free speech , mos t of us , deep down, wou ldn’ t mi ndabi tof heal th yspeec hreg ulat ion, at leas tin some conte xts.Or at le ast, mo re of us woul dbe eag er for speech regul at ion today than wou ld hav ebe en in 1996 .Thi schange isbec aus eof tw ocatego ries of speech th at ha vebeco me the ban e of exis tence to man y on th e Net: spam and por n. By “spam ”Imean unsol icit ed co mmer cial e-ma il sent in bulk .“Un soli cited, ” in the sens eth at there’ snorel ati onsh ip betw een the sender and rec ipient; “com - merc ial” in a se ns e that exc lud es po liti cal e-mail ; “e -mail ” in the sen se not re st ricte dtoe-mai l, bu tthat inc lude severy med ium ofinterac tio nincyb ersp ac e (i nclud in g bl ogs) ; an d“bu lk”me aning man y (you pic k the numb er) missi ves se nt aton ce . By “por n, ”Imea nno tob sc enit yand not child por n, but what the Un ite d spe ech that is “ha rm ful to State s Su preme Court call s se xua lly explicit 33 mi nor s. ” Th is is the cat ego ry of lega lly pe rmi tt ed er otic spe ech—f or ad ults, at leas t, not for ki ds .Obsceni ty and chi ld por n are per mitted to no on e. Th es etwo ty pes of spe ech —po rn andspam —arevery dif fer en t,bu tthey are si mila r in the st ru ct ure of re gu lati on that each demand s. Neithe r kind of

261 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 246 246 CODE 2.0 sp eech sho uld be ba nned by reg ulat io n: The re are some who ar e hap py to rec ei vesp am; the re are so me who ar econ st itut ionally en titled to ac cessporn. But for both ki nd sof spee ch, the re is aclass of in dividu als wh owou ldlike the to sp am ; pa re nts with powe r to blo ck access to ea ch: mo st of us with respect resp ect to porn. Thi sisades ire for aki nd of “speech regulat ion.” Th eque stio n is ho w, or wh eth er, the law ca n su pport it. n, prop erly arc hit ec ted. “But how,” I’m all for thi sfor mof spe ech regulatio an ti- re gul ati on sorts mi ght ask, “can you so easily embra ce the ide a of regu- lat ion ? Have you fo rg ott en the impor tant val ues of free sp eech ?” Bu tif the lo ver sof th is fo rm of spe ech regula ti on have be enreadi ngcar e- fu lly, they have a qui ck answ er to thi s charge of cen sors hip . It is clea r, upon refl ec tio n, th at in the se nse of Chapte r7, sp am and porn ha ve al way sbee nreg - ulated in re al space . Th e only qu esti on for cybersp ace is wh ethe r the sam e ef fec t of those real sp ac e reg ul ati ons can be achieved in cybe rs pa ce . Real -Spac e Regulati ons : Spa m and Porn 7,spam ,in re al Thi nk fir st abo ut sp am in re al sp ace .In the sens e of Chapter space , is reg ulat ed ex tens iv ely . We can und erstan d that regula ti on thro ugh the fo ur mo da lit ie s. Fi rst law :Reg ul at ions ag ainst frau d and mis representa tion cons tra in the gam es bul kmai ler scan play in real sp ace. Contes ts are hea vily re gulat ed (just re ad the dis cla imers on th e Publ is hers’ Clear ing House Sweeps ta kes ). Secon d,norms regulat ebu lk mailinreal spa ce. The re ’s asens eof wha tis ap pro pri ate to adv er ti se for; adve rti seme nt outside that range is alm os t se lf - defe at in g. Thi rd ,ma rk ets re gu late bul kmail in re alspa ce. The co st of re al spa ce mai l is hi gh , meani ng the returns mus t be si gn ificant be fore it pays to sen d bul k mai l.Tha tra dica lly reduc es the ra nge of bulk mail that ge ts sent inreal spa ce. And fina lly, arc hitec ture reg ulates bu lk ma il in real spa ce .We ge tour mai l ju st on ce aday, and it ’s fai rl ysi mpl eto segre gate bu lk from real. It ’s als osim - pl eto dum pthe bulk wi th ou tever ev en ope ning it. The burdens of real- spa ce spam are th us not ter ri bly great. res tr ic t the spread of spa m in rea l spa ce . The re is Thes e fac to rs together less of it than the spa mmers wo uld li ke, even if there is more tha n the res t of us lik e. Thes e four const raints thu s re gu late what gets made. A si mil ar sto ry can be tol d ab out po rn. Po rn ogra ph y, inre al sp ac e, is reg ulat ed ex te ns iv ely—a gain not obs ce nity an dnot chil dpo rn, but wha tth eSup re me Co urt cal ls sexually expl ic it speec h that is “ha rmful to mi nors.” Obs ceni ty and child porn are re gula te d too, but

262 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 247 247 free sp ee ch thei rre gul ati on isdif fe re nt :Obs cenity and child po rn are banned fo rall pe o- ple in real space (Uni ted Stat es); por n is bann ed on ly for childr en. We can als ound ers tand po rn’ sre gul atio nby conside ring thefour modal - end :tokeep por naw ay iti es of re gul at ion. All fo urare direct ed toacommon fro m kid s while (so meti me s) ensu ri ng adu lts’ acces s to it. Fi rst , law s do this. La ws in many juris dic ti on s req uir e tha t por n not be 34 Gin sbe rg Sin ce at least 1968, when th e Su pre me Court de cid ed sold to kid s. 35 such re gu lati on has been con si sten tly uph el d. State scan req ui re v. New York , ve nd ors of porn to se ll iton ly to adu lt s; they can also requ ire ven dors toch eck the ID of buy ers. But not only laws channel .Soci al norm sdo as wel l. Norms rest rict the sale sof por n, an d of porn ge ne ra ll y—so ci et yfor the mo st part sn ee rs at consumer th is snee r un doub ted ly inhibi ts its sale . No rms also support th e poli cy of keep ingpor nawa yfrom kid s. Porn de al ers likely don’t like to think of the m- se lve s as people wh o cor rup t. Sel ling po rn to kids is univers all y see n as cor - const raint on deale rs ,as on anyone els e. ru pt in g, and this is an important Th e mar ket, to o, kee ps por n aw ay fr om kid s. Po rn in real sp ace cost s mo ne y. Kid s do no t hav e muc h money . Becaus e sel lers discrim inate on the bas is of wh ocanpay, the ythu shelp todiscour age chi ldren from bu yin gporn . But the n re gu lat ions of law , mark et , and no rm s all pre suppos e anothe r reg ula ti on th at ma kes th e firs t th re e poss ible: the regula tion of rea l-spa ce arc hite cture. Inre al space it is ha rdtohi de tha tyou are achi ld. He ca ntry ,but a kid cannot wi tho ut an y lik el y succ ess. Thus , because hide his age , and becau se po rn is large ly so ld fac e to face ,the architectures of re al spa ce mak e it relat iv ely ch eap for la ws and norms to be effective. Th is co ns tel latio nof regul ati ons in real spac ehas th eeffect of control ling, to animp ortant deg ree, the dis tr ib ut ion of po rn tokids. Th eregu lat ion isno t per fec t—any chil dwho re all ywa nts the stu ff can ge tit—but regulation do es no tne ed to beper fe ct tobeeffecti ve .Itisenough that these reg ulat ions mak e por n ge ner al ly unavai labl e. ons : Spa m and Porn Cyber sp ac e Regulati in cybers pac e. Th at is , the se sam e Spam an d po rn are reg ul at ed dif ferently four mod al it ies const rai nor enabl espam and por ndiff ere ntly in cyber sp ace . Let ’s begin with porn thi s ti me .Th e firs t diff er ence is the mark et. In rea l spa ce porn costs mo ney, but in cybe rspace it need not—at least not much. If yo u want to distr ibut e on e milli on pict ures of “th e girl next doo r” in real spa ce, it isnot unreas onabl eto say tha t distribution wil lcost clos eto$1mil - lion . In cyb ersp ace di st ri buti on is pra ct ically free. So long as you hav e acces s

263 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 248 248 CODE 2.0 to cybe rs pace an dasc an ne r, you can sc an api ctur eof “t he gir lnex tdoor” and the ndi st ribu te th edi git al ima ge acros sUS EN ET to many mor ethanone mi l- lion peo ple fo r just th e cost of an Int erne t conn ection. Wit h th e cos ts of pro du cti on so low, a much greate r sup pl y of por n is pro duced for cybers pac ethan for re al spa ce. And indeed, awhole ca te gor yof ateur por n, or por n por n exi sts in cyb erspa ce that does n’t in real spa ce—am ial purpo ses. That cate gor y of suppl y simp ly pro du ced for no nc ommerc co uldn ’t su rvive in real sp ac e. . Por n in cyb erspa ce can be acces sed—o fte n And the n the re is demand sites mak e por n an d in ma ny plac es —f or fre e. Th ou sands of commercial availa ble fo r free, as a tease to draw in cust omers. Even more por n is dis trib - uted in no nc ommerc ial cont ex ts, suc h as USENET, or free porn webs ites. Agai n,thi s low pr ice trans lat es int o muc h greater demand. Muc h of th is suppl y and de mand is fo r a mark et that, at lea st in the Uni ted Sta tes ,is cons tit uti onally pr ot ected. Adults have acons ti tuti onal righ t in the United Stat es to acce ss porn, in th e se nse that the gover nme nt can do acc ess to por n. But burdens) noth in g that burd ens (per hap s un reasonably ther e is ano the r mark et for po rn in the United Sta tes tha t is not con sti tu - tio nally pro tect ed. Gove rnments have the right in th e United Sta tes to block ac cess by kid s to po rn. As we sa w in th e prev iou s sec tion, for that re gu la tion to work, how eve r, there need s to be a rela tively simp le way to know who is a kid. But as we’ve l fea tur e that cy be rspace se en thr ough out th is book, this is an architectura ce can easily hide tha tthey ar eki ds. do es n’thav e. It’s no tthat ki ds incyberspa an id entit y and In cyber space ,the re is no fact to di sgu ise. You en te r without even that can’ t be authe ntica te d with yo u iden ti fy only what you want—and . Thu s, a ki d in cy bersp ace need not dis clos e that he is a an y real confidence appl ied to ach ild in ki d.An dthe refo re he need notsuffer thediscri minations rea lspac e.No one ne eds to kn ow that Jon is Jonn y; the re fore, th earch itect ure do es no t pro du ce th e min im al in form ation necessary to make reg ulati on wo rk. The cons eq uenc eis that re gula ti ons that seek selec ti vely toblo ck acces sto kid s in cybersp ace don’ t work, and they don’t wo rk for reason s th at ar e ve ry di ff er ent fro m the reas ons they might not work well in real sp ace. In real spa ce, no dou bt, ther e are sell ers wh o want to break the la w or who ar e not ty pi cal ly mot iva ted to obey it. But in cy be rsp ace, eve n if the se lle r wants to ob ey the law, the la w can’ t be obey ed. The architecture of cybers pa ce doe sn’ t pro vi de the too ls to enabl e the la w to be foll owed . A sim il ar story can be to ld abo ut spam: Spa m is an econom ic activ ity . Peo pl ese nd it to make money .The fric tions of real spa ce signific antl ythr ottle

264 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 249 249 free sp ee ch that desir e. The cos ts of sendi ng spam in real sp ace mean tha t only pr oje cts ex pec ti ng a si gni fic ant re tu rn ge t sent. As I said, even then , laws and no rms add ano ther lay er of res tr icti on. But th e mos t signifi cant co ns tra int is cos t. cat ion in cybersp ac eme ans th at the co st of But the effi cie ncy of communi the qu antit y of se ndi ng spam is rad ic al ly che aper, whic h ra dically increases spam tha tit is ra tiona lto sen d. Even if you make onl ya.01% pr ofit ,if th ecost of se ndi ng the sp am is clo se to zer o, yo u stil l make mo ney. Thu s, aswi th po rn, a di fferent arc hit ect ur al con st raint mea ns a ra dicall y dif feren tregu lat ion of beha vior .Bot hpo rn an dspam ar ereason ably regul ate d in re al space; in cybe rsp ace , thi s di fferenc e in archit ecture me ans neithe r is ef fec tively reg ul ated at al l. An dthus the questi on that be gan thi sse cti on: Isthere away to “regul ate” spam an d po rn to at lea st the same level of regul ation that both fa ce in rea l spa ce? Regu lati ng Net -Porn Of all the pos sib le speech regu lat ions on the Ne t (p utting copyright to one si de for th emom en t) ,the Unit edSta tes Congre ss has bee nmos teag er to re g- ula te porn. That eagerne ss, howe ver, has not yet trans lated into succes s. Con - gre ss has pa ssed two pi ece s of major leg is lation. Th e firs t was st ru ck down com ple te ly.The secon dcon ti nue sto be battered down in its struggl eth rough the co urt s. The fir st stat ute was the pro duc t of a scare. Just about the time the Net was co min gin to th epo pula rconsci ou sne ss, apartic ularly see dy aspect of the Ne t came into view fir st. Thi s wa s por n on the Net. This co nce rn be ca me 36 Its so ur ce was an extr aor di - wid esp rea d in th e Uni ted Stat es ear ly in 199 5. nar y ris e in th e numb er of ord inary users of the Ne t, an d ther ef ore a ris e in use by kids and an eve n more ex traord inary ris e in th e availa bility of wh at man y cal l por n on the Ne t. An ext remely (and deepl y fla wed) controversial reporte d tha t the st ud y pu bli shed in the Geor get own Un ive rsity La w Revie w 38 37 Net was awa sh in por n. Time ran aco ver st ory about it savai lab ility . Sena - to tor s and con gre ssm en were bo mb arded with demand s to do something t.” re gul ate “cy bersmu tions Dec enc y Ac t Co ngres s res po nded in 1996 wi th the Com munica (CDA ). Alaw of extra ordin ary st upidit y, the CDA pra ctic ally impale dits elf on the Fir st Ame nd men t. The law ma de itafel ony to trans mit “inde ce nt” mate - rial on the Ne ttoami nor or to apla ce where aminor cou ld ob se rv eit. But it ga ve sp ea kers on the Net a defen se—if th ey too k good- fait h, “reas ona ble, 39 ef fec tive ”st ep s to scree n ou t chi ld ren, the n they coul d speak “ind ece ntly .”

265 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 250 250 CODE 2.0 The re we re at least three pro bl ems with the CDA, any one of which 40 The firs t was the scope sh ou ld hav e doo med it to well -des erved extin ction. of the speec h it ad dres sed: “Indece nc y”is not a cate gory of sp ee ch that Con - gre ss ha s the pow er to regu la te (a t least not outside the con te xt of bro ad - 41 As I ha ve al re ady de scr ibed , Cong ress can regul ate spe ech tha t is cas ti ng. ) Gins berg spe ech, but that is ver ydifferent fro mspeech “har mful to min or s, ”or cal led “in dece nt.” Thu s,th e fi rst st rik e against the statute was tha t it rea ched too far . Str ik e two was vag uene ss. The form of the allow ab le defe ns es was clea r: So lo ngas th ere was anarc hit ect ure for scree nin gout kid s, the spee ch wou ld be pe rmit ted .But the archi tec tu re s th at ex is ted at the time for scr ee ning out ch il dren we re rel at ively crude , and in so me cas es quite expe ns iv e. It wa s effec ti ve orju st unc le ar wheth er, to sat isfy the statut e, they had to beextremely re aso nab ly eff ec tiv e giv en th e stat e of th e tech nol ogy. If the for me r,then the def ens es were no def ense at all , bec au se an extre mely effect ive bl ock was ex treme ly expe nsiv e; th e co st of a re aso nably eff ect ive bl oc k would not hav e bee n so hi gh . s own doing . In ar gu ing its ca se befo re Str ik e thr ee wa s the government’ the Supreme Co ur t in 1997, the gover nment did little either to na rro w the the scope of the def ens es .It sc ope of th espeec hbei ng reg ul at ed orto expand Co ngres s ha d giv en it, st uc k wit h the hopele ssly vag ue ,overbr oa d de finition and it displ aye d a poo r un de rsta nding of how the technology mi ght have pro vi ded a def ense. As the Cour t consi dered the cas e, the re se em ed to be no way tha tan iden tific at ion syst em could sat isfy the statute with out creati ng an und ue burden on Int erne t spe ak ers. Con gres sre sp onde dquick ly bypas sing ase cond sta tute ai medatprote ct - Prote ct ion Ac t (COP A) of ing kids from por n. This was the Child Online 42 Th is sta tu te was be tt er tai lored to the con stitutio nal requ ir eme nts. It 19 98 . ai med atreg ulat ing sp eech th atwa sha rmf ul to mi nors. It allowe dcom merc ial web sit es to provid esuch speech so lo ng asthe web si te veri fied the view er’ sage . 43 Yet in Jun e 200 3, th e Supreme Co urt enjoined enf orceme nt of the statute . Bot h sta tutes respo nd to a legit ima te and impo rt an t co ncern. Parents cert ai nly hav e the rig ht to pro tec t their kid s from th is for m of spee ch, and it ndab le th at Cong res s wou ld want to hel p pa re nts se cur e is per fec tly understa thi s protec tion. Bu tbot hstatu tes byCon gres sare unc onstit ut ional —not, asso me sugg est, becau se there is no way that Cong res s cou ld hel p parents . In ste ad both ar e unc on st it ut io na l bec au se the part ic ula r way that Congress has tried to he lp par en ts put smor eof abur de non legit ima te speech (fo rad ults tha tis )tha nis nec es sar y.

266 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 251 251 free sp ee ch In my vie w, ho wever, there is a perfect ly cons tit ution al sta tut e th at Con - nt effe ct onprot ec tin gki ds from gres scou ld pass th at woul dhave an importa por n. To see what th at stat ute lo oks li ke, we ne ed to step back a bit fro m the of this sp eech reg - CDA an d COPA to ide nti fy wh at the legitimat e objectives ulat io n woul d be . 44 that adul ts ha ve a es tab lished that the re is a cl as s of speech Gin sb erg rig ht to bu t that children do not. State s can regu late that class to ensu re tha t su ch spee ch is ch annel ed to th e pr oper use r and block ed from the im pr ope r user . Co nce pt uall y, for suc h a regulat ion can work, two quest ions mus t be an sw ered : 1. Is the speake r utte ring “regul able ” speech—mean in g speech “h armfu l to mi nors ”? this speech—meaning is he a minor ? 2. Is the li ste ner ent itle d to consume And wit h the answ ers to the se qu est io ns, the log ic of this regula tion is : IF (s pe ech == regu lable) AN D (l ist ener == minor) THE N blo ck ac ces s. Now betw ee nth elis te nerand the spe ak er, cle arly the sp eaker is in abetter posi ti on toansw er qu est ion #1. The li ste ner can’t know whethe rthespeech is unt il the lis tener encounters the speech. If the lis tene ris a har mfu ltominors mi nor, then it is too la te. Andbetween the listen er and the spe ake r, clearly the liste ne r is in a be tter po sit io n to answ er qu estion #2. On the Inte rnet espe - ci all y, it is ext remely bu rdensome for the speake r to certify the age of the lis - ten er. It is the li ste ne r who kno ws hi s age most cheaply. The CD A and COPA pl ac ed the bu rden of ans wer in g qu estion #1 on the sp ea ker ,and #2 on bo th the spe ak er and the liste ner. A speake r ha d to de te r- mi ne wh ethe r his speec h wa s regu labl e, and a sp eake r and a lis te ner ha d to co oper ate to verify theag eof th elist ene r. If the spe ake rdi dn’t, andthe li st ener was a min or, th en the spe ak er was gu ilt y of a fel ony. Rea l-s pac elawal so as signs the bu rden inexa ctly the sa me wa y. If you wa nt to sell po rn in New York, you bo th need to determin e wh ethe r the con te nt

267 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 252 252 CODE 2.0 you ’re sel ling is “harmf ul to minor s, ”and you need to determin e whe ther the dif fe rent fr om per son yo u’ re sell in gtois aminor. But real spac eis importantly question #2: In re al spa ce, the cyber spa ce, atle ast in th ehigh cost of answering answe r is almo st auto mati c (ag ain, it’ s hard fo r a kid to hide that he’ s a kid ). And wh ere the ans wer is not aut om at ic ,there’s acheap system of id ent ifica tion ory sy stem of (a driv er’ s lic ens e,fo r examp le ). But in cyb erspace ,any mandat ide nti ficat io n cons titut es a bu rd en bot h fo r thesp eaker and the list ener. Even un de rCOPA, asp eak er ha sto be ar th eburd en of acre dit card syst em, an dthe li st en er has to tr us t a po rnogr apher with his credit card ju st to get acc ess to co nst itut io nally pro tect ed speec h. There ’s ano th er feat ure of the CD A/CO PA laws tha tse ems ne ce ssar ybut upon everyone, of thei rreg ulation isn ’t:The ybot hplace the burden including th ose whoha ve acons titut iona lright tolist en .The yre quire, tha tis, everyone to show an ID when it is only ki ds who can constitutionally be bl ocke d. to adi ff er en tre gu latory So compa re th en thebur den sof theCD A/COPA #1 (w hethe r the conte nt is sch eme: one that pla ced th e bu rden of question ha rmf ul to mi nors ) on the spe aker and placed the burden of quest io n #2 (w het her the lis tene r is a mi nor) on the listene r. On e ver sion of th is sc heme is si mp le, obv iou sly ineff ec tive and unf air to the spe ake r: A requ ir ement th at a web si te bl ocks acc ess with a page tha t says “T he co nten ton thi spa ge is harmful to minor s. Cl ick here if you are aminor.” Th is sche mepl ace sthe bu rden of age id enti fication on the kid. But obv ious ly, it wou ld ha ve zer o ef fec t in act ually bl ock ing a kid. An d, les s obv iou sly, this sch eme wou ld be unf ai r to speak ers. A speaker may well have conte nt tha t who of fer s such co nst itu tes mate ri al “harmf ul to mi nors,” but not everyone apher. This tr an spare nt blo ck is stigm a- mate ri al shou ld be la beled apornogr e system we re poss ible, tha t stig ma tiz ing to so me, and if a le ss burdensom sh ou ld als o re nde r reg ulat io n su pport ing this unc onstit utional . So what’s an alte rnati ve for thi s sc heme tha t might ac tu al ly work? I’ mgoi ng to demo nstr at esuc hasy st em with apa rticul ar exa mpl e. Onc e you see the exa mp le ,the gene ral point will be easier to see as wel l. op erati ng Ev eryon e kno ws the Ap ple Mac into sh . It, li ke every modern sy ste m, no w al lo ws us ers to speci fy“ac cou nts” on a particu lar mach ine . I’ve se t on e up for my so n, Wi ll em (he’s only three, but I want to be pr epar ed ). al con trols. ” Th at Whe n I set up Wil lem ’s acc oun t, I set it up wit h “parent mea ns Ige tto specify pr eci sel ywh atprograms he gets to use, an dwhat access he has tothe Int ernet .Th e“par en ta lcon trols” mak eit (eff ective ly) im pos sib le to chan ge thes e speci fic ati ons. You need the adminis trator’s pa ssw ord to do that , an d if th at’s kep t sec re t, then the univers e the kid gets to th rou gh th e co mp uter is the uni verse def ined by the acc ess th e pare nt sel ects .

268 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 253 253 free sp ee ch Imagi ne one of th epro gra msIco uld se lec twa sabrowse rwith afu nct ion wou ld be pro - we cou ld cal l “kid s-mod e- brow si ng ” (KMB ). That browser to watc hon an ywebpa ge for apartic ular mark. Let’ scall that mark grammed th e“ha rm ful to mi nor s”mark ,or for sho rt. That mark, or in the la n- the spe aker beli eve sisharm - gu ag eof the We b, ta g, wo uld br acket any content would then not display ful to mino rs, and the KMB browser any cont ent br ack eted wi th this ta g.So ,fo rexampl e, aweb page mar ked up “Bl ah kthi s bl ah blah bla h” would appear onaKMB bl ahbla hbloc scr een as :“B lah blah bla h bl ah bla h bl ah.” So, if the wor ld of the Wo rl d Wide Web was marke d with

ta gs , an dif brows erma nu fact urers bu iltthi s-fi ltering function into th eir br ow se rs , then paren ts wo uld be able to conf igur e their machi nes so thei r kid sdid n’ tget acces sto any cont ent mar ked .The pol icy objec tive of en ab li ng parental cont rol wo uld beac hieved with amini mal bu rd enon con - sti tut io nally entitled spe ak ers. How can we ge t (mu ch of the ) wor ld of the We b to mark its har mf ul to tags? mi nor s conte nt with Th is is th erol efor go vern men t.Unl ik eth eCD AorCOPA ,th ereg ulatio n the exten tit works, and more on that req ui red to make th is syst em work—to would not be bel ow—is si mp ly tha t spe ak ers mark their conten t. Speakers tove rif yage .All the req ui red to blo ck acc ess; sp eak ers woul dnot be required sp ea ker wo uld bereq ui red to dois to tag content dee med har mf ul to minors wit h the prope r tag . woul d not be a public ma rking that a webs ite was a This tag , moreover, tha twecreat e po rnsite .Th is prop os al is not like the (id iotic, imh o) proposals have to loca te to are d- a.se xor .xxx doma in forth eInte rnet .People shouldn’t lig ht di stric tjust to ha vead ult ma te ri al on their site .The ta ginste ad would be hi dden fr om the ordi nary user—u nl es s that user lo oks for it, or wan ts to blo ck tha t co nte nt him or hers elf. Onc ethe gover nme nt ena cts this law, then bro wser manu fa cture rs wou ld ha ve an incent ive to bu ild thi s (very simpl e) filte ring tech nology into th eir gi ven the open -so urc e Mozi lla browse r tech nolo gy —to brow sers. Indeed, e costs of bu ildi ng this wh ic h an yo ne cou ld add any th ing the y wan ted—th lo w. And once the go ve rn me nt ena cts this mo di fi ed brow se r ar e ext remely tha treco gnizes this ta g, then law, and bro wse rman ufa ct urer sbuild abrowser paren ts have wou ld have as str ong a re aso n to adopt pl atfor ms that ena ble them to contro l wh ere thei r ki ds go on th e Inter net. Thus ,inthi ssol uti on, the LAW crea tes anin cen tive (th ro ug hpe nalt ies for non co mp liance) for si te s with “harmf ul to min ors” mate rial to cha nge their (b y add ing tags ) which creates a MAR KE T for AR CH ITE CTURE

269 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 254 254 CODE 2.0 br ow ser manufac ture rs (new mark ets) to add fil te ring to their co de , so tha t created paren tscan pro tec tth ei rki ds. The only burden bythis sol ution ison the sp eak er; th is soluti on do es no t bu rde n the right ful cons ume r of por n at al l. To that consu mer, there is no ch ange in th e way the Web is ex per ie nce d, becau se witho ut a br owse r tha t loo ks fo r the

tag, the ta g is invis ible to th e con su mer. It’ shard tosee why it tuti ona l? But isn’ t that burde n on the sp ea ker un consti hemust fi lter kid s wo uld be ,if itis co nst it uti onal in re al sp ac eto tell aspeaker fro m his cont ent “harm ful to mi nor s.” No doubt the re’s a bu rde n. But the nal que stio nis whe ther qu estio nisn’t wh ether th ere ’s aburd en .Th eco nstitutio there is ales sburde ns ome way to achi eve this important state in tere st. wh at happens in But wh at ab ou t for eign site s? Ame ri cans can ’t re gulate Ru ssi a. Actu ally,th at’s less true tha nyou think. As we’ll see in the next chapt er, can do and does to eff ec tive ly cont rol there ’s mu ch tha t the U.S. government what othe r cou ntr ies do. St il l, yo u mi ght worry that si te s in other cou ntri es wo n’t obey Amer ican lawbe cau se it’ snot li ke ly we’ ll se nd in the Marines totake ou tanonc ompl ying webs it e. Tha t’s cer ta in ly tru e. But toth eextent th ataparen tis con cer nedab out this ,as I alrea dy de sc ri bed, there is a ma rke t al re ady to enab le geogr aphi c fil - coul din pr inc iple ter ing of conte nt. The same brow ser that fil ters on su bscrib eto an IPmap pi ng se rvi cetoenabl eaccess toAmerican si te sonly. Sur e,of co urse so mewil l. Bu tth e But wo n’ t ki ds get aro und th is res tr icti on? to mis sile tr acking sof tw are )is me asu re of succe ss forleg isl at ion (as opposed not 10 0per cent .The quest ion the le gisla ture as ks is whether the lawwi ll ma ke 45 To subst ant ia ll yblo ckacces sto conte nt woul dbe thi ngs bet ter of f. a sign ifi cant impr ov eme nt, and that woul d be enou gh to make the law ma ke se nse . rely upon fil ters th at pa rents and li br ari es in sta ll on But why not si mply thei r compu ters? Vol unt ar y filter s don ’t requir e any new laws, and they the re fore p to achie ve their ends. do n’t requ ire an y stat e-spo nsor ed cen sorshi It is th is view that Iwa nt towor kha rdes tto di slodge, bec au se bui lt wit hin it are al l the mis takes tha t a pre -cybe rl aw unders tand in g brin gs to th e qu es - tio n of reg ula ti on in cybersp ac e. Fi rst , co ns ider the wo rd “c ensorsh ip. ”What this regu lation would do is gi ve parents th e oppor tu ni ty to exe rc ise an importan t ch oic e. Enabl ing par - en tsto do thi shas been deemed acompe lling state int erest. The kid swh ocan’t get ac ces sto this cont ent bec au se the ir pa rents exerc ise dthis choice mig ht ca ll it “ce nsor ship ,” bu t tha t isn’ t a very usefu l application of th e te rm .If the re is a le gi ti ma te rea son to bl oc k thi s for m of acces s, that ’s sp ee ch reg ula tion. There ’s no reas on to call it names .

270 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 255 255 free sp ee ch Se con d, cons id er th epref erenc efor “volu nt ary fi lt ers. ”If volu nt ary filte rs and on ly H2 M we re to achieve the ver y same end (b loc ki ng H2M speech sp ee ch ), I’d be all for the m. But they do n’ t. As the ACLU quite po werf ull y des cr ibed (sh ortly aft er wi nni ngthe case that struck down the CDA part ly on vemeans than gov ern me nt the groun ds tha tpri vat efilte rs were ales srestricti re gul ati on): The ashe s of the CD A we re bare ly sm old eri ng when the Whi te House cal led a sum mi t meeting to enco urag e In tern et users to sel f- rate the ir sp eech an d to urg eindu st ryle ade rs todeve lop anddep lo ythe tool sfor block ing “ina pprop ri - ate sp eech.” The me eti ng was “vol un ta ry ,” of cou rse: the White House claim ed it wa sn ’t holdin g an yo ne’ s feet to the fire . [But ] the AC LU and ot hers . . . were gen uine ly ala rm edby th ete nor of th eWhite Ho use su mmi tand the unaba she d en thu siasm for tech no logic al fi xe s th at will make it easie r to bl ock or ren der invi si ble co ntr ov ersia l sp ee ch. . . . [I]t was not any one proposal or announce - me nt tha tca us ed ou rala rm ;rather, it wa sthefail ure to ex amin ethelon ger-t erm 46 impl ic at io ns fo r the Inte rnet of ra ting and blo ck ing sc heme s. The ACLU ’s concern is the obvi ous one: The filter s that the ma rket ha s inter est th e cr eat ed no t only fil ter much mo re bro adly than the legitimate state has he re—b lo cki ng sp eec h—they als o do so in a tot ally non - tra ns pare nt way .Th erehav ebee nmany hor ror stories of sites being incl ud ed 47 in fil ters fo rall the wrong reasons (in clu ding for simply crit icizin gth efil ter) . And wh en you ar ewron gful ly blocke dby afilter, there’s not muchyo uca ndo. ndation The filte r is jus t a par ti cularl y ef fec tive recomme list. You ca n’t sue Zag at’s jus t beca use the y stee r cust omers to you r comp etito rs . My poi nt is no t tha t we sho uld ba n fi lt er s, or that par ents shou ldn’t be al lowe dtoblo ckmore than H2M speech .My point isthat if we re ly upon pri - vate acti on alone, more speech wi ll be bl ocked than if the gov er nm ent ac ted wis ely and effic iently . And tha t frame s my final cr it icis m: As I’ve argu ed fro m the st art , ou r fo cus sho ul d be on th e libe rty to speak, no t just on the gov er nmen t’s role in re st rict in gspee ch .Thus, betw ee ntw o“soluti ons” to aparti cular speec hpro b- ent and supp res ses speech nar ro wly, and lem , one that in volv es the governm speech bro ad ly, con- on ethat do esn’ tinvo lve the go vernm ent but suppresses First Amendm sti tuti ona lvalu es sho uld til tus to fav or the former. ent val ues ment direct ly) should lea d to fa vo ring a sp eech (ev en if no t the Fir stAmend re gul ati on sys tem that is thi n an d accountable, and in whic h the gove rn - me nt’s ac ti on or inaction leads only to the suppr essio nof speech the go vern - men t has a leg iti mat e inter es t in suppr ess ing. Or , put diff er ently , the fact

271 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 256 256 CODE 2.0 a solu tion that the go vern ment is in volved sh ou ld not disqualify necessarily as a pr op er, righ ts-protec tive solut io n. The pri vat efil ters th emarket ha spro duced so fararebot hex pen si ve and the state’s inte re st in regu - over -inc lu si ve. They bloc k cont ent that is beyond there is no les sres tri ctiv e lat in gsp eech .The yar eeffectively subsidi zed because alte rn at ive . Pu blic ly requ ired filte rs (whi ch are wha t the

ta g ef fe ctiv el y en ab le s) are nar rowl y tar get ed on the legitimate state interes t. And if the re is a pr osec utor says a websi te with a disp ute ab out that tag —i f for ex ample, inf or mati on abou t bre ast ca nc er mu st tag the info rmation with an

ta g—the nth eweb site at le as thas the oppo rtuni ty to fight that. If that fi lte ri ng we re in priv ate sof twa re, there wo uld be no opportu nity to fight it throu gh leg al me ans. Al ltha tfree speec hacti vi sts coul dthe ndo is wr ite pow erf ul ,but lar ge ly invisi bl e, art ic le s like the ACLU ’s famou s plea. It has tak en key ci vi l rig hts org aniz at ions too long to reco gniz e this pri - h value s. The tra dition of civil rights is foc us ed vate thre at to free-speec di re ctl yongove rn me nt action alone. Iwould be the la st to say thatth ere’s not gre at dan ge r fro m go vernment mi sbehavior. But there is als o da nge r to fre e sp eech from pr iv ate mi sbehav io r. An ob ses sive refu sal to even cons id er the ed by the Fir st on e threat against the oth er doe s not serve the values promot Ame nd me nt. , lik e PI CS? Wouldn’ t PIC S Bu t th en what abo ut pub lic fil terin g te chn ologies be a solut io n tha t av oid ed the “se cr et list pro blem” you id entified ? PICS is an acro nym for the Wor ld Wi de Web Consor tiu m’s Pla tfo rm for In ter net Co ntent Selec ti on. We have al ready seen a relative (ac tu all y, a child) of PICS in the ch apt er abou t priva cy: P3P. Like PICS, is a proto col for ra ting an d fi lter in g content on th e Net. In the con text of pr ivacy, the conten t was ma de up of ass ert io ns ab out pr ivac y prac tices, and the reg ime was des igne d to help indi vidua ls ne go ti ate tho se pra ctices . Wit honline speech the ide ais mu ch the sa me .PICS div ide sthe pr oble m ing (rat ing content) of fi lte ring into two part s—label and then fil teri ng (bl ock - ing co ntent on the ba sis of the rat ing ). The idea was th at sof tware auth ors wo uld co mpe te to wr ite so ftw are that cou ld fil te r acc ording to the rating s; co nten t pr ovi de rs and rati ng organi zat ions woul d comp ete to rate co nte nt. and rating system. If you wante d Us ers woul dthe npi ck th eir fi lte ri ng software the rat in gs of the Chr is tia nRigh t, forexa mple, you could select its rati ng sys - tem ; if I wanted the ra ti ngs of th eAtheist Left, I coul d sel ect th at. By picking the software our rater s, we wou ld pi ck the cont ent we wanted to filte r. Thi s reg ime re qu ire s a few ass um ptio ns. Fir st, sof twa re ma nuf acturer s wo ul dhav eto wr ite th eco de necess ary tofi lte rthe mate ria l. (This ha salr ea dy

272 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 257 257 free sp ee ch bee n done in some ma jor br owsers ). Second, ations woul d rating organiz act ively ha ve to rate the Net. Thi s, of course, wou ld be no simple ta sk; or gan - izat ions hav enot ris en to the chal le nge of billions of web pa ges. Thir d, or ga n- iz at ions th at rat ed the Ne tin awa ythat allo wed fo rasimple tr anslati onfro m on erat ing syst em toano ther wo uld have acompe titive advantag eove rothe r rat er s.Th eycould ,for ex amp le, se ll ara tin gsy stem to the go vern men tof Tai - tra ting system for the “go vern - wa nand then easi ly de ve lop asli gh tl ydifferen me nt ” of IBM. If all thr ee assu mpti ons held true ,any nu mb er of ratin gs coul dbeapp li ed to th eNe t. As en vis io ne dbyits autho rs ,PICS would be neutra lamo ngrati ngs a la ngu ag e with fil ters; th e syst em wou ld simply provide an d neut ral among whic h con ten t on th e Net co uld be rated, and wi th whic h de ci sions about 48 how to use that ra ted mat eri al co ul d be ma de from ma chine to ma chine. Ne ut ra lity sounds lik eago od thi ng. It sounds li kean idea that polic yma k- er s sho uld embr ace. Your speec h is not my speech; we are both free to spea k an dli sten aswe want. Wesho uld establ ish reg imes that prot ec ttha tfreedom , an d PICS see ms to be just suc h a reg ime. But PICS contai ns more “neu tr ali ty”than wemight like .PICS is not ju st from a ra nge of ra ting ho ri zon tal ly neut ra l—all ow ing ind ivi du al s to choose syst ems the one heor sh ewants ;PICS isalso vert ic all yneutral—a ll owing the filte rtobe imp osed atany level in the distribut ional chain. Mostpe ople who fi rst end ors ed the sys tem imag ine dthe PICS filter sitting on auser’ scomp uter, fil ter ing accor ding to the desir esof that indivi dual. But nothi ng in the de si gn ac cess to the Net from filte ring of PICS preve nts orga niza ti ons that provide onal cha in— co nten t as wel l. Filt eri ng ca n oc cu r at any level in th e distributi wh ic hthe user gains access, the ISP, orev en the th euser ,the co mpa nythrough jur isd ic ti on within whi chthe user live s. No thing in th edesign of PIC S, that is, requ ires that suc h filter s ann oun ce th emselves. ure Filteri ng in an architect in some of its imple mentations like PICS can be invis ib le .Indeed, inv is ibilit y 49 is part of its des ign. Thi s sho uld set of f ala rms fo r those keen to pr ote ct Fir st Am end me nt As a (p er hap s) unin - valu es—ev en th ou gh the pr otoco l is totally private. ten ded co nse que nce, the PICS regi me no tonly enables no ntr ansp arent fil ter - gy, eng en de rs filte rs for ing but , by pro du cin g a mark et in fi lt ering technolo was the ACL U’s le gitima te mu ch more than Gin sber g speech. That, of course, whose tas tes are the compl ai nt ag ai nst the or ig inal CDA. But here the market, nit y, fac il itate s th e filte ring. Built int o the filte r ar e the taste s of the commu Ginsbe rg no rms of acommunit filt er of y, which are br oader th an the narrow . The fil te ring sy ste m can exp and as bro adl y as the use rs wa nt, or as fa r ups tre am as sources want.

