We examine several technology-policy debates in which technical and legal perspectives are so at odds that they approach incommensurability. Investigating the use of digital rights management systems in the online-copyright debate and the dispute over the impact of end-to-end encryption on lawful surveillance, we offer an analysis of the source of this incommensurability. In these two policy debates, both sides invoke the rule of law to support their position, but in each case they draw selectively from the constituent parts of the rule of law, resulting in seemingly irreconcilable differences. We show that the rule of law is actually composed of rules (susceptible to deterministic evaluation against a set of facts) and principles (expressing important values but not susceptible to purely formal evaluation). The clash between rules and principles exacerbates the difference in perspective between system designers, who favor formal rules, and policy makers, who are more comfortable with situational application of principles. Following our observation that the rules-principles gap makes for incommensurate debate between legal and technical actors, we identify steps that each discipline can take to move toward more coherent policy for the networked, digital environment.
展开▼
