IS IT REAL, OR IS IT MEMOREX?
The courts and legislatures will have to develop a legal system to regulate those virtual actions that result in concrete results in the real world. Alternatively, they will need to create a legal system that will regulate real world actions that carry results in the virtual world. As more and more people spend vast amounts of their time in these virtual worlds, we will need to protect people in the real world and their interests in the virtual world.
a. Real People with Virtual World Interests
A virtual world called “Club Neverdie” recently sold for $635,000. It is located in a cyber-fantasy world called Entropia Universe. While this world only exists on the Internet, it has a very real economy. The currency in Entropia is called PED. You can exchange 100 PED for $10 USD. Club Neverdie is reported to gross approximately $200,000 a year in revenue. The venue itself may not exist in reality, but that doesn’t keep money from changing hands. Another virtual entity, Linden Lab’s Second Life recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. Though internal operating rule changes and other factors – including system instability arising from its rapid growth rate – have caused wide variations in participation, at its peak, over 21 million accounts were registered, with as many as 62,000 concurrent users (2009). For fear of missing out on what could evolve into a huge business opportunity, some of the largest companies in America have established sites in Second Life, including IBM, Cisco, Dell, Reuters, and H&R Block. Individual participants in Second Life are also actively pursuing business opportunities in this virtual world – renting land, providing services, selling clothing and other virtual goods. In February of 2009, over 64,000 people made profits in Second Life (though more than half were in the single digits), with over 200 people exceeding $5,000, and a few with hot properties breaking $1 million for the year.
Given the amount involved, people will be expecting to be protected by law. But which law? Is it copyright law, real estate law, patent law, or criminal law? Or maybe even none of the above. Perhaps we need a new set of laws to govern and protect the economic interests of the people who own cyber real estate in virtual worlds. We will also need the cooperation of all nations. Without it, outlaw nations will give safe harbor to those who would violate international law and steal intellectual property with impunity. “Traditionally, international law consisted of rules and principles governing the relations and dealings of nations with each other, though recently, the scope of international law has been redefined to include relations between states and individuals, and relations between international organizations.” Legal Information Institute – Cornell University Law School.
The Internet has connected the entire world. International law, as it exists today, is still remarkably primitive, because each nation claims sovereignty to make its own laws. It is difficult to pass laws in any given country. International law requires all the affected nations to pass treaties accepting the bounds of international law. As the world becomes more and more closely connected, we will have to work hard to make international law something more than the vague joke it currently is.
On September 2, 1967, a former Major in the British army, Paddy Roy Bates, occupied a British naval defense platform in international waters off the coast of England. He declared the platform to be a sovereign nation, which he christened the Principality of Sealand. It’s had a rather colorful history, including a pirate radio station and, eventually, an Internet hub that would allow casino gambling on the Internet. Several legal fights ensued, until the British courts found they did not have jurisdiction because Sealand was located in international waters. Presently there are dozens of Internet gambling sites that operate out of the Caribbean and Central America – especially Costa Rica – where this has been deemed legal. Since the Internet goes everywhere without regard to sovereign borders, this has allowed a complete circumvention of the legal prohibition of gambling by sovereign states. I once defended a gentleman in Texas who was charged with gambling because he maintained one of these Internet gambling sites in Costa Rica. Long story short, his case was voluntarily dismissed by the District Attorney because they could not show he had personally committed an act in the state of Texas that would give them jurisdiction for his prosecution.
The “seasteading movement” is the 21st-century version of the “Sealand” concept: a floating habitat that can sustain 1,000 inhabitants floating, maybe, 200 miles off the California coast. Their goal is to have brilliant entrepreneurs from all over the world sitting 200 miles offshore. People who couldn’t get visas would still be able to participate in the American tech movement. This is not some wild-eyed pipe dream, as they now have the backing of billionaire Peter Thiel. The stated purpose of this project is to circumvent the immigration laws of the United States without actually violating them. As time goes on, we are likely to see more and more plans put in motion to evade the laws and regulatory processes of countries all over the world – some based on idealism, others on, shall we say, lesser instincts.