273 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 258 258 CODE 2.0 The H2 M+KMB sol ut ion alte rnativ e is much narr ower. It enab les a kind for sp eakers to of priv ate zoni ng of sp eech. But there woul d be no incentive bl ock ou tlist eners; th eincen tive of aspeake ris to have more, not fe wer, listen - ers. The only requirem en ts tofilter out listeners would be th ose th atma ycon - spe ech requirem Gi nsb erg stitu tio nally beimp os ed — en ts. Si nce the ywoul dbe imp ose dby the st ate, th es ereq uire me nts coul dbe te sted against the Constit u- too far, itcould be ch ecked . tion, and if the state we re fo und to have reached bet ween thes etwo so lut io ns, th en ,is in thege nerali zabili ty Th edif ference an arc hitec tu re th at cou ld of th ereg imes .The fil teri ng re gime wo uld establish beuse dto filt er any kind of spe ech ,and the des ires forfilter ing then coul dbe the zoning re gim e exp ected to re ach beyo nd a cons ti tutio nal minimum; wo uld est ab li sh an arc hi tect ure for blo ck ing that woul d not ha ve this mor e gen eral pur pos e. Which regime sh ould we prefe r? Not ice the value s imp li ci t in ea ch reg im e. Both are ge ner al sol ut ions to pa rt icu la r prob le ms . The filte ring re gime do es no t lim it itself to Gi nsberg sp eech; itcan be us ed to rate ,and fil ter, any Inter net content. And the zoning spe ech. The re gim e, in pr inci pl e, is not limi ted to zoning on ly for Gin sber g ki ds-I Dzo ni ng sol uti oncoul dbe used to advanc eother chi ld pro tec - tiv eschem es .Thus, bo th hav eap plicat ions far beyond the specifi cs of por non the Net . At le ast in pr inci pl e. We shou ld be as ki ng, how ever, wha t incen tiv es ar e ther eto exte nd the solu tion be yond the problem .And what resi stan ce isthe re to su ch exte nsions ? diff ere nce betw ee n the two re gim es . Here we be gin to see th e important , you Whe n your access is bl oc ked becau se of a cert ificate you are holding want to kn ow wh y. Whe n you are told you can not enter a ce rtain site , th e es clai mto ex clude is check ed at least bythe pers on being exclu ded. Sometim the exclu si on is jus tified , bu t whe n it is not, it can be challenge d. Zo ning, block the n, bu ilds int o itse lf a sys te m for its own limit ation. A site cannot 50 so meon e from the si te witho ut that ind ividual kno wing it. see th e conten t, you can not kno w Fi lte ri ng is dif fer en t. If yo u cannot what is being blo cked . Cont ent co uld be fil te red by a PICS filter som ewhe re ups tre am and you wo uld not nece ssar ily know this was happe ning. Nothing in the PIC Sdesi gnre qui re stru th in bloc ki ng in the way that the zoning sol u- tio n does .Thu s, up st rea m fi lte ring bec omes eas ie r, less trans pa re nt, and le ss co st ly wit h PI CS. This ef fe ct iseve ncl earer if we tak eapart th ecom pone nts of the filte ring pro ces s. Recal lthe tw oeleme nts of fi ltering solutio ns—l abel in gconte nt, and then bloc king ba sed onthat lab el ing. Wemight wel largu eth at the la beling is

274 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 259 259 free sp ee ch the more dangero is lab el ed, the n it is pos - us of the two ele me nts .If content acces s. Tha t mig ht si ble to monit or wh o gets what witho ut even blocking since blocking we ll ra is egrea te rconc er ns tha nbl ocking, at leas tput sth euse r on no tice . Thes e pos sibil it ies sho ul d tr oub le us onl y if we ha ve re as on to que stion the valu e of fil ter ing gene rall y, and upst ream filter in g in partic ula r. I be lieve we do . But I mus t confe ss tha t my con cer n grow s out of yet an othe r la tent ambi gui ty in our consti tuti onal pa st. The re is undenia ble valu ein filter in g. We all filt er out much mo re than we pro ces s, and in gener al it is bett er if we can sel ect our filters rathe r th an ha ve rath er than the New Yo rk Time s oth er s selec t th em for us. If I rea d th e Wall Iam sele cting afi lt er according to myun derstanding of the val - St reet Jo ur na l, ues of bo th ne wspape rs. Obvi ousl y, in any particu lar cas e,the re cannot be a pro bl em with this. But the re is als o a valu e in conf ronti ng the unfilte re d. We indiv idu all y ma y wan t to avoid iss ues of pove rty or of ineq uality, and so we mig ht pr ef er to tune those fact s out of our uni vers e. But it would be terri ble fr om the stan dpo in tof soc iety if citize ns coul dsim pl ytune out problem sthat we renot thei rs ,beca us eth os esame cit iz en shave tosele ct le ade rs to manag ethe se very 51 pro bl ems. In re al space we do no t have to wor ry about this probl em to o much be cause filteri ng is usually im perf ec t. Howe ver much I’d like to ignore ho me- less ne ss, I canno t go to my bank wit hout confro nting homeles s peopl e on Icanno tdrive to the air- the street ;howe ver much I’dlike to igno re ine quality, po rtwi tho ut passin gthrou gh neig hb orh oods that rem ind me of how unequ al a nati on the United Sta tes is. All sor ts of iss ues I’d rather no t thin k abou t fo rc e thems elve s on me. They demand my att ention in real spa ce, rega rd le ss of my filter ing choi ces . The very rich cancut th em se lv es Of co ur se ,th is is no ttr ue for everyone. of f fr om wh at they do no twant to see .Thin kof th ebutle rona19 th-ce ntu ry En gli sh es ta te, answe ri ng the do or and sen ding aw ay those he thinks shou ld not tro ubl e his ma ste r. Tho se peop le li ved perf ectly filte red live s.And so do so me to day. But mo st of us do not. We must con front th e pr ob lem s of ot hers and thi nk abo ut is su es th at af fect our soc iety .Thi s exposu re mak es us better citi - 52 ze ns . We can bet ter de libe ra te an d vo te on issues tha t aff ect others if we ha ve som e sense of the pr obl ems they fac e. What hap pen s, th en , if the im pe rf ec tions of fi lte rin g di sa pp ear? Wh at hap pen sif ev eryo ne ca n, ineff ec t, hav eabutle r? Wou ld such awor ld be con - siste nt wi th the valu es of the First Amen dment?

275 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 260 260 CODE 2.0 Some bel ieve th at it would not be. Cas sSuns tein, for ex am pl e, ha sargue d qu ite force fu ll ytha tthe fra mers embr aced what he calls a“M ad isonia n”con - 53 Thi s Ma di son ian con cept ion re je cts the cep ti on of th e First Amendment. not ionth at the mix of spee ch we see sho ul dsol ely beafun ction of ind ivi du al 54 It in sis ts, Sunst ein cl ai ms, on en su ri ng th at we are expose d to the cho ice. if we are to functio n as citiz en s. It ran ge of issu es we need to und erstand theref ore woul d rejec t any archi tect ure that makes co nsu mer choice trum p. Choi ce isnot abad ci rc umsta nc einthe Ma disonian sche me, but it is not the en d of the matte r. Ithi el de So la Poo l ma kes a ve ry simil ar point: Wha t will it mea n if audie nc es are increa singl y fract ionate d into sm all groups wi thspe cial in tere sts ?Wha twil lit me an if theagen da of nat iona lfads and con- cer ns is no longe r ef fect ivel y set by a few mass med ia to wh ich eve ry one is exp osed? Su ch a tre nd ra ise s for societ y the reverse problems fro m those posed by mas s co nfor mi sm. The cohes ion and effec tiv e func ti oni ng of a democ rat ic soc iety depe nd supon so me sort of pub lic agor ainwh ichev eryo ne pa rticipa tes howe ver muc h the y and whe re all de al with a com mon agenda of problems, 55 ma y arg ue ove r the sol utions . On the oth er side are sch ol ars such as Geof fr ey St one, who ins is ts ju st as st ro ngly tha tno suc hpate rnal ist ic idea lis fou nd anywhe re inthe concep tion 56 Th eamen dme nt, he say s, is mer ely of fre espeec hembr ac ed by ou rframer s. con cern ed wit hbannin gst at eco ntrol of private cho ice. Si nce en abli ng pri va te is perfect filte ring . cho ice is no prob le m under th is re gi me ,neither Th is con flic tamo ng br ill ia nt Unive rsi ty of Ch ic agolawpro fes sors reveal s ,Ido not thin kwe an ot he rla ten tambi gu ity ,and ,as wit hother such ambiguity ge tfar byap pea lin gtoMadison .To use Su nste in again stSunstein, th efr amers’ Fi rs t Ame nd ment wa s an incompl nt, and it is bette r et ely theor iz ed agreeme si mply to co nfess tha titdi dnot cov er th ecase of pe rfect fil teri ng .The fram er s co ul dn ’t im agine a PIC S-e nabl ed wor ld ;th ey certain ly didn’t agr ee upon the ment in such a world. If we are to suppor t one scop e of the Fi rst Amend the values we want to re gi me over ano ther, we must do so by as serting em brace rath er th an cla imi ng th ey have al rea dy been embr aced. So what val ues sh ould wechoos e? In my view, we should not op tfor per - 57 fe ct filte ri ng. We shou ld no t des ig n for th e mos t effi ci ent sys tem of ce ns or - ing —or at lea st, wesh ould no tdothi sin away that allows in vis ible upstr eam fi lte ri ng. Nor sho uld we opt for per fec tfilt ering so long as the ten dency worl d- wid e is to ov erfil ter speech .If there is speech the gover nment ha s an inter es t to the use rs . A pol itic al in cont ro lli ng, th en let that contro l be obvious re sp on se is possi bl e only whe n re gu lati on is tr an spare nt.

276 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 261 261 free sp ee ch Thu s, my vote is for the re gi me that is lea st tran sfor ma tive of impor ta nt chil dren to self- id ent ify is le ss publ ic value s. A zon in g regime that enables tr ans for mat ive th an a fi lter ing reg ime th at in eff ec t requ ires all spe ech to be lab eled .A zoning regi me is no t only less tran sfo rmati ve but less enab ling (of ot he rregu lati on)— it requir es the smal les tchang eto the existing arc hitec ture nt regula tion. of the Net and do es not eas ily gener ali ze to a far more significa Iwou ld opt fo razoni ng re gime eve nif itrequ ire dalaw and thefilte ring for ach ang einth e sol utio nrequire don ly privat echoic e. If the state is pushing mi x of law and arc hi tec tu re , I do no t care that it is pus hi ng with law in one co ntext an dwith no rms in the other .Fro mmy persp ective, th equest ion isthe re su lt , not th e mea ns—d oe s the reg ime produc ed by thes e cha nge s protec t fr ee spe ech value s? Oth ers ar eobsesse dwit hth is dis tin ction bet wee nlaw and priv at eact ion . The y view re gul ati on by the stat e as universa lly sus pect and re gula ti on by pri vate acto rs as bey ond the scope of consti tu tional re vi ew. And, to the ir cred it, mos t cons ti tu ti onal la w is on the ir side. But as I’v e hi nted bef ore , and def end mor e be low, I do not think we sh ou ld ge t ca ugh t up in the lines that lawyers dra w. Our qu estion shou ld be the val ue s we wa nt cy bersp ace to pro tect. The la wyers wil l figu re out how. The ann oyi ng skep ti c wh o keep s noti ng my“incons is te ncies” will like to I embra ced an ar chite ct ure peste r me again at this point. In the las t chapter, fo r priva cy that is in ess ence the arc hi tectu re of PICS. P3P, lik e PICS, woul d en ab le ma chi ne- to- ma chine ne gotiat ionabout co ntent. The co nt ent of P3P is ru les about pr ivac y pra ct ices , and with PICS it is rule s abou t con ten t. But how, the sk ept ic as ks, can I oppos e one yet favor th e ot he r? The answ er is the same as before :The valu esof spe ech are diff ere nt fr om the valu es of pr iv ac y; the co nt rol we want to vest ove r sp eech is le ss tha n the co ntr ol we want to ves t ove r priva cy . For the same reason s tha t we disa ble so me of th econtro love rint el lec tu al pr ope rty, we shou ld dis able som eof the con tr ol ove r spe ec h. A litt le bit of messi ness or fricti on in th e cont ex t of sp eech is a value ,not a co st. But are thes eva lue sdiffer ent jus tbeca us eIsay they ar e? No. Th ey ar eon ly dif fe ren t if we say they are di ffe re nt. In real sp ace we treat the m as dif fe rent. My co re arg ument is that we choose how we want to treat them in cyb er - spa ce. Regu lati ng Sp am Spam is pe rha ps th e mos t th eo ri zed pro bl em on the Net. Th ere ar e sco res of bo ok saddre ssi ng how be st to deal wi th the prob lem. Many of thes eare fille d

277 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 262 262 CODE 2.0 wit hing eni ous techni ca lide as fo rfer re tin gout spam, from advanc ed Baye sian es to massiv e rede si gns of the e-mail sys te m. filte r techniqu But what is mo st ast onis hing to me as a law yer (and dep re ssing to me as Co de the au th or of )is th atpractic ally all of th ese work sign ore on eimpor ta nt to ol wit h which the pro blem of spam could be addr ess ed: the law. It’s no t th at they we igh the va lue of th elaw rela ti ve to, for exa mple, Baye sian filter sor the late st in heur is ti c techni qu es, and conclu de it is less valuable tha n the se ot he r tech niq ues. It’ s that they pre su me the valu e of the law is ze ro —as if spam were a kind of bird flu whic h lived its own life to tally ind ep end entl y of what huma ns mig ht want or thi nk . This isan ext raordi nary omi ssi on inwha tis ,in eff ec t, aregu lat ory stra t- egy .As I ha ve arg ued thr oug ho ut this book, the key to go od polic y in cybe r- spa ce is a prope r mix of mod al iti es, not a singl e silver bu ll et. The id ea tha t co de alon e coul d fix the pr obl em of sp am is silly —c ode can alw ays be co ded ar ou nd, an d, unl ess the circ umvent ers are not other wise inc entiv iz ed, they in centives ,and it shou ld be a wil l cod e arou nd it. The law is a too l to change too l used here as wel l. Mo st think the law ca n’t pla yaro le her ebec au se they thin kspa mmer swil l be be tt er atev ad ing the lawthan th ey are at eva ding spam filters .But this thi nk- ing ign ores one imp or tan t fact ab ou t spam. “Spam” is no t a viru s. Or at lea st , wh en talki ng ab out “spam, ”I’ mno ttalki ng about vi ruses .My targ etinthi spart is co mm unic at ion tha t aim s at in duc in g a commerc ial tran sac ti on . Ma ny of gs to stop agi ng, or in sta nt wei ght lo ss th ese tra nsa ction s are ri di cu lo us—dru pil ls. Som e of these tr ans act io ns are quite legitima l sa le s of ove r- te—specia or inv ita ti on sto app ly fo rcredit cards. Bu tall of thes etran s- st oc ked products, actio ns aim in th een dtoge tsomet hin gfro myou: Mone y.An dcrucially ,if they eto who myouar egiv - aim toget money fr om yo u, then ther emust besomeon n. esh ou ld bethe targe tof regulatio ing you rmon ey .Th at someon So what shou ld that reg ula ti on be ? The ai m here, as wi th porn, sh ou ld be to reg ul ate to the end of as sur in g wha twecou ld cal l“cons ens ual commu ”That is, the onl ypu rpos eof nication. the regula tion should beto bl ock nonco nsensual communication ,and en abl e that purpose is va lid in ev ery cons ens ua l co mmun ic at io n. I don’ t believe e-mail, spe ech cont ext . But in thi s con tex t— private or blo gs, with limited with the co sts of the speech bor n by the liste ne r—it is ban dwi dt h res ources, comp letel yappropria te to regula te to en abl eind ivid ua ls to bl ock co mm er cia l co mmu nicat io ns that th ey do n’t want to receive. So ho w coul d that be done? Tod ay ,the onl ymo dal it ythat ha san ymea ningfu lef fec tupo nthe suppl y of sp am is cod e. Technolo gis ts ha ve dem onstrat ed extraordinar y tal en t in

278 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 263 263 free sp ee ch dev is in g tec hniqu es to bl oc k spam. The se techniques are of two sorts —one by the cont ent of th e mess age, and on e whi ch is trigge red whi ch is tr iggered by the beh avior of the sender. The te chniq ue th at is fo cu sed upon co nte nt is an arra y of filte ring te ch - no lo gie s des ig ned to figure out what the meaning of the mes sag e is . As Jonat han Zdz iarski desc ri bes, the se techn iqu es have impro ved dra matical ly. Whi le ea rly heur isti cfi lt er ing techni que sha derror rates aro und 1in 10,cu r- 58 . re nt Bay es ian tec hniqu es promi se up to 99. 5% –9 9.9 5% accuracy t pr obl em with these tec hniqu es is th e But th e sing le most importan 59 Spa mmer s have ac cess to the same fi lt er s ar ms race th at the y prod uc e. tha t netwo rk ad min istr at ors use to block spa m—at least if the filt ers ar e 60 They can the re for e pla y with the me ss ag e cont ent unt il it can heur istic. to change the fil ter s. Som e defea t the fil ter .That the n re quires fi lt er writers do it well ;some don’ t. Th e co ns eq uen ce is tha t the filters are of ten ov er and or not bloc king under inc lus ive —b lo cking muc h more than th ey should en ough . Th ese cond code- base dtec hn ique for blo ck ingspa mfocu ses upo nthe e- mai l pr acti ce s of th e se nde r—mea ning not the pe rson se nding the e-ma il, but the “se rv er” that is fo rw ardi ng the mes sage to the recipie nt. Ala rge nu m- be rof net wor kvig ilant es —by whic hImean people act ing fo rthe goo din the est ab lished lists of good and bad e-mai l wor ld wit hout leg al reg ul ati on—have se rver s. Th ese black li sts are compi led byexamining the appare nt rules the e- mai l ser ve r use s in dec idi ng wheth er to sen d e- mail. Those serv ers that don’t obe y th e vig il ant e’s ru le s en d up on a bl acklist, and peop le subsc rib ing to the se bla ckl ists then bl oc k an y e-mai l fr om those se rvers. Th is sy stem woul dbefa nta stic if ther ewe re agr ee men tabout how bes tto av oi d “mi su se” of se rvers. Bu t the re isn’ t any such agree me nt. The re are ins tea d goo d fa ith dif ferenc es among good peo ple about how bes t to cont rol 61 The se di ffe rence s, how ever, get qu ashed by the pow er of the boy cott. spam. If 5out of 100 rec ipi ent s Inde ed ,in anet wo rk, aboy cott is esp ecial ly powerful. adm inis tra tor of you re- ma il ca n’ trec eive it bec au se of the rules your network ve rse n- ad op ts for your e-mail serv er, you can be sure the serve r’s rules—howe si ble —wi ll be cha nged. An d oft en , there’s no appeal of the decisio n to be for por n, ther e’s te chnologies in clu de don abl ackl ist. Like the pr ivat efiltering nolikely leg al rem edy for wro ng fu linc lusio nonablac kli st. So many types of e-m ail ser vi ce s can ’t ef fec tively fu nct ion becau se they don’t obey the rule s of the bl ac klis ts. Now if ei the r or both of the se tec hniqu es were actual ly wo rk ing to st op sp am ,Iwoul daccep tthem. I’m partic ularly tro ubled by the process- less block - ing of blac kli sts, an dIhav eper so na ll ysuffer ed sign ificant embarra ssm ent an d

279 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 264 264 CODE 2.0 co st swhen e-mail that wasn’t sp am was treated as sp am. Yet th ese co sts mi gh t be acceptable if the sy st em ingeneral work ed . sto incr ease. The Raduca tu Butit doesn ’t. The qu ant it yof sp am continue 62 And whi le Gro up “p redi cts that by 2007 , 70% of all e-mail wil l be sp am .” there is evide nce tha t the rat e of growth in spam is slow in g, the re’s no goo d 63 The only fede ra l le gis la tiv e evi dence the po llut ion of sp am is aba ting. res pons e, th eCAN -SP AMAct ,wh ile preemptin gmany inn ov at iv est at eso lu - 64 tio ns, is not having any sig nif icant eff ec t. Not onl y ar e these tec hni qu es no t bl ock ing spam, the y are al so bl ock ing 65 —s pa m. The leg itimate bulk e- ma il th at isn ’t— at lea st from my perspec ti ve mos timportant examp le ispol it ic al e-mail. One great virt ueof e- mail was th at it would lower the cost s of soc ial and politic al communication. That in turn would wid en the oppo rtu nity for pol iti cal sp eech. But spam-blo cking te chnolo - forms of so ci al sp eech .The y gies have now emerge das atax on these important have ef fe ct ively re mo ved asi gni ficant pr om ise the Inter net ori gin ally offered . Thu s, both bec aus eregulat io nthrou gh co de alo nehas failed, an dbec aus e it is act ual ly doin g ha rm to at lea st on e important val ue th at the ne twor k or igin al ly se rved, we shou ld consi der alter natives to code re gul ation alone . An d,on ce agai n, th e qu esti on is, what mix of modal itie s wou ld bes t achiev e the le git imate reg ulato ry end ? Beg in wit hth epro bl em: Why is sp am sodif ficu lt to mana ge ?The simple re aso n is th at it com es unl abeled .The re’ s no simp le way to know that the e- mai l you ’ve rece iv ed is spam witho ut op ening the e- mail. Tha t’s no ac ci de nt. Spa mm ers kn ow that if you knew ane-m ail wasspa m, yo uwouldn’t ope nit. Sothe ydoever yt hing po ssible to make youth ink the e- mai l you ’re rece iving is not spam. Ima gine fo ramom ent that we coul dfixthis pr obl em. Imagin ealaw that requ ir ed spam to be labele d, and imag ine tha t law wo rked. I know this is ex treme ly diff icu lt to imag ine ,bu t bear with me for a moment. What wou ld label in its subje ct lin e— hap pen if every sp am e-mail came with a specified 66 so met hi ng like [ADV] in th e subjec t line. Wel l, we know what would happe n in itial ly. Everyo ne (or mo st of us ) wou ld eithe rte ll ou re- ma ilcli ent or as kou re-ma il service to bl ock alle- ma il wit h [A DV] in the su bjec t line . It wou ld be glor ious mome nt in e-ma il his - tor y, a retu rn to the da ys be fore spam. But the ul ti ma te res ults of a re gu lati on ar e not alw ays its initial re su lts . And it’s quit eclea rwi th this so rt of re gulation ,initial results would betemp o- th en th is in iti al miss ives to e-mail inboxes, rary .If the re ’s value inunsolicited bloc kwoul dbe aninc enti ve to find di ff erent way sinto an inbox. And we ca n im agin e an y number of dif fere nt way s:

280 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 265 265 free sp ee ch 1.Send ers could ge treci pient stoopt-into such e- ma il. The op t- in wo uld receiving to soli ci te d. It would no lo nger be spam. chan ge the e- ma il fro m unsolicited lin e. For ex ample ,if thi sspam were 2. Sende rs co ul dad dothe rtag stothe subject tra vel spam , the ta gs coul d be [ADV] [T rav el] . Then rec ipien ts cou ld modi fy thei r filte r to blo ck allADV tra ff ic exc ep t Tra vel e-m ai ls. 3. Senders co uld begin to pay recipie nts fo r rec eiv ing e-m ails. As so me ha ve pro - pos ed ,th ee-ma il co uld come with an attac hm ent wo rth ape nny, orso me thing more .Re ci pients co uld se lect to block al lADVs exce pt those carr ying cash. The key to each of these mod ifi ed re su lts is th at th e reci pien t is now e-mai l by choi ce ,not by tr ick. This evolution from the rec eivi ng commercial in itia lregula tion th us encour ag es mor ecommunicat ion, but onl yby en cour - ag ing consen sua lcom mun ica tio n. No nco nsensual co mmunicat ion —assum - elim in ate d. ing agai n th e re gul ati on was obey ed—w ou ld be (largely) So in one page, I’ ve solved the probl em of spa m—a ssu min g, that is ,that the label ing ru le is obey ed. But that, of cours e, is an impo ssib le as sum ption. Wh at spa mme rwou ldcom ply with th is reg ulation, given the ini ti al ef fec tis to ra di cal ly shr ink hi s mark et? To an sw er this que sti on, be gi n by ret ur ning to the ob viou s point about spam, as opp osed to viru ses or other malw are. Spammers are in the busine ss to make money .Money-se ekers tur nout to be relati vel yeasy creatures tore g- ula te. If the ta rg et of re gulat io nis in it fo rth emone y, then you can contro lhis be havi orby ch angi nghis incent ives .If ignor in garegu lation cos ts mor etha n it may me an ob eyi ng it, the n sp ammers (on bala nc e) will obey it. Obeying a diffe rent jo b. Eithe r behav io r, or it ma y mean getting chan gi ng spamming wa y, chan ge the ec on omi c ince nt ive s, and you chan ge spamming beha vior . So how ca n you change the incent ives of spam me rs thr ou gh law ? Wha t to the law ? woul d pay attention re aso n is there to beli eve any spammer Peo ple ask th at que sti on becau se they re aliz e qu ite reas on abl y that go v- er nmen tsdon ’t sp en dmu ch time pro sec uting sp amme rs. Gov er nm ents ha ve be tter thi ngs todo (or so they think) .So even ala wth at crimin aliz ed spa mis not lik ely to scare ma ny spammers. of the But what we need here is the ki nd of crea tiv it y in the ada ptation ly sophisticated law that coders evinc e when they bu ild fantastical filte rs for spam. If la w as app li ed by the governme nt is not likely to ch ange the ince n- in away tha tspa mme rs weshou ldfind law that is applied tiv es of sp ammers, wo uld fear . On e su ch inn ova tio n wou ld be a well- regul at ed bou nty syst em. The law wo uldreq uir espam to be mar ke dwit halabel. That’s the only requ ire me nt. But the pen al ty fo rnot ma rkin gthe spa mwith alabel is eith er sta te pro secu tion ,or

281 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 266 266 CODE 2.0 pro secu ti on thr ough a bo un ty sys te m. The FTC woul d set a nu mb er that it est imat es woul d recru it a suf fi cien t num ber of bo un ty hu nt ers. Tho se bo unt y hu nt ers would then be en ti tled to the bou nty if they ’re the fi rs t, or wi thi n the with ano ncomp ly in ge- mail. firs tfi ve, to iden tify ares pon sib le part yas sociated But how wou ld a bo unt y hu nt er do that ?Well, the fir st thing the bount y hu nte rwo uld do isdet erm inewh eth er the re gulati on has been comp li edwith. r a On e par t of that answe r is si mp le; the othe r part, more compl ex .Whethe lab el isat tac hed is sim pl e.Whether th ee-mail is comme rcial e-ma il will turn upo n a mo re co mp lex ju dg ment. On ce the bou nty hu nt er is con vi nced the re gula tion has be en bre ach ed, he orshe mu st then iden tify ares pons ib le party. And th ekeyhe re istofo llow an idea Senat orJoh nMcCa in in tro du ce dinto the on ly spam legi slatio nCon - gre ss ha spassed to dat e,the CAN -SPAM Ac t.That idea is to hold respo nsib le ei ther the perso n se nd ing th e e-mai l, or the entity fo r whi ch the spam is an adve rti se me nt. In 99 per cent of the cas es, itwil lbe al most impos sib le to ide ntify the pe r- rs to hide th at info r- so n se ndi ng the sp am .The techni qu es used by spamme 67 mat ion are ext re me ly sophi st icat ed . But the ent ity for whic hthe spam isan adve rtisemen tisadifferent matt er. Agai n, if the sp am is going to work, there mus t be so meo ne to whom I ca n th enthe spa m gi ve my money. If it is to odi ffic ult togi vesom eone my money, wo n’ t retu rn the money it needs to pay. So ho w can I tr ack the enti ty fo r wh ic h the spa m is an ad vertis ement? Here the credi tca rd mark et woul dente rto help. Im agine acre ditca rd — when ve rified , was al wa ys ca ll it the “bo unt y hunt ers’ credi t card ”—that decl ine d. But when that cr edi tcard was used ,aspec ial flag was at tach ed toth e tr ans acti on, and the cr edit car dho ld erwou ld get are po rt abo ut the enti ty that at tempted the charg e. The so le purpo se of thi scard wo uld be to ferr etout and ide nti fy misb eha vior. Cred it card co mp anies could charge so mething spe cia l charge to mak e it fo r thi s card or cha rg e for eac h us e. Th ey shoul d certainly wort hw hile fo r the m. But wi th the se credi t cards in hand, bount y hunte rs co ul d produc e use able recor ds about to whom mon ey was in te nde d to be sen t. And wi th tha t da ta , the boun ty hun ter could make hi s claim fo r the bo un ty. Bu t what ’s to st op som e malic iou s so rt fro m se tt ing so me one el se up? Le t’s sa yIhate my com petitor ,Aja xCl ea ner s. SoIhir easpam mer to send ou t spa mto eve ryon ein Cali forni a, promo ting aspecial deal at Ajax Cl eane rs. Ise t up an accou nt so Aja x receiv ed the money, and the n I us e my bou nty cre dit card to nail Aja x. I sh ow up at the FTC to coll ect my bou nty; the FTC iss ues a subs tanti al fine to Aj ax .Aj ax goe s out of bu siness .

282 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 267 267 free sp ee ch This is a su bstanti al conc ern wi th any bou nty syste m. But it to o ca n be dea lt wit hth rou gh acare fu lreck oning of ince ntives. First, and obv ious ly, the re gul ati on sho uld ma ke such frau d punis habl e by death. (Ok, not de ath, but by a si gn if ica nt punish me nt) . And second, any pe rson or co mpan y cha rge d wit h a vio lat io n of th is sp am stat ut e co uld ass ert, unde r oath ,that it did not hi re or direc t any ent it y to se nd sp am on its behalf. If such an ass ertion is But th easserti on made, th en the com pany wo ul dnot be li able fo ran ypenalty. fals e—a pena lt y tha t wo uld inc lude a very substanti al penal ty if it is proven and corpor ate ass ets . A compa ny wo uld in clu de forfe it ure of bo th personal sign in gsuc han oa th onc ewo uld likely be give nthe be nefit of the dou bt. But aco mpa ny or in div idua lsi gn in gsuch anoath mor ethan on cewoul dbeatar - get fo r inves tigat ion by th e gover nme nt. And by this stage, the expos ure tha t the spam mers wo uld be facing wo uld be enough to make sp am ming a busi - nes s that no longer pay s. Here aga in ,then ,th esolu tionis ami xed modali ty strate gy. ALAWcrea tes the ince nt ive for a cer tai n ch ange in the CODE of spam (it now co mes la bele d). Tha t law is enforc ed th ro ugh a com plex set of MARK ET and NO RM -b as ed in ce nt ives —b oththe inc entiv eto be abount yhu nt er, whi ch is are ac tingbadly) , bo th fina nc ia lan dnor ma tiv e(p eo ple really think spammers as well as th eince nt ive to pr odu ce bou nty cred itcard s. If done right, the mix of these mo da lit ie swou ldchang etheinc entives sp amme rs face .And, if done ri gh t, th e cha nge could be en ough to dr ive mos t sp amm ers int o dif ferent bu si ne ss es. Of cou rse th ere are limi ts to thi sst rat egy .It won’ twork well with foreig n si tes . No r wi th spamm er s who have ideol ogi cal (or pat hological ) interests. Bu tthes espamme rs coul dthen be the tar ge tof the code -bas ed sol utio ns th at Ide scr ibe dat the st art .Once the vas tma jor ity of comme rcially ra ti ona lspam is el imi nat ed ,the out side case s can be dealt with more directly. {T XB2} Th ishas been alon gsecti on, but itmak esacouple im portant poin ts. The fir st is apo in tabo ut perspec tive :to say whet her aregu lation “abr id g[e s] the fre e- do m of sp eec h, or of the pres s” we need a bas elin e for comp aris on. The reg- ulat ions I desc ri be in thi s sec ti on are des igne d to restor e the ef fe ctiv e reg ul ati on of real spac e. In that sen se ,in my view, they don’t “abri dg e” speech . Secon d, th ese exampl es show how doi ng nothin g can be wor se for fre e- sp ee chvalue sthan re gulat ing spee ch. The cons equence of no lega lreg ul ation to channe l por n is an explos ion of ba d code regu lation to deal wit h porn . The co nsequ ence of no eff ecti ve le ga l regulatio n to deal with sp am is an ex pl osi on of bad co de that has br ok en e-mail. No la w, in other wor ds ,some - ti me spro duce sbad co de .Po lkWag ner makes the same point: “[l] aw an dso ft -

283 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 268 268 CODE 2.0 ware tog eth er de fine the reg ulato ry cond ition. Less la w does not ne ces saril y 68 As cod eand law are bot hreg ulators (ev enif dif fe rent me an more freedo m.” so rt s of re gu lat ors) we sho uld be avoi di ng ba d re gulation of whate ve r sort. Th ir d, thes eexa mpl es ev inc ethe mi xed mo dal it ystr at egy tha treg ulat ing cybe rsp ace alw ay s is. There is no si lver bu lle t—w hethe r Eas t Coa st co de or alitie sthat mu st West Coa st code. There isinst ea damix of tec hni qu es—mod be ba lan ced toachi ev eapar ticula rre gulatory end. That mi xmu st rec kon the int era cti on am ong re gulat ors .The ques tio n, as Polk Wagn er des cri bes it ,is for an equi li br ium. But the law ha s an impo rtant role in tw eaking that mix to as sur e the bala nce tha t adv ance s a part ic ular policy. Here , by reg ul at ing sma rtly, we co uld avoid the destr uc tive cod e-ba sed re gul ati on that would fill the reg ul ato ry gap. That would, in turn, adva nce fr ee sp eech intere sts. TH E RE GULAT ION S OF SPEEC H: FR EE CUL TURE The thi rd co ntext in whi ch to consi der the sp ecial relevance of cybe rs pa ce to the re ,the inte ra c- fr ee sp eech follo ws di rectly from Cha pt er 10 .As Idescribe tio nbet ween the arc hi tec tu re of cop yri ght la wand the architec tu re of dig ita l net wo rk sprod uce san expl osi on of cr eativity within re ach of copyri ght ne ver co ntemp lat ed by any leg is lat ure. Co pyr ight law regul ates, at a Th e elem en ts in th at change are simple. “c opi es”: The re ’s no min imum, “cop ies. ”Digital ne twor ks fu nction by making wa y to use a work in a digita l en viro nme nt withou t making a copy . Thus , ever y si ngle use of cre ati ve work in a digital environmen t tr igge rs ,in the ory at leas t, cop yrig ht. This isaradi cal chang efrom life inreal sp ace .In rea lspa ce, the reareany tr igge ring the law of copy - numb er of ways to “u se” a cre ati ve work without righ t. Whe nyou re tel lajoke tofr ien ds ,the la wof copyri ght is not in voke d— no “co py ”is made, and to fri ends ,no pub lic perfor mance occu rs. When you loa nafrie nd you rbo ok ,the law of co pyright is no ttri ggered. When yourea d y eve ry sin gle a boo k,the law of cop yr ig ht wou ld never take notic e. Practicall or di nary us e of cult ure in re al sp ac e is free of the re gu latio n of co pyright. Cop yr igh t ta rgets abnor mal use s—s uc h as “p ub lishing” or publ ic pe rfor m- an ces . The gap be tween nor ma l and abno rmal use s be gan to clos e as the tech - nol ogi es for “cop yi ng” were dem ocratize d. Xerox cr eated the first bl ip; cassette tape recor de rs wer eclose behind .Bu teven these techn olo gies we re the exce p- tio n, ne ve r the rul e. They rai sed cop yri ght ques tions , but the y didn’ t inje ct co pyri ght into th e ce nte r of ord inary life.

