Chapter 4 Answer guidance to end of chapter questions

1. If code is law who are the regulators?

To answer this question I would expect the student to discuss in order:

1. To identify that the question is focussed on the work of Lawrence Lessig and in particular his four modalities thesis from his book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.
2. Identify Lessig’s four modalities – Law, Norms, Architecture and Markets and to explain how they function – ie the act as constraints on actions.
3. To explain what Lessig means when he says that in the Cyberspace environment the digital code of Cyberspace (the architecture) can act as a proxy or substitute for law and how this is achieved. Students should also introduce Joel Reidenberg to this discussion.
4. To demonstrate how law can be used to mandate code changes through examples such as the WIPO Copyright Treaty, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act or the Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society Directive.
5. To discuss who the designers of law and code are. In Lessig’s parlance these are known as East Coast and West Coast codemakers. This discussion should identify the key differences between traditional democratically elected lawmakers and non-elected codemakers.

2. Is network communitarianism a better regulatory model than cyberpaternalism? Explain why or why not?

To answer this question I would expect the student to discuss in order:

1. Explain why network communitarianism developed. It was from a belief that Lessig and other cyberpaternalists failed to account for the complexities of modern network communications. 
2. Identify key proponents of this thesis in particular Murray. Examine Murray’s active dot matrix.
3. Identify the roots of Murray’s active dot matrix in Actor-Network-Theory and Social Systems Theory. Identify key proponents of each such as Bruno Latour, Nicklaus Luhmann and Gunther Teubner.
4. Explain how Murray’s active dot matrix leads to a new model of regulation based on discourse and feedback and the extended role of the not so passive dots.
5. Explain who gatekeepers are and why they are particularly important for network communitarianism.

3. Can algorithms ever successfully substitute for human regulators? Can they ever account for human errors and biases? Should they?

To answer this question I would expect the student to discuss in order:

1. Firstly to examine the privacy challenges of profiling as outlined by Rubenstein and the question of accountability of algorithms as discussed by Goodman.
2. This should lead to a discussion of the risks of algorithmic regulation and here Yeung is useful.
3. Black box issues and transparency may be discussed in particular Pasquale.
4. Students are expected, as the question asks, to weigh the risks of bias, error and abuse of privacy against the legitimate aim of algorithmic profiling, especially those used in the public sphere, such as Facebook’s proposed use of algorithmic systems, to complete their answer.