I have yet to hear any plans to create a legal system to control these seasteads. Nor do they appear to be putting together any kind of military to defend themselves. This raises the question where their defense will come from should they come under attack by pirates or an aggressive nation bent on conquest. It is unrealistic to sit off the coast of the USA while declaring yourself an independent state, and then call on the US for protection from foreign hostiles. Perhaps they plan on negotiating a treaty with the US for “mutual protection.”
b. Virtual World Actions That Create Real World Results
Because the Internet is open to all and people on it can assume anonymous identities, many fail to understand they can run afoul of real laws there. Identity theft is a crime when it is used to steal from someone. More legally ambiguous is the phenomenon of hackers taking over people’s identities to embarrass them on the Internet – say, by making ridiculous comments on blogs under other people’s names. This is becoming increasingly common in local political races.
In 2007 a mother in Dardenne Prairie, Missouri took on a fake identity as a young man and befriended the 13-year-old girl rival of her daughter. She attached a dashing profile photo, and over time created a relationship with the young girl. The girl had no idea her relationship with “Josh” was completely fake, operated by a parent who lived down the street. The mother who was perpetrating this fraud on a little girl then proceeded to “flame” her. When the mythical Josh broke up with the young girl, he ended with “You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a bad rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you.” The girl responded by hanging herself that evening in her parents' house. She was discovered by her mother.
The police were able to track the e-mails from the teenage girl's computer by subpoenaing the mother's name from the server that hosted her online identity. She was then indicted under a patchwork of cobbled-together criminal accusations of obtaining information by fraud and violating the service agreement for Myspace. The mother was found guilty by a jury in 2008. This conviction was promptly reversed on appeal in 2009.
This is a classic example of what happens when technological advancements move faster than either the law or cultural norms can keep up with. There were no laws in place to protect young children from cyber bullying on Myspace in 2007. That problem has been corrected as a direct result of this rather infamous case. The failure of American jurisprudence to hold someone this sick and vicious accountable for torturing a small child served as a glaring example of how out of touch with an evolving problem on the Internet the legislature and courts were. Predators, under the cloak of free speech, have stalked and tormented people on the Internet. In some, the ability to act anonymously brought out the worst.
The Internet purist wants to protect the user's identity. The police, when investigating a criminal act, not only want – but demand – access to any and all records that will tell them who did what. Most jurisdictions now have statutes to curb the many abuses of the early days of Internet anonymity. What is called for is balance. Everyone understands the Constitution protects “free speech.” That being said, no one has the right, as the saying goes, to scream “fire” in a crowded theater. No one has the right to conspire with others to commit criminal acts. While these things may be “speech,” they are still prohibited. This balancing act occurs in many areas of law. While the owner of a piece of property can build nearly any kind of home he desires, he still has to comply with the building code. In most instances, it can be said the law is applying “common sense.” But where does that leave us with this newfangled thing called the Internet?
We have all watched the “Arab Spring” unfold. Youth in the Middle East availing themselves of these powerful communication tools in order to organize and confront their fascist dictators. When these authoritarian governments were challenged, they attempted to shut down the Internet. It was the ingenuity of Arab youth, coupled with tacit help from Western nations, that kept their lines of communication open. Herein lies the problem. How do we keep the Internet open and robust, yet curtail the abuses of criminals, terrorists, thieves, and sexual predators? Is there a common sense answer to this? Here, in the US, I say the answer is yes.
Our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, suggests that the single greatest threat for individual freedoms comes from government. Given the power of our new technologies, coupled with their exponential growth, it would appear that the private sector is now just as dangerous as any sovereign state. It seems clear that people should be allowed to communicate on the Internet anonymously. When the police are aware of Internet crime, however, as long as they have met the requirements of obtaining a search warrant from a neutral magistrate, they should be allowed to strip that anonymity for investigatory purposes. A properly executed search warrant allows the police to break down your front door and enter your home – this has been the law of the land for some 200 years. Allowing the police, with warrant in hand, to force an Internet company to identify the person behind a particular IP address is certainly no more intrusive.