284 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 269 269 free sp ee ch Digi tal tech nol ogi esha ve .As more and mor eof ord inar ylife mov es ont o th eInt er net, more and mor eof or di na ryli fe is su bject to copyr igh t.The fun c- tio nal equiv alen ttoactivi ti esfrom re al space that were es senti ally unre gul at ed activ ity th at nev er is now su bject to copy righ t’s ru le incy bersp ace. Creativity need ed to gra pp le wi th copyr ig ht reg ul ation mu st now , to be le gal, cle ar a whole host of hu rdl es , so me of whi ch , because of the in san ely ine ff icient pro pe rty sys te m tha t copy right is, are te chn ical ly impos sible. A si gn ifi can t po rtion of cr ea tiv eact ivit yha snow move dfrom afree cult ur eto aperm iss ion cu lt ure . And th e que st io n for the values of free spe ech is whether tha t ex pan ded re gul at ion sho ul d be all owed to oc cu r un checked. 69 Icont in ue Again ,Ihave my own (ov erly stro ng )views ab outth emat ter. to be as to nis hed th at a Cou rt so keen to avo id “r ais [in g] the cos ts of being a 70 isapp arent lyobl iv - pro ducer of sexu al mat eri als tr oub li ng to the major ity” iou s to the way cop yri ght la w rai se s the costs of being a produce r of cr ea tive an d cr it ica l speec h. But for ou r purpos es her e, we sho uld si mply note onc e again a latent ambi gui ty in ou r con stitution al tradition . As th e Su preme Co urt has held , on the scop e of cop y- the Fi rs t Amendme nt impos es impo rtant limitations t not reg ulate rig ht. Amo ng tho se are at least the requ ire ments th at copyrigh “i deas ,” and th at cop yr ight be subjec t to “fair use.” But the se “t rad it ional Firs tAmend ment safeg ua rds ”were dev elop ed in a co ntext in wh ich copy ri gh twas the ex ce ption, no tthe rul e. We don ’tyetha ve work is su bject to cop yright’ s atra di tion in whi ch every singl euse of creative re ach. Dig ital tec hnol ogi es have produ ced that wor ld. But mos tof the res tof the wor ld ha s no t ye t wo ken up to it. So wh at sho uld Fi rst Ame ndme nt value s be in thi s wor ld? One vie w is that th e Fi rs t Amend ment shoul d have no role in this wo rld —b ey ond the min ima l pr otec tions of the “i de a/e xp ress ion” disti ncti on and the requ ire - me nt of “f ai ruse .” Inthis vi ew ,the sco peof Congress’s regu lati on of cre ative co nditions, ac ti vi tie s is, sub jec t to th es e minimal Any creati ve act plenary. ri gh t of co py - red uc ed to a tan gi bl e for m cou ld be su bject to the mo nopoly ri gh t. And as eve ry cre ativ e ac t in digit al con text is re duced to a tan gible fo rm , thi s vie w me ans tha t eve rythin g in the digit al world co uld be made su bje ct to copyr igh t. t. While the The oppos ite vie w rejects this unli mi ted sco pe for copyrigh contexts mo no po ly righ tof cop yri ght mak essense in ce rtain commercial ,or mo re broa dly, mak es se ns e whe re it is necess ary to “promote . . . prog re ss ,” n of creati ve expressio ther eis no leg it imate reason to burd en thevast majority a video book repor t wit h the bu rdens of copyr ig ht law . That a kid making nee dsto clear pe rmiss ion swit hthe auth or of th eboo k, or that frie nds ma ki ng

285 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 270 270 CODE 2.0 amas hu pof afavor ite art is tcan ’t do sounless the la bel has gr an ted th em pe r- pu rpose . mi ssi on , extend s th e rea ch of copy ri ght beyond any le gitimate But bet ween the se two vi ews, it is pl ain tha t the Fra me rs nev er ma de a t cou ld choi ce. They were nev er con fro nt ed with th e option that copyrigh wo rk. Any cont rol poss ible (eff ici en tly) contro l ev ery si ngle use of a creative in 1790 would have been ra dica lly to oburdens om e. And wh ile Ihav emy bets and to monopolies abo ut how the y wo ul d vot e, gi ven their strong antipathy the very re str ic tive IP cla us e they ena ct ed, that’s nothing mo re tha n a bet. If there ’s ach oice to be ma de here ,itisacho ice they didn’t make. It is inste ada ch oice th at wemust ma ke: Whet her the va lues of fre espee ch res trict this ra d- ic al increas e in th e scope of cop yri ght’ s regul at ion. TH E RE GULAT OR S OF SPEEC H: DIS TRIB UTIO N So far my ar gu me nts abou t arc hi te cture have been about arch it ectures in abit. Iwant to usethe ar chi - cybe rsp ace .In th is fina lst ory, Iblu rthe borders tec tu re of cybe rsp ace to sh ow somethi ng impo rtant about the regu lation of br oad cas ti ng . The Fede ra lCom muni cati ons Co mmi ssion reg ul ates spee ch. If Iwanted tobr oadca st apo li tic al spe ech onFM radio at afre que ncy of 98.6 MHz in San 71 To spe ak on 98. 6 in Sa n Franc isc o, the FC C would ha ve me pr os ecuted. Fra nc isco, I ne ed a license, because to speak using these rad io freq uenci es with out alice nse isacrime .Itisacrime despite the fact that the Cons titut ion sha ll ma ke no la w ...abridg ing the freed om of spe ech, or of sa ys ,“C ongress the pres s. ”Wh at gi ves ? The answ er rest son adeeply he ldassu mpt ion at the core of ourju ri sp ru - den ce go ver ning br oa dc asti ng tec hno log ies : Only a fixed amou nt of “sp ec- tr um” isavail abl efo rbr oadc ast ing, and the onl yway to fac ilitate broadcas ting usin g that spect ru m is to all oc at e sl ice s of it to us ers , wh o are the n the one s a pa rticular geogra phic al enti tled to us e thei r all oc at ed spec tr um within re gio n.Witho ut all oc ati on, there woul d be chaos, th e ass ump tion go es .And chao s woul d ki ll broa dc asti ng . Th is vi ew first ca me on the con st itu tion al sc ene afte r Co ngress passed 72 th eRa dio Act of 19 27 . In1926Secr et ar yof Com merc eHerber tHoov er ga ve up the prac tice of cont ro ll ing bro adc ast ing afte r a nu mber of circu it cou rts hel dthat hedid no tha ve the pow er to do so. If he did not have the pow er ,he sa id , then th e invi sib le hand wou ld have to gover n. But Ho over wa s no re al fr ien dof th einvis ib le hand. He pred ic ted what wou ld happe nwhe nhe with - drew feder al ju ri sdic ti on—c hao s—and some sugges t his aim wa s to hel p bri ngabout just wh at hepredict ed. St ati ons would overrid eother st ations, he

286 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 271 271 free sp ee ch sa id ;broa dcast ing wo uldbe ame ss. Wh en some confus io ndid ar is e,Ho ove r 73 used thi s to just ify new feder al re gu lati on. Con gress th en rod eto the re scu ebyaut ho rizing the FCC toregul ate spec - tr um in a ma ssi vely in vasi ve wa y. Only the licens ed coul d spea k; what they sai d wou ld be contro ll ed by the ir licen se ; th ey had to spe ak in the publ ic .In shor t,Con - int er est ;they ha dto shar etheir resour ce with their opponents gre sssa id, bro adca stin ghad to bereg ul ated in the same way the So viet Un io n 74 ter said in We had no choi ce . As Justice Fel ix Frankfur re gu la ted wh ea t. upho ldi ng the re gime , such sov ie ti sm was compe lled by the “na tur e” of 75 ra di o. Fro m th e begi nni ng, how ev er, there hav e bee n sk ep tics of this view .Not but about the man - sk ep ti cs ab out th eid eath at spect rum mu st be re gulated, ner by whi ch it is re gu la ted. Isitre all yne cessar yto have acentra lage nc yallo - cate what in effec tar eprop ert yrights ?As these skeptics argue d, the com mon law ha ddon eju st fine before the federa lgove rnm ent entered. It coul dals odo fin e if the gover nm ent simpl y ma de spectr um a kind of tr adab le pro perty for aregime in whi chsp ec - ri ght .Ron ald Coa se wa smost fa mous fo rpushing 76 And Coa se’s idea ca ught on—fi ft y ed rath er than lic ense d. trum wasauction ye ar s later. In the Un it ed Stat es, th e FCC now auctio ns huge ch unks of the br oad cas ti ng sp ec trum .Ju st thi s year, it is positioning itsel f to sell prime re al est ate sp ect ru m—th e part tha t used to broadcast UHF televis io n. Now un der either scenar io —eith er whe n the FC C alloca tes spe ctr um or ere is arol efor the go ve rn- whe nital lo ca tes pr op erty rig hts to spectr um—th when the FCC all ocates spectr um:The nthe me nt .That role ismo st extensive FCC mu st decide who shou ldge twha t. When sp ectr um is prop er ty ,th eFCC need on ly enf orce the bo und ari es that the pro perty righ t esta blishe s.It is ,in gform of go ve rnm ent action than the governm away,aless troublin en tdecid - ing who it likes be st. Bo th fo rm s of gov ern ment regul ation , ho wever, pr odu ce a “press ” (at lea st th epr es sthat use sspect rum) that isvery di ffe rent from th e“press” at the foun din g.In 17 91, the “pre ss ”wa s no t the Ne w York Time s Wall St re et or the of pr ivate inte re sts ,with .It was not compr ised of la rge or ganizations Jou rn al mi ll io ns of readers as soc iated wi th eac h org aniz ation. Rather , the pr es s wa s mu ch lik ethe Inte rne ttoday. The cos tof aprinting press was low ,there ade r- shi p was sli gh t, th e gover nment subsidize d its dis tr ibution, and an yone 77 a pu bli sher. An extrao rd in ary num ber did. (wi thin re as on) co uld become avery differ - Sp ec tr um lic en ses and spe ctru mproper ty, howeve r, produce ent ma rket. The cost of se cur ing eith er becomes abarrier to entry. It wou ld be like aru le req uir ing a“newspa per li cens e” in orde rtopu blish anews pap er .If 78 that licen se was expe nsive ,th en fewer coul d pub lish.

287 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 272 272 CODE 2.0 Of course ,unde rour Fir st Amen dmen tit wou ld be im possible to imag ine lice nsing newsp apers (at leas t if that lice nse was ex pen siv e the gov ernment th at we an dtar ge ted at th epress ).That ’s bec ause weall hav eastrong intuition wan t co mpe ti ti on to de te rmine wh ic h news pape rs can ope rate, not artif icial go ver nme ntal barrie rs. An dweall int uit ively know that the re’s no nee dfo rth e are capab le of go vern me nt to “r atio na li ze” the newspap er mark et. People com pe ti ng newsp aper s without any help from th e go ve rn- cho os in g among me nt . So what if the same were tru e abo ut sp ec trum ? Most of us hav en’ t any and unst a- clu eabo uthow wha twecal l“sp ect rum ”works. Th eweir dsounds ble rece pt ion of ou r FM and AM ra di os make us think some kind of special With out tha t ma gic, ra dio magi c happe ns betwee n the stati on and receiver. wav es wo uld “int erfere ”wit heach other .Some special coordi nati on isthoug ht ne ces sar yto avo id suc h“c oll is ion ”an dthe inevitable chaos tha twoul dresul t. Rad io waves ,in this view ,are del icat e invisibl e ai rplan es ,wh ic h ne ed car ef ul ai r traff ic co nt rol le rs to mak e su re di sas te r do es n’t strike. But wha t most of us thi nk we know about rad io is wron g. Ra dio waves of the feder al bur eaucrat sto ar en’ tbu tter fl ie s. They don’t nee dth eprotection dothei rwork. And as tec hnol ogy that istotally familiar using the to everyone spe ctr um- In ter net de monstr ate s, there is in fact very litt le reas on for eit he r lic en se s or spect ru m-pr operty .The invis ib le han d, he re, can do all the work. To get a clue ab out how , cons ider two contex ts, at lea st one of which eve ry one is fam iliar with. No dou bt, radio waves are diffe rent fr om sound works. wa ve s. But for ou r pur po se s he re ,the fol lowin g analogy Imagin e yo u’re at a part y. The re are 50 pe op le in the room , and each of sou nd waves. But thoug h thes e them is talking. Each is the re fore pr oducing man y spe ake rs pro duc e di ffe rent sou nd waves, we do n’ t have any trou ble lis - ten ing tothe pe rs on sp eak in gnext to us. So lon gas noon estarts sh out in g, we can man ag e to hear qu ite well . More gene rally, a party (at leas t ear ly in th e even ing ) is compri se d of smart spe ak ers and liste ners who coord in ate their in th e room can co mm unicate without any sp ea ki ng so th at mos t everyone re al tro ub le. Rad ios co uld func tio n si mila rl y— if the receiv er and transmitter were that or dinar y FM or an alogo us ly intel ligent. Rather than the dumb receivers AM radio relies upon , sma rt radi os co uld figure out what to listen to an d com mu nicate with jus tas pe op le atapart ylearn to focus onth econ ve rs atio n they ’re having . The best evi dence of thi s is the second ex am ple I off er to dis lodg e the commo n unde rsta ndi ng of how spec tr um works. This exam pl e is ca ll ed “W iF i.” WiFi is th epo pul ar name of apa rtic ular set of pr otocols that toge the r

288 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 273 273 free sp ee ch ena ble compu te rs to“s ha re ”ba nds of un licen sed spectrum. The mo st popula r of th ese bands are in the 2.5 GHz and 5 GHz range. WiF i enab les a larg e numb er of co mp uters to use th at spect ru m to co mmun icate. Mo st of the rea der sof thi sbook hav eno do ubt come ac ro ss WiFi tec hn ol - og y.Ise eitevery day Iteac h: aro om ful lofstudents ,each with alapt op ,thevast maj or it y on the Int ern et—d oin g wh o know s what. The pr otoc ols wi thi n eac h Th er eisno gov - mach in een able th em all to “s har e” anar row ban dof spectrum. when it can speak , any more er nm en t or re gula tor th at tells which machine th an we need the gov ern men t to make sure that pe ople can co mmun icate at co ckta il par ties. Thes e examp le s are of co urse smal l and limite d. But the re is lite ra ll y a y as who le ind ust ry now dev oted to spre ading the les son of this technolog br oad ly as po ssi ble. Some theor ists bel ieve the most efficient us e of all spe c- ultra-wide-band techn olo gies to tr um wou ld buil dupo nthese models —using ma ximi zethe capa city of radio spe ctru m. But even those who are skept ica lof spec trum utopi aare comi ng to see th at ou ras sumpt ions about how spec tru m mu st be all oc ated are driven by ignora nce about how spe ctrum actua ll y wo rk s. The cleares texa mpl eof th is fa ls eassumpt io nis th ese tof intuit io ns we ’re likel y to have abou t the nece ssary limitation s in spectru m ut iliz ation. Thes e ass umpti ons arerei nf orce dby the idea of sp ectrum-p ro perty. Th eimage we ’re .Too many use rs canclog li ke ly tohave is of are so urce that can be ove rgrazed the chan nels, ju st as too man y catt le can ove rgraz e a field . nc eof spec tr um usage. But the Conges ti on is certain ly apo ssibl econseque cr it ical point to rec og ni ze —and agai n, a point that echo es thr oug hout this bo ok —i s tha t the po ssi bil ity conge st ion dep ends upon the des ign .WiFi net - refor “s har - wo rk scan ce rtainly become cong ested. But adiff ere nt architectu ing ” spe ct ru m need no t. Indeed ,under this des ig n, more us ers don’ t dep lete 79 cap acity —they increase it. The key to ma ki ng this syst em po ssi bl e is for ev er y re ceiv er to becom e a nod einthe spec tr um archi tec ture .Us ers the nwou ldn’t be just con su me rsof are now als obroa dcas ter s. Ju stas so meon eelse ’s broadc as t. Inste ad ,receivers of user s peer -to -peer tec hnol ogi es such as BitT orre nt har ness the bandwidth to sha re th eco st of dis tri bu tin gco nte nt, users within acer tain mes h- net wor k arc hi te ct ure for sp ectr um could actua ll yincr ea se the spec trum capa ci ty of th e net wo rk. Under thi s de si gn, th en, the more who use the sp ectr um, the mor e sp ec tr um the re is for ot hers to us e— pr oduci ng no t a tragedy of the com - mo ns , but a comed y of the commons. The ba sic arc hi tec tu re of this me sh sy st em ima gine s eve ry compute r in the sys tem isbo th areceiv er and atransmitte r. Of cours e, in one sens e,that ’s

289 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 274 274 CODE 2.0 what thes e mac hi nes al re ady are —a co mputer to a WiF i network attached both re cei ves tr an sm iss ion sfro man dsends tran smissio ns to th ebro adca sti ng no de . Bu t that archite ctu re is a 1-to- many bro adcasti ng archit ec tur e. The tu re is so methi ng di fferent. In a mesh architectur e, ea ch ra dio me sh architec can sen d packe ts of data to an y other ra dio within the mesh. Or , put dif fer - en tl y, ea ch isanod einth enetw ork. An dwith eve ry ne wnode, thecapa city of the arc hi tec tu re of th e netw ork could inc reas e. In a sense, this is precisely muc hof the Inte rnet. Mac hi nes ha veaddres ses ;th eyco llect pack ets ad dr es sed 80 You rmac hine sha resth eNet with every other to that mac hin efrom the Net. ma chin e,bu t th e Net has a pr otoco l about sharing this comm on s. Once this pro toco l is agreed on ,no further reg ulation is required. We do n’t have gotoodeep int oth etec hnolog yto recog niz ethe qu es tion makes it poss ib le for ra dios to that I me an thi s sec ti on to pos e: If tec hnology wit ho ut eit her spectrum-l ic enses or spe ct ru m-p rop - share th e spectrum— eithe r er ty —t he n wh at ju sti fic at ion does the gover nmen t have for imposing bu rd en onth euse of sp ectrum ?Or ,to link it ba ck to the beg inn in gof thi ssec - ti on ,if sp ec trum user scoul dsh ar espect ru mwit hout any coord ina tion bythe go ve rnme nt, wh y is it an y more jus ti fied to impo se a proper ty system on sp ec tr um tha n it is for th e government to charge newspap ers for the rig ht to pub li sh? No dou bt ,thearchi tect ure that ena bles sharing is not tota lly fr eeof gov - ernme nt regul at ion . The gove rn me nt may well requ ir e that on ly ce rtif ied de vi cesbeused inthisnetwo rk(as th eFC Calready does wit hany device th at can ra di ate wi thin a rang e of spect ru m). It may pu sh the tech no logy to th e cap acity , increas ing mesh archi tec tu re . It may even reas onab ly im po se nu i- But beyon d thes e sim ple sa nc e-lik e limits on the powe r of an y tran smitter. re gul ati ons , the go ver nment would no t try to limit who cou ld us e the spe c- trum . It wou ld no t ba n the use of spec trum for pe ople who hadn’t eith er paid or been li ce nsed . So here wehav etw oarchi tec tu re sfo rsp ectr um—on ewhe respec tr umis rs) is shar ed. al lo ca ted, an don ewhe respectr um (l ike the mar ket for newspape Whi ch is mo re consis te nt wi th the Fi rst Amend ment’s design? Here , fi na ll y, we ha ve an ex ampl e of a tr ans la tion that works .We ha ve a cho ice between an arc hi tect ure tha t is the fu nctional equi val ent of the ar chi - tec tu re of the Ame ric an fr aming and an architectu re equ ivalent to th eSo vie t sp ee ch; the othe r fr amin g.One arch itec ture di st ri bu te s powe r and facilitates co nce nt rates po wer and rai se s the pric e of spee ch. Between the se two , the Ame ri can fra me rs made a choi ce . The state was not to be in the bu sines s of li censin gspeakers eith er di re ct lyor in di rectly. Yet that is ju st the busin ess that the cur rent rule fo r sp ec trum all oc ati on al low s.

290 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 275 275 free sp ee ch Afai thful read in gof th efra mers’ Con sti tuti on, mycol leag ue Yoch ai Ben - 81 wou ld st ri ke dow n the reg ime of sp ec tr um allo ca- kle r an d I ha ve arg ued, 82 A fa ith fu l re ad ing woul d reject an arc hit ectur e th at so st rong ly tio n. conc entra tes powe r. The model for sp eech that the fra mers embrac ed was the mod el of theInt er net— dis tri buted, non centralized, fully free anddive rs e. Of rans la tion co urse, we shou ld cho ose whether we want a fait hfu l rea ding—t is our aim, this is do es not pro vi de its ow n no rmativ e suppo rt. But if fidelity its an sw er . SPE ECH LESSONS of cons tra int I ha ve Wha t I descr ib ed at the start of the bo ok as modalities of red escri bed in this chap ter as mo dali ti es of prote ction. While mo dalities co nstrai nt can be used as sw ords agai nst the indiv idu al (pow ers ), mo dalities of pro tec ti on can be used as shi eld s (r igh ts). In princ iple we mi ght thi nk abo ut how the four modalit ies prot ect tu re spr ote ct sp eech, butIha ve foc us ed here on arc hitectures. Wh ich architec what speec h? How do es chang ing an arc hitecture ch ange th e kind of spe ech be in g pr otec ted ? I hav e not tri ed to be co mprehensi ve . But I hav e pu shed for a view tha t ad dr esse sthe relati on ship be tw een arc hitect ures an dspeech gl obal ly and uses cons tit uti ona lval ue sto think not just about what is permitted given apar tic- res are per mitte d. Ou rreal- ular archit ec ture ,bu tal so abou twhic har chitectu con stit uti on .At spa ce con stitut ion sho uld inform the val ues of our cyb erspace the leas t,it shou ld co nst rai n the stat e in its eff orts to archi tect cybe rs pa ce in wa ys that are inco nsi st ent wi th tho se values .

291 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 276 T H I R T E E N i n t e r l u d e L S PAU SE FO R A MOME NT AND LO OK BAC K OVER THES E THRE E CHAPTE RS .T HE RE ET ’ way of unders ta nding how al l is a pat tern to th e prob lems th ey pre sent—a three pro bl ems are th e same. In one sense, each has ask ed: How mu ch con trol shou ld we al low ov er inf or mati on, and by wh om sho uld this control be exe rcised ?The re is aba ttle be tween co de th at pro tec ts int ell ect ual prope rty and fair us e; the re is aba ttle be tween co de tha t mi ght mak e a ma rke t for pr ivacy and the right to repor t fa cts ab out in divid uals reg ar dle ss of that ma rk et ; th ere is a bat tle bet ween tha t en sure code that ena bl es perf ect filte ring of sp eec h and architectures so me mes siness ab ou twho gets wha t. Each case calls for abalance of contro l. My vote in eac h cont ex t may seem to va ry. With res pe ct to intelle ctual pro pert y, I ar gu e agai nst code that trac ks rea din g and in favor of co de tha t . In the conte xt of pri - gu aran tees a lar ge spa ce fo r an int el lec tual commons choice—both va cy, Iargu einfa vor of code that enabl es individual to enc ry pt an d to expres s pref ere nce s about wh at pe rsonal data is col lected by othe rs . Cod ewo uld ena bl ethat choi ce; la wco uld insp ire that code. In the contex tof fi lter sp eech — fre espe ec h, how ever ,Iarg ueagainst co de that would perfectly it is too danger ous, I clai m, to al low perfect cho ice there. Better choice, of co ur se, is be tter, so co de tha t wou ld empow er bette r sys te ms of reputation is range of broad cas ting . go od ,as is code that wo uld wi den the le gitimate The aim in al l three conte xts is to work ag ains t cent ral iz ed str uct ur es of cho ice. In the co ntex t of fil teri ng, ho we ver, the aim is to work aga in st str uc - tu res that are too ind ivi du al ized as well . You ma yask whet her the se ch oi ces ar eco ns is te nt .Ithi nkthey are, but it’s not important that yo uagree .You may believe th at adiff ere nt bal ance ma kes se nse —mor eco ntro lfor inte llec tual property or filtering perhap s, and le ss for 276

292 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 277 277 int erlu de pri va cy. My real inter est is in co nv ey in gthe ne cess it yof such bal ancing and of a bal ance .Alw ay s the val ue s impl icit in th e cla im that we wil l alway s require nbetween th epubli cand priv ate ;always the righ ts of th e the re isacompetitio pr ivate mu st be bal anc ed ag ainst the interes ts of the pu blic. Alw ays a choice mu st be made abou t how far ea ch si de will be al low ed to rea ch. The se qu es - ti on sare in here nt to publi cla w: How will apar ticular constella tion of cons ti - tu ti on al val ues be reck oned? How wi ll abalance be struck in pa rt icu la rfactua l co ntext s? Ihave argu ed thi spoi nt whi le negl ecti ngtospec ify wh ois resp onsib lefo r any given imb alanc e. There are th os ewh owo uld say that there isto omuc hfi l- teri ng, or not enou ghpriv ac y, ortoo much con trol over intel lec tual pro perty, but the se are no t pub li c co ncerns unle ss the gover nmen t is respons ible for th ese imbalances .Const it uti onal val ue inthe United States extends onl yso far as state actio next en ds .And Iha ve not show njust ho wsta te acti onexte nds to the se con te xts . Idonot intend to. In my vi ew ,ou rtra di tion re vea ls at lea stanambig uit y ab out howfar const it ut ional valu esare to extend. In awor ld whe reonly go v- author itylim ite dto sta te er nmen tsare re gu lat ors, keepi ng the Cons titution’s of re gulation act ion mak es so me sense . But when the modalities are mu lti - pli ed, th ere is no reason to ignore the re ach of co nsti tutional Our values. fr ame rs made noch oic eabout th is; the re is noreason why regu lati on thro ugh No argume nt has been code cann ot be inf or med by cons titut ional values. ma de fo r why thi s par t of our life sho ul d be cut off from the lim ita tions an d pro tec ti ons trad it io na lly pr ov ided by the Co nsti tutio n. Cod e str ike s th e ba lanc e be tween ind ivi dual and colle ctiv e rig hts tha t I bal ance is stru ck—o ne hav ehigh lighted so far. In the ne xt chapt er, adifferent ag ain mad esa lien tby cod e. Ho wev er ,this tim ethe ba la nce is not bet wee nthe state an dth eind ivi du albut betwee n the state an dthe imp licit re gu la ti ons of lsov er eignty. the arch ite ctur es of cybers pace. No wth ethrea tis to atraditiona Ho w do we tr ans lat e th at trad it io n to fi t a wor ld whe re code is law ?

293 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 278

294 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 279 P A R T F O U R p e t i n g s o v e r e i g n s c o m Sovere ign s ta ke th em sel ves ver y seri ously —e specially sover eign s in cyb er - spa ce. Ea ch has a st rong sense of its own domain, and some tim es that sense tra ns late sinto dom in an cein oth er dom ain s. As mo re mo veonlin e, th ecla im s of one sove reig nto cont ro lsp eec horbeh av ior wil lincreasingl ycon flic twith th eclaims othe rs sovereign s.Tha tcon flic twill prov eto bethe mos tim por ta nt gen erat iv e fac t for the Inter ne t to be . I app roach the qu estio n of thi s conf li ct in two steps .The fir st cha pte r in this Part ad dr esses the qu esti on of so vereignty of the questi on in dependently The next cha pt er of conf li ct .What doe ssove re ig nty mean? How is it manifest? amo ng sovere ign s the nfo cus es upo nthe partic ular dy namic that the conflict wil lcreate .Tha tco nf lic t, Iar gu e,wil lpress the arch itecture of the Inte rnet to a ce rt ain famili ar form.

295 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 280

296 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 281 F O U R T E E N y s o v e r e i g n t C OMM UN IST NATI ON .I T IS ONE OF THE FE W REMAI NI NG C OMM UNI ST V IE TN AM IS A like th e co mmu nis m tha t ni sm is nothing state s, and , of cou rse, its commu nation tha t still gav e birt h to th e Cold Wa r. Bu t noneth eless ,it is a sovereign Ho) . Chairman lin ks its ide ntit y to Mar x and Le ni n (through The Un ited Sta tes is no t a Commun is t nation. De fe ate d byViet nam ,but a vic tor in the Cold War, we are a nati on th at in large part defines itse lf in op pos it io nto the ide ology of Mar xand Lenin. Vie tnam se ts the sta te in serv - ice of th ewithe ri ng of the state as it sideal; the Unit ed Stat esse ts the withe re d sta tein th ese rvic eof lib er ty as it sideal. Contr ol is th emodel of commu nism; fr eedo m is the mo de l of the United States . Or so we are to thi nk. nis t state s. In the ea rly 19 80s I co nf ess a certai n fasc inati on with Commu sta te that wou ld letmein. In Iwa nde red th rou gh ev er yEu rop ea nCo mmunist as they dra fte d the early 199 0s, I work ed with const it utionalists in Georgia thei r co nst itu tio n. And in 19 96, I spent much of the sum me r wa nde ring thr oug hVie tna m. Alo neand e-m ai l-f re e, Itri ed to understand this plac ethat in my chil dh oo d fell vic ti m to my nat ion’s exported stru ggle with the Col d War . Thou gh I’ve been to many di ffe rent places ar ou nd the wor ld , I’v e neve r byfor giv enes s, bee ntoaplace mo re sp ec tac ular. One isal ways overw helmed an d anAme ri can can ’t help bei ng ove rwhel med by this natio n’s wa rmth and wel come . Perh ap s had we “won ”the war forgi ve ness wou ld not be so for th - co min g. Bu t it appa rently co mes easi ly to thos e who did win. I was n’ t the re, how ever, to unde rsta nd for give nes s. I want ed to lea rn so met hi ng abou t ho w the pl ace ran. I wan ted to unde rstand how this sta te ex er ci ses contr ol ove rits ci ti zens; how it continues toregulate; ho wit qu alifies 281

297 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 282 282 CODE 2.0 as one of the las t rem ain in g Co mmun is t stat es. So I spen t ti me talk ing to lawy er s,busi ne ssmen ,and ma na gers of the emerg ing Net in Viet nam (“N et - Nam ”) .Very qui ckly ,a sur pri si ng picture emerged. Thou gh the ideo logy of a Commu ni st st ate admits ver y little lim ita tion on the po we rof th estat e;thou ghthe Vie tnames estate se ts as its id ealacom - mo n goo d ra ther than th e goo d of ind iv id uals or in div idu al libe rty; thou gh on paper the re is no “li bert y” inVi et nam in the sens ethat we in the We stlike to imagin eit—th ough al lthis istru e, Icou ld not es cap ethe fee ling that pe o- ple in Vie tnam, in thei r day -to -d ay exis tence, are far less “regul at ed ” than peo pl e in th e Unit ed St ates. Not all pe ople, of co urse: Polit ic al oppon en ts Bu t I sense d that un doubt edl y fee l the powe r of th e state quite forcefully. or di nary peop le in their ord inary liv es, man y run nin g smal l sh ops , ha d no conc eption of the con trol that gov ern me nt can exer ci se; no ex pe rie nce of ha vi ng the ir wa ges re po rt ed to a cent ra l bur ea uc ra cy once a quar ter; no und ers ta ndi ng of wh at it is li ke to live under the (relat ive) eff ic ie ncy of the reg ula tio nwe ha ve here .Life th ere is rem arkabl yfree from gover nment al con - tro l. It was hard to imag ine how itwo uld have been diffe rent had Nix on won the war. Po rnogr aph ywas banned and hipp ie swe rehar asse d, bu tin the ma in, peo ple an d busi ne ss go t on wi th very little direct or eff ect ive re gu la tio n by go ve rn ment. ol- Th isfact (if you ’ll allow rand om ob serva tio nsof an untra ine danthrop ogi st to co unt as fac t) is no t hard to unders tand . The “la w” on the bo oks in Vi et nam may or may no t be a st ri ct er or more extens ive regu lato r tha n the “la w” in th e United Sta te s. But the arc hit ecture of lif e in Vietna m cl ea rly e. There is no in fra st ructu re mak es an y rea l re gul ati on by the sta te impossibl rthe regu lations of con tr ol —there is barely an yinf ra st ructure at al l. Whateve of the st ate may be , there is no archi tec tu re that coul d make the m ef fectiv e. Eve n if the re is more regula tion there tha n here (and fran kly I doub t th at there is) ,Vie tna m ha s an eff ec tive “freed om.” Th is makes per fect se nse. The pow ertore gula te is afunct io nof arc hit ec - tu re as muc h as of ideol ogy; archi tec tu res enab le re gu latio n as well as con - str ai n it. To understa nd th e pow er a gover nment might hav e, we must und ers ta nd the arch it ect ures wi th in whi ch it gover ns. The pre ce ding chapt ers hav e al l been about this ver y point. We ca n ha ve anide aof sov erei gn power —t he power of the sovere ign toreg ul at eorcon trol beha vio r—but the sign ifican ce of th at power gets realiz ed in apa rti cul ar con - tex t.The stat e’s power may be “a bs olute, ”but if the arc hite ctur edoe snot sup - port re gu lat io n, th e stat e’ s ef fec tive pow er is quite slight. On the othe r ha nd, the st ate’s po we r may be limi ted , but if the architectu res of contr ol are ve ry ef fi ci ent, thi sli mite dpower can be extraordi nari ly exten sive. Toun de rst and a

