Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Space law is inadequate for the boom in human activity there

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: Space law is inadequate for the boom in human activity there

#21

Post by moftz »

rhcom2 wrote: post #12
whatshisface wrote: post #5

Law doesn't come from (or shouldn't come from) unqualified legislators guessing about what the future will be like and what problems will be there. Law comes from when somebody has a grievance against somebody else, and society steps in to resolve it. Could you imagine how bad it would be if Congress got excited about the potential for internet crime in 1985, tried to guess the form of the problems that would arise,…

> Could you imagine how bad it would be if Congress got excited about the potential for internet crime in 1985, tried to guess the form of the problems that would arise, and then wrote laws banning and permitting things that they thought would lead to trouble? Didn't they try to do that with 1984's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

Breaking into computer systems was already something that was happening then. Maybe they went a little overboard with the wording but it's not like Congress invented hacking.

Re: Space law is inadequate for the boom in human activity there

#23

Post by T-A »

whatshisface wrote: post #5

Law doesn't come from (or shouldn't come from) unqualified legislators guessing about what the future will be like and what problems will be there. Law comes from when somebody has a grievance against somebody else, and society steps in to resolve it. Could you imagine how bad it would be if Congress got excited about the potential for internet crime in 1985, tried to guess the form of the problems that would arise,…

> The best way to deal with space would probably be to let judges stretch earth law

Step 0: Which ones? US judges? Chinese judges? Maybe Saudi ones?

Re: Space law is inadequate for the boom in human activity there

#24

Post by DuskStar »

moftz wrote: post #21
rhcom2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you imagine how bad it would be if Congress got excited about the potential for internet crime in 1985, tried to guess the form of the problems that would arise, and then wrote laws banning and permitting things that they thought would lead to trouble? Didn't they try to do that with 1984's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

Breaking into computer systems was already something that was happening then. Maybe they went a little overboard with the wording but it's not like Congress invented hacking.

Instead, they outlawed visiting google.com (by a strict reading of "unauthorized access")

Re: Space law is inadequate for the boom in human activity there

#25

Post by simonh »

kuschku wrote: post #15
staticautomatic wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. has both statutory and common law. They're not mutually exclusive.

True, but in civil law systems, with minor exceptions, only statutory law counts. Why should the US system dominate in space? Another question is: why should the US decide what happens in space? That’s quite an imperialistic view on the world.

From a practical point of view, it's likely that much space law will be decided by the countries that send stuff into space. That seems reasonable since they have a clear vested interest in protecting their citizens, the possessions of their citizens and regulating the activities of their citizens.

That's not really imperialism, just a matter of responsibility. Clearly the US and any other space going nation should be held responsible for the activities of it's citizens and enterprises in space as elsewhere, and has responsibilities towards them as well.

Where that line of reasoning reaches the end of it's tether is when we come to consider property rights over pre-existing assets and territory in space.

Re: Space law is inadequate for the boom in human activity there

#26

Post by LarsUlrich »

I think the most important thing about space law is making sure the next Napster thrives and blooms across space, instead of watching as the next Lars Ulrich shows up like an obnoxious insect, just to vomit upon and contaminate all the amazing food with fecal laced saliva and digestive juices, ruining human progress before it even leaves the womb.

Lars Ulrich's attitude is the fetal alcohol syndrome of a space faring civilization. Don't be Lars Ulrich.

Re: Space law is inadequate for the boom in human activity there

#27

Post by simonh »

tempsolution wrote: post #18

Yeah as if Earth doesn't have any other problems right now than putting million of super-rich people into space lol. What a stupid waste of time and resources. Maybe there should be some laws indeed for Earth orbit, for instance, banning densely populated, orbiting space craft, for starters. Or fixing or problems on Earth before spending hundreds of billions on useless space projects. We might not be around long enou…

Ban stuff because.... well, because bah humbug. Humanity can apparently only do one thing at a time. Also you get to decide what people should or shouldn't be allowed to do, and when. Nice.

Re: Space law is inadequate for the boom in human activity there

#28

Post by bpchaps »

moftz wrote: post #21
rhcom2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you imagine how bad it would be if Congress got excited about the potential for internet crime in 1985, tried to guess the form of the problems that would arise, and then wrote laws banning and permitting things that they thought would lead to trouble? Didn't they try to do that with 1984's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

Breaking into computer systems was already something that was happening then. Maybe they went a little overboard with the wording but it's not like Congress invented hacking.

A little overbroad is somewhat of an understatement..

Re: Space law is inadequate for the boom in human activity there

#29

Post by wyldfire »

moftz wrote: post #21
rhcom2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you imagine how bad it would be if Congress got excited about the potential for internet crime in 1985, tried to guess the form of the problems that would arise, and then wrote laws banning and permitting things that they thought would lead to trouble? Didn't they try to do that with 1984's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

Breaking into computer systems was already something that was happening then. Maybe they went a little overboard with the wording but it's not like Congress invented hacking.

> Maybe they went a little overboard with the wording but it's not like Congress invented hacking.

Believe it or not but CFAA would likely have not come about if not for the classic film "WarGames" [1].

[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=7rBLCZuEOswC&pg=PA38&lpg=P...

Re: Space law is inadequate for the boom in human activity there

#30

Post by dd36 »

whatshisface wrote: post #5

Law doesn't come from (or shouldn't come from) unqualified legislators guessing about what the future will be like and what problems will be there. Law comes from when somebody has a grievance against somebody else, and society steps in to resolve it. Could you imagine how bad it would be if Congress got excited about the potential for internet crime in 1985, tried to guess the form of the problems that would arise,…

Is it much different than the laws of the sea? Sometimes laws spur innovation. If the law is: first one to establish a base owns it then there will be a lot of effort put into establishing a base.
Post reply on HN