Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, the situation is complete opposite. Code is formal, deterministically executable rules. That's a boon for the rule of law, as the vast majority of "crimes" can be prevented a priori , rather than chased down post facto. Even C++ is miles ahead of the "legalese" that forms traditional laws. Being executable by the common person, it avoids one glaring violation of equal protection that modern legalese limps a…
> The real problem driving this article is the legacy ambient authorities wanting to expand their role, insisting that the informal intentions behind the design of (and decision to run) the code should carry more weight than the code itself! Just because I accidentally left my door unlocked today doesn't mean that entering my house, and taking all my stuff isn't burglary. You don't have to be a telepath to know that…
I agree wholeheartedly, in the local scale person-to-person sense.
But your argument is knocking down a straw man, by coming at it from the other direction. I'm not advocating for being an asshole via finding loopholes, but against the ridiculousness of creating a second set of half-formal rules to repair deficiencies in the fully formal ones.
> Under the 'code is law' doctrine, just because you could do something, you can do something. This is incompatible with anything resembling civilized society.
Yet this is exactly how the legal system does work. If an action is "wrong" but not illegal you can't actually be sanctioned for it. See: pretty much any large company in the news over some kind of outrage that will ultimately go unpunished.