298 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 283 283 sover eig nty st at e’s power to reg ula te we mus task: How well does its in frastruc tur esup por t re gul ati on? This is the ques ti on we shou ld as k ab out cybe rs pa ce, as a fi rst step to und ers ta ndi ng so verei gnt y there. Wha t pow er do so verei gns ha ve to reg ulate lif e in cybe rsp ace? How do the mod al ities of regul at ion help or limit tha t powe r? We’l lcons ider th isques ti onin thr eeparts ,two of which arethe sub je ct of in cyberspace ?Howis thi schap ter. First, what isthe nat ure of the sovereignty it diff er ent from the sov er eignt y of Fra nce? Se cond, what limi ts the sov er - ei gn ty of cyb ersp ace? And thi rd, th e subje ct the next sectio n, how will sov er - ei gn sin terac tin the regu lati on of cyb er space, not so mu ch toco ntr ol behavi or here? How wil l they com pe te? there as to cont rol the ef fects of that behavior OF THE SPAC E: RU LES TH E SO VEREIGN When you enter th ewor ld of MMOG Second Life as anew chara ct er, the ru le s of Seco nd Li fe are expla in edto you. Some of these ru les are the techni que syou wil l need to get aro und in Second Life —ho w to mo ve ,or how to fly.So me of the rule sare no rmative command sthat tell you what you can an dcan’t do. in g this int rod uct io n not to notic e tha t It is imp ossib le when confront the se con st rai nts are const ru ct ed . Go d didn’t make Second Lif e. No one is co nfu sed ab out whe ther he or she did. No r is it likely th at one ente ring this spa ce woul dn’t no ti ce that one impo rtant dimens ion to that cons tru ction is co nstr uc tion thr oug h code .Th at yo u can fly is a choice of the co ders .Whe re yo u can fly is a cho ic e of the co ders. That whe n you bump into som eone , a war nin g box is disp laced is a cho ice of the coders .That you can tu rn off IM con versa tions fr om pe opl e you don’ t want to hear fr om is a cho ic e of th e made here. Eve ryon ere cogn izes choice cod ers. No one mi sta ke sthat there are s that a cr it ica l pa rt of the cybers pac e wor ld is ma de through code .As Second Lif e’ s CE O, Ph ilip Rosedal e, pu t it to me: “What is God in a vir tu al wor ld? 1 You r on ly Go d is the code .” No w, as I’ve sai d fr om th e st art , we sh ou ld dist in guis h betwe en richl y co nt roll in gspac es and thin ly co ntrolling spaces. Spaces like Se co nd Life ri chly con trol th elife of peo ple pla yin gthe re. Inde ed, th ewhole objec tiv eof pla ying there is cre ate the impre ssi on tha t one is there . These, again, ar e the sorts of pla ces I ca ll cyb ersp ac e. Cybers pac eisvery differ ent from lif eon abil l-p ay in gwebsi te, oron asit e ho ld ing yo ur e-mail .Cod econ trols thes e, too. But th econ tro l, or sover ei gnt y, of tho se si tes is dis ti nct fr om the cont rol of Second Life. InSec ond Lif e, or in what I’ve de fined to be cybersp ace ge ne ral ly, the control is ubiquitou s; on a

299 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 284 284 CODE 2.0 bi ll-payin gwebsi te, or onwha tI’ ve call ed the Inter net, th econtr ol is passing , tr ans it or y. In ter es ti ngly, ther eis an impo rt an tdyna mi cshi ft that we’vealready iden - tif ie d, mo re in th inly cont ro ll ing spa ces than thick. Th is is the pref ere nce for co de con trols whe re co de co ntr ol s are poss ib le. Thin k agai n ab ou t the bil l-p ayi ng webs it e. It is of cou rs e aga inst the law to acce ss someone ’s ban kaccount and transfer fun ds from th atacc ount wi th- out the auth or iza ti on of th e ac co unt own er. But no bank would ev er simpl y rely upo nth ela wto enf orce that ru le.Ev ery bank add sacomp le xset of cod e to aut hen tica te wh o yo u are whe n you enter a bil l-p aying webs ite . Wher e a po licy ob jec ti ve ca n be coded ,then the only limit on that coding is the mar- gi nal cost of co de vers us the marg ina l be nefit of the ad ded contr ol. But in a thi ckly cont rol li ng en vi ronment such as Se cond Lif e, the re ’s a Sometimes, in othe r wor ds , limi t to the use of code to gui de soc ial behavior. Lif e’s Ro sedale put it, ty.As Second be tter cod e can wea ken communi In som e way s the dif ficul ty of Se cond Life is a ben ef it bec ause you hav e to be taug ht.And that Ac tof bei ng taugh tis such ahu gewin forbot hthe te ac her and thestu dent. ...[We ]ha vethis sort of me nt ori ng goi ng ontha tissu chapsyc ho - wh ich the re al world doe sn’t gi ve us very logi cally ap peali ng re latio ns hip—one 2 mu ch. Asec on dwayin whic hbe tter code can we ak en co mmu nit yis ev enmor e im port an t. As Secon d Li fe is, it do esn ’t enabl e peop le eas ily to segrega te. As Ros ed ale desc rib ed , In Se co ndLi fe ,the re’s bas ica lly no tany zoning .Wh at thi sme ans isthat nei ghb or di sp ut es are fr equ ent. But from the stand po int of le ar ni ng, this is actuall yare al pos it ive. I’ ve gotte n e-ma il fr om pe opl e tha t sa ys, “W ell, I di dn’t ge t alo ng with my nei ghbo rs , and as a re sult, I lea rne d ver y rapi dly a gre at dea l abou t how to re so lve disp utes .How tobe agoo dneighb or. ”...[I]n the rea lworld ...there so mu ch law . . . that you do n’t act uall y have to ta lk to yo ur ne ighbo rs. [I nstead] there’ s si mpl y a law tha t says you ca n or can’t do [so me thing. ] . . . There ’s an te and inte ract [in the vi rtua lwo rld] inawa ythat the op po rt uni ty toco mmunica 3 re al worl d offe rs only unde r very ra re circum sta nce s. The code th us doe sn’ t simp ly mak e al l prob le ms go awa y. It do es n’ t re mov e the need for nei ghbors to work stuff out. An d in this way , the co de hel ps bu il d co mm uni ty .The pra ct ic e of inter actio n bu il ds bonds th at woul d not be buil t if the cod e prod uced the same res ul ts, automat ic al ly. Op tima l

300 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 285 285 sover eig nty des ign le ave s ce rtai n pr ob le ms to the playe rs to work out—not beca us e the so luti on coul dn ’t be co ded, but also because coding asol ution would ha vecol- late ral costs . Non et he les s, it is sti ll the sove rei gn in the se vir tual spa ce s tha t cho ose s on emod ality ove ranoth er.The tra de-off is compl ica te d. Perfect effi cien cy of re su lt s is not al wa ys perfectl y ef fic ient. But still the choice of me ans re mains . TH E SO VEREIGN OF THE SPAC E: CHOO SING RULES acy? Inreal Bu tho wisth at cho ice made ?Or mor edir ectly, what abo ut democr spa ce, the ru le is th at sove rei gns are leg itimate only if de mocra ti c. We ba rely tol erate (mos t) nond emo crati c regi mes .The gene ral no rm for re al spac e lif e is that ult ima tely, the peop le ru le. But the singl e mo st intere sti ng nonde ve lopm ent in cyber spa ce is that, aga in, as Cas tron ov a pu ts it, “on e does not find much demo cracy at all in 4 Th e on e real ex cept ion is a wo rl d ca ll ed “A Tale in th e sy nthe ti c wor lds.” 5 De mocr acy ha snot broke nou tacr os scyber space ,or onth eIntern et. Dese rt. ” Ins te ad, democr ac y is a rare ex ce pt ion to a fa irl y str ong rul e—tha t the “ow ne r” of the sp ace isthe sove rei gn. And in Castronova’s view, the ow ner is not ord in ar il y a very go od soverei gn: In sum, none of the wo rl ds, to my kn owledge , ha s ev er evo lve d insti tut io ns of 6 good go vernm ent. Ana rch y reig ns in all wo rl ds. In deed, This isn’t to sa yth at aggre ga te dviews do n’t ma tt er incyb erspace. they are cr uci al to cent ral aspects of the Inte rnet as it is ju st now .A kind of vo ting —as manif ested thr ou gh links —gu ides search eng in es . Te chno rati, as I’v e already descr ibed, rel ie s upon the same to rank bl og s. And import ant si tes ,such as Sla sh dot, rou tin el yus era nkin gs orvote sof edit ors to de te rmin e whi ch co mme nts wil l ri se to th e top . Thes e are al l democ ra cy -l ik e.Bu t they are not de mocracy .De mo cracy is the pra cti ce of the people choos ing th e rule s th at will govern a part icular pla ce. An d wi th th e ex cep ti on of Wiki ped ia, and “A Tal e in the De ser t,” the re are ver y few ma jor Inter net or cyberspa ce institutio ns that run by th erule of the peo ple. So wha texpl ai ns thi sdemo cr ac yga p? And sh oul dweexp ect it to ch an ge? has a par ticu la r for m, with tw o impor - Our his tory of sel f-government tantl y cont ingent fea ture s. Be fore our founding, life was geogra phic ally ba sed—a na tion wa saso ci ety loca te din aph ysi cal spac e, with asin gle so ver - eig nalle giance. As we ’ll consi der more ex tens iv ely in the chapt er that fo llo ws,

301 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 286 286 CODE 2.0 the con cep tu al revolu ti on of the Ameri can Repu blic was th at citiz ens cou ld ha ve two sover ei gns— mor e precise ly, that they (as the ul tim at e sove rei gn) co uld ve st th eir so vere ig npower intw odiffe re nt dele gat es. The ir stat egov er n- ment wason ede le ga te ,the fede ral gov er nment wa san ot her; in divid ual sliving in a sin gl e geog ra phi c lo cati on cou ld th us be citize ns of bot h go vernme nts . Tha twas the idea of th efo un di ng docu ment, and the Fourte ent hAmend men t born or natur alized in the Unite d Sta te s, and ma de it exp li cit: “All persons su bject to th ejuri sd ict ion thereof ,are ci tiz ens of the United State sand of the Sta te whe rei n they resi de.” Ci tize nshi pin th is sense di dno tal ways mea naright to contrib ute to the 7 Eve n to day se lf -go ve rnment of wh ateve r commu nity you we re a citizen of. chil dren .But for those re c- there are cit iz ens that have no ri ght to vote—e.g., ognize dasmem bers of civ iland pol iti cal soc iety, citizen ship is an enti tl ement: It is a righ t to par tici pate in the gove rning of th e political communit y of whi ch they are members. As a citi zen of the United States ,I ha ve the rig ht to I have the right to vote in vo te in U.S . electi ons; as a citizen of Cal ifornia, Cali for ni a elect io ns .I have bo th ri ghts at the same time. At this le vel, the link be tw een enti tl ement and ge ogra ph y mak es sens e. But as mobil it y has incre ased, the at-on e- time obv iou s link be tw een ge og ra - ph y an d ci ti zensh ip has bec ome le ss and less obvious .I li ve in Sa n Fr ancisc o, but I work in Pa lo Alt o. Th e rules gi ve me full participa tio n righ ts in Sa n Fra nci sc o but none in Pal oAlto. Why does th is make se ns e? 8 Sc ho larssuch Po li ti cal theor is ts have no ted th is pr ob le mfor some time . as Richard Ford and Lani Gu ini er ha ve develo ped po werfu l alter na tive con - ce pt ion sof sel f-go ver nment that would enab le akind of self-gov er nme nt not vo te rs choos e (withi n tied di rec tl y to geogr aph y. Wi th one such al te rnative, in ni tywh ere thei rvo te scou nt. Thus if Ifelt participating limi ts )the commu th efutur eof Palo Alto was more import ant than partic ipati ng inthe future of Ilived in San San Fran cis co ,Iwoul dhav ethe rig ht to vot ein Palo Alt othough Fra nci sc o. Thes e compl ica ti ons are magni fied wh en we cons ide r the link betw ee n ge ogra phy and cy ber spac e. Ev en if Ish ould have the right to vo te inthe com - wher e mu ni ty whe re Iwor k, should Ihave the right to vote in the co mmunity I pla y? Why wo uld re al -sp ace cit iz ens need to have any con trol ove r cybe r- plac es or the ir arc hitec tur es? You might spend most of yo ur life inamall, but the mal l’s arch ite ct ur e. Or you no on e woul d say you have a ri ght to control mi ght li ke to vi sit Disney Wor ldeve ry weekend ,but it woul dbe odd to claim tha tyou the re fo rehav earig ht toreg ula te Disn ey Wo rld .Why is n’t cybe rspa ce mo re li ke a mal l or a th eme park than like the district in which you live and vote ?

302 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 287 287 sover eig nty You r relat ion sh ip to a mall, or to Di sney Worl d, is the relat ion ship of sp ecial-s auce - bee f-patties- co nsu mer to merc han t. If yo u do n’t li ke two-all- -on-a-sesa-me-s let tu ce -chees e-p ickles-onions then you ca n go to eed-bun, ld ’s has no du ty to let you vote on how it ma ke s its Bur ge r Kin g; McDona ha mb urge rs. If you do n’ tlike th elo cal mall, yo ucan go to an oth er. Th epowe r yo uha ve ove rthes eins ti tu ti ons isyo urability to exit. They compe te for you r at ten tio n, your cu st om, and yo ur loya lty; if they compe te well, you will give them yo ur custom; if they don’t, you wil l go somewh ere else. That com pe ti - Wh at makes them work wel l tio n is cr ucia l in dis ci pl ining these ins titutions. for your cus tom . is thi s compe tit ion amo ng the se pot ent ial sources Th is me rch ant- so vereign part of ou rli feisimp ortan t. Itiswhere we spe nd mo st of ou r ti me, and mo st peo ple are more satisfied with thi s par t of the ir live stha nthey are with the part withi nwhich th ey get to vote. Inthis sense ,all thes epl ace sare sov ere ig ns; they all im po se rules on us. But our recou rsewi th eig ns is simply to take our busines sels ew her e. re spe ct tomercha nt-sover But the mercha nt -s ov er eign pa rt of our life is not exc lusi ve. Ther e are als o ci ti zen -s ov erei gn parts of ou r lif e. The re are no stat es th at get to sa y to thei r cit iz ens: “Y ou ha ve no ri ght to vo te here; if you don’t like it, le av e.” Ou r role in relat io n to ou r gover nme nts is that of a stakehol der with a voice. We ha ve ari ght—if isto be cal led de mo cr atic—t opa rticip ate in the government its stru ct ur ing. And thi sis tr ue not ju st with gov ernm en ts .It wo ul dbean odd un ive rs it y tha tga ve its fac ult yno righ tto vote onissue scentr al to the un iv ersi ty (th oug h a right to vo te on is su es it is an odd co rpo rati on tha t gi ve s its employees en t) . It wou ld be an od d soci al cl ub that did not gi ve re lat ed to employm aga in, ther earesuch club s, mem be rs so me con tr ol over its func tions —though ents. Eve n the chur ch al lows its jus t as th ere are nonde moc ra ti c governm are gove rne d. In the se a gre at de al of how members me mber s to det ermine ins titut ions ,we are members, no tcons ume rs—or, not ju st cons umers .Thes e ins titut ions gi ve co nsu mers cont ro l over the rul es that wil l gov er n the m. In thi s sen se ,the se inst it ut io ns are ci ti zen-s overeig nties. As a des cri pt ive matte r, then, cybers pa ce is not yet domina ted (or ev en bro ad ly pop ul ate d) bycitiz en -so ve re ig nti es. The sover eig nti es we see so far ar e ov ere ig nti es .And thi s is even more cl ear ly tr ue with the Inte r- al l me rchant-s rei gn s. Our rela - net .To the ext en tsites are sove reign ,they are merc hant-sove tio nship to them is the same as ou r rel at ion ship to McDo nald ’s. Som etheo ris ts hav etri edtocol laps ethese two diff ere ntmo dels into one. So me have tri ed toca rryth emem ber mod el into ev er ysph er eof socia llife— 9 the wo rkp lace, the mal l, the loc al pu b. Ot he rs ha ve tri ed to carr y the con - su mer model int o eve ry sphere of so ci al lif e—f ol low ers of Cha rles Tie bout,

303 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 288 288 CODE 2.0 for exa mp le, have tri ed to exp lain co mpe tition among gove rn men ts alon g 10 But even if we canno t the lin es of th e choi ce s we mak e among toot hp astes. dif fer en tl y, it art iculate pe rfec tly th e jus ti fica ti ons for treating these choices wo uld be a mis take to co ll apse the se diff ere nt spheres in to one. It would be he ll to have to vo te on the de si gn of to othpa ste, and ty ran ny if our onl y we did n’t like was to move to adif fe rent land. rec ou rs eagains tago vernment But th en is it a pr ob lem that cy bersp ace is com pris ed of jus t me rcha nt- nties is dev elope d in sov er eignti es? Th e fir st de fen se for merchan t-sovereig 11 the wri ti ngs of Davi d Po st and his so metime David Johnson. co author Pos t’ sart icle “Ana rc hy ,Sta te ,and the Int ern et” best sets the sta ge .Com mu ni - ti es incyb ers pace ,Pos targues ,are go ve rn ed by “rule- sets.” We can und er stand embedded in the arc hite ctu re thes erul e-set sto bethe requ ir emen ts, whether orpromu lga ted in aset of rules ,that co nstrai nbe havior in aparti cula rpl ace. The wo rld of cyb ersp ac e, he ar gu es, is comprised by th ese ru le-s ets .Indiv id - As rule-sets uals wil lcho os etoente rone rule -s etoranother. com pete for our atten tion ,the world of cyb er space will come to be defin ed bythi scompet ition of merch ant-s ov erei gns for customers. Po st ’s accou nt agai n is de sc ri ptively acc ura te.It is als o,Pos t arg ue s, nor - ed. Soverei gns shoul d be unde rstand as a fir m’ s mark et mat iv ely reco mmend power is un ders too d in antitru st law . By “ma rket power ” an titru st law yers ly. In a per fec tl y an d econ omists mean a firm ’s abi li ty to rais e prices profitab co mpet iti ve mark et, afi rm wi th noma rket power is the one tha tca nnot rai se its pri ce s bec aus e it wo uld lose so mu ch in sales as to make th e incre as e not 12 The firm that doe s have ma rke t pow er can rais e pr ices and se e its wo rth it . profi ts in cr ea se. The fir mwith mar ke tpo we ralso has the abili ty to force con - su mer sto acce ptapri cefo rago odth at is higher than th eprice in acomp et - iti ve mark et. We migh t im ag in e an ana lo gous con straint oper ating on go vernmen t. So ve reig ns ,like firms ,can ge tawa ywi th only so mu ch. As they be com emore , or othe r ru le - re pre ss ive , or as the y reg ul at e more hars hly, othe r sovereigns se ts, bec ome compe ti tors. At so me po int it is eas ie r fo r citiz en s to lea ve tha n 13 to pu t up with the bu rde ns of re gu lati on, or easie r to eva de the law than to co mp ly wi th it. Be caus e su ch mov es are cos tly in rea l spac e, sov er eigns, at le ast in the is not so hard . sh ort run ,can ge t awa y wi th a lo t. But in cybersp ace, moving If you do not like th e rule-se t of your MMOGs If , you can chan ge games. yo udono tli ke the am ount of ad vert ising on on eInt erne tporta l, then in tw o se con ds you can chang e you r def aul t po rtal. Life in cybe rspa ce is about join - ing wit ho ut ev er lea ving you r home .If the group you join does not tre at you as you wa nt to be tr eat ed, you ca n lea ve . Bec ause competi tive pr essur e is

304 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 289 289 sover eig nty gre ater in cyb ersp ace, governments rs of rul e-s ets mu st and othe r propagato be have lik e fi rms in a compe ti tive mark et. This is an imp or tant and intere sti ng concep tio n of go ve rnance . Im por - int erest ing bec ause it pe r- tant becau se it de scrib es gove rnance incyberspace; ha ps sh ows the purp ose and limits of citizen-sovereignty in rea l space. It bu tsel ected . ar gue sfor aworld of vo lunte er s, one wh ere rule sare not imposed It isaworl dthat mi ni mi ze sth eunc oncente d-t o-power of an ypa rticul ar gov - compe titors for citizen s. It is go ve rn me nt er nmen t, by maki ng gov ernments like McD onald ’s or Coc a-Co la—ea ger to pl eas e, fearful of revolt. Th ere ar erea sons, how ev er, tobe skept ic al ab out th is view. Fir st, cons ide r the cl aim th at exit cos ts are lower in cybe rsp ace than in real sp ace. Whe nyou swi tc hto adiffer ent IS Por Intern et port al, you no dou bt co nf ro nt adif ferent set of “rules ,” an dth es erul es nodoubt comp ete for you rattent ion. Th is is just like goin g fro m one re stau rant or shopping mall to anothe r. Ther e ar e com - pet in g rul e-se ts; th ey are among several fact ors you co nsider in cho osing an IS P; and to the extent that the re is eas ymovemen tamong thes eru le-se ts, thi s the m. Some ISP s, of cours e, mo vement is un doubt ed ly aco mpet it io namong try to mak ethis mo vement di fficu lt. If you’ve bee namember of AOL for te n years ,and you dec ide you wa nt toswitc h, AOL doesn ’t make tha tcha nge ea sy by pr ov idin g, for ex ample , a simple abi lity to forward you r e-mai l. Bu t as peo ple rec ogniz e this rest ric ti on impos ed by AOL, they’l l cho os e othe r ISPs . If the compe tit ion is re al ,the ru le-se t wi ll co mpete. Com muniti es, how ev er, are dif ferent .Co ns ider the “c om pe titi on” among , sa y, MMOGs .Yo ujoin an MMOG build ingacha rac ter in and spe nd months in gs you’ ve built, or wea pons that comm unit y. You al so co ll ect asse ts—build yo u’ve acqu ired .Both re so urc esare aki nd of cap ital. The se tof re la tions hips yo u’ve developed are the so ci al cap ital ; al l the stu ff you have is the ph ys ica l cap it al . If yo uthe nbecom edissat isfied wit hlif ein you rchos en MMO Gs, you can leav e. But lea ving is co stly . Yo u ca n’t tran sf er the social capita l you ’ve buil t, an d,depe nd ing upon the game, yo u may not be abl e to tr ansfe r the phys ica l cap it al eit her. Like cho os ing to join a diffe re nt freq ue nt flyer pr ogra m, the ch oic eto join adiff ere nt MMO Gis adecisi on to waste ce rtai nas set s. And tha t these rul e-se ts . fac t wil l weak en the compe ti ti on among I don’t me an to ov erstat e the point. Indeed , as mar ket s have develop ed s, and the na ture of the ga mes has bec ome fo r sel li ng as se ts wi thin MMOG sta ndar di zed, some ar gu ethat it is bec oming much easier to move fro mon e social capi tal ga me to ano the r. In real space you al so can’t easily transfer fro m one com mun it y to an othe r. Frie nds are not fungible, ev en if th ey can giv eyo uco nnec ti ons at you rne whome .But physical ass ets in real sp ac eare

305 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 290 290 CODE 2.0 tran sf erab le. I can sel l what I don’t wan t and move wh at I do. Al wa ys . In MM OGs ,no t alwa ys . - Pa ra doxi cal ly, then ,we migh tsa yth at it ma ybe harde rtoch an gecommu nit ies in cyb ersp ace than itisin real spac e. It is harder becaus eyou mus tgive up eve ryth ing in a move from one cybe r- commu nit y to anothe r,wh erea s in 14 Co mm uni ties in cybe rs pa ce re al sp ace you can br ing mu ch of it wi th you. ma y in the sh ort run have mo re pow er over thei r citize ns (reg ar din g social cap it al ) tha n real -s pac e commu ni ti es do. Th is mean sth at the pic tur eof co mpe ting rule- se tsincy bersp ace is mo re on is poten tially greater co mpl exth an Po st sug ge st s. The press ur eon competiti ies to sh ift in tu rn. Tha t might mot ivat e a desire in cybe rspace communit of that shi ft to ward ci tizen -s overei gn ty, but, again ,th er e’s not mu ch evidence ye t. The re is a second, mo re fu ndam enta l ske ptici sm. Ev en if we cou ld con- str uctcybers pac eon th emodel of the market —so that we relat etospaces in cyb ers pac e the wa y we rela te to toot hpas te in real spa ce—th ere are stro ng reas ons not to. As li femo ves onl ine, and mo re an dmo re ci tizen sfrom st ates X, Y, and Z come to int er ac t in cy be rspa ces A, B, and C, thes e cy be rsp aces ma ywell nee dto deve lop th ekin dof re sponsibilit yand attent ion th at dev el - op s (id ea lly ) wi thi n a demo cr ac y. Or, pu t diffe rently, if cybers pac e wan ts to be cons ider ed its own leg itimat e sove reign, and thus deservi ng of so me mea sure of inde pende nc ean dresp ect, it must become more cle arl yacit iz en- sov ere ignt y. in re al space . The re are ma ny in stitutions This sam e dyna mi c happens th at ar enot “so ve re ign ”in th esen se tha tthey control how peopl eliv e, but are “s ov ere ign ”in the se nse th at withi n the ins titut ion, th ey contr ol how pe ople are the obv iou s be have .Unive rsit ies ,soc ia lclub s, chu rches ,and cor po rations yfrom or di na ry gove rn- ex amp le sof inst it utio ns thatga in akin dof autonom is tha t it gets me nt . Th is au tono my can be thi ck or thin. An d my suggestion thi ck er the more th e insti tuti on ref lects valu es of citize n-s overeig nty . This kin d of soverei gnty is ex pre ssed in the law throu gh doc trines of but that depe nds upo n it im mun ity. A cor po ra ti on has certai n imm unities, fit tin ga pa rt icu lar cor porat eform. Chu rch es have a ce rtain immu nity, but it is increas ingl y chal leng ed as its gov ernance mo re alien. becomes Comm unities in cy bersp ace will ea rnasimi lar immu ni tymor equ ick lyif ve reig n val ue s. they ref lec t cit ize n-sove rei gn valu es rathe r than merchant-so the more likel y rea l-s pa ce nit ie s become, The more re sp onsib le the commu go ve rn ments wil l de fer to their no rms through doctrines like im mu nit y. This ma tu ra ti on—i f itisth at—is obvi ous ly along way down the roa d. It dep en ds up onan incr ea si ng self- re co gn ition by members of thes ecy bers pa ce

306 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 291 291 sover eig nty co mmuni ti es th at they ar e,inasen se, sep arate ,or compl emen tary com muni - uni tymem- nam ong noncomm ti es .It de pends upon anin cr eas in grecognitio nities . Some ar e be rs that there ’s so methi ng disti nctiv e about th ese commu opt im ist ic tha t this wi ll happe n. As Dan Hu nter and Greg Las tow ka write : Co urt swi ll ne edtore cogni ze that vi rt ua lwor lds ar ejuris dic tions separ ate from ty no rm s, laws, and rights. Whil e our own, with the ir own dist incti ve co mmuni cyb or g inhabi ta nts wil l de mand tha t these ri ghts be rec ogni zed by real- wor ld co ur ts and vi rt ual -wo rld wiza rds ,the y wi ll ne ed to arri ve at the se ri ghts them - 15 se lv es wi thi n th e contex t of the virt ual worl ds. We ’ve se en so methin g sim ila r to this pr og res sion in our own his tor y. There was a time when the Uni ted Sta tes was really “thes e unite d Sta te s,” a time when the domina nt po lit ic al real ity was local and there we re realdif fer - enc es of cu ltu re and valu es betw een New York and Virginia. Des pite the se dif fe ren ces , in 178 9 th ese stat es uni ted to es tabl is h a rel atively thin nationa l wa sto be minimal go ve rn ment. Thi sgov ernment it ha danum- and limited; be r of nar row, str ic tly ar ti cu lated pu rposes ,beyond which it wa s not to go. ytha tth eUnit edStat es Th es elim its made sens ein the lim it ed co mmunit was .At the ti me the re was very littl e that the states shared as a na ti on. They shared ahi st ory of de fe ati ng the st ronge st arm yin the world and apur pose of 16 but th ey di d no t sh are a social gr ow ing ac ross an al mos t endl es s co nti ne nt, rare , an d in su ch a or po lit ical li fe. Life was loca l, exch an ge was relatively wo rld limit ed na ti on al government ma de se ns e. Nev er th eless, ther ewer enati onal que stio ns to be art icu la te dand resolv ed . Sla ve ry, for exampl e, was amark on our cou ntry as awhole, eve nthoug hthe atthe foun din g prac tice was limit ed to afe wstate s. There had be en arguments But the Cons titut ion ab out whether sl avery sho uldbe lef ttoloca lre gulation. Con gress wa snotpermi t- was fou nded onaco mprom ise abo ut th at question. 17 of slaves un til 1808 . ted to address the que sti on of the “impo rtation” Af ter d, that ,it co uld ,and pe opl e, inc reasi ngly ,said that it shoul d. Slave ry continue of ou r natio n. Co ngr es s coul d howe ve r, to be a sta in on th e mor al standing eli mi nate it in the te rr ito ri es at lea st, and some argued that it shou ld dosoin the so ut he rn sta tes as wel l. Op pone nts to this cal lfor Cong re ss to cl ean se our nation of slav er ywer e of two so rts . One type sup por ted th e institution of sla ver y and be lie ved it was cen tr al to so uther nli fe .They are no tmy fo cus here. My foc us isase cond typ e—th ose who, wit hperfect in teg ri ty and candor, argued that slavery was a lo cal iss ue, not a nat io nal iss ue; that the framers had unde rsto od it not to be a nat ion al iss ue; and that th e nat io na l gover nment should let it alo ne.

307 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 292 292 CODE 2.0 Howe ver tru etha tcl ai mmig ht ha ve bee nin 1791 or 18 28,it beca me le ss more an d econ omically pl au sible over ti me . As the na tion be came socially inte grated, th epla usi bil ityof sa ying “Iam aVirginian first” decline d, and the 18 sign if ica nce of be ing a ci ti zen of the nation as a whole increas ed. l decisio n but as a Thi s chang e came abou t not throu gh som e politica res ultof achan gi ng econ om ic an dsoc ial real ity. Our sense of be ing membe rs ty incre ased until, at ace rtain stag e, it beca me impos - of anat iona lco mmuni sibl e to deny ou r nat io nal citi zenshi p. A war produc ed that recog niti on. The ic and social Fou rteen thAmend me nt wrote it into the Constituti on; econom inte rco ur se made it co mple tel y re al .And as this chang e took hold, the cla im that iss ue s like sla ve ry were lo ca l bec ame absu rd. to usnow ,int ern ati onally ,an dcy ber - The ver ysame proc es sis happening co ntributio n. It ha s been slow ly ga ining sp ace is maki ng an important mo men tum, of cours e, si nce th e end of Wor ld War II, but th e Inte rne t ha s inter na tiona ll y wild ly accele ra ted the pac e. Ord inary citize ns are connected an d can mak e inte rn at ional tra ns act io ns as never be fore. The pre sence of a co mmu nit y that is beyond any indiv idu al stat e is increas ing ly unde niabl e. As this in te rnat io nal communi ty devel ops in cyberspace ,its citiz en s will fin ditincr easi ngl ydi ffi cul tto st andneutral in this internati on al spa ce .Ju st as apr incip le dsort of citizen in 1791 might hav esaid that slav ery in Vi rg in ia was ir rel evan tto acit ize nin Ma ine ,so in 19 91 the co ntrol of speec hin Singa por e of the United ma y have been irr eleva nt to a citizen St ates. But jus t as the clai m abou t slav ery’s loc al rel ev ance bec ame implau sibl ein the cou rs eof the nin eteen th cent ury, the clai m abo ut speech on the Net will beco me equa ll y com mu nit y; im pl aus ib le in the 21 st cent ury. Cybersp ace is an in te rnational the re are constit utiona l ques tions for it to an sw er; and we cann ot si mpl y st and back from this interna tiona lsp ace and say th at th ese ques ti ons are local is su es . At le ast , we co uld not say that once we eff ec tive ly inv ad ed this inter na - tio nal spa ce wi th th e Int ernet of 199 5. We put into th e wor ld an architec tu re that facil itat ed ex tra ord ina rily free speech an d extrao rdinary pri vacy ; th at that perm itte d encr yp - en ab led secu re commu ni ca ti ons th ro ugh a protocol tio n; and that enc our aged fre ecommunic at ions through aprot ocol that res is - ar chit ecture that the Net ga ve the te d ce nso rsh ip. That wa s th e speech wo rld —t hat we gav e the wor ld. Now we are ch ang ing th at archi tectu re. We are ena bling com me rc e in a wa ywedi dno tbefore ;we are con temp la ti ng the re gulation of encryp tion; we the val ue sof the are fac il it at in gide nti ty andcon ten tcont rol. We are remaking inthis reco n- Ne t, an dth equ est ion is: Can weco mmit our selves to neutrality st ru ct ion of the arc hi tect ure of the Net?

308 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 293 293 sover eig nty Idon ’t think tha twe can. Orsh ould. Orwill. We ca nno mor esta nd neu - tr al on the que st ion of whe th er the Ne t should enab le ce ntral iz ed con trol of sp ee ch than Amer ican scoul dsta nd neutral on the quest ion of sl av ery in 186 1. political We should under stan dth at we are pa rt of aworldwide bat tle; thatwe ha ve view sabou twhat rights sho uld be guar anteed to al lhu ma ns ,regar dles s of thei r nat io na lit y; and tha t we sho uld be read y to pres s thes e views in this new poli tic al sp ace ope ned up by th e Net. for worl dgovernm ent .Inde ed, the impos sibilit yof such Iamnot arguing an id eais th efo cu sof muc hof the ne xt chapte r.My argu ment ins te adis tha t we mu sttake re sp on si bil ity for the po li tics we are bu il ding in to this ar chite c- the communi tur e, for th is ar chit ect ure isaso verei gn governing ty that live sin that space. We must consi der the pol iti cs of the architectures of the lif ethe re. Iha ve arg ued tha twe sh ou ldunderst and the co de in cybe rs pa ce tobe its es be in com - ow n sort of regu la tory reg ime ,and that th is code can sometim pe ti tio nwith the law’s reg ul atory re gi me .For exa mple, we saw how cop yri ght law coul d be inco nsis tent with the reg ulatory regime of tru sted sys tem s.My thes eto be tw ore gulator yre gim es in ar gume nt istha twe sh ouldunderstand them. We co mp et iti on with eac h other. We need a way to choose between need a way to dec ide whic h sho uld prevail. As th is sys te m of regulat ion by co de deve lop s, it will con ta in its own nor ms, whic h it wil l expre ss in its str uc tu res or in th e ru les it impose s.If th e pred ic tio ns of la w and economi cs are correct, these nor ms will no doub t be effic ien t, an dthey may wel lbe ju st. But to the extent that justi cedoes not tr ac k effi ci ency, they wi ll beeffic ie nt and unju st.The questio nwill the nbe: How do we re ac t to th is gap ? There isan imp ortant patt ern in this compe tition betw ee nco de and law . La w, at leas tasit re gu lat es internat io nal rel at ions ,is the produc tof exte nde d ne got iat ions. Cou ntri es mu st co me to an agreeme nt about how law will reg - onpriv ate ord ering. Astheir ul ate and abo ut any no rms that they will impose wo rk re lates to cy bers pac einpar ti cu lar, this ag ree ment is quite sig nif ica nt. It und er sta nding wil l requi re th e nat ions of the wo rl d to come to a common abo ut thi ssp ace and todevel op acommon str ate gy for dealing with its regu - lat ion .

