Mgalese 2nd Thought Paper
Technological Applications of Rules and Social Application of Standards
âWe cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat,â[1] at least through rules. Solutions at a technical level, to distinguish positive behavior from negative behavior, must seemingly be enforced through rulesâbroadly coded and unspecific mandates built into relatively dumb technology. When Lessig feared that code would be law for users, part of that fear must be that these broad rules will be coded into systems in ways that do not provide nuanced, or societally shared, determinations of whether individual actions are positive or negative. As Shirky points out, the ills of the social layer ultimately implicate the technical layers that first enabled the beneficial aspect of the social layer.[2] At the social layer, we always have a choice in types of regulationâat the very least, we could choose whether we wish to regulate social behavior through rules or standards. But once that social layer implicates the technical layer, we sometimes feel constrained to regulate the social layer through the types of rules that can be automatically enforced through the technical layer.[3] This is an error, when rules can be the first step that channels decisions into standard-application processes.
Wikipedia fuses rules and standards to satisfy the community. Content based restrictions, such as NPOV, are implemented by community standard application. But rules are applied too, when specific content or viewpoints aren't at stake through their direct application.[4] These rules have a special natureâthey channel into standard application. Pages are not protected forever, and even new users can edit a protected page if they merely wait a short period. The rules, page protection, make the application of standards, page editing, feasible in the face of rising vandalism.
Apple's iPhone SDK plans also fuse rules with standards. Locking the iPhone down to signed code represents a rule that only signed code can be run. This rule enables the application of a standard for what code should, or should not be allowed. Without the rule, there would be little chance of a socially applied standardâonly each individual could make that decision. Recent history shows that individual users are not well suited to apply a âgood codeâ standard.[5] The concern with iPhones lies in the amount of control that Apple will have in applying the standards granted by the rule, rather than in the merits of the rule itself.
So long as human awareness is required to apply standards, only rules can be pushed down onto the technical layer. Eventually, technical layers may become capable of standards application. But so long as human attention is limited, technical rules should be used to channel and focus contentious issues into standard application for a rather than either implementing technoanarchy or closed, standard denying, rules. --Mgalese 12:54, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
- ↑ http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html
- ↑ http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
- ↑ Here, the DMCA's protection of access controls represents the enactment of rule that is closed, without effective channels for exception or review on an individual level.
- ↑ As an example, blocking changes to a page to new users implements a hard rule at the technical layer.
- ↑ As evidence of this, we can look to the amount of spyware installedâboth intentionally and accidentally.
Discussion
What about the "chilling effect" that can come from rules placing the standard based review in hands away from end users? Does the fact that Apple has reserved the right to restrict anything else (beyond its listed restrictions) it deems bad on the iPhone prevent or discourage coders from making disruptive applications that could be socially beneficial? Or I am just saying it's not as good as we want, while you say it's better than we fear? Steven Gebelin 13:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)