309 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 294 F I F T E E N t i t i o n a m o n g e i g n s c o m p e s o v e r CO NF LI CT S one you’r elik el yto ha ve He re are two st or ies abou tthe power of sovereignty, he ard of ,and th e othe r not. 1. Pro tec ti ng the Fren ch Th eFren ch don’t like Nazi s(an dresist you rFrench -bashi ng urge toadd “any - mo re” to tha t sente nc e; remember, but for the Fren ch, we like ly wou ld no t ha ve a nat ion). French la w do esn ’t let the Naz is figh t back. As in Ge rman y,it is a cr ime in Fr ance to pr omo te th e Nazi party an d sell Nazi pa rap her na lia . The Fre nc h are vigil ant th at thi s virus of an ideology not reviv e its elf in Eu ro pe . Frenc h law is di ff erent fro m Ame ric an law in this re sp ec t. The Firs t limitation Ame nd me nt woul d bl oc k an y viewpoi nt-based pr op - on political ag an da. Th esta te cou ldno more bl oc kthe sale of Naz iparaphe rn alia tha nit .Free speech means that the view - co ul dbl ock the sa le of Repu bl ican buttons poi nt of a pol it ical re li c can’t de ter mine whethe r the relic is sold. Yah oo ! is an Americ an co mp any. In 199 9, Yah oo! op ened a Fren ch 1 bra nch, and, at Yah oo! Fr ance, Ya hoo! opened an auctio n sit e. Lik e eBay , th is site permitted ind iv idu al s to list ite ms for auc tio n. Like eBay , the site ra n th e auctio n an d he lpe d fa cili tat e the ultim ate sale of th e ite ms auc - ti oned. Ver y so on aft er th e sit e opened, and contra ry to Fr ench law , Naz i pa ra - phe rn alia bega n to app ea r on the Yah oo ! aucti on site s ava ila ble for sale in 294

310 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 295 295 com pet iti on amo ng sove rei gns Fra nce . Some in Fr anc e were no t happy . In 20 00 , a lawsuit was file d aga inst rna lia fr om its site th eNazi paraphe Yaho o! ,demand ing Yah oo ei ther remove 2 or bloc k acc ess to the Nazi parapherna lia. Th is in turn ma de Yahoo! unhapp y. Th is was the In tern et ,Yah oo! in sis ted . It is a glo ba l medi um. There wa s no way to block Fre nch citiz ens fr om the Yaho o! si tes. And it wo uld be ab su rd if the rules of one cou ntr y beca me the ru le s of the wo rld . Th ere wo ul d be a race to the bott om (or top, depen ding upo nyou rpe rspect ive )if eve ry cou ntr yco uld force every we bsite inth ewo rld to compl ywith its ow nlaw. Fr ance should just accept th at in the wor ld of th e In ter net ,the ru le of Franc e won’t be abs olute. As the Ninth Cir cu it Cou rt of pr ov iding Appeal ssu mma ri zed Yaho o!’ sar gument, “Yah oo! wants adecision br oad Fi rs tAmend ment pro tecti on for speech ...on th eInter net tha tmight 3 vi ol ate the law s ...of other cou ntr ie s.” Fren ch Judg eJea n-Jac qu es Gomez didn’ tagre ewi th Yaho o!In an opi ni on the Naz ipa ra - is sue dinMa y20 00, the ju dg erequ ired Yah oo! either toremove 4 In asec ond or de ris sue din No ve mbe r, phern alia or to blo ck Fre nch citiz ens . the Frenc h cou rt direc ted Yah oo ! to comply within thre e mo nths, or pay 5 10 0, 00 0 French fr anc s per day of the del ay. The Inter ne t was outrag ed. Thou sa nds of webs ites cr itic ized the Fre nch , and hun dre ds of ne wspa pers followed Cou rt ’s decision suit . Fran ce wa s de stroyi ng “f ree sp eec h” on the Int ernet by fo rcing its rule on any one wh o use d th e Int ern et an ywh ere. As the Ca to Institut e’s Ada m Th iere r com - me nted , Thankf ull y, Am eri cans ta ke fre e sp ee ch a bi t mo re serio usly than the Bri ts, the French, the Ge rm ans and res tof th ewor ld .An d, yes ,Am erica cou ld beco methe guardi an of free speech wor ldwid e by offe rin g the pr ot ection of th e Fir st Amend ment ov erthe Net tomillions of pe ople who have been denie dthe ri ght 6 . to sp eak fre ely in their own countries 2. Pr otect ing Ho llyw ood In 2000, ase ria lentrepre neur, Bill Craig, la unched ased serv ice for aToronto-b to str eam ordi - the Wo rl dWide We bcal led iC rav eT V. iCrave TV was designed nar ytele visi on ac ross the Int ernet .Und er Ca nadian law, at least as inter pre ted 7 at thetim e, iC ra veT Vbel ie ved itdid n’t need permi ssion to str eam br oa dca st te levis ion acr oss the Inte rnet lines. Unde rCanadian law, so long as the bro ad- ca st it self wasn ’t cha nged ,yo uco ul duse any techn ology toextend the re ach of 8 the broa dcas t. So Crai g bo ught hi s serve rs, fi red up the str ea ms ,and with a

311 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 296 296 CODE 2.0 mu ch- hyp ed la unc h, sat bac k to wait for the cust omers to com e.And com e It seeme dlots th ey did ,by themill ion s. Cr aig ’s service was an instant success. mo re than Cr ai g cr aved TV. Not long aft er Craig’s laun ch, how eve r, he bega n to disc over tha t no t eve ryo ne lo ved Cr ai g’s id ea . In par ticular, U.S. co pyr ig ht hol der s wer e not too keen on the fr ee TVthat Cra ig ha dcreate d. Wh il eone was fr eein Ca na da to rebroa dca st televisi on ac ross the Int erne t, one wasn’t in the Un ite d States . Uni ted Sta tes co py ri gh t law he avily regu lat es the rig ht to rebr oadcast, an d Crai g ha d not sa tisf ied U.S ru les . iC ra veT Vdid ta ke so me steps to kee pU. S. resident sou t. Bu tnoone coul d re ally ha ve expe cted thes est ep swould wo rk. At first, iCrav eTV simpl ywa rn ed pe ople that only Ca nad ians were to use the site. Late r iCra veTV added an are a- cod e blo ck to it s si te—yo u needed to speci fy your area cod e to get in; if the area co de was not Ca nad ian, you co uldn’t ge t in. But it’s not har d to find aCan ad ia nareaco de (for exampl e,th etel eph one number of iCra ve TV itse lf pro min ent ly dis pl aye d on iCr ave TV’ s webs ite.) But Cra ig di dn ’t thi nk it was his job to police the inf ring ing beha vior of Ame ri cans .It did n’t violat ethe law for anyo ne to stream TV in Ca na da .Why did he need to wo rry abo ut whethe r it vio lated the la w in the U.S .? A poss e of Ame ric an la wy ers qu ic kly co nvince d Cr aig th at he ne ed ed to worr y. In alaws uit fi le din Pit tsbur gh ,th eNational Footbal lLeag ue(and afew oth er part ies ) cha rge d iCr ave TV wi th copyright infringe ment in the United Sta te s. Wheth er or not itwas legal in Can ada to stream TV acros sthe Int er net, it was not le gal in th e Uni ted Stat es .Thus ,to the exte nt Ame rica ns coul d get ac ce ss to this Can adia n si te, th ey wer e vio lating Americ an la w. An d to the ex ten tthis Ca nad ia nsit ema de it po ssi ble for Amer icans to acce ssthis Can a- dian si te, it was vio lati ng Ameri ca n law. The NF L thus dema nded tha t the Pi ttsbur gh co urt shut thi s Ca nadi an ser ve r down. The U.S. Dis tr ic t Cour t Ju dg e, Donald Zie gler , cond ucte d an exte nsiv e fac t- find ing pro ce eding. OnFebru ary 8,2000, the Court issue daninjunct ion sh ut tin g iCr ave TV do wn. The Cour t gave iCr aveT V 90 days to de mons tra te that it had th e tec hn ology to blo ck U.S . residents . iCraveTV pr omis ed tha t, usin g so me of the IP tec hnol ogi es de scr ibed in Ch apter 4, it cou ld block 98 per cen t of Amer ica n cit iz ens. Bu t 98 perc ent wasn’ t good enou gh for the site, iCraveT Cou rt. If an yAmer ican co uld acc es s the iCraveTV V wa s viola t- ing U. S. la w. iC rav eTV cou ld n’ t pr omi se 10 0 perce nt succes s. Unl ik e Jud ge Gom ez ’s deci sio n about Fra nc e, how ever, the re was no outrag e on the Net follow ing thi s decis io n. The re weren’t thous ands of websites critic izin g it, or ev en a han dfu l of ed it or ial s quest io ni ng it. Ind eed, almost nobody noticed.

312 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 297 297 com pet iti on amo ng sove rei gns Recip roc al Blin dn ess Th e Ya hoo! Fran ce case an d the iC rave TV case raise th e same fund a- me ntal issu e. In each, ther e is a be hav ior tha t is legal in one coun try (sel lin g free TV ac ross th eIn ter - Na zi para phernal ia for the Uni ted State s, st reaming net for Ca na da ), an dilleg al inanothe rcoun try (selling Nazi pa ra phe rna lia in Fran ce ; stre ami ng free TV in the Unit ed State s). In bo th case s, the ju dge in his pow er to st op the the country who se law s we re be ing viola ted exercised ord er ing Yaho o! either to remove vi olat ion (Judg e Gomez the Nazi mater ia l or to block it fro mFra nce; Judg eZiegler ord ering iCra veTV to either rem ov e br oa dcas t tele vision fro m its site or bl ock it fro m Americ ans ). Bu t in on e cas e, thi s re sult was vilified as “c en sors hi p” while in the other, it was barely no ti ced. This is recipro ca l bli ndne ss. We see a fault in other s tha t we can’ t see in our selv es.To an Ame ri ca n, bl oc ki ng the sp eec h of Naz is is “cens or ship.” An d it ad ds in sult to in jur yto dema nd that such speech becenso red inth eUnit ed Sta tes—w here it is leg al—j ust beca use it is not leg al in France. But whyis n’ tit “censorsh ip ”to blo ck free TV in Ca nad ajust becau seit is ill eg al inthe Unit ed Stat es? In bo th case s,sp eec hle gal in one count ry is being The Unit ed Sta tes blocks blo cked in that count ry by a cou rt in a second. Can ad ia ns from ge tt ing free TV jus t becaus e free TV is ill ega l in the United Sta tes. The Frenc hbloc ks Ameri cans from ge tting Naz ipar aphe rnal ia on the Yaho o! auc ti on site ju st bec au se that pa rapher nalia is il le gal in Fra nce . Ind eed , in on e imp ort an t res pect, th e iCraveT V ca se is worse than the Yahoo! case .In the Yahoo !cas e, the Co urt co nsidered evidenc eabo ut wh eth er 9 AsJo elRei den- Yah oo !coul dta ke te ch nica lme as ure sto block Fren ch citi zens. 10 it s tri gger for liabil ity was the co nc lu sio n th at there were berg emph asi zes , me ans for blo cki ng French citizens re asonab le technical from th e Nazi mat e- ri al. Tho se mea ns wer en’t pe rf ect, but th eCour testima te dtha tover 90 perc ent 11 use rs cou ld be id ent if ied. of French But in the iCrav eT V case, th e tec hn ical me ans, thoug hpro mi sed to be 98 perc ent effecti ve ,were deemed no ten ough . The rest ric tio nof the Ameri can cou rt was thus gre ater than the re stri ctio nof Fre nch cou rt. ly on blindne Ameri ca ns don ’t have an y monopo ss .And I don’ t pick this case to pick on Ameri ca ns. Inst ea d, this brace of ca ses teac he sage ner al le sso n. There wil l be no nati on th at has no speech that it wishes to re gu la te on the In ter net .Eve ry na ti on wil l have some thi ng it wants to co ntrol. Thos e thing s, howe ve r, wi ll be different, nat ion to natio n. The Fren ch will wa nt to re gula te Naz isp eech; the Amer ica ns will wan tto regu late porn; the German swill wa nt to reg ulate bo th ;th e Swede s wi ll want to re gu late neithe r.

313 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 298 298 CODE 2.0 This chap ter is ab out th ese over lappi ng des ire s for cont rol. How will the ate this mix ? Wh ose rules wil l apply? Is th ere a way to Int ernet accommod av oid eith er an arc hy or to tal reg ula ti on? Will the most restr ictive regim es dete rmi ne the freedom le ft for the res t of us ? In myvie w, we’ vese en en ough to see how thest or ywi ll unfo ld. Ides cri be But first, we shoul d be clea r th at unf ol di ng in th e bal an ce of thi s chapter. abo ut the reas on why this reg ulat io n of cybers pac e wil l occu r. We shou ld all rec ogn ize th einte rest th egov ernment has here and just how str ong, or we ak, tha tint er est is. And ,mo re impo rt ant ly, we should rec ognize how thearch ite c- tu re of the ne twork has ch anged to make secur ing that interes t poss ible . As Jac k Go ld smith and Ti mWu wr it e, Yahoo !’s arg um ents we re pre misedonthe 1990s visio nof abo rd erle ss Interne t. Half ade ca de la te r, this vis ionis fa st be ing replac ed by the re ali ty of an Inter net that is sp li tti ng apa rt and refl ect ing nati ona l bor ders. Fa r fro m flattening the 12 wor ld, the Inte rnet is in many ways conf orm ing to lo ca l co ndit ions. ON BEIN G “IN” CYBER SPA CE 13 Pe op le li ve there . They expe rienc e all the sorts of Cyber sp ace is a pla ce. thi ngs th at the y exper ie nc e in re al spa ce there, an d some expe rien ce mo re. pla ying some hig h-tech com - Th ey exper ienc ethis, not asis olat ed ind ividuals among put er gam e, bu t as par t of groups , in communities, str anger s, and amo ng peo pl e they co me to know and sometime love. s like—or Whil e th ey are in that pla ce ,cybe rspa ce, they are als o he re. They are at a te rmi na l sc reen , eat in g ch ips, ign ori ng the pho ne. The y are down st airs on the com pu te r, lat eatni ght, whi le the ir husban ds are asle ep. They are at wo rk, at cyb er cafe s, and in compu te r lab s. They live this lif e the re, while he re, and then atsome po int in the day they jac kout and are only he re. They rise from the ma chine in a bit of a daz e, and turn around .Th ey have retu rne d. So wher e are the y when th ey are in cyber sp ace ? We hav e thi s de sire to pi ck: We want to sa y that th ey ar e eithe r in cybe r- spa ce or in rea l sp ac e. We hav e this de sire becau se we want to kno w which over them ? Which spa ce spa ce is re sp onsib le . Whi ch sp ace has jur is diction ru le s? The answ er is bot h. Whe neve ranyon eis in cybe rs pace ,she is als ohe re, in real sp ace. Whe never on eis sub je ct to th enor msof acyber space com munit y, on e is also livi ng withi n a commu nit y in real sp ace. You are alw ays in both pla ces if yo u are the re ,and the norms of both pl aces apply. The pr oble m for

314 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 299 299 com pet iti on amo ng sove rei gns law is towo rk out how th enorms of the two commu nities are to ap ply give n that the su bjec t to whom th ey apply may be in both pla ces at on ce . Th ink again about Ja ke Ba ker . Th e proble m wit h Jake wa s no t that he we nt to a diff erent pla ce where the nor ms were diff ere nt . Th e pr oble m was th at he was simu ltane ou sly in aMichi gan dorm room an don the Net. He was sub jec ttothe nor mof ci vil it yinth edorm ,and hewas su bj ect toth eno rm of in decency incyb er sp ace. Hewa ssub je ct ,that is,to two set sof nor ms as he sa t in that si ngle ch air. So wh ose norms would apply ? How wo uld real-sp ace go vernm ents deal ni ties? wit h the conflic t bet wee n the se tw o commu Some exampl es mi ght hel pto set acon tex tin which tha tquestion mig ht be an swe red .Ord inar ily ,when you go to Eu rope you do not bring the fede ra l go ve rn ment with you . You do not carr y along a se t of rules for Am erican s y you are gene rally subject to German law . Th e whi le in Eur ope . In German Uni ted Stat es ord inar il yhas very little re as on to wo rry abo ut reg ul ating your be havi or there. But som etimes the U. S. gov ernment doe shave areason toregu late Amer - 14 ic an ci ti ze nsabr oad .Whe nit do es, no thing in in te rnati onal law ca nstop it. is not adeq uately reg u- Fo rexa mpl e, the re are jur isdi cti on swh ere pedophilia lated , an d for a time they became target tourist spots for pe do ph iles fro m ar oun dthe world. The U.S. gove rnm ent pas se dala win 19 94 to for bid Am er- the United States ,ev en in juris - ic ans from en gag ing in chi ld se xwhi le outside 15 dic tio ns whe re chi ld se x is pe rmitt ed. What jus ti fic atio n cou ld th ere have been for such a law? Obv iou sly, the se nse of Congres s was that if a person in a fo reign en gages in su ch behavior co untry , they are more likel y to do it here as well . If th ey visit a com mu ni ty whe re the no rms permi t su ch behavi or, they are more likely to carry those nor ms ba cktotheir li fe here. Thu s, whi le th eAmeric an govern men tge ne ral ly do es n’t muc hcar ewhat yo udo elsew her e, it does begin to care when wha tyo u do el sew he re ha s an eff ect on yo ur li fe he re. Re gu lat ions like thi s are th e exc ep ti on ,of cou rs e. But th ey ar e the excep - ti on bec ause th epr ac tice of pass ing int oalternative, or alien ,comm unitie sin re al sp ace is als o th e exc ept ion. The friction s of real- spa ce lif e mak e it le ss likel ythat the nor ms of an al ien cu ltu re will bl eed into our own; the dis tance is so grea tthat very few can affor dtohave alife be tw een us andalien cultures in bo th pl ace s. But the Ne tchang es thi s. Asthe Bak er case su gg est s, an das an ynumb er of es are no lon ger ot her ca se s wi ll press, wi th cyber spa ce thes e other communiti el sewhe re . Th ey can be bro ug ht home , or more frig htenin gly, into th e home. Re al- sp ac e co mm unit ies no longer have the buff er of frict ion to pr otect them.

315 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 300 300 CODE 2.0 Ano th er commu nity can now capt ure th e attention of their citi ze ns with ou t the ir citi zens’ ever lea ving the irlivi ng room. People ma ybe in both places at the sam etim e. On eaf fe cts th eot he r. As Edwa rdCastron ova wri tes, “sy nthet ic worl ds are bec omi ng impo rtant beca us e eve nts ins ide the m can have effect s outside 16 The quest ion fo rgo ve rnme nt ishow far to al lowth ese effect sto go. the m. ” Now this ques tio nhas real ly thre edif fe rent pa rts—tw ool d, and one new. The ol d part is ho w a far a government will al low foreign influ enc es to aff ec t it scultu reand its peop le .Cult ures at one tim eisolat ed are later in vad edwhe n the ba rrie rs toinv asi onfa ll .Thin kabout th eplea from Europe an sto st op the invas ion of Ameri ca ncult ur e,wh ich pour sov er satellit etele visi on into theliv- 17 Or even more ex tre me, the Middle Eas t. ing roo ms of Europe an cit ize ns. Th es epl aces ha ve lon gfoug ht topro tect thei rcu ltu re fro mcertain ali en inf lu - enc es, an dth at fi ght beco mes muc hmore diffic ult onc ethe Intern etbec omes ubiq uit ous . Thesecond old part isthe qu estion of how, orwh eth er ,ago vern men twil l prote ctit sci ti zens agains tfore ign pra ct ices orrules that are incons ist ent with its ow n. For ex am ple ,the cop yright lawof Fran ce stro ngly protect sthe“moral rig hts ”of Frenc h authors . If a Frenc h author enters in to a cont rac t with an Ame rican pub lish er ,and that co ntr act do es not adequately protect th e“mo ral ? rig hts ”of the Fre nc h citi zen, how wi ll the Fre nch respond Bu tth ethi rd que stion —an dthe new pa rt—is the issue raised by the abil - ity fo rcit izens to liv einthe alie ncu ltur ewh ile sti ll at home. Thi sissomet hing ives off er edbyTV mor eth anme re ly watchi ngforei gn tel evi sion. The alternat are alter na tives of the imagi nat ion. The inter active life of cyb ersp ace off er s alte rn at ive ways of li vi ng (or at leas t some cybe rs pa ces do). My focus inthis chap te risno tonth efi rst qu est io n, which man ycal lcul - tu ral imp erialis m.Itis ins te ad up ontheconflic ts that will bema nif es ted by the seco nd and thi rd. It may well be true that there have always bee n con fli ct s betwee nthe rul es of dif fere nt go vernm ents .It may always have bee nthat tho se has expl od ed this Cyberspace co nf lic ts have bled in to part icu lar local disputes. third st age of the deb ate .What was onc e the except io n wil l bec ome the rul e. Be ha vior was onc egover ned ordi nari ly with in one jurisd ic tio n, or wi th in two co ord in ati ng jur isdic tio ns. No wit wil lsys tema tica ll ybe gover ne dwith in mul - tip le, non coo rdinati ng juri sd ic ti ons. How can law hand le th is? The int egr at ion of cybersp ac e wi ll pro du ce a prof ound incre as e in the inci den ce of th ese co nfl icts. It wil l pr od uc e a kind of confl ict tha t ha s nev er hap pen ed be fo re : a co nf lic t ari si ng fr om ind ividuals from diffe re nt ju risd ic - tio nsliv in gtogeth er inone spa ce whi le living in these differe nt ju ris dictions . Th is quest ion ha spr oduc ed afero ci ous arg um ent betwee ntwo extr eme s. At one en d is the work of Dav id Po st and David Johns on. John son and Pos t

316 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 301 301 com pet iti on amo ng sove rei gns ar gue that th e mul ti pl ic ity of jur is di cti on s in which your beha vior is sub ject hasanef fe ctin ever yother to regu lat ion (si nc ean yth in gyou do in cyberspace tive ly not sub ject to con text ) should mean tha t muc h beh avior is presump 18 The incons istenc y re gul ati on an ywh ere. Anywh ere ,that is, save cy be rsp ace. of an yoth er solu tio n, th ey arg ue, woul dbe absur d. Rather than em br acing the abs urd, we shou ld emb ra cesome thing far more sensible: life in cybe rsp ac e, as Mi lan Ku nde ra mig ht put it, is li fe elsew here. At the ot he r extreme is the work of sc ho lar s such as Jack Golds mith and least ne wfrom the pers pec - Tim Wu, who clai mth er eis no th ing new here—at 19 For man y years the la w has worke d thr oug h tiv e private int erna ti onal la w. the se con flic ts of autho ri ty. Cy berspa ce may increas e th e incid enc e of the se co nfli cts , but it do es not ch ange their nature. Old stru ctures may ha ve to be mo ld ed to fi t this new for m, but the patt ern of the old will suf fice. Wh il eboth sides em br ace par tial truths, in my view bo th are mistak en .It is true, asJoh nson an dPost arg ue, th atthere is something new her e.Bu twhat is ne wis not adi ffe re nce in ki nd ,only adiff ere nce inde gree. And it is true, as Go ld sm it handWu ar gues ,tha twe ha ve always had di sp utes of this fo rm. But we hav eno thad conf li cts at thi slevel .We ha ve not had atime whe nwe coul d of sa y th at peopl e are ac tu al ly liv ing in two pla ces at once, with no principle ethat we will face inth efut ur e. su pr em acy betw ee nthe m. Thi sis the challeng This du alit y is a pro blem bec aus e the le gal tools we ha ve use d to re sol ve the se qu es tions be fore were not de si gned to deal wit h confl ic ts among cit i- , or rel a- ze ns. They were des ig ned to de al wi th con flict s amon g institutions tiv ely sop hist ica te d acto rs . The y ar e rule s made fo r busines se s inte ract ing . They were not wit h bu sin ess es, or busi nesse s int era cti ng with gover nments des ign ed for disp utes betw een citi zens . 20 Fo r Jes sic aLit man make sananalo gou spoint inher work on co py righ t. has wo rke dfa irl ywel lasa muc hof th elast cen tu ry, Litma nar gues, copyright pub li she rs and authors. It is alaw that ha slar gel ybe en co mp ro mis ebetween outsid e copyrig ht ’s app lie d to inst itu tio ns. Ind ivi dual s were es sentially pur vi ew since ind ividu als di dn ’t rea lly “pu bl is h.” The Interne t, of cou rse, chan ges all th is. Now every on e is a pub li sher. An d Litm an arg ues (con vi nci ngly, in my view ) that copyrig ht’s rul es do not 21 nec es sar ily work well wh en appl ied to indiv idu als. The ideal rul es for indi - vi duals may not nece ssar il y be the ide al ru les for ins titutions . The rul es of co pyri ght need to be refo rmed to make the m be tter suited to a wor ld whe re ind ivid ua ls are pub li shers. The sam e is tr ue of co nfl ic ts betw ee n sove reig ns . The rules for dea ling wit h the se conflic ts wo rk wel l when the parties are repeat playe rs —corpor a- tio ns that must do bu si nes s in two pl aces, for example, or ind ivid ua ls who

317 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 302 302 CODE 2.0 co nst an tl ytravel betwee ntw opla ces. Thes epeopl ecan take steps to conf or m in whic h th ey li ve, and the their be hav ior to th e limit ed rang e of contexts ex ist ing rul es help them to that end. Bu tit do es not follo w(as it do es no tfol - low in the conte xt of copyr ig ht) that the same mix of ru les wou ld work best in a wo rld wh ere any one co ul d be a mul tination al. The sol ut ion tothis ch an ge wil lnotco mefrom in si sti ngei ther that every - thi ng is the same or th at ev eryt hing is diff ere nt. It wil l take more work tha n that .Whe n a lar ge nu mber of citi zens li ve in two diff eren t pla ces , and wh en n of a par ticu lar sov er - on e of tho se pl ace s is no t so lel y wi thi n the ju risdictio nbe able to make on ot h- ei gn, the nwhat ki nds of claims should one sovereig er s, an d wh at kind s of cla ims can the se sovereigns make on cybe rs pa ce? This qu est io n is no t yet answ ered. It is an othe r la te nt ambigu ity in our Con st itu ti on ’s past—but in th is cas e there is no foun ding inter na tiona l con - sti tut io nal mo ment. Even if there ha d bee n, it woul d not have answ ere d this liv ing in mu l- qu es tion .At the fou ndi ng ord inary people were not routinely tip le non coo rd ina ti ng juri sdi ct ions. This is something new. UTION S PO SSI BLE RESOL That the re wi ll be conf li cts inhow gove rnme nts want their citize ns to beha ve is ce rtai n. What isnot yet certain is how these co nflic ts will be resolved .Inthis se ct ion , I map three separ ate st rat egi es. The firs t was the dream of the ear ly In ter net . The sec ond is th e re al it y that man y natio ns incre as ing ly see to day . An d the third is the wor ld we wi ll sl ow ly become. The No Law Ru le On Fe bru ar y8, 1996 ,Jo hn Perr yBar low ,former lyricist for th eGra tefu lDead an d co- fo under of the Elect roni c Fr onti er Fou ndatio n, pub lishe d this decla - rat io n on EFF ’s websi te: Gov ern men ts of the In du st rial Wo rld ,you wear ygian ts of fl esh an dste el ,Icome from Cy bers pace ,the new ho me of Mind. On be half of th e fu tur e,I ask you of the past to le ave us alone .You are not welc om e amo ng us. Yo u hav e no so ver - ei gn ty where we gath er. We have no el ecte dgo ve rnm ent, no rare we lik ely to have one, so Iaddr ess yo u wit h no gre ate r autho rit y than that with whi ch liber ty itself al ways spe aks. I dec lare the gl oba l social sp ace we are buil ding to be natur al ly indep end ent of the tyr anni es you seek to impose on us .You have no mora l ri gh t to rule us nor do you poss es s any metho ds of enfor ce ment we have tr ue reason to fe ar.

318 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 303 303 com pet iti on amo ng sove rei gns Gove rnm ents deri vethe ir just po wers from the consent ofthe governed. Yo u have nei ther solic ite d nor rec ei ved ours. We did not inv it e you .You do not kno w us, no rdoyou kno wour worl d. Cybe rsp acedoes not lie wit hin your bord ers. Do not thin kthat you ca nbu ild it ,as thoug hit were apub licconstr uc tionprojec t. Yo u ca nno t.Itis an act of nat ure and it gr ows it se lf th rou ghour coll ectiv eaction s. You have no tengag edinour grea tan dgathe ring conversat io n, nor did you creat eth ewealth of our ma rket plac es .You do not know our cultur e, our ethic s, or the unwr itte n co des tha t alrea dy provid e our soci ety mo re or der than could be obtai ned by any of your impos itions . You cl ai m there are pro bl em s among us that you need to solve. You use thi s cl ai m as an excus e to in vad e our prec incts. Many of these problems do n’t exi st . Whe re the re are rea l conflicts , where th er e are wr on gs , we will iden tify th em an daddre ssthem by ou rme ans. Weare formi ng our ow nSoc ia lContr ac t. Thi s gover nanc e wi ll aris e acco rding to the cond it ions of our world, no t your s. Ou r wo rl d is dif fere nt. Cy bersp ac e co nsi sts of tr ans act ions , rel at ion sh ips , and thou ght it se lf, arrayed like ast an din gwa ve in th eweb of our com mu nicat ions. Ours isaworld that is bo th ev erywhe re and nowhe re, but it is not where bo di es li ve . We are crea ti ng a wo rld th at al l may ent er witho ut priv ilege or pre jud ice acco rde d by rac e, econo mic po we r,milita ry for ce ,or sta ti on of bir th. e may expre ss his or her We are crea ti ng a wor ld whe re anyo ne, anywher bel ief s, no ma tter ho w sing ular, witho ut fe ar of bei ng coerce d into si lence or con formi ty . and con - Your leg al co nc ep ts of prope rt y, ex pre ssion, ident ity, movement, tex tdo not ap ply to us. Th ey ar eall based onma tte r, an dth ere isno ma tte rhe re. Our ide nt iti es ha ve no bodie s, so, unlike you, we canno t obtai n order by phy si cal coerc io n. Webelie ve th at fro met hi cs ,enli ght ened self- in ter es t, and the commo nw eal, our gov er nance wil l emerge. Our ident ities may be distri buted ac ros sman yof yo ur juri sdi cti ons. Th eonly law that al lour cons ti tuent culture s wo ul d gene ral ly re cog nize is the Gold en Rule. We hope we wil l be able to build ourpa rt icular sol ution son th at basi s. Bu twe can not ac cept th esol ution syou are at tempt ing to impo se. Inth eUn it edSt at es, yo uhav etoday created alaw, the Tel eco mm unica tio ns Re for mAct, whi ch repudiate syour own Co nst itut io nand insults the dre ams of Jeff er son, Was hi ngt on, Mill , Mad ison, de Tocq ue ville , and Bran de is. Th ese dre ams mu st now be born anew in us . You ar e ter rifi ed of yo ur own chi ldren, sin ce they are na ti ves in a worl d where you will alwa ys be im mig ra nts. Because you fea r them, you entrust your wit hthe pa renta lre sponsibi li ti es youar etoo cowa rd ly to confront bu rea ucracies yo urse lve s. In our wor ld, al l the sentime nts and expr essi ons of humani ty, fro m

319 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 304 304 CODE 2.0 th ede bas ing to th ean geli c, ar epart sof asea mless whol e, th egl ob alcon ver sa tion of bi ts .We canno t sep ar ate the air th at chok es from the air upon whi ch wings bea t. In China ,Ge rm any ,Fra nce ,Rus sia, Sing apo re ,Ita ly and the Uni te d State s, you ar e trying to ward of f the virus of libert y by ere ctin g guard post s at th e fr on tier sof Cyb ers pace. These may ke ep out the con ta gion for asm alltime, bu t they wil l no t wo rk in a wo rl d th at will soon be bla nke ted in bit- bea ring me di a. Yourincre asi ng ly ob so le te in fo rmati on in dus tri es wo ul dperpet ua te them - e, that clai m to own spee ch se lv es by pro po sing laws , in Ame rica and elsewher it self throu ghout the wo rld .The se laws wo ul dde cl are ideas to beano th er in du s- tri al produ ct, no more nob le tha n pig ir on. In our world, wha te ver the hum an mi nd ma y cre ate can be rep ro duce d and di stribu ted inf ini tely at no cost. The gl ob al conve ya nce of though t no longe r re qui res your facto rie s to acco mpli sh. The se inc rea singl yhostile and col onial measur es pl ace us inthe sam eposi - ti on as tho se previ ous lo ve rs of freedom and se lf- dete rmi nation who had to re jec tthe au thor itie sof dis ta nt, uninfo rme dpowers .We mus tdecl are ou rvirtu al se lv esimmun etoyour sov ereignt y, ev en aswe cont inue to consent to yo ur rule ov er our bod ies .We wil l spread ours elve s across the Plane t so tha t no one can ar re st ou r th ou ghts. We wi ll cr eate a civ ili zati on of the Mi nd in Cyb er sp ac e. Ma y it be mor e 22 ha ve made be for e. hu mane and fai r tha n the wo rld your governments Perh aps no si ngl edoc ument bett er ref lect sanide al tha twas dom ina nt on the net wor k a decad e ago. Whatev er ru le govern ed “our bodies ,” no go ve rn- me nt cou ld gov ern the “vi rt ual selve s” that wo uld li ve in this space . Ba rlo w decl ar ed these “vi rtual selves” “i mmu ne” from real space sov er ei gns. Re al- spa ce so vere igns wou ld be lo st if they tri ed to exe rcise control her e. Thou gh Bar low is su ed his dec la rat io n at a me eting of wor ld le ad ers at ly world gove rnme nts did n’t hear what he sa id. Tha t very Davo s, apparent 23 day, the Pre sident sig ned the Commu ni catio ns Decency Act of 1996. And tho ugh the Supre me Co urt wo ul d eventually str ike dow n this law, the Sup reme Co urt was certai nly not sig nali ng th eend of any regula tion of “vir - tu al selve s. ”Ast ri ng of legi sl ati on fr om the United States Congr es scoincid ed wit h a st ring of reg ul ati on from ar ound the world . An d th at tre nd has onl y incr ease d. As one st ud y meas ured it, the gro wth of le gisl ative eff or ts to reg u- 24 late the Net was slo w at first, but ha s take n off dramatically. The se reg ula - tio ns were at fi rs t direct ed to“h arnes s[i ng] tech nol ogy to se rve wha t [w ere] “ai med pe rceived to be govern men tal goals unr elated to the net ”; then second, di rectly at fos te ri ng the advanc ement of Net infras truc ture ”; and third , 25 “d irec tly concer n[ed] cont rol over info rmation.”

320 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 305 305 com pet iti on amo ng sove rei gns The rea sons Bar lo w’s ide als we re not goin g to be rea lize d mig ht be obv i- d at the tim e. Laws ar e ous in re tr os pect, but they we re n’t well recognize en acted as a res ul t of po li ti cal ac ti on; likewi se they can be stop pe d only by po lit ical act io n. Ideas, or be aut if ulrhet oric, aren’t polit ical action .When Con - gr ess con fro nt sim pas sione dpar en ts dema nding it does som eth in gtoprot ect thei r kid s on the Ne t; or when it fac es wo rld -famo us mus icians angr y about copyr igh tin fr ingeme nt on the Net; orwhen it faces se rious -se em ing gov ern - of me nt of fi cial s tal king abo ut th e dangers of crime on the Net, the rhetoric even a Grate fu l Dead ly ri ci st won ’t cut it. On Bar low ’s side, the re ha d to be po lit ical act io n. Bu t pol iti ca l act ion is jus t wh at the Net wasn’t rea dy for. The One La w Rule The oppos ite re su lt of no law is a wo rl d whe re th ere is but one law . It is the nt (or co nc eivably, all gover nme nts working wo rld whe re one governme toge th er ,bu tth at idea is to oridic ulous toeve ncont emplat eso Iwon’ tdisc us s th e wor ld by enforc ing its law eve ryw here. it here ) do minates As Mic hael Gei st co nvi nc ingly arg ues , tha t’s ind ee d wha t is hap pen ing no w. “G overnmen ts,” Geist wr it es, are “unwilling to co ncede that nat io nal law sare li mit ed to na ti onal bo rders ,[an d] are inc reas ing ly tu rning to ex plic - 26 itl y extra- te rrit oria l leg isla ti on.” Here aga in (u nf or tuna tely ), the Unit ed Sta tes is a lea de r. The Unit ed Sta te s ha s a vi ew of prop er ne twor k behavio r. It ha s ass erted the right to en force th at vie w extr at er rit or ial ly, and it enfo rces it s rule agai nst citi ze ns fr om aro und th e wo rld whe ther or no t th e U. S. rule conflicts wit h a loc al ibility for enf orcing [the ru le . The FTC , for ex amp le, is “ve sted with respons Ch ild Online Priv acy Protec tion Act], ” Geist writes, an d “i ts rule- maki ng gui da nc e le aves no doub t tha t such site s are expected to com ply with the 27 stat ute in the ir pr iv ac y pr ac ti ce s tow ard child re n.” So too do es the De pa rt - me nt of Just ice mai ntai nthat the DMC Aapplies extr ate rr ito riall y, beca us eit 28 ref er s to“i mpor ts” of tec hno log ie s. An d the USA Pat ri ot Act inc ludes pr o- vi si ons th at “are exp res sly extr a-t erri torial”—including, for ex am pl e, an ex pa nsio nof the list of “p rotec ted com puters ”to in clude “a comp uter loca te d ou tsi de th eUn ite dStat es th at is use dinaman ner tha taffect sin terst ate or for - 29 States .” cati on of th e United ei gn commerce or co mmuni Of cour se, Geis t’s claim is not that the Uni ted States ha s tamed th e Intern et . No one would as ser t tha t the Unit ed St at es has sto pp ed crim e on r inco ns is tent with U.S. law. Bu t th e at tit ude the ne tw ork, or ev en behavio and th eor y th at an im at es U.S. pro se cu tion has no con ceptual lim it. On th e the ory the Uni te d Stat es adva nc es, the re is no behavior anyw her e that at

321 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 306 306 CODE 2.0 lea st in pr in ci ple the Un ited Sta tes can’t rea ch. (Though the re are man y wh o bel iev e inter na tio nal la w res tricts the United States mo re than it 30 ) ac kno wle dges . It may bethat this do min ance by the Uni te dStat es will cont inuefor ev er. But I dou bt it. There is a growi ng des ire among many governm en ts arou nd the wo rld to che ck the powe r of the Uni ted States. In 2005, som e of thes e gove rnme nt tr ied to wre st contr ol of ICANN at ion for (Inter net Corpor As si gned Na me s and Numbers ) from U. S. influ ence. This resis tance ,as we ll asahea lthy dose of sov ere ign se lf- re spect, will incr ea singl ypush for areg ime that be tter bal ances the int ere sts of the whole wor ld. The Ma ny La ws Ru le (a nd th e tech nolo gy to ma ke it possibl e) So what wo ul d a more ba lanc ed reg ime look like? Re tur n to th e co nflict tha t began thi s chap ter. On the one ha nd, Fra nce the Uni ted St at esdoe sn’t do es n’t wan tits citi zen sbuyin gNa zi par aphernalia, wan t its cit iz ens wa tchi ng “f ree” TV. On the othe r han d, Fr ance do es n’ t hav e an yt hin g aga ins t“f ree ”TV, and the United States doesn’t have the cons titu - Naz i par aph erna lia. It ’s som e tio nal pow er to blo ck its ci ti zens fr om buying wa y to gi ve Fr an ce wh at it wa nts (a nd doesn ’t wan t) , and to give the U.S. what it wa nts (and can ’t want)? This is no t an iss ue limi ted to Fr ance and the Un ite d States . As Victor Maye r- Sch onber ger and Teree Fo st er have writte n, about speech re gu la tion: Na ti onal restric ti ons of fre ed om of spe ech on th e[Int ernet] are com mo npla ce no t onl y in the Un it ed St at es, but also ar oun d the gl obe. Individ ual nati ons , each inte nt upon pre serv ing wha t they perc eiv e to be wit hin the pe rim et ers of th eir na ti on al in teres ts ,seek to re gul ate certa in form sofspeec hbecau se ofcon ten tth at 31 isconsi dered re prehe nsible or off ens iveto na tiona lwel l-bein gor civic virtue . t’s ey es at least) toth is pr ob- Is there age ner al so lu ti on (inthe go vernmen le m? ng like the Ide ntity La ye rtha tIdes cribed Wel l, im agi ne first tha tsomethi in Ch apte r4fin ds its footi ng. Andim agi ne that the ID lay er mean sthat indi - vi duals are ab le to cer ti fy (e asi ly and without nec es sar ily revea ling anything el se ) thei r cit ize nsh ip . Thus , as you pass across th e Web, att ach ed to your pr es enc e is a cry pto graphi c object that reveals at leas t whic h gov er nme nt clai ms you . Se co nd, ima gine an in tern ation al co nv ent ion to popul at e a table wi th any ru le s tha t a govern men t wa nts to apply to its own ci ti zens whil e tho se ci ti zen s

322 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 307 307 com pet iti on amo ng sove rei gns are else wh ere in the wor ld .So theFr en ch ,for example, wo uld wan tNaz ima te - ri al block ed ;th eAm eric an swo ul dwa nt porn blocked toany on eun de r18 ,etc . Theta blewoul dthe nbepu blic an davai lable toany server on the net work. Fin ally, im agin egov ernm ent ssta rt requ iring serv er swithin the ir jurisd ic - tio n to re sp ec t the rul es expre ssed in the tab le. Thu s, if yo u’re of fer ing Nazi mat er ial ,an daFr enc hcit ize nen te rs your site, you should bl ock he r,but if she is aU.S .ci ti zen, you ca nse rve he r. Each state would thus bere str ictin gthe cit - ize ns of othe rstate sasth ose sta tes wa nted. But citizen sfr om its nati on wou ld en jo ythe freed oms th at nat io ngua rant ees. This wor ld wou ld th usgra ft local ru le s onto lif e in cyb erspa ce . Co nsi der a pa rt icular ex amp le to mak e the dyna mic cl earer: Int erne t 33 32 It s legis- Mi nn esota ha s a st rong stat e pol ic y ag ai ns t gamb ling . gamb lin g. its citiz ens from ga mb ling, and its at tor ney gener alhas vig - lat ur eha sbanned by shutting do wn gamblin g or ously en for ced this legis lat iv ejud gment—both site s in th e stat e and by thre at eni ng legal ac tion again st sites outs ide of the state if they le t cit iz ens from Minne sota gambl e. Thi sth reat, some will arg ue, can have noeffect on gambl in gon the Inter - 34 The pro of is the citize ns . net , nor on th e gam bling beha vior of Minnesota a ga mbl ing se rver locat ed in Minnes stor y of Bo ral: Imagine ota .Whe n Min - nes ot a make s gamb li ng ill egal , that serve r can move outs ide of Min ne sot a. Fr om the stand po int of cit ize ns in Mi nnesota, th e change has (alm ost) no ef fec t. It is just as easyto access aser ver locate din Minneapol is asone loc at ed in Chi cago . So the gambl ing si te ca n easily move and keep all its Minnes ota cu st omer s. ot a th en threa te ns to pr ose cute the own er of the Supp ose th at Minnes se rve r. It is rel ativ el y easy fo r the att orney gene ral to pe rs uad e the Chicago cour tsof Il linois to pr ose cute the ill eg al server in Chic ago (ass uming itco uld be sho wn tha t th e be ha vior of th e ser ver was in fact illega l). So the se rver ,mak ing it on este pmore diffic ul tfor simp ly move sfr om Chic ago to Cayman Minn esota to pros ec ut ebut st il lno mo re dif ficult fo rcitiz ens of Minne sota to get access .No ma tt er what Minne so ta does ,it see ms the Net he lps its citiz ens The Net, obl ivi ous to geogr aphy, makes it pra ctica lly be at the gov ernment. cally limi ted gover nmen ts to enfo rce their rule s. im pos sib le for geographi Howe ver ,imagin ethe ID laye rtha tIdes cribed abo ve ,in wh ich ev er yone ca n automat ically (an d ea sil y) ce rt ify their citizen sh ip. As you pass onto a n site ,the si te checks your ID. Thus th egambl ing site coul dbe gi nto conditio ac cess upo n wh eth er you ho ld the pr ope r ID for that site—if you are fr om Min nes ota and this is a gambling sit e the site do es not let you pa ss. Th is pr oce ss occu rs invi si bly ,or machin eto mach in e. All the user kn ows istha tsh e 35 has go tte n in, or if she has no t, then wh y.

323 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 308 308 CODE 2.0 Inth is story, the n,the int er ests of Min nes ot aare respect ed. Its citi zen sare do not determ ine the ga m- not al lowed to gambl e. But Minne sota ’s desires blin g prac ti ces of peop le fro m ou tside the state: Only cit ize ns of Minnes ota are dis abl ed by th is reg ula ti on. Th is is reg ula tio n at the level of on e state , fo r one pr obl em. But why wo uld ot her st ate sco ope ra te wi th Minn esota? Why would any oth er jur isdic - tio n wan t to car ry ou t Minne so ta’s regu latio n? The an sw eris th at they wo uld n’t if thi swe re the onl yregula tion atstake . But it is n’ t. Minnesota wants to pro tect its citize ns from gamb ling, but New York may want to pro tec t its cit izens agains t th e misus e of pr iva te data. The Eu rope an Unio n ma y share Ne w Yor k’s objec tive; Utah may sha re Min - nes ot a’s. Eac hstate ,in ot her words, has its own st ak ein contr ol lin gcert ain beh av - io rs ,and these beh av ior sdif fer .But the key is this: The sam earc hi te ctu re tha t en ab les Minn eso ta to achi eve it s regu lator y end can als o help othe r state s a kind of quid pro qu o achie ve their re gul atory ends . And this can initiate be tween ju ri sd ic ti on s. The pac t wo uld loo k lik e this : Each st ate would promis e to enf orc e on se rver swithin its jur is di ct ion th ere gu lations of othe rstates for cit iz ens from th ose oth er sta te s, in ex chang e for having its own regula tio ns enforced in wit hi n Ne w York ot he r juris di ct ions. New York would require tha t servers ke ep Minnesota ns awa y from New York gambling servers, in exc hang e for Mi nne so ta kee ping New York ci ti zens away from pr ivacy- explo iting serve rs . ng se rve rs , in Utah wou ld keep EU citi zens awa y from privac y-exploiti gambl in g ex ch ang e for Eu ro pe keep ing Ut ah citi zens away fr om European site s. This stru ct ure, in ef fect, is prec isely the str uctur e that is alr ea dy in pla ce fo rregu lati ng inters tat egamb ling. Ac cording tofed er al law, inters tat eInter ne t ga mb lin gis no tpe rm itt ed un le ss the us eriscalling from agam bling -pe rmi s- 36 If the user cal ls from a si ve st ate int o ano th er gambl ing -permi ssive state. tricti ve state, he or she has gamb lin g-re str ic tive stat e or into a gamb ling-res co mmit ted a fede ra l of fense . The sam est ruc ture cou ldbe used to supp ort lo ca lre gu la tion of Inter net be havi or .With a si mp le wa y to veri fy citize nship, a simp le way to ve rif y that se rver s are dis cr imin ati ng on the ba sis of citize nship, and a fe de ral comm it - me nt to supp ort suc hloc al di sc ri minat io n, we coul dimagine anar chitec tu re that enab les lo ca l re gu lati on of Inte rnet behav ior. And if all th is cou ld oc cur with in the Unite d Sta tes , it coul d occ ur be twe en nati ons gen er all y.The re is the same interest internat iona ll yin enf or c- ing local law sas the reisnati onal ly—maybe even more. And thu sin this wa y,

324 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 309 309 com pet iti on amo ng sove rei gns an ID-ri ch Inte rnet wo ul d facil itate int erna tional zoning and enabl e this st ru ct ure of inte rnat ional cont ro l. Suc haregim ewo uld re tur ngeogra ph ica lzon in gto the Net .It wo uld re- impo se bord ers on a networ k bu il t with out thos e bo rd ers .If wo uld gi ve the reg ul ators in Hung ary and Thailand the po wer to do what they can ’t do ju st no w—c on trol the ir citize ns as they wa nt. It would lea ve citi zens of the Un ited State s or Swed en as free as their govern ment has dete rmin ed the y sh ou ld be. To tho se who lo ve th e liberty of th e or ig ina l Net, this reg ime is a nig ht - mar e. Itre moves the freedom the ori ginal ar chitecture of the Int er net cr eat ed . to avoid co nt rol. It re st ore s th e powe r to cont rol to a spac e designed Itoo lov ethe li berty of the ori ginal Net. Bu tas Ihave bec ome sk eptic al of th at pro du ce a sh ort -cut s to the pol icy I like —shor t-c uts, mean ing devices hes itant to con - part icu lar re su lt wi tho ut eff ec tive demo cr atic support—I’m demn thi s regi me . Of co urse , no democ ratic govern ment shoul d per mit the wi ll of a non dem oc rat ic gov er nm en t to be refl ected in a zoni ng tab le. We thei r citize ns. But within a fam ily sh ou ldn ’t hel p total itari an regi me s repress of democ racies, such areg imemig ht hel ppr omot edemoc racy. If are str icti on on lib erty is res ented by a peopl e, let the people mo bilize to re mo ve it. Of cou rse, my view is that ci tizen s of an y democr acy sh ou ld have the fr eedo m to cho ose what speec h they co nsu me. But I wou ld pref er they earn tha tfree do mby dema ndi ng it thr oug hdem ocratic me ans than that atec hno - log ical tr ick give it to them for free . But whe ther or not yo u,or I, li ke th is regim e, my ar gument at this po int is predi cti ve. This re gi me isanatu ral compr omi se betw een two resu lts ,ne ithe r will neither nments of whi ch go ver nments acce pt—gover ac cept a worl d whe re re al sp ace la ws don ’t af fect cy bersp ace, nor a wo rld where the rule of on e go ver nment, or of a few large gove rnme nts, contro ls the wor ld . This re gim e giv es eac h gov ernment the po we r to regul ate its citizens ; no gov ern - g more. me nt shou ld ha ve the rig ht to do anythin Th is ba lan ce is al re ady bein gstr uc kpr iva tel yonthe Net —th oug hther e’ s des cri bed ,inJanua ry si gni fica nt res is tance and unease abo ut it. As I’ve already to the Chin ese govern - 2005, Goo gle anno un ce dthat it was giving something me nt ithas re fu sed to give an yo ne el se inthe wor ld—a ve rsion of th eGoog le search en gine th at blo cks conte nt the Chines e govern ment doe sn’ t wa nt its 37 ci ti ze ns to see. Th us, if you se arch on “democ rac y” or “hu man rights” on Goo gl e. cn ,you wo uld n’t find what you’l lfi nd if you search in the same way on Go ogle .co m. (Wikip edi anow keeps alist of word sbl ocked bysea rch eng ines 38 in Chin a. ) Thus ,Googl e woul d eff ec tively rema ke the Inte rnet for the Chi - nes e acc ord ing to th e valu es the Chine se go ve rnme nt pu sh es .

325 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 310 310 CODE 2.0 I und erst and th e mo tiv e (prof it) .I cert ainl y und ersta nd the ju stif ica tio n (i twil lsp ee dCh ina to areal dem ocra cy) .But whether or no tyoube lie ve thi s bala nce is rig ht in the cont ext of Commu nist Chin a, it ce rtainly ha s more ju st if icat ion whe n we’ re des cr ibi ng ag reeme nts amo ng de mocra ti c na tions . If a Chin ese Wh at th e Ch ines e do to it s jo urnalis ts is, in my view, wrong. pub li sher off ered to pub li sh thi s boo k in China only on the cond ition that I om it ted this par agr ap h, Icert ai nly wouldn ’t. But Ihave adi ffe ren tview abou t ru le s impos ed by Fr an ce or Italy . One impo rt an tcon seq uen ce of th is archi tectu re—in deed, per haps re aso n eno ugh to oppo se it—is th at it wil lmake regul ation ea sier. And th eeasi er it is to reg ulate ,the more lik ely reg ulat io n is . Ye t this is the tr ade -of f—be tween co st and the willing nes s to re gu la te— we have seen aga in and agai n.Co st fo r the gover nment is libe rty for us.The hi ghe r the co st of a regul ati on, the le ss likel y it will be enf or ce d. Lib erty dep en dson th ereg ula tion remai ning exp ens ive. Liberty comes with fric tion . When it bec omes easy orch eap to re gu late ,how ev er, thisconti ng ent lib - er ty isatrisk .We canexpe ct mor ere gula tion .Inthese cases, if we want topr e- argume se rv e li ber ty, we wi ll need to develop affirmative nt s for it. We will ed reg ul ation of the need thes eaffir mat ive arg uments to preven tide ntity-bas Ne t. As Iexp lain in th eba la nce of this book, there isboth asurpr isi ng ly great des ire for na ti ons toembr ac ereg ime sthat facil itate jurisd ic tio n-sp ecific re g- ulat io n and a sig ni fic ant rea son wh y the costs of regu lation are like ly to fal l. We shou ld expect, th en, th at there wi ll be more such regul at ion .So on. The ef fe ct ,in sho rt, woul d be to zo ne cybe rspa ce bas ed on the qu alif ic a- tio nscar ried by indiv idua lusers. It would enabl eade gree of contr ol of cybe r- sp ace tha t few have ever imagi ned . Cybe rs pa ce would go fro m being an unreg ulab le space to , dep end ing on the dept h of the certifica tes, the most re gul able space imag inab le .

326 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 311 P A R T F I V E n s e s r e s p o The argum ent of Part Iwas that the unregul ability of the orig inal Intern et wil l pass .Archi tec tu res wi ll develop to mak e behav ior there regul able again. Part II descri bed one aspec t of that regu labi lity—tech nol ogy. “Co de ” will be an incr easi ngly impo rtan t part of that reg ul ation, directly en forcing the cont rol th elaw typi cal ly ac hi eve sth ro ugh thr ea ts. Part III then considere dth ree con- tex ts in whi ch cha ng ing tec hnol ogy would re nder ambi gu ou s ou r co mmit - men tsto fu nd amen ta lva lues .This Ical le dalatent am biguit y. How we prote ct ntal choice s our IP , or privac y, or free speech wi ll dep end upon fundame fr am ers did n’t make. Part IV then mapp ed this confl ict to jurisd ictio ns. Agai n, the le sso n circles back to Part I: The te ndency of gove rnme nt will pu sh to an ever mo re reg ula bl eNet, th is ti me to ret urn th ezon es of geogr ap hy toabor - der le ss Int erne t. Th ro ughout these fo ur pa rts , my cen tra l obj ec tiv e has bee n to force a rec ogn it io ntha tis ob vi ou sonce remarked :that the re are choic es to be made ab ou thow thi snet wo rk evol ves .The se ch oice swill af fect fun da men tally wh at val ue s are buil t into the ne tw ork. The qu es ti on for th is pa rt is whet her we’ re cap ab le of making thos e cho ices . My argume nt is tha t we’ re not. We have so com plete ly pa ssed off qu es tion s of pri nc ip le to the ju dicial br anch, and so comp letel y corr upte d

327 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 312 312 CODE 2.0 our legi slat ive pro cess wi th the ba ckha nd of hand outs, that we confr ont this mo men t of extr aordi nary impor ta nce incap able of makin g an y usef ul de ci - si on s. Wehave been cau ght of f-guard ,drunk on the politi cal indul ge nce of an era ,and the mos t we may be abl e to do is stay on ou r fee t until we ha ve time to so ber up.

328 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 313 S I X T E E N p r o b l e m s w e t h e f a c e IS UT , IN MY VIE W , HE RE AR E CH OI CE S THA T WI LL DETE RMINE HOW CYB ERSPACE T .B we Ame ri cans are dis ab le d fro m ma king tho se choice s. We ar e disa bl ed fo r thre e ve ry differ ent reas ons . The first is tied to the limits we pla ce on cou rts ; the second to the limi ts we ha ve realized in le gisla tur es; and the thi rd to the li mi ts in our th ink in g abo ut code. If choi ce mu st be ma de, thes e li mit s mea n we will not be ma kin g that choice. We are at a ti me when the mos t sig nif ican t dec is ions abou t wh at this space wi ll be ar e being made, bu t we don ’t have th e ins titu tion s, or prac tice , to eval uat e or readily alter th em . In this ch apte r, I de scri be thes e pr oble ms, and in Ch ap ter 17, I sketch th re e so lut ion s to th em. Neithe r des cr ipti on wi ll be compl ete, but both shoul dbe suggest iv e. The pro blems that cyberspace reveals are not pr oble ms that cy bers pace sho ws us we wi th cy bersp ac e. The y are real-s pa ce pr oblems mu st no w resol ve —o r ma ybe rec on sid er. PRO BLE MS WITH COUR TS The re are two typ es of co nst itu tio ns, one we could cal l codifyin g, an d the ot he r trans forma tive. A cod ifying cons titution tries to prese rve so me thin g in which it is en act ed— to ess ent ial about the const itu tio nal or leg al culture pr otec tth at cultur al attri bute agai nst change sin the fut ure. Atran sformative con stitution (or amen dm ent )doe sthe oppos ite: It tri es to chang esomet hin g es se nti al in th eco ns tituti on al or legal cult ure in which it is enact ed—to make li fedi fferent in the fu tu re, to rema ke some pa rt of the cultur e. Th esy mb ol of the codi fyi ng reg ime is Uly sses tie d to th e mast; the symbol of th e tr ansf or- mat ive is re vol uti onary Fr anc e. 313

329 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 314 314 CODE 2.0 Our Co nstit ution has bo th reg im es within it. The Cons titut ion of at ive consti tu - 17 89—be fo re the fir st ten amen dme nts— was a transform t and gave birth to a ti on . It “cal le d into li fe” a ne w form of governmen 1 Th e Cons tit ut io n of 1791 —th e Bi ll of Right s—w as a cod ify in g na ti on. co ns ti tution. Against th e back gro un d of th e new con sti tuti on, it so ugh t to 2 The Civi lWar amen dme nt s ent re nch cer tai nvalu esagai nst future change. we re tran sfor mati ve aga in .Th ey aim ed to remak e part of wh at the Am eri - ri p out from the Am eri can ca n socia l and legal cu lt ur e had be come—to soul a trad it ion of in eq ual ity and repl ace it wi th a trad iti on an d pra ct ice of 3 equ al it y. Of the se two regi me s, the trans format iv e is cle ar ly the mor e diff icult to re ali ze. A co dif ying re gi me at leas t has inertia on its side; a trans for ma tiv e re gim e mu st fig ht. The codi fying reg ime has a momen t of self -af fir ma tio n; the tr ans fo rmat ive re gime is haunt ed wit hself-doubt and vulner able tobein g und ermin ed by ta rget ed oppo si ti on. Cons titutional momen ts die ,and whe n wit h enf orci ng thei r command the y do, the insti tution s charged s, su ch as tnot with - co ur ts, fac ein crea sing politic al res is tanc e. Flashe sof enligh tenmen st andi ng ,the peop le retain or go back to their old wa ys, and courts fin dit hard to res ist . Our ow n co nst itut io nal hi story reveal s ju st this patter n. Th e extra or di - nar y mome nt af ter the Civ il War—w hen three amend me nts com mitted to soul —had pa ss ed by 1875. civ il eq uali ty were carv ed into our Constitution’s The nati on ga ve up the st ru ggl e for equ ality and tu rn ed to the exci te me nt of 4 th erig ht the In du stria lRe vol ut io n.La ws enf or cing segrega tion we reup held; 5 la ws enf orc ing what wa sla terseen of Af ri can Amer ica ns to vo tewas deni ed; 6 Onl y afte r one hund red ye ar s of to be a new kind of sl avery we re al low ed. co nti nued inequa lit y di d the Supreme Cou rt again take up the cau se of the Civ ilWar amendme nts. Itwou ldno tbe unti l Brown v. Boar d of Educ at ion, in ide a of the Ci vil 19 54 , tha t the Co urt aga in rec ogn ized the transformative 7 War amend me nts . On e cou ld cr it ic ize the Cou rt for thi s ce ntu ry of we akne ss. I think it is mo re impo rtant to unde rstand its sou rce. Cou rts op er ate within a political co ntext .They are th e we ak est bra nc h of res istan ce within tha t pol itical con - te xt . For a ti me, they may be able to insis t on a pri nci ple grea te r tha n the e the wr ong - mo men t,bu t that ti me wil l pass. If th e wor ld does not recogniz nes sof its ra cis twa ys ,eve nastron gstate me nt of princi ple enac ted within our Con stit ut ion’ stex tper mit saco urt onl ysomuch free dom to re sist .Cour ts ar e sub jec ttoth econ st ra in tsof wh at“e ver yon e” wit havoice and th ereso urces to make it he ard be liev es is righ t, even if what “every one” belie ve sisincon si st en t wit h bas ic cons ti tu ti onal te xts .

330 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 315 315 the prob lem s we fa ce Lif eis ea si er with acodify in gconstitut io n, bec aus ethe re isatr adit io ntha t is long-st andi ng, then the re the text isju st me an tto en tr ench .If thi stradition is ho pe tha t it wil l remai n so li d as wel l. Bu tev en acodi fying con stit uti on fac es dif fic ult ies. Codi ficat ion not wi th- sta nd ing, if the pa ssio ns of a na tio n be com e stro ng enough, th ere is ofte n lit tle that cour ts are wil li ng to do. The cl arity of the First Amen dme nt ’s pro - of speec h no twi thst anding, whe n the speech was that of tec tio n of freedom co mmu nis ts and anarc hi sts, th e gove rnmen t was allo wed th e pow er to pu n- 8 ta nding , when The pres ump tion of innoc enc e and equa lit y notwiths ish . Jap an bo mbe d Pear l Ha rb or , th e gove rn ment was allo wed to sh uttle every 9 West Coas tAmer ic an of Japa ne se de scen t int o conce ntrati on cam ps . Theseare the re ali tie sof cou rts inade moc ratic sy stem. We lawy ers lik eto ro man tici ze th e courts, to imagi ne them as above influe nce. But they ha ve nev er bee nso, comp letel yor for ever .They ar esubject to apol itical con str ain t cy, and no ins titution that ma tte rs. The y are an insti tut ion wit hin a democra wit hi n a demo cr acy can be the enem y of the peop le for long. It is aga inst thi s bac kgr ound tha t we shou ld think about the pro ble ms rai sed in Part s 3 and 4. In eac h case , my argume nt was that we will ne ed to cho os e the values we wa nt cybersp ace to embr ace. Th es e ques tions are not add re sse d by an y clear co nsti tu ti onal text or tra dition . In the main, they are qu es tion saf fect ing th ecod if yi ng par tof ou rtr adition ,but they ar eals oca ses it y. Th ere is no “a ns wer” to th em in the se nse of a ju dgm ent of laten t ambigu that seems to ha ve been made and th at a court can simply repo rt. An ans wer mu st be fix ed upo n, not fou nd; made ,not discove red; chos en, not repor ted. This cre ates dif fic ul ti es for an Amer ic an cou rt. We liv e in the shad ow of th eSup re me Cour tof Ch ief Justic eEarl Warr en. Many people th ink (but Iam not one of this crowd ) that hi s was a wi ld ly acti vist court, that it “made up” co nst itu ti onal law an d impo sed its ow n“pe rsonal valu es ”onto the politica l an dle gal sy st em. Ma nyvie wed the Re hnquis tCourt as providi ng abalanc eto thi s acti vis m of ol d. Ithi nk thi svie wiswro ng. The Warren Cour twas not “act iv ist ”in an yse ns e fidelity , and the Rehn qu is t Co urt inc onsiste nt with a prin ci ple of interpretive was no less ac tivist in tha tse nse than the War re nCo urt. The ques tion, howe ver , is notwhat wa stru e; th equ estion is wh atpeopl ebel ieve. What we be lie ve is that th epa st was marked by activi sm ,and th at thi sactivi sm was wr on g. At le ast wr ong for a co urt. The oppone nts of the War re n Cour t ar e not atives. Som ear eli beral swho belie ve that the Court was not acting just conserv 10 ju di cial ly. Thes eopponents beli eve that the Co urt was ma king, not finding , co ns ti tut ion al law— th at it wa sguide dby noth ing more than wh eth er it co uld mu ster a ma jor it y.

331 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 316 316 CODE 2.0 Any co urt ri sks see ming lik ea“W arren Court” when it makes ju dg ments that don’ tseem to fl ow plai nly or obviou sly from ale gal text .Anycourt is vul - of his to ry , ner ab le when its jud gm ents see mpolitic al. Agai nst the ba ckground our Su pr eme Cour tis part ic ular ly vulne rabl etothis view, and the Cour twill fe el the re act io n when its act io ns seem political. My poin tis not th at the Cour tfears reta liation ;our Court is se cur ewithin 11 Th e Cour t fee ls the re action to it s see mi ngly ou r co nst it uti onal regime . po lit ical deci sio ns bec au se of its own image of its pro per ro le. In its view ,its role is not to be “pol iti cal ”; its conc ep ti on is that it is to be a faithfu l age nt, 12 simp ly pres erving fou ndi ng commit ments until they have change d. re ar e no found ing But wh en —as in the case s of lat ent amb igu ity—the co mmit ments to preserv e, any att empt at trans latio n will seem to be som e- th ing mor e. And when eve rit seem sasif th eCourt is doing mor etha nsim pl y pres er vi ng fo un din gco mmitme nts ,the percep tion is created that the Court is simp ly ac ting to rat if yits own vi ew sof apro per co nstitutio nal re gime rathe r 13 In a by ot her s. than enforc ing judgm ents tha t hav e been co nstituti onalized wo rd, it seems to be acti ng “pol it ic al ly.” But wha t doe s “p oli ti ca l” me an here? It doe s not me an simpl y that the Co urt is makin g value or policy cho ic es . The claim is not th at value s are im pro pe r reas ons for a co ur t to deci de a case. To the contrary :Valu e choices or po li cych oices ,pr ope rl yra tified by th epolitic al proces s, ar eapp rop ria tefor in cas es of la ten tambi gu - judi ci alenforc emen t. The prob lem with the choices ity is th at they do not seem to have been prope rly rat if ied by the polit ic al pro ces s. They ref lect value s, but th e values do not seem to be tak en fr om the Con st itu ti on. “Pol it ic al ”thu sre fe rs tojudgme nt snot cl ear ly rati fied an dpres en tl yco n- 14 When the very foundat io nsof aju dgme nt are see nto be fun dam en - te sted . tal ly con tes ted, and when the re is no re ason to believe that the Cons titution tak es aposit ion on thi sconte st ,then enf orc ing apartic ular outco me of tra ns - 15 lat ion wil l appear, in tha t cont ex t, po li ti cal . Cyb er sp ace wil l pres s thi s prob lem int ens ely. Whe n a fram ing val ue can the Cou rt can act in a way that be tran sla ted with some cla ri ty or certainty, . But when re si st s pre sent ma jo rit ie s in the name of fou nding commitments am big ui ties are laten tand achoi ce re all yseems to be achoice, tran slation wil l not su ff ice. My clai m is tha t the Co urt will not be the locu s for tha t choice . This migh tseem over ly pess imi sti c,esp ecia lly whe nwecons ide rthe suc- 16 Act. tion sDecency ce ss in st rik ing do wn the Co mmunica Bu tth at cas eitsel f re ve als th e instabili ty that I fe ar wi ll so on res olve itsel f into pas siv it y. Thro ug hou t both lower cou rt opi ni ons ,the cour ts spoke as if they were “finding ” facts abo ut the natur e of cy bers pace. The “findi ngs ” de termin ed

332 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 317 317 the prob lem s we fa ce the con st itu tional res ult, and both co urt srepo rted thei r finding swith a con - fid en ce that made them seem set in st one. Th es efi ndings, for themo st pa rt, wer eexcep ti on ally goo ddesc ri pti on sof about wher e whe re cybers pace was in 199 6. But they did not tell us anything cybe rs pace is goi ng or wh at it cou ld be. The co urts spoke as if the y were te ll in gus abo ut the nat ure of cyber spac e.But as we ’ve seen, cybe rs pac eha sno int ri nsi c na tu re.It is as it is de si gned. By str ik ing down Con gre ss’s eff orts to zon ecybe rs pace, the co urts we re no ttell in gus wh at cybe rspa ce is but wha tit not fin ding, the nature of cyberspace ; th eir sho uld be. The y were making, deci sio ns are in part re sponsib le fo r wh at cybe rs pa ce wil l bec om e. At fir st it wil l not see m thi s wa y. When we confr ont som ething new, it is ha rd to kn ow wha tis natu ral or giv en about it, and what part can be cha nged. ace th atis “na tu ra l.” But ov er time cour ts wil lsee that there is little in cybersp that they have rep or ted as findi ngs in Limi ts on the arch ite ctur eof cy berspace choices” later on. Wha t was on e opin ion wil l be seen to ha ve been “design “impo ss ib le ” wi ll later becom e possib le, and as these shift s in the possi ble really sa ywha tcybe r- occu r,cou rts wi ll mo re and more feel that they cannot spa ce is. They wil l see that thei r find ings affect what th ey find. They will see that they are in par t re sponsi bl e for what cybers pac e has become . This is He is enber g appl ied to cons ti tut iona l law .And as cour ts notice it , as they have in oth er are as, they wi ll inc reasingl y de fer to the polit ic al br anch es: If th ese ju dgme nts are pol ic y, they will be left to policy make rs ,not 17 ju dg es . On e can hardl y bla me ju dg es for thi s. Ind ee d, in some ca ses their def er- 18 its conse - But we sh ou ld no t unde restimate en ce shoul d be en co ur aged. by cou rts ; qu en ces .In the fut ure leg isl at ures wil lact re latively unco nstrained the val ue stha twe mig ht cal lconst it ut ion al —whe ther ena cted into our Con - sti tut io n or not—wi ll co nstr ai n the se legisl atu res on ly if they choos e to ta ke them in to accou nt. Befo re we tu rn to what we mi ght ex pect from le gis la tu re s, cons id er one confronti the problem ot her pro bl em wi th court s—s pecifically, ng ou rconst i- tu ti on al tr adi ti on as th e Consti tu ti on moves into the context of cybe rs pa ce. This is the pr ob le m of“state acti on.” Archite ctu re s co nsti tut e cybersp ac e; these ar chite ct ur es are varie d; they var io us ly embed po litica l val ues ; som e of the se va lu es have con stitutio na l for tu nately—thes im port .Yet for the most part—and e archite ctu res ar e pri - vate . They are const ru cted by unive rsit ies or corpor ations and imp le me nted They ar epriv ate and by the Defe nse Department. on wi res no longer funded rev ie w. The cons ti - ther efore tra dition ally out sid ethe scop eof constitutional tu ti on al values of priv ac y, ac ce ss, ri gh ts of an ony mity, and eq ual it y nee d not

333 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 318 318 CODE 2.0 tro ub le th is ne w wor ld, sinc e this wor ld is“pr ivate ”and the Cons tit ution is co ncern ed only with “stat e act io n.” Wh ythis sh oul dbeis not cl ear to me. If code fu nc tio nsas law, the nwe are cre at in g the mo st signi fic ant new ju ri sd iction sin ce the Lou isia na Pu rcha se. Yet we are bu ild ing it ju st ou tside the Constitution’s rev iew . Ind eed, we ar e bu ild ing it ju st so that the Cons tit ut io n wil l not gove rn—as if we wa nt to be by that tra dition. fr ee of the const ra ints of valu e embedded So far in this boo k, Ihavenot relie dve ry mu ch on thispri va te/pu bli cdi s- 19 But I ha ve ign ored it no t be cause it. tin ction .Yo u mi ght say I ha ve ignored it make s no sense , but bec au se I don ’t know how it cou ld be carrie d over to th e re gul ation of cy bersp ace. The conc ept of state acti on its elf pres ents a it y, and I don’t th ink we have a cl ear idea of how to resolve it. late nt ambigu tyis thi s: Th eCons ti tutio nwa sdr aw natatim ewhen Th atlatent ambigui bas ic ar chi tect ures were set. The framers found th elaws of nat ure ,the la ws of econ omi cs, the “na tu ral law” of man; they were not ma de by go ve rnm ent or man . an d their con stra int was a The se arc hite ctu re s con strai ned, of course, “re gu lat io n.” But the deg ree to wh ic h th ey co uld be used as tools of self -con - 20 andbeyon dla y- sc iou sco ntr ol was li mit ed. Town pl anning was not lim ited, ing out a sp ace, the re was li ttle the se fo un de rs could do about the rul es th at of this sp ace. wo uld gov er n th e bui lt env ir onment Cyb ers pace, ho we ver, hasdi ff ere ntarch itect ur es, whose reg ul at or ypo wer are not so limit ed .An ex tr aordi nary am ou nt of control can be bu ilt in to the envi ronm ent th at peop le know th ere . What data can be col le ct ed, wha t an on ymi ty isposs ib le ,what acc es sisgr anted, what speech will be he ard—a ll ,not found. the se are choi ce s, not “fa cts.” All thes e are designed Our co ntext, the refore, is very di ff erent .Tha t th e scope of cons tit uti on al it to be sim ila rly lim - re vi ewwas limi ted in the first co nt extdoes not compel ite dinth esec on d. It could be, but we cannot know that mere ly from its being so limi ted in a ve ry diffe re nt conte xt. We hav e no ans we r fro m th e framer s, then, abou t the scop e of sta te act ion .We mu st decid eon ou rown wh at makes bette rse nse of ou rco nstitu - to allow these structu re sof ti onal tr adit ion .Is it mor efa ith fu lto ou rtradition th esc ope of con- cont rol ,the fu nctio na lequival ent of law, to develo poutside review to the st ruct ures stit utio nal revi ew? Orsh ou ld we exte nd constit utional tal valu es within ou rtra di - of private re gu lat io n, to pre serve tho se fu ndamen tio n? Thes e ar e hard quest io ns ,tho ugh it is usefu l to note th at they are not as traditio har dtoas kin ot he rcon stitu ti on al re gimes. The German n,for exam - ple, would ha ve less trou bl e wi th the idea that private str uc tures of powe r

334 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 319 319 the prob lem s we fa ce 21 mu st ult ima tely be ch eck ed ag ai ns tfundamental The cons tituti on al val ues. Ge rman tr adi ti on, of co urs e, is not our own. But th e fa ct that they hav e sus- ta in ed th is view su gg ests that we ca n make space for the co nstrai nt of th e ng int o a cons titutiona l dis put e. Re a- Con st itu ti on wi th ou t turni ng everythi so ned decis ion is po ssi bl ewitho ut turning eve ry pri vate contra ctint oafe de ra l cas e. l law for Ne ver th eless ,it wi ll tak e a revo lut ion inAmer ica n cons titutiona the Cou rt, self -c onsci ousl yatleast, to move beyon dthe limits of state action. rem ak in g Ameri can Sc hol ar s have sk etch ed ho w it could with out radically remakin radically law, but othe rshave ar gued itco uld not without gthe Amer - 22 ic an Co ns tit ut ion. But my rea son for ignor ing the stat e act io n doc trine is not so mu ch to ra di cal ly remak e la w as it is to give us a cl eare r se nse of how we shou ld mak e the la winth is ne wspa ce inth efirs tpl ace. As Paul Ber man puts it, therea son to ign ore the stat e ac ti on doc tr ine for now is that: . . . howe ver suc h questio ns ge t reso lve d, at lea st we wi ll hav e be en fo rced to gr app le with the su bs ta nt ive cons tit utional quest ion and to articulate the com- peti ng val ue s at stake .The sta te action doc trine ,in contr ast, ta kes such deba te s of f the tab le alt og ether by asse rt ing tha tthe activity atissu eis priva teandth ere - fo re not a fit su bje ct for the cons tit ution al disc our se. If one belie ve s tha t suc h dis cou rs e, in an dof its elf, hascu lt ura lvalue, then ap pl ic at ion of thestat eact ion 23 doc tri ne com es with a sig nif ica nt cos t. Ag ain ,it remains lik ely that we will cont inu e to su ffe r this cost. It is in these two ways then tha t cou rts are stu ck. They can not be as cre - at iv e, and the sc op e of thei r co ns ti tu ti onal review has bee n narr owe d (ar ti fi- ci al ly, I beli eve ) to ex clude the mo st impo rtant as pec t of cyb ers pa ce’s law— co de. If there are de cisi ons abou twh ere we sho uld go, an dch oic es abo ut we can’ t expe ct ou r the valu es th is sp ace wil l inclu de, the n thes e are choices co ur ts to ma ke. LEGISLATOR S PRO BLE MS WITH by some West ern ag ency At acon fer enc ein form er So viet Georgi a, sponsored tothe Geo rg ians what was of demo cra cy, an Iri sh law ye rwas try ing to explain so great abo ut a system of “j ud ic ia l revi ew” (the sys tem by which cou rts can review,” he enthused ,“i swo n- nt). “Judicial str ike do wn the acts of aparliame de rfu l. Whenev er the cour tstr ike sdown anact of pa rlia ment, the peopl ena t- ural ly al ig nthems elves with the court ,aga inst the pa rliamen t. The par lia men t,

335 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 320 320 CODE 2.0 peo ple beli ev e,is just pol iti cal ; the supreme court, they think, is principle d.” AGeo rgian frie nd, pup py -d emoc rat that he was ,asked, “So why isittha tina demo cracy th e peopl e are loy al to a nonde mocr atic ins titution and repu ls ed by the de mocr ati c ins ti tuti on in the sys tem ?” “You just don’ t und ersta nd demo cracy,” sa id th e law yer. When we th ink ab out th e qu esti on of gov erning cybe rs pa ce —whe n we thos e ra ise d in thi nk abo ut th e quest io ns of choi ce I’ ve ske tc hed , es pecially Pa rt III —we are lik ely to get a sinki ng feel in g. It seems impos sibly dif ficu lt, ace? Whe re wou ld it vote? thi s id ea of go ver nin g cy berspa ce .Who is cybersp The ve ry ide a seems ab hor rent to cyb erspa ce itself. Bu tth epr obl emhe re is not with gov er nance incy bers pa ce .Our prob lem its elf .The re is no sp ecial set of dil emmas tha t cyber sp ace is wit h gov ernance wi ll pres ent; ther eare on ly the fam ilia rdilem mas of mode rn go ve rnanc e,but in anew place .Some th ings are dif fe re nt; th etarget of gov ernance is di ffe ren t; the sc ope of inte rnat ional conc erns isdiff eren t. But the difficu lt ywith gov er - nan ce wil l not co me from thi s dif fere nt target; the difficul ty comes fr om ou r pro bl em with go ve rnanc e. Thr oug ho ut thi s bo ok, I’ ve worked to id ent ify the choic es that cyber - spa ce will pr ese nt . I’v e argued tha t its very ar ch it ectu re is up for gr abs an d tha t, de pend in g on wh o grabs it, the re are sev eral diff erent way s it coul d tur nout. Clearly some of the se choic es are co llec tive—about how we co lle c- ti ve ly will li ve in th is spa ce. One would have thought th at colle ct iv e choic es ,bu tvery fe wof us would want go vernme nt to wer epro blem sof governance make the se choic es. Gove rn me ntse em sthe solution to no prob lem we have, und erstand and we shoul d unde rsta nd wh y this is. We should the Irish la wyer in al l of us. Our ske pt icis mis not apoin tab out princip le .Most of us arenot liber ta r- bu t fo r th e most part we belie ve tha t the re ia ns. We ma y be ant igovernment, ar eco lle ctiv evalu es that ou ght to re gulate priv ate action. (“Colle ct iv e”just in the sen se th at al lind ivi du als ac ti ng al one wil lpro du ce less of tha tval ue tha n ed to the if that in dividu al ac tio ncould be coo rdin at ed. )We are also committ ide athat col lec ti ve valu es shou ldreg ulat eth eemerging wor ld. Ou r technical or by whom .An d pro bl em istha twe do not kn owhow it sh ou ld be regulated, we fear that the valu es that wi ll be embr aced are not the co rrec t ones . Lik e the Iri sh lawye r, we ar e wea ry of gov er nme nts . We are profo undly sk epti cal ab out the pr od uc t of democ ratic politics .We believe, ri ght ly or no t, that the se pro ce ss es have been cap tured by special interests mo re con cern ed wit hin divid ual than co ll ective val ue s. Althou gh webelieve th at there is aro le fo r co ll ect ive judg me nts ,we are re pu lsed by the idea of placing th e de sign of so met hin gas import ant as the Inte rnet into th ehands of govern ment s.

336 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 321 321 the prob lem s we fa ce The exa mpl es he re are man y, and the pa tte rn is ar resti ng . Th e sin gle on of its role in cy ber- un if yi ng me ss ag e in th e go ver nment ’s own descripti spa ceis th at itsh oul dsimpl yget out of the way .In the ar ea of Int erne tcom - merc e, th egov er nm ent say s, co mm er ce should take care of its elf. (Of cours e, at the same ti me , the go ver nment is pass ing all sor ts of laws to in crease the ent is also seemin gly pr otecti ons for inte ll ec tual pro pert y.) The governm of the thr ivin g en thu si as ti c about re gu lating “indec ent” conte nt regardless commerc e in it . Ape rf ect exa mple of thi spoint isthe gov ernm ent’s ha nd -o ff of cont rol of ment of the domai nname sy stem. Fo rso me time the government the manage abo ut how be st to co nti nue the gover nanc e or contr ol of ha d been thinking 24 It had or iginal ly far med the work ou t unde r the doma in na me sys te m. Nat io na lScie nce Found ati on contr ac ts ,fi rs tto aCalifor nia nonp rof it or gan - iz ed by the la te Jon Po st el, and the n to a pr ivate for-profit cor pora tion, Net - wo rk Sol ut ions . The co ntr acts were du etolap se in 19 98, how ev er,an dforaye ar the go v- er nmen tthoug ht inearne st abo ut what it shou ld do. In Ju ne 199 8it relea sed fit corpor at ion a White Paper ca lling fo r th e establ ishm ent of a nonpro dev oted to th e co ll ecti ve intere st of th e Inter net as a whol e and ch arg ed with name system. gthe domain deci ding the poli cy qu es ti on srela tin gto governin and placed wi th Po lic y-ma king power was tobe tak en aw ay from go ve rnment an organ izat io nou tsi de its co ntr ol .In199 8, that policy was effected thr ough and Nu mbe rs the cre ati on of the Int ernet Corpora ti on for As signed Names is (ICAN N),whi ch ,acc ordi ng to its webpage, de di cate d to pres erving the op er at io nal sta bili ty of the Inter net; to pro mo ti ng comp eti tion ;to achi evi ng br oad rep re se nta ti on of gl obal In te rnet com mu ni ties; and todevel oping policy app rop ria te toits mi ssi on thro ugh botto m- up, co nsen - sus -base d pr oce ss es .ICANN, a publ ic ben ef it, non- pro fit ent ity, is the interna - ti onal organi za tion res ponsibl e fo r the man age me nt an d over sigh t of th e 25 coord in ation of the Int ern et’s domain name sy stem an dit suni qu eiden tifi er s. Thin kabou tthe ki nds of qu est io ns my Geor gian frie nd migh task about inte re st ”? Is n’ t thi s mo ve .A“nonpro fi t co rporat io n devoted to the collective to be? Aboard composed tha tju stwh at go vernm ent is supposed of rep re sen - ta ti ve stak eh olde rs? Isn’t that what aCongress is? In deed, myGeo rgian fr iend mi ght obse rve tha t thi s corpora te st ru ct ure differs fro m go ve rnme nt in only nt of elections on e salie nt way—th ere is no ongoi ng requireme . This is pol icy ma king ve sted in wh at is in eff ec t an indepe nd ent agency , bu tone who ll yout sid ethe de moc ratic process .And what does th is say abo ut

337 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 322 322 CODE 2.0 us? What doe s it mean when ou r na tu ra l instinct is to put policy -mak in g powe r in bo dies ou tsi de the democ rati c process ? Fi rst , it refle ct s the path et ic res ign at io n that mo st of us feel ab ou t the pr od uct sof ordina ry gov er nme nt. We have lost faith in the idea tha tthe prod- uc tof repre sentati ve gov ernment mig ht besomething more than mere int er - est —t hat ,toste al the op en ing li nefrom Ju stice Marsh all’ slast Sup reme Court 26 op in ion ,po we r, not re as on, is now the curre ncy of deliber ativ e de mo cra cy. We ha ve lo st th e idea that ord inary gover nment might work, and so de ep is thinks the gove rnme nt shou ld hav e a thi s desp ai r th at no t even government role in go ver ni ng cy be rspa ce . wemu stove rcom e.We Iunde rst and th is res ignati on, but itissomething mu st iso la te the ca use and sepa rat eit fr om th eeff ect. If we hate go ve rnme nt, it is not becau se the ide a of co ll ective values is anathe ma. If we hate gov er n- me nt , it is because we ha ve grown tir ed of our own go vernm ent. We ha ve gr ow n we ary of its bet raya ls, of its games ,of the interes ts that cont rol it. But we mu st find a wa y to get ov er that we ariness . ent is the cor ru ptio n On e ce ntral caus e of th e dysfun ction of governm isel ected .Idon’ tmean “corr uption” in the su gge sted by the wa ygove rnment tr adit ional sens e that saps th e en er gy fr om so ma ny de vel opi ng nati ons . I do n’t belie vecon gr ess me nar eonth eta ke (C alifornia’s Randy Cunni ng hamis 27 ); I don’ t bel ieve the ir mo tives are impu re .They are an except io n, of course But it is tha t wor ld try in g to do th e be st th ey ca n in the wor ld they inhabit. that is the pr ob le m. To be come a membe r of For with tha t wor ld ,money contr ols at tention. the House of Re pres enta tive s, yo uhave torun. In 20 04 ,if you ran in anope n di st ri ct, th en you spent on aver ag e $1,086 ,437. If you won, you spent $1 ,442 ,2 16 .If you ran aga inst an inc umben t in 200 4, the n the re ’s a 97 .5 per - cen tchan ceyou di dn’ twi n. (O nly ei ght challe nge rs won. )In th eSena te, onl y y mean s life one chal lenger def eat ed a si tti ng se nato r in 2004. Incumbenc tenure in the Uni ted Sta tes. The av era ge term for amem ber of Cong ress riva ls 28 the av erage term for a Supreme Co urt Jus tice. To ra ise th is mo ne y, me mbe rs of Co ngr ess mus tsp en dth ei rtime mak in g to the ir proble ms , and those with mone y hap py. They do this by listening so met imes , push ing legi sl ati on that wil l solve those prob le ms . That sou nds har mles s enoug h, un ti l yo u be gi n to re alize ju st how much time they spe nd Senator Hol lings es timated do in g thi s fu nd rai sing .Former th at one -thir d of 29 a sen at or ’s ti me is spe nt fund rai sing . Tha t’ s prob ably a sign if ic ant unde re s- 30 tima te. work No wjus tthink ab out how abs urd the se prio rit ies are. Cong ressmen fo r us .If an empl oyee of a re stau ra nt spe nt 33 pe rcen t of her time ar rang ing

338 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 323 323 the prob lem s we fa ce to getto work, she ’d be fired. But that’s ess en tially what happ en sinWas hing - to n. Th e mos t significa nt ch unk of time for memb er s of Con gr ess is time sp en t to ra ise mo ne y to rema in me mb ers of Con gress .Is th is rea ll y what we pa y them fo r? Thepro bl em here isnot so mu ch thatmembers of Con gress aren’t doi ng thei r work. Th e pro bl em is the wa y the ir work gets qu eered by this nee d to rais emone y. The easi est targets for fu ndr aising are the clients of the lo bb yis ts , an dth elob by ists ha ve lots of ideas about ho wto bend th ela wto be nef it their clie nts . And so Congr ess bend s, and th e law get s chan ged to ben efit the mo st powe rful in the eco nom y. Thi s is no t capital is m as mu ch as lobb y-is m. Ou r ec onom y is def ined by a combination some and power of laws benefiting be nef iti ng some . To crack th rou gh lobb yi sm, yo uneed away to get the atte ntion of me m- be rs of Congress . But unti l the syst em is ch an ged, the only wa y to ge t their Thi s is the cy cl e. Its resul ts for de mocra cy are vicio us . at tent ion is money. Our Co ngre ss sees only what asmall se twant them to see. And wh at they se e on to the tr uth. of te n has no ob vi ous connecti If there is a deci si on to be made abo ut how cybe rspa ce will grow , then that deci sion wil l be ma de. The only qu es tion is by wh om. We can sta nd by an d do noth ing as the se ch oic es are ma de—by othe rs, by th os e who will not simp ly st and by. Or wecan try toimagi ne a world where ch oice can aga in be bl y. ma de col lec tively an d responsi CODE PRO BLE MS WITH of this bo ok was At a Harv ard worksh op ar ound the tim e the first edition comput er scientis t who ta ught in the pu bl is hed, Jean Camp, a Harvard said that I ha d mis sed the po int. The pro b- Ken nedy Sc ho ol of Government, lem ,she sa id ,is not th at “c ode is law ”or th at “code regula tes .” The pro blem is that “we ha ve n’ t had a con versati on about how code regul ates.” And the n to th erest of the audienc e, sh esai d, “Di dall of you li ke the debate weha dabo ut wo uld car ry in th em a uniqu e ide ntify - whe the r Mic ros oft Word doc uments ing numbe r? Was that a sati sf yi ng deb ate? ” He riro nycar ri ed with it an import ant insig ht, and an inte re st ing mis take . Of course, for the co mp ut er scien tis t co de is law. And if code is law , th en Wh owr ites obvio usl ythe qu es ti on we shou ld ask is :Who are the lawmakers? thi s la w tha t regu la tes us? What ro le do we have in defining this re gu la tion? Wha t rig ht do we hav e to know of the regu lation? And how mig ht we in te r- ve ne to check it?

339 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 324 324 CODE 2.0 All th at is per fect ly ob vio us for someo ne who thin ks an d bre ath es the th is bo ok, re gul ati ons of code. Bu tto ala wy er, both Camp an dI, throughout ha ve ma deavery bas icmi stak e.Code isnot law ,any mo re thanthe de sig nof an air pla ne is la w. Code do es not re gu late, any more than bu il ding s re gu la te . Cod e is not pub li c, an y more than a tel ev is io n is pu bl ic. Being able to debate an d deci de is an opp ort unit y we requ ire of publ ic regu lation , not of priva te act ion . Camp ’s mi stak e is a good one . It is a mista ke mor e of us shou ld ma ke and of cou rs e dif - mo re of the time .Be ca use whi le of cou rse code is private, fe re nt fr om the U.S. Code ,its difference sdon ’t mean ther eare no tsimi la ri ti es an d lim iting the es by enabling as we ll . “Ea st Co as t Code ”— law—regulat opt io ns that indi vidu al s have , to the end of pers ua ding them to beha ve in a cert ai n wa y. “We st Co ast Code” does th e same. East Coas t Cod e doe s this by in cr ea sin gthecost to th ose who would deviate fr om th erules req uire dby the co de. We st Coas t Co de does the sa me . And wh il e we might ar gu e tha t Eas t itregul ates and contro lsafar lar ger pa rt Coast Code is mo re preval ent—that of our live s—tha t is a di ff erence in deg ree, not kind. It’s a reas on to be ba l- an ced in ou r concer n,no t to be unc once rned. Of cou rs e, there are di fference s be tw een law and co de .I don’ t think that eve rythi ng is nece ss ari ly pu bl ic, or tha tthe Con sti tution sho uld re gula te ev ery iss ue whe n I tu rn of f as pec t of pri vat e lif e. I don’ t th ink it is a constitutional Ru sh Limbau gh. Bu tto sa ythat there sh ou ld be adiffe rence is not to say that the diffe re nce shou ld be asabs olut eas pres ent cons titutional ma ke s thinking it. Wh en we law yers te ll the Jean Camps of the world th at they are sim pl y mak ing a “mi st ak e” wh en th ey br ing th e values of public law to co de, it is rat her we wh o are maki ng the mi stak e.Whe the r code shoul d be tes ted with th ese co nstrai nts of publi cval ueisaqu est ion, no taconc lusi on .Itnee ds to be deci ded by ar gu me nt, no t def ini ti on. This won ’t be ea sy, of co urse . Code is techn ica l; cour ts are n’t well pos i- tio ned to ev aluat esuc htechni ca li ty .Bu teve nso, the failure is not eve nto try . re view thes est ru ctu res of The formali sm in Am er ican law, whi ch put sbeyond co ntr ol, isathird path ol ogy that inh ibi ts ch oic e. Cou rts are dis abl ed, leg is la - It is a tu res pat he tic, and co de unto uchab le . That is our pres ent condition. co mbi nat io nthat is dea dly for ac ti on—a mix that gu arantees that little go od get s don e.

340 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 325 S E V E N T E E N e s r e s p o n s .I’ VE TO LD A DA RK STO RY AB OUT THE CHOIC ES TH AT A CHANGI NG W E NE ED A PL AN to the se choice s. cybe rsp ace is pres ent ing ,and abo ut ourinabil ity to respond I’ve lin ke d this inab ili ty to three feat ures of ou r present legal and polit ica l cu ltur e. In this shor t cha pt er, Iconsi de r three respons es. Thes ere spons es are not hin gmore th an sketch es, but the ysh oul dbeenough to sugge st the natu re we need to mak e. of the changes RES PO NSES OF A JU DICIA RY I’v e said tha t we shou ld unders ta nd judicial hesitan cy as grou nd ed in pr u- den ce.When so muc h seems po ssi bl e,and when a rul e is not cle ar ly set, it is 1 hard for a cou rt to loo k lik e a co urt as it decide s what po licies see m be st. Alt houg hIagree wi th thi sideal of pr udence in ge ne ra l,we nee dto mov e pl ac eitin cont ex tand limit its reach. We shou ld is ola te its co unsel alo ng—to the sou rce of the judg e’ s diff icul ty . Some times a cer tain hesita tion bef ore re solv ing the question sof the Co nst itut ion incyb erspace finally, orfirml y, or wit h an y pre te ns e to permanence ,is entirely appropriate. But in othe r cas es , ju dges —espe cial ly lo wer cour tjud ges— sho uld be st ronger, bec au se the re are man y of the m and bec au se man y are extr aordinarily tal ented and cre ativ e. The irvoi ce swo ul dte ach us somet hing here, even if th eir rulings were tempo - rar y or li mited in sco pe . In case sof si mp le tr ansl ati on (w here th er eare no la te nt amb igu itie sand ou rtradit io nseem stosp eak clearly) ,jud ges should firmly ad vance arg uments that see ktoprese rve or ig ina lvalu esof liberty in anew context. In the se cas es the re is animporta nt sp ace for act iv ism .Judge sshould identify ou rvalues an d defe nd the m, no tnece ssar il ybecau se thes evalu es are right, bu tbeca us eif we 325

341 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 326 326 CODE 2.0 ig nore the m, we shou ld do so only becau se they have been reje cted —not by a cou rt bu t by the pe opl e. In case swhe re tr ansl ati on isnot so sim pl e(cases th at have lat ent ambi gu - espe cia ll y lower cou rt judges, hav e a dif feren t ro le . In thes e it ies ), judges, ca se s, ju dges sho uld kve tc h. They sho uld talk about the ques tions the se valu es at sta ke. Eve nif chan ges rais e, and the ysho ul dident ifythe competing the decisi on the y must adop t in a part icu lar case is defe rential or pas sive, it sh ou ld be deferent ial in protes t. These cases may we ll be aplace for prud enc e, bu ttojust ify th ei rpassivi ty an dcompen sate for allowin grights clai ms to fail , ju dg es sho uld rais e bef ore the lega l cultu re the confl ict pres ented by the m. Hard cas es need no t mak e bad law , but neither shoul d they be tr ea te d as if they are easy. Th at is the simp lest resp onse to the problem of la tent amb igui ty. But itis l value and to inc omp le te. It forces us to conf ront qu estions of con stitutiona ch oose. A be tter sol ut io n would help resolv e these questions. Whil e it wil l nev er be th e job of the co urts to ma ke final choices on qu esti ons of va lu e, by rai si ng these qu est ions the cou rts ma y insp ire others to deci de the m. Thi s is th e ide a behind the do ctr ine of a seco nd look ou tline d twen ty 2 years ago by Guid o Calabr esi , a pro fes sor at the time who is now a jud ge . Bru tal ly sim pli fi ed , th e id ea is th is: Wh en th e Sup reme Court co nf ronts issue s tha t pr esen t op en , yet fun da me ntal questio ns of val ue, it shoul d be open abo ut th e con flict an d ackno wledge that it is not plain ly resol ved by n. But the Court should no net heless proceed the Constitutio to resol ve it in the way mo stli kely toin duc edem ocra tic review of the re sol utio n. If the res- le t stand the resul ts of olu tion in duces the pr ope r review, the Court should do in such cases is en su re tha t th at revi ew. Th e most the Court should demo cra cy has its say ; its jo b is not to subst itut e it s values fo r the view s of demo cra ts. 3 Many ri di cul e thi s solution. Man y ar gu e tha t the fra me rs cle ar ly had daSupr eme Court and per mit - not hing li ke this in mi nd whe nthey establishe ted jud ici al revie w. Of cou rse th ey di dnot have this in min d. The doc tr ine of ha din mind. As a aseco ndlo ok isnot de si gned for th epr obl ems th eframers it itself reveals a la ten t am bi - re sp on se to the pro ble ms of lat ent ambiguities, gu it y. We migh t den y th is am biguit y. We might arg ue that the framer s envi - sion ed that th e Cou rt wo uld do no thi ng at al l about late nt amb ig uities ; that in such conte xts th e demo cr ati c pro ce ss, through Articl eV, wou ld step in to co rrec t a misa pp li cat ion or to re spond to a chang ed circu mstance. That may well have be en the ir view .But Idon’t thi nk this intent is cle ar eno ug htofore - clos e our co ns ider at io n of how we mi gh t best con fro nt the com ing series of

342 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 327 327 respo ns es qu es tion s on the app li cati on of co nsti tutional valu e to cybers pa ce . I wou ld ra th er err on the side of ha rmless ac tiv ism tha nonth eside of debi li tat in gpas - si vi ty. It is a tin y role for cou rts to play in the much large r conve rsa tio n we t to dat e have no t start ed. need to have—bu RES PO NSES FOR CODE g, tha t is, just A sec ond ch all eng e is co nfr ont ing the law in code—resolvin ho wwe thinkabout th ereg ulat ory pow er of code .He reare anumbe rof idea s tha t tog et her wo ul d push us to ward a wo rld where regulat ion im pos ed nor ms . thr ou gh code wou ld have to sat isf y constitutional Here again is the lin k to open code. In Chapt er 8, whe n I des cribed a nt regula ti on, I ki nd of che ck th at open cod e wou ld impo se on governme ar gued that itwas har der fo rgov ernme ntto hide its regula tions in ope nco de, an d easi er fo r adop ters to disabl e an y regul ations the go ve rn me nt impos ed. nt fro mre gula ble to The mo veme nt from clo sed to ope ncode was amoveme ed to disabling le ss reg ula bl e. Unl ess you are simp ly committ ’s gov ernment guous ly good. powe r, this change canno t be unambi But the re are two parts to the cons tr ain t tha t open co de might im pos e; on eis cer tain ly go od ,an dthe othe ris not necessarily ter rib le. The fi rs tpa rt is tr ansp aren cy—t he re gu lati ons would be know n. The second pa rt is res is t- an ce—t hat know nregu latio ns could bemore ea sily resi ste d. The se cond part It may beeasi er nee dno tfo llo wfro mth efirst, and itne ed not be debil itating. to di sab le the re gu lat ions of code if the code is in the ope n. But if the regula - tio nis legi timate ,the stat ecan req ui re that it notbe disab led .If itwan ts, itcan . pun ish tho se who disobey Compa re the regu lat ion of se atbel ts. For a time the fed eral go ve rnme nt req ui red tha t ne w ca rs have aut omati c seatbelts. This was the reg ul ation of co de—t he car woul d be ma de sa fer by re gu lating the code to force peop le to use seatb elts. Ma ny peopl e hat ed se at belts, and some disab led the m. But the vi rtu e of the au toma ti c sea tbel t was tha t its regul ation was tra nsp are nt. No one do ubt ed who was respon sibl e for the ru le the seatbelt imp osed. If the st ate di dn’t like it when pe op le disabl ed their sea tb elts, it was free to pass law s did not pr es s the is sue —not to puni sh the m. In the end th e gove rnment becau se itcoul dn ’t, bu tbeca use the pol itical costs would have bee nto ohigh. re gu lation, ju st as it sh ou ld . Pol it ics check ed th e gove rnment’s This is the most we can expec t of the regu lation of co de in cybe rs pa ce. There is atr ade -off be tween transp arency and effectiven es s. Co de re gu la tion in th eco nte xtof open code is mo re transparent but also less bindi ng .Go ve rn - ment’ spower to ac hi ev ereg ula tory en ds wou ld be con strained byop en cod e.

343 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 328 328 CODE 2.0 Ther eisano the rbe nef it. Clos ed co de would ma ke iteasi er for th egover n- an illici t regul atory end . Thus, me nt to hid e its regula ti on and th us achieve the re is no si mp le def ea t of gov er nm ent’s ends but inste ad a trad e-o ff— bet ween pub licity an d po we r, bet we en the rules ’ tra nspa renc y and people’s ob edien ce .It isan imp or ta nt ch eck ongove rnment power to say thatth eon ly tr ansparently. ru lesit sho ul dimpo seare thos eth at would be obeyed ifimposed Doe s thi s mea n tha t we sho uld push fo r ope n rathe r tha n clos ed cod e? Do es it me an tha t we sho ul d ban closed code? No .It does no tfo llow fro mthese obs erv ati on sthat wesho uld ba nclos ed co deor th at we mus thav eawor ld with only open code. But they do point to the val ue s we shou ld insi st on for an y code that regul at es . If co de is a law - ar kind of law mak ing . mak er , the n it sh ou ld embra ce the valu es of a particul The core of the se valu es is transp are ncy . Wha t a cod e regula tion do es sho uld be at le ast as ap pa ren t as wh at a legal regula ti on doe s. Op en code wo uld pr ovi de th at trans pare nc y—no t for eve ryone (not ev er yone rea ds code ), and no t per fectly (ba dly writte n code hides its func tions we ll), but mo re comp le tely tha n cl osed code wo ul d. Som e close d co de cou ld provi de th is tra nspar enc y. If code were more mo du lar —i f a code wr it er si mply pu ll ed part s off th e shel f to plu g into her en even if the cod e for sy ste m, as if sh e were buy ing spark plu gs for a car—th th es ecomp on ents was cl osed, the funct ion san dregul ation of the en dpr oduct 4 Comp on entiz ed arc hit ect ure co ul d be as trans pa re nt as an wo uld be open. wit hou t op en co de archit ectu re , an d tr an spa rency could thus be achieved ope nin g the co de. The be st code (f ro m th e pers pect ive of cons tit ut io nal values ) is both mod ular and ope n. Modu lari ty ens ure sthat be tter co mp onents cou ldbe sub- sti tuted for wo rse. And from a compe ti tive pers pective, modu larit y pe rmits gre ater co mp et it ion in th edeve lopme nt of imp roveme nts in apart icu lar cod - ing proje ct. It ispl au sibl e, how ever ,that pa rt icul ar bi ts of code coul dnot beprodu ced if they were pr odu ce das open co de, that clos ed code may sometime sbe nec - essar y for compe ti ti ve surv ival . If so, th en th e compromise of a com pone nt sy ste m wou ld pe rmit so me thi ng of the bes t of both wor lds —som e comp eti - tiv e advanta ge al ong with transparenc y of fu nct ion. I’ve arg ue d fo r tr anspa rent co de bec ause of the cons tit utio nal va lues it regu lation. em beds . I ha ve not ar gu ed aga inst code as a regul ator or against in re gu latio n an d that we But I hav e argu ed that we insi st on trans parency pus h co de stru cture s to enha nc e that trans paren cy. The law prese ntl y doe s no t do thi s. Indeed , as Ma rk Lem ley and Da vid O’Br ie n ar gue , th e exis ting struc tur e of copyrigh t protection for so ftw are

344 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 329 329 respo ns es 5 r str uct ur e. ten ds to push th e dev el opment of so ftw are away from a modula The law pr ef ers op aqu e to transp arent code ; it co nstru cts in ce ntiv es to hid e co de rath er than to mak e its func ti onal ity ob viou s. t Many ha ve arg ue d that the law ’s pres ent ince ntive s are inef ficient—tha 6 Th is may they te nd to redu ce com peti tion in th e prod uction of sof tw are . Ourlaw cr eate s we ll be rig ht .But the grea te rper versity is ag ain constitutional. an in cen tive to enc lose as mu ch of an intellectual co mmo ns as pos sible . It and helps to produ ce, in ef fe ct, a wo rk s agains t pub lic it y and tra ns parency, mas siv e secre t go ve rnment. re sol ving the qu es tion Without Here is a place for conc ret e legal change. of whe th er clos ed or open co de is best, we cou ld at least pus h close d co de in But the ine rtia of exis t- adirec tio nth at woul dfaci li tat egre at er trans parency. unlimited te rm s of ing law —wh ic h gi ves sof twa re manuf ac turers eff ectively are ju st not th ere. rks agai nst change .The politics pro tec ti on—wo RES PO NSES OF A DEM OCR AC Y In hi srig htl yfamo us boo k Profile s in Courage ,then- Senator John F. Kenne dy tel ls the sto ry of Da niel Webs ter, who, in the mids t of a fig ht ov er a pa ct tha t he tho ugh t wou ld divide th e nat ion, sa id on the flo or of th e Senat e, “Mr . Pre si de nt ,Iwish to spea kto day ,no tas aMass achus etts man, nor as aNor th - 7 er n man ,but as anAmer ic an ...” Wh en Webs ter sa id this—in 18 50— the wo rd s “n ot as a Mas sachus ett s ma n” ha dasigni ficance that we are lik el yto mi ss toda y. To us, We bs ter ’sstate - What el se would hebe bu tan Am eric an? How me ntseems per fec tly ordinary. els e wou ld he spea k? States . But thes e wo rds came on the cusp of a new time in the United They cam e jus t at the moment when the atte ntion of Amer ican citiz ens was sh if ting from the ir cit ize nship in a stat e to their citiz enship in the na tio n. Webs ter spok eju stas itwas becomi ng possibl eto identify yoursel f ap art fro m you r sta te and as a member of a nat ion. As I’ ve said , at the fou ndi ng ci tiz ens of the Unit ed Stat es (a conte st ed co ncept it sel f) we re cit ize ns of parti cul ar states first. They we re lo yal to their ed by where th ey lived . Other ow n sta te s beca use th ei r lives wer e determin state s were as re mo te to them as Ti bet is to us—indeed, tod ay it is ea sie r for of South Carolina us to go to Tibe t th an it was then for a citizen to vis it Main e. Over tim e, of cou rse, thi schang ed. Inthe st rug gle le ading up to the Civ il Wa r, in the bat tl es over Recon struc tion, and in the revolution of ind us tr y that fo llowed, ind ividu al citi zens’ sense of the mselves as Amer ica ns gr ew. In

345 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 330 330 CODE 2.0 tho se excha nge s and st ru ggle s, a nati onal identity was bor n. Onl y wh en citi - wi th citi zens fro m ot he r states was a nati on cre ated . ze ns we re engaged of trans for ma tion, and eve n ea sie r to It is easy to forge t the se moments im agin etha tth ey happen only inthe pas t. Yet noone can deny that the sense of bei ng“an Amer ic an” shi fted in the ni neteen th ce nt ury, ju st as no one ca n deny that these nse of bei ng “aEuro pea n” is shif ting in Europ eto da y.Natio ns in side a common cul ture . are bui lt as peopl e ex peri ence themselves political Thi s chan ge co nti nue s for us to day . We st an d tod ay just a few ye ars bef ore whe re Web ste r sto od in 1850 .We sta ndon the br ink of bein gable to say, “Ispe ak asacitiz en of the wor ld, ”with - out the ordinary pe rso n th inki ng, “What a nut.” We are ju st on the cu sp of a time whe nord inary citizens wi ll beg intofeel the effects of the regulations of othe r gove rnme nts, just as the citi ze ns of Mas sac hus etts ca me to fe el the eff ec ts of sl av ery and the citizens of Vi rg inia came to feel the ef fects of adri ve As Ni cho las Neg ropont e puts it, “Nat ions today ar e the wr ong fo r freedom. size .The y are not sm all eno ugh to be local and they are not lar ge enoug h to 8 Thi s misf it will matt er. be gl obal .” As we ,cit iz ens of the Unit ed State s, spe nd mo re of ou r tim e and money n but su bj ec t to the in thi s spa ce tha t is no t part of an y part icu lar ju risdictio ask ques tion s abo ut ou r re gul ati ons of all ju ris dicti ons, we wi ll in creasingly We bster felt, as anAme rican, sta tus the re. We wi ll be gi nto feel the enti tlement to spe ak abo ut li fe in anoth er part of the United States .Fo r us ,it will be the en titl ement tosp eak abo ut life inano ther part of the wo rld ,gr ou nd edin the fe elin gtha tthere is aco mm uni ty of int eres ts that rea ches beyo nd diplom atic tie s in to the he arts of ordi nary cit ize ns . What wil l we do then? When we feel we are par t of a wor ld, and tha t the wor ld regu late sus?Wh atwill we do wh enwe nee dto make choi ces abo ut how that wo rld re gul ate s us,and how we reg ul ate it? The wea rin ess wit h gov ern men t that I describ ed at th e end of the last chap ter isno tacondi ti on witho ut cau se .But its cau se is not the dea th of an y id ea lof de mo cra cy. We ar eall stil ldemo crats; we simply do not like what ou r extend in gwh at we ha ve to dem ocr ac yha sproduc ed .And we can not imagine new dom ain s lik e cybe rs pa ce. If the re were just mor e of the sam e there — mo re of the exces ses and be tr aya ls of gover nment as we have come to know it—t he n be tter that th ere sho ul d be less. There are two problem s her e, th ough only on e th at is re all y tie d to the in any dept h. Th e argu me nt of this bo ok, an d so on ly on e that I will discuss e basic corru pt ion in any ot her I menti oned at th e end of the las t chapter—th to be peddled by thos ewho sy ste mthat wou ld al lowso mu ch po lit ic al influence han d out money. Th is is the cor rup ti on of campaig n financing, a cor ru pti on

346 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 331 331 respo ns es not of peop le but of pro ce ss.Ev en good souls in Congress have no choi ce but to spe nd an ever -i ncre as ing amoun t of their time raising an ev er -in creasi ng amo unt of mo ney to com pete in ele ct io ns. This is an arms race, and ou r it .Untilthis requires Supr eme Co urt has ef fecti vel ysai dth at th eConstitution prob lem is so lved, Iha ve lit tle fa ith in wh at our dem ocracy will pro du ce. The sol ution to thi s pr obl em is obv ious, eve n if the deta il s ar e ex tre mely .Th e tota l cos t of dif fi cul t: Spe nd pu bli c res ou rce s to fund pu blic campaigns 9 In the sameyea r,we fe deral ele ctio ns in2004 was probab ly cl ose to $4 bill ion. 10 Wha tev er sp en t $38 4 bil lion on defens e and $6 6 bil lion on the war in Ira q. yo uthin kabo ut the wi sdo mof defens esp end ing an dthe war in Iraq ,atle ast opres erv eand prom ote the pur po se sof al lth ree exp endi tu re sisthe same—t dem ocr ac y.Is there any doubt if we madecampaign contribu ti ons esse nt ia lly irr el evan tto polic ywe’d have amor ecert ain and positiv eef fect ondem ocrac y than the othe r two ? But ther e is a second , od dly cou nt er int uitive re as on for this incre asing listens too littl etoth eview s fa ilureof demo cr ac y. This isno ttha tgov ernment of the pu bl ic; it isth at government li st ens to omu ch. Eve ry fancy of the pop - ulat io n gets echo ed in pol ls ,and the se poll s in turn puls e th e de mo cra cy .Yet the messa ge the polls tra nsmi t is not the messa ge of dem ocrac y; the ir fre - .The Pres i- qu en cy and influe nc eisnot the pr odu ctof incre as ed significance den t make s poli cy on the basi s of ove rni ght pol ling only becau se ov ernigh t po ll in g is so eas y. Th is ispartly atec hno log yprob le m. Po ll smar kan intera ct ionof tec hnol - ogy and demo cr acy that we are ju st beg inning to unders tand. As the cos t of moni tor ing the curren tview of the pop ulation drops ,and as th emac hine sfo r per mane nt mo nit ori ng of the popul at io nare built, we are pro duc ing ape rpet - ual stre am of data abo ut what “the peopl e” th ink about every issue that gov - er nmen t mig ht consi der. A cert ain ki nd of code perfects de tha t ing—co th e ma chine of monitor aut oma tes pe rf ect sam pl e sel ecti on, that facil itates datab ases of res ults, an d tha t simp lifies the pro ces s of conne ctin g. We rare ly ask , however , whether per fec t mo nitor ing is a good . it ut ional ly at lea st—f or de mo cra cy to It has never been ou r ide al —const be a per fe ct re flec ti on of the pre sent tem per atu re of th e peop le. Ou r fram ers the views of the pe ople . we re keen to des ign str uc tu re s th at wou ld mediate Dem ocra cy was to be more tha n a st ri ng of excited utter an ces . It was to be de li ber ati ve ,ref lec tiv e, and bala nce dby lim ita tion simp ose dby acon stit utio n. Bu t may be, to be consis te nt with the argu ment s from Pa rt II I, I shou ld sa y th at at le as t there was a lat ent am biguity about this ques tio n. In a wor ld wh er eel ec tions were ex tre mely cos tly and communicatio nwas comp licate d,

347 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 332 332 CODE 2.0 de mocra cy ha d to get by with infrequ ent elec tio ns. Neverthel es s, we can not th at al lo ws real ly kno w ho w the fr amers wou ld hav e rea cted to a technology pe rf ect and per pe tual poll ing. The re is an impo rt ant re ason to be ske ptical of th e fl ash pulse of the peo ple. Th e fla sh pul se is quest ionab le not beca use the peop le are unedu - ac y need s to cate d or inc apabl e of goo d ju dgme nt, and not becaus e democr fai l, but becau se it is oft en the produ ct of ignora nce. People ofte n have il l- in for med or parti all y inf or med view s tha t they simpl y rep eat as judgmen ts whe n the y know that the ir ju dgme nts are not being partic ula rly noti ced or consi dered . ogy enco ur age sthi s. Asaco nseque nce of the ma ssiv eincrea sein Technol rep orti ng on ne ws, weare expo sed toagreater range of inf or mat io nab ou tthe wo rld tod ay tha n eve r befo re . Thi s ex pos ure, in tu rn, gives us conf ide nce in ou rjudgme nt .Nev erha vi ng he ard of East Timor, pe ople when asked ab out it mi ght we ll hav e sa id ,“I don ’t know.” But hav ing seen te n sec ond s on TV, or thi rty li nes on a Web por ta l news pag e, gives them a spin they didn’t ha ve bef ore .And th ey rep ea t this spi n, with very little value added. The sol utio n to th is pr obl em is not les s news or a ba n on polling . Th e sol ut ion is a be tter ki nd of po ll ing . The gover nmen t reacts to ba d pol l da ta beca use th at is th eonl ydata weha ve. But these polls are no tth eonl ypos si bl e ki nd sof polls .The re are tec hni ques for pol ling that compensate fo rthe erro rs of the flash pol l and pr odu ce ju dg ments that are bot h more cons id ere d and mo re st ab le. An exa mple isth e“del ib erat ive” pol ldevise dbyPr of essor Jam es Fis hkin. 11 Th ey bri ng acros s- Ra th er th an apu ls e, Fi shki n’ spo lls see kan equilibrium. se ct ion of peop le tog eth er for a week end at a time. Thes e peop le, who repr e- befo re the po ll tha the lps sen tal lse gme nts of asoci ety, are given information ensu re that they kno wso methi ng abou tthe subj ect matte r. After be in gin tr o- du ce dtothe top ic of the pol l,they ar ethen divided into sm all juries and ov er the co ur se of a co up le of days arg ue about th e topic at iss ue and exchan ge view sabou thow best tores olv eit. At th eend they ar easked about the ir vi ew s, an d thei r re sp onses at thi s poi nt form the “res ul ts ”of the poll . The great ad vantag e of thi s syst em is not only tha t inf or ma tion is pr o- vi ded bu t that th e pro ce ss is del ib erat ive. The res ults emerge out of the re a- so nin g of cit iz ens de bati ng wi th other citizen s. Peopl e are not encou rage d to ju st cast a ba ll ot. The y give rea sons for their ball ot, and those re as ons will or wil l no t pe rsu ade . (w e co uld dre am) of this pro ce ss ex ten ding ge ne ral ly. We cou ld imagine We cou ld imagine it bec oming a sta pl e of our political life—ma ybe one ru le of cit iz en ship. And if it di d, it mi gh t well do goo d, as a coun ter weig ht to the

348 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 333 333 respo ns es fl as hpu lse and th eper pet ua lly int ereste dprocess go ve rnm ent is. that ordinary It wou ld be a cor rec tive to the pro cess we no w have, one that mig ht bring ho pe . Cyb er sp ace mig ht mak e thi s pr oc es s mo re pos sibl e; it ce rta inl y ma ke s it even mo re nece ssa ry . It is po ssi ble to imagin e using the architec ture of the sp ace to des ign deli be ra tive for ums, whic h could be used to im pl em ent ce makes the is that cyberspa Fi shk in’s po ll ing. Bu t my me ssag e thr oughout 12 need al l the more urg ent. There is a ma gic in a pr oc es s wh ere reasons coun t—not whe re ex pe rts ru le or whe re onl y sm art peop le ha ve the vote, but whe re pow er is set in th e fa ce of re aso n. The mag ic is in a pr oc es s wher e citizens give reasons and und ers ta nd that pow er is const rai ned by th ese reaso ns. This was th e ma gic tha t To cqu evi ll e wrote of when he tol d the worl d of the amazi ng syst em of jur ies in the United States. Citize ns serv ing on ju rie s mu st make rea so ned, persua si ve ar gumen ts in coming to decisions that of ten life. Writing in 183 5, nary co nsequ ences for soc ia land political hav eextraordi Toc qu evi lle said of jur ie s: The jur y...ser ves to com municat ethe spir it of th ejud ges to the mind sofallth e ci ti ze ns; and thi s spiri t,wit h th e habit s whi ch at tend it, is th e so und est pr epa ra - ti on for free institu ti ons. Itimbu es all classes wi th arespe ct for the thi ng judg ed and wi th the not io n of righ t. . . . It tea ches men to pra cti ce equi ty; every man le arns toju dg ehi sne ig hb or as hewo uld him self bejud ged. ...The jury tea ches ev ery manno tto rec oil befor etheresp on si bili ty ofhis own act ions and impres se s hi m with that man ly con fiden ce with ou t whi ch no poli tical vir tue ca n ex ist . It cy ; it ma kes them al l feel the dut ies inve st s each citiz en wit h a kin d of magistra whic hth ey are boun dto di sc harg etow ar ds soci etyan dthe pa rt wh ich they ta ke in its gover nm ent . By ob ligi ng men to turn their atten tion to other affa irs tha n 13 thei row n, it rub soff th at pr iv ate selfi shn ess whi ch isthe rust of soc iet y. It was n’t Tocqu evil le, howev er ,or any othe rthe oris t, who sold meon this ide al. It wa s a la wy er wh o fi rst let me see the powe r of this id ea —a law ye r fro m Ma dis on, Wis co nsin, my unc le, Richard Cates . We liv e in a ti me wh en th e sane vili fy law yer s. No doub t law ye rs are in part res po nsi ble for thi s. Bu t I ca n’t accept it, an d not only be cau se I tra in lawy er sfo raliving .Ican’ tacc ept itbec au se et ched into my mem ory is apic - tu re my uncle sk etc hed ,expl ai ning wh y he was a la wyer. In 19 74 he ha d jus t for the Hou se Comm itte e on re tur ned from Wa shi ngt on, where he worked Im pe ach me nt—of Nixo n, not Cli nt on ,though Hillary Rodha mwas workin g wit h hi m. I pre ssed him to te ll me everythin g; I wanted to he ar abo ut the

349 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 334 334 CODE 2.0 bat tle s. It wa s not a top ic that we di scu ssed much at home. My pa ren ts we re Rep ubli cans. My uncl e was not. Myun cle’s jo bwasto tea chthe co ngre ssmen ab out the fa ct sinthecase— and th en to teach this to the mem - to fir st lear n ev erythi ng th at wa s known, . Altho ugh there was much about his stor y that I will be rs of the committee nev er for ge t, the mos tco mpell ing part was not real ly related tothe impe ach- for the me nt . My uncl e was de scr ibi ng for me the ess enc e of his jo b—both Ho us e an d fo r his clients: It is what a law ye r do es ,wh at a good lawyer doe s, th at mak es this system work . It isnot th eblu ffin g,or the outra ge, or th est ra teg ies an dtactic s. Itis som eth in g mu ch simp le r th an that. Wha t a goo d law yer doe s is tell a sto ry that per sua des. No t by hid ing the truth or ex cit ing the emo tion, but us ing re aso n, through a sto ry ,to pe rsuad e. When itworks ,it do es someth ing to the people who expe rien ce this pe r- su asi on . So me, fo r the fi rst time in their lives, see powe r const raine d by rea - knows —but by an son. No t by vot es, no t by wealt h, not by who someone ar gume nt that pe rsua des. This is the magic of our system, how ev er ra re the mi rac le s ma y be. This pic tu re stuc k—no t in the el iti st vers ion of expe rts de ci ding wha t’ s best, nor in it spo pulis tvers ion of exc it ed cro wds yellin goppon en ts do wn,but in th e simp le versi on that ju ri es know .An d it is this simpl e pic ture tha t ou r cu rren t demo cr acy mi sse s. Wh ere thr ou gh delibe ration ,and und er sta nding, nit y, ju dgme nts get made about how to go an d a pro cess of bu il ding commu on . We cou ld bu ild so me of thi s bac k into our democr acy. Th e more we do, tthe se fla sh the le ss si gnific ant the fla sh pu ls es wi ll be. And the less significan pul ses are , th e mo re we mi ght have fait h again in that part of our tr ad ition tto afo rm of gove rn - th at mad eus revolu tion ari es in1789— the commitmen me nt that re spec ts deli ber ati on and the people, and that stand s op pose d to co rr upt ion dress ed in ari sto cr ati c ba ub les .

350 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 335 E I G H T E E N s n ’ t g e t w h a t d e c l a n d o e M E ALSO RU NS C ULL AGH IS A WR IT ER WHO WO RKS FOR W IRED N EWS .H D EC LAN C a mai li ng list tha t feed s sub sc ri bers bu ll etins that he decides to for war d and fa ci litate s a discu ss ion among the se me mbe rs . The list was orig inall y ca ll ed “Fi ght Ce nso rs hip,” and it ini ti al ly attr acted a large number of su bs cribe rs who we re eage r to org ani ze to resi st the govern me nt’s eff orts to “ce ns or ”the Net . But Dec la nhas co nve rte dth elis tto fa rmore th anadi sc us si on of ce nsor - shi p. He feed s to the list other ne ws that he ima gin es his subs cribe rs wil l po rn from the Net, en jo y. So in add it ion to new s abo ut ef forts to el iminate Dec lan includes re po rts on FBI wi retap s, or effo rts to prot ect priv acy ,or the go ve rn ment’s effo rts toenforc ethe nati on’s anti tr us tlaws. I’m asubs criber ;I en jo y the posts . Dec lan ’s po lit ics are cle ar. He’s asmart li ber taria nwhos efir strea ction to an y su gg est ion tha t invo lve s government is sc orn. In one rec ent me ssa ge, he cit ed astory about aBriti sh pr ovi der vio lating fax spam laws ;thi s,he ar gu ed, sh owed that law sreg ulat ing e-mail sp am are useles s. In anothe r, he criticiz ed eff orts by Repo rter sWithout Border sto pass laws to protec tfree sp ee ch inte r- 1 nat io nal ly. Th er e is one unif yi ng theme to Dec lan ’s posts: Let the Net alone . An d wi th a some ti me s self -ri ghteo us snee r, he rid icul es those who que stion thi s simp le, if powe rfu l,ide a. I’ve wa tch ed Decl an ’s list for some time. For a br ie f time, lon g ag o, I wa tch edthe disc ussion par tof the lis tas well. And th roughout theyears Iha ve ha dthe pl eas ure of lea rning fr om Dec lan, asin gle simpl emes sa ge has do mi - na ted the th rea d: Th e quest ion is not just, Declan insists ag ain and aga in, gov er nment in te rve nt io n. whet her th er e ar e “m ark et fail ur es” th at require The qu es ti on isals owhethe rth ere are “gover nment failu res.” (A she said in a 335

351 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 336 336 CODE 2.0 rece nt po stab outthe Rep or te rs Wi th out Borders, “[Jul ien Pai n’ s] able to ide n- failure, tif y al l thes e appa rent examp le s of market but [he ’s] not as able to ide nti fy insta nce s of gov ernm ent fai lu re. ”) And the co nsequ en ce for De cl an nd we do nothing to recomme fro m ask ing th e second is (j ust ab out always) . Dec lan ’s qu est io n has a very good pedi gre e. It was the qu estion Ro nald Coase fi rst sta rted aski ng as he wo rked tow ard his Nobel Prize. Econo mis ts su ch as Pi gou had id enti fied goo ds that marke ts co uld n’ t prov id e. Tha t was en oug h fo r Pigou to show that gover nm ents should there fore step in. But as Coase sai d, [I]n choos ing betw een social arr an gem ents within the co ntex tof which indi vid - ua ldecis ion sare made ,we hav eto be ar in mind that achan ge inthe ex isti ng sys - tem whi ch wi ll lead to an imp ro ve me nt in so me dec isi ons may we ll le ad to a wo rse ning of other s. Furthe rm ore we have to take int o ac cou nt the cost s invol ve d in ope ra ti ng the va rious social arr angements (whe ther it be the work - ingof amarke tor of agov ernme nt dep artment) as we ll asthe costs inv olve din mov in gto anew sy stem .In de vising and ch oos ing betw een social ar rang emen ts 2 we shou ld ha ve reg ard for the total eff ect . Coase had a dis ci pl ine to his work. That dis cipline was to ne ver sto p at s, but testin g that theor y with theor y. Theore tical insi ght is cr it ical to progres a bit of re al-wor ld li fe is crit ic al as well . an s. We can But this is thetroub le with the wo rld of at le as tsome libertari sp ecul ate til l th e co ws come home abo ut what the wor ld would be like if our go ve rn ment we re craf ted by a gaggl e of pure libertarians. The re woul d be a go vern ment , of course . Lib er taria ns are no t an archist s. And no do ubt , the cons eque nces of suc hashi ft ar eco un te r-in tui tive .It wou ld cert ai nly not be as prom ise . ba d as st at ists pred ict; I doubt it wou ld be as good as libertarians But thereal it yis that we’ re never goi ng to liv ein liber taria nland .And so the que st io n we shou ld as k is wh at attitude we shou ld br in g to re gu la tio n, . Sh oul d our give n we live in th is worl d wh ere regu lation n to happe is going re sp on se in th at worl d—me ani ng thi s worl d, and every pos sible wor ld we’re al l re gulation on principl e? ever goi ng to see —be to ac t as if we oppose Becaus e if this is our re sponse , th at att itu de will hav e an ef fect. It won’ t for m. Or ,better ,it ’s sto pal lre gu lat io n, but itwi ll stop reg ula tion of acertain be nef iting ,for not cert ai n to stop reg ulati on of a di fferen t for m—re gulation l speci al intere sts. ex ampl e, powerfu Con si de r an obvio us examp le . los e bill ion s be ca use of the Eco nom is ts est im ate th at we as an economy bu rd ens of sp am. Fe rri s Re se arch, for exa mple, es timat es tha t the cur rent

352 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 337 337 wh at dec lan doesn ’t get cos ts (incl uding lost pr oduct ivi ty ) are betwee n $9 and $10 pe r us er pe r 3 mon th. That transl at es int o more than $9 billion per year to fight spa m. The se cost shav ebee nbo rneby eve ry on ewho pa ysfor e-m ail on the Int er net . They don ’t include th eind irec tco sts of miss ing amess age beca use it is eithe r filte red origno red .(Nor doe sthi snu mbe rreckon the be nefit of spa m,but as eit her ,I’ll leav etha tout Iwon’t co unt th ebene fit in th ecomp ar ative example fo r now .) Eco nom is ts hav e al so tri ed to es ti mat e the cost of Inte rnet “pira cy” of co pyri ghte dcontent (exc lud ing sof tw are) to the content indu str y.Some es ti - mat e th at th e cos ts are actual ly very low . Felix Obe rholze r and Kol eman ha s“a neffec ton sa le ssta tis - Str umpf ,for exampl e,co ncl uded that filesharing 4 Ot her esti mates co nclu de the re is a rea l tical ly in dist ing uis hab le fr om zero .” loss , but not huge . In 20 03, usi ng a soph is ticated model to me as ure the loss fro m P2P files har ing in 2003, Dav id Bl ack burn concluded th e indu stry los t 5 Tha t number is si gni fic ant ly below th e RIA A’s es tim ate of the $3 30 mi llio n. 6 tot al an nu al cost fr om “a ll forms of pi ra cy”: $4. 2 bill io n. Suf fi ce it tha t thes e esti mat es are cont ested. But eve n so, in this fie ld of is si gnifi can tly les s con test, one thing is ab solu te ly cer ta in: The cost of“piracy” than the cost of sp am. Indeed, ding cons umers to the to tal cos t of spam—ad 7 co rp ora tions —exceed s the to tal annual reve nu es of the record ing ind ust ry . So how do es this diff er en ce in har m calib ra te with wha t Cong res s ha s do ne to res po nd to eac h of th ese tw o pro ble ms? In the last te nyea rs, Cong ress has pas sed exac tly on ebill tode al with the pro bl em of spa m—t he CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 .Ove rthe same per iod, Con - 8 No t all of these laws ,of co urs e, gre ss has pas sed 24 la ws af fec ti ng cop yright. are dire ct ly ta rge ted agai nst “p ir ac y,” but they all do aim fur the r to pr otec t co pyri ghte d work in a di gi tal age . This pat te rn is no t an acc ident. In a po litic al wor ld tha t is dom inated as happens our s is ,lawmaking bene fit. It doe sn’ t hap pe n when special interests when sp ecia lintere st soppo se .And in these two instances ,the la ck of re gu la - tio nand the ple tho ra of re gu lati on is expl ained by this point pre cis el y. The re ha ve be en 24 bil ls abo ut copy ri ght bec aus e rock stars lo bby for the m. The re has bee n on e bill about spam be caus e th e di re ct mailers (an d many larg e co mp ani es) te st ifi ed ag ai nst them. Now giv en th is real ity, I sugge st the liber taria n should re cog nize a th ir d imp orta nt fa ilu re that comp lements and “g over nm ent” fa ilur e: “market” There is “ma rke t failu re” when mark ets can’t be exp ected to pr ov ide go od s efficie nt ly; ther e’s “gove rnme nt failure ”whe ngovernm ent can’t be exp ected to ian failur e” when the so lv e ma rket fa il ur es efficien tly; and there’s “libertar pus hto do not hing wil lproduc eno tno regulatio nat all, but regulat io nby the

353 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 338 338 CODE 2.0 most pow er ful of speci al int er ests .Or in asloga n: Whe nit ’s wron gto push for re gul ati on, only th e wro ng wil l get reg ulati on. Iamnot alib er tari anin the sense Decl anis, tho ug hIsha re his ske pt ic ism abo ut go ve rn me nt .Bu twe ca n’ttr ans la te ske ptici sm into di sen gag ement. We hav e a host of ch oice s tha t wi ll affect how the Int ernet develops an d wha t val ue s it wil l embed . The att it ude that eschew s gover nment as part of thos e cho ices is no t one tha t wi ll stop gove rnmen t; it wil l simply stop gov er nm ent fro m mak ing the right choi ce s. sho uld inte rven e,at a minim um ,whe n priva te In my vie w, gov ernments act ion has ne gat iv epu bl icco ns eque nc es; when shortsig hted actions thr eate n to caus e lo ng-ter m harm; whe n failu re to in te rve ne under mines significa nt co nst it uti on al val ues and impo rta nt indiv idua l rights; whe n a fo rm of life em erg es tha tmayth re at en va lues we be li eve to be fund ame ntal ;and when we ca nsee th at failing to in ter veneon th eside of rig ht will sim ply str eng th en the int er ve nti ons on the side of wrong. Suc h interventio n must be lim ite d; it of go ver nment that mus tbe enga ged with all the awar en ess abo utthe failures righ t th in kin g sort s can mus te r. Bu t ac tion defen ding righ t sh ould not be because so me goes wrong. Whe n tho se who be li eve in th e stop pe d merely liber ty of cy bersp ace, and the valu es that libe rty promo tes, ref us e to engage wit hgov er nm en tabo uthow bes tto pre serve those libertie s, th at we ak ens lib - er ty. Do- no th ingism is no t an answ er; some thing can and shou ld be do ne. I’ve ar gu ed th is, but no t wi th mu ch hope . So ce ntra l ar e the De clans in our pol it ical cult ure toda y that I confes s I can not see a way arou nd the m. I d a di ff erent ha ve ske tch ed sm all step s; the y seem ver y small. I’ve describe ide al; it seems qu ite al ien. I’ ve pr omi sed that somethin g diff er ent cou ld be do ne, but not by an y insti tuti on of gover nment that I kn ow. The tru th, Isusp ect ,isthat the Dec lans wi ll win—a tleas tfor now .We wi ll ke th e loss of priv acy , li ke th e tre at co de-b ase d en viro nme nta l dis asters—li ce ns or ship of ce ns orwa re filt er s, like the disappear ance of an intel lectu al com - mo ns—a s if th ey were pro duc ed by go ds, not by Ma n. We wil l wa tc h as imp or ta nt aspects of pri vac yan dfre espe ech are erase dby the em ergin gar chi - tec tu re of the panopti con, and we wi ll speak, like mode rn Jeff er sons , about na tu re ma king it so— fo rg ett ing tha t here, we are nature . We wi ll in many do main s of our so cia l lif e come to see the Ne t as the produ ct of som ething al ie n—so me th in gweca nn ot di re ct be cau se we cannot dire ct anythi ng. Some - thi ng in ste ad th at we mu st simp ly acc ept, as it inva des an d tra ns for ms our li ve s. Some sa y th is is an exci ti ng ti me. But it is the excite me nt of a te ena ge r play in gchick en, his car ba rreli ng do wn th ehigh way, hands held fa rfr om the ste eri ngwh eel .Th ere are choi ce swe cou ld make, but weprete nd tha tthe re is

354 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 339 339 wh at dec lan doesn ’t get not hi ng we can do . We choo se to pre te nd; we shut our eyes. We bu ild this natu re, then we are co ns tr ai ned by thi s nature we have built. It is the age of the os tric h. We are exci te dbywha tweca nnot know. We are pro ud to le ave th ings to th e in vi si bl e hand. We make th e han d inv isible by lo ok ing the othe r way. But it is no t a gre at time, cul turall y, to come acr oss re volutiona ry tech - no logi es. We ar eno more rea dyforthis revolut ion th an the Sov iet swere rea dy for th ei rs .We ,li ke they, have been cau gh tby arevolu tion. Bu twe, un like the y, ha ve so mething to lo se .

355 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 340 A P P E N D I X In Chapte r 7, I sk etc hed br ie fl y an arg ument fo r how the four moda lities I des cri bed constr ain differently .In th is appen dix, I want to exte nd that argu - me nt .Myhope isto pr ovi de aric her sense of how th ese modalities —law ,the mark et , no rms, and archi tec tu re —int er act as they regu late. Su ch an unde r- of thi sboo k.I’ ve ther e- st andi ng is us eful, but no tne cessar y, to the argument fo re put it he re , for tho se with an int erest, and too mu ch time . Els ewhe re I 1 ha ve cal led thi s app ro ac h“the New Chi cag o School.” La w is a command ba cked up by the th rea t of a sanc tion . It comm ands yo unot toco mm it murde rand threa tens asevere penalty if you do so anyw ay. Or it command s yo u no t to tra de in coc ai ne and th re aten s bar ba ric pu nis h- me nts if you do. In bot hca se s, th epicture of law is fair ly simpl eand strai ght - fo rward : Do n’t do thi s, or el se. 2 Law Obvi ous ly law is mu ch mo re than a se t of comma nd s and threat s. no tonl ycommands certain beha viors but express es the values of acommu - ni ty (when, for ex amp le, it sets as ide a da y to celebrate the birt h of Mar tin 3 cons ti tut es or re gu lates str uc tures of govern ment (wh en Lu ther Ki ng, Jr. ); the Const ituti on, for ex amp le, es ta bl is he s in Ar ticle I a Ho use of Represen - rights that ind iv id ual s can tat iv es di sti nct from a Senate ); and est ablishes inv ok eag ain st thei rown go ver nment (the Bil lof Right s). Al lthes eareex am - ple sof law ,and by focu sing on ju st one kind of law, Ido not mea ntodim in - ish the sig nif icance of thes e other kind s. Still, this par ticular asp ec t of law pr ovid es a well-d ef in ed co nstr aint on ind iv iduals within the ju risd icti on of th e law give r, or sov ereign . Th at co nst raint— obj ectiv ely—i s th e threat of pun ish ment. So ci alno rm sco nstr ain diffe ren tly. By so cia lnorm s, Imean those norm a- tiv econ str aints imp osed no t th ro ugh the organized or ce ntraliz ed ac tions of a state, but th rou gh the man y sli ght and sometimes force ful sa nc tions that me mber sof acommu ni ty impo se on ea ch other. Iam not tal king about pa t- It ma ybe tha tmost peo pl edriv eto wor kbetwe en 7:0 0and te rns of behavior: 8: 00 A . .,butthis isnot ano rm inthe sens eImea n.Anor mgo ve rns socia lly M 4 sa lie nt beha vior, dev ia ti on from whi ch makes you socially abn orm al. 340

356 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 341 341 ap pen di x Life is filled wit h, consti tut ed by ,an ddef in ed inrel ati onto such norms— so me of whic h are valu abl e, and man y of which are not. It is a nor m (and a mak es you go od one ) to thank ot her s for ser vi ce . Not thanking someone “ru de,” and being ru de op ens yo u up to a range of social sa ncti on s, fro m ostr acis mto cri ticis m. It isanor mto speak caut ious ly to aseatma te on anai r- plan e, or to st ay to the right whi le dri ving sl owly . Norms disc ou rag e men fro mwea ring dress es to work an denco urage al lof us tobath eregu larl y. Or di - nar y lif e is fil led wi th suc h command s about how we are to beha ve . For the or di na rily soc ialized per son, these com mands constitute portio n asignificant of the cons tr aints on indiv idu al behav ior. Norm s, lik e la w, th en, are effec tive rul es.Wha t make s nor ms diff erent is th emech ani smand sourc eof the ir sanct io n: The yare imposed by acom mu - nit y, not a state. But they are si mi lar to la w in th at, at least ob je ctiv ely, their co nstrai nt is impo sed af te r a vio lati on has occur re d. The co nstr ai nts of the mark et arediff erent aga in. The mark et cons tra ins thro ug hpric e. Apr ic esig nals the poi nt atwhi ch aresourc ecanbe tra nsferr ed coffe e, you mus tgive the fr om one perso nto anot her. If youwant aStarbucks clerk fou r dol lars. The co nstr ai nt (the four dollars ) is simu ltaneou s with the be nef ityo uwant (the co ffee ). Yo umay, of cou rs e, bargain to pay for the ben- ef it late r (“ I’d gladly pay yo u Tue sda y for a hambu rger tod ay”), but the obli - gat io n is incur red at the ti me you receive the be nefit. To the exte nt tha t you cons tra int, sta y in the mar ket, thi s si mul tane ity is pr eserved. The market unl ik e la w and no rm s, doe s no t ki ck in afte r you have take n the be nef it you se ek ;it ki cks in at the same time. be tran sl ate d in to law This is not to say that mark et tra ns act ions cannot ons do no texi st exce pt wi thin or nor mtra nsa ction s. In dee d, mark et transacti a co nte xt of la w and nor ms .You mu st pay for you r coff ee; if yo u do not, the law of thef tap pli es. Noth ing in th ema rket re quires that yo utip the waiter, but The const rai nt sof the if you do not, norms kic kin to regu lat eyour stinginess. mark et exi st beca use of an elab orat e ba ckground of law and nor ms defining wh atis buya ble and sell able, aswel lasrul es of prope rty and con trac tfo rhow thi ngs may be bou ght and so ld .But give n th ese law s and nor ms ,the mark et sti ll co nstra ins in a di st inc t way. Th eco nst raint of our fin al moda lit yis neit her so con ti ngen tnor, init sfu ll way the world ra nge ,sodepe ndent. Thi sisth econstr ai nt of archit ec ture—the is, orthe ways spe cifi caspe cts of it ar e. Archit ects call it the built env iro nmen t; tho se who don ’t gi ve out name s jus t reco gnize it as the worl d arou nd th em . Plai nly some of the co ns tr aints of arc hite ct ur e are cons traints we ha ve ma de(hence th esens eof “archi tec ture”) and some are not. A do or close sof f a roo m. Wh en lo ck ed ,the door keeps you out. The cons tr ain t func tions not

357 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 342 342 ap pen di x as la w or no rms do—yo u cannot ignore the cons train t and su ffer the cons e- qu en ce later. Ev en if the const ra int impos ed by th edoor is one you ca nove r- do or stil l come —b y bre aki ng it dow n perhap s, or picking the lock—the co nstrai ns, ju st not ab so lut ely. notwith - St ar Trek Some ar chit ect ur al const rai nts, ho weve r, ar eabs olute . stan din g, we canno t tra vel at warp speed. We can travel fast, and te chnolog y ha sena ble dus to tr avel fast er than we used to. None thele ss ,we have good rea - so n(or at leas tphy sic is ts do) fo rbel iev ing th at the re is alimit to thespe ed at whi ch we can tr avel. As a T-s hi rt I saw at MIT put it, “1 86, 28 2 mile s per sec - on d. It ’s not just a go od ide a. It ’s the law .” But whe ther abs olut e or no t, or whet her man-ma de or not, we ca n con - sid er the se cons tr aints asasingl eclas s—as the cons train ts of archite ctu re ,or re al- sp ace co de . Wh at uni te s this class is the agenc y of the co ns trai nt : No in di vi dua lor gro up im pos es th econ stra int, or at lea st notdi rectl y.Individ ual s are no doub t ulti mat ely res po nsible for much of the con stra in t, but in its actu al exec ut io nth econstra int ta kes ca re of it self. Laws nee dpol ice, pros ec u- tor s, and co urts tohave an effec t; alock does not. Nor ms requi re that in divi d- acc ording ly ; gra vity uals tak e note of non confo rming behav ior and respond do es no t.Th e cons tra ints of arc hi tect ure are self-exec uting in a wa y tha t the co nstrai nts of la w, norms, and the ma rk et are not. This feature of arch itec tur e—s elf -executio n—is extr eme lyim por ta nt for nt for unse emly un dersta ndin git srol ein re gu la tio n.It is par ticula rly importa or unj ust re gula tion. Fo rex amp le, to the extent th at we can bring ab out effect s th ro ugh th eauto mati cconstr aints of real-space cod e, weneed not depe nd on the con ti nued age ncy, loy alt y, or rel iabi lit yof indiv idu als. If we can makethe ma chin edo it ,we can be th atmuc hmo re con fident tha tthe uns ee mly will be do ne. Th e lau nch in g of nucl ear mis sil es is a nice examp le. In thei r orig inal design ,missile swe re to belaun ch ed by in dividua lcr ews locate dwithin mis - sil e launch silo s. Th ese me n wou ld hav e been ordered to lau nch the ir mi s- si le s,and the exp ect ati on was th at they wou ld do so. Laws, of cour se, ba cked th e crew to co urt - di so bey ing the ord er to la unch subjected up the order— 5 mar ti al . But in te st ing the syst em, the arm y found it inc re as ing ly unre lia ble . Alwa ys the deci si onto lau nch was che cke dby ajud gmen tmade byan ind ivi d- ua l, and al ways that ind iv idua l ha d to decide whe ther the or der wa s to be ob eyed .Plai nly this sy st em isle ss reli ab le than asys te mwhe re all the miss iles are wi red ,as it were, to a si ngle bu tton on the President’s desk. But we mig ht bel ie ve that th ere is valu e in th is second check, that th e age ncy of the action 6 by the so ld ier ensu res some chec k on the decision to lau nch .

358 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 343 343 ap pen di x This is an impo rtant consequ enc e of the autom atic na tu re of the co n- and the market st rai nt s of arch itec ture .La w,norms, are cons tra ints che cked by ju dgment. Th ey are ena ct ed only whe n some perso n or grou p cho ose s to do so . But once ins titut ed, archit ectura l cons tra ints have thei r effect unt il so meon e stops th em. Ag en cy, th en, isone distinc tion betw ee nth efo ur cons tr ai nts. Th etempo - rali ty of the cons tr ain t—w hen it is impos ed—is a seco nd one. Here I sho ul d di st ingui sh be twee n tw o diff erent per spe ctiv es : tha t of persp ecti ve ), so me on eobser vi ng when acon strai ntis impo sed (the objective and tha tof the person wh oexperien ces the con straint (the sub jec tiv epe rs pe c- tiv e) . So far my de scr ipt ion of the fou r cons traints in this sin gl e model has be en fro mthe obj ec ti ve pe rspe cti ve. From that pe rsp ective the yarequite dif - fe ren t, but from a su bjec ti ve perspect ive they need not diff er at all . Fro mth eobje cti ve pers pe ct ive th edif fe re nce is betwe encons tr aints tha t de mand pay ment up fro nt and constr aints that let yo u play an d the n pay. Arc hi te ct ur e and the market cons train up fro nt; law and no rms le t yo u play yo ur acc ess to th e ai r- fir st. For examp le, think of the co nstr aints blocking d. Law co n- r who is gon e for th e weeken co nd itio ne d hom e of a neighbo stra ins yo u—if you bre ak in, yo uwi ll betrespassing. Norms co nst rain you as we ll —it ’s no t nei ghbo rly to break into yo ur neighb or’s hous e. Bot h of th ese wo uld be impo sed on you aft er you broke into the con st ra in ts, however, 7 The arch ite ctu ra l con- ho us e. They are prices you might hav e to pay late r. st raint is th e loc k on the doo r—it blo cks yo u as you are trying to en ter the ho us e. The mar ket co nstr ains you r own ersh ip of an air cond itio ner in the mone ybef or eitwill give you one. From an ob jecti ve sa me way—i tdemands pe rs pe ct ive ,wh at di st ing uis he s thes e two cla sses of co nstra in ts is th eir tem - po ral it y—w hen the sa nctio n is im pos ed. Fro m a subjec tiv e pe rspecti ve, how ever, al l the se dif fe re nc es may dis ap - pear .Sub je cti ve ly, you maywell feel anorm con st rain tlong befor eyouvi olat e it. Yo uma yfe el th econ str ai nt agai nst br eaki ng into your neig hbo r’s hous ejus t at the thoug ht of doing so. Aconst rai nt may be objectively ex post , but expe - ex an te . rien ced subjec tivel y The po in t is not li mi ted to norms. Thi nk about a ch il d and fire .Fire is a enc es are fel t as soo n as th e cons traint it bi t of re al-s pace co de : The consequ im pos es is vi olat ed .A ch il d le arns thi s the first time he puts his hand nea r a fl ame. The reafte r, the chil dint ernal ize sthe constraint of fire be fo re puttin ghis han d in one . Bur ned onc e, the chi ld knows not to put his hand so nea r the 8 fl ame a seco nd time. ment of asu bj ec ti ve constr aint We candescr ib ethi schang eas the develop on the child ’s be havi or. We can th en see how the idea extend s to othe r con -

359 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 344 344 ap pen di x stra ints .Thi nk about the st ock ma rket. Fo rthos ewho do not shop ve rymuch , the constra ints of the mark et may indeed be only the o