America Elect was an Internet site that attempted to elect a president based on Internet voting in the US. Anyone who registered on the site could nominate candidates for president. Once a quorum had nominated a presidential and vice presidential candidate, they would then petition to have them on the ballot in all 50 states. This was an attempt to circumvent the political parties that have dominated presidential elections for over 150 years. I am sorry to report they were unable to achieve the quorum they needed, and abandoned their attempts to elect a president. If they’re better organized during the next election cycle, we may see a radical change in how we choose our president. This is truly bottom-up rather than top-down. This would empower individual voters at the expense of large corporate donors. It would be naive to think they could no longer control the game. But it’s certainly a start.
c. Five More for the Road
There’s something else I need to tell you. They want to bring back the Neanderthal. They’ve extracted some bone marrow, preserved for thousands of years just waiting for modern man to decipher the genetic makeup of our distant cousin. If he is capable of speech, and more advanced than the great apes, will we have established a new permanent underclass? Experiments in increasing intelligence are being performed on chimpanzees right now. What happens if we get a chimpanzee with an IQ of 70? Capable of communication by typing on a keyboard, does he now have the same rights as a human? What do we say when he demands we open the cage?
It is only a matter of time before we face this dilemma. We cannot experiment on human beings, so we use the lower primates. These experiments are occurring as you read this page. What has the legal community done to address this impending legal issue? Virtually nothing. While an animal rights activist may be concerned with the ethics of animal experimentation (along with a few Hollywood actors), it gets no traction among lawyers. If you brought this up at a legal conference, you’d be laughed off the stage and never again taken seriously. Not because they’d agree to allow experimentation on animals with a human IQ, but because they’d believe the entire premise to be intellectually suspect and unworthy of serious discussion. Lawyers and legislators are just as blind to the march of exponential technological advancement as the unsuspecting public. They just hide it better. They use derisive laughter and ridicule to hide their lack of curiosity.
Helen Fisher is a research professor in the Department of Anthropology at Rutgers University. “As scientists learn more about the chemistry of trust, empathy… belief, and myriad other complex emotions, motivations and cognitions, even more of us will begin to use this new arsenal of weapons to manipulate ourselves and others.” She is alerting us to the fact that as scientists come to understand more of how we actually make very basic decisions, we can be manipulated to do the bidding of others. This goes far beyond which beer we drink and what laundry detergent we choose at the grocery store. We can be cynically manipulated to vote for politicians owned by powerful interests that are anathema to democratic ideals. We will be moved to argue vehemently for things that are actually against our own best interests. A true democracy is suspect in this environment as the electorate is no longer comprised of “free thinking voters,” but mere cogs in a machine.
Juan Enriquez, founding director of the Harvard Business School’s Life Sciences Project, has a theory that we will change man using stem cells, voluntary DNA adjustments, engineered replacement parts, and so forth. He predicts that “speciation will not be a deliberate, programmed event; instead, it will involve an ever faster accumulation of small useful improvements that will eventually turn Homo sapiens into a new hominid.” What limitations are to be put in place on how much change and at what pace? Do we redefine what it means to be human? Do we allow for a two-tiered legal system where the enhanced are able to move without as many restrictions as we place on humans due to their more robust abilities? None of these issues are being dealt with in the legal arena – and yet they may be upon us in an instant.
Brian Knutson is an associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at Stanford University. He has some stunning things to say. “Scientists can now nearly instantaneously increase or decrease the firing of specific neurons with light probes that activate photosensitive ion channels.” “Targeted and noninvasive stimulation, combined with the map that comprises the neurophenome, will revolutionize our ability to control our minds.” “Of course, everyone wants to win the brain game. But are we ready for the rules to change?” When Dr. Knutson speaks of the change in the rules, he means that emergent technologies will permanently blur the lines between reality and fantasy.
We outlawed drugs to prevent people from dreaming their lives away and becoming unproductive while destroying their health. Now they can become unproductive and dream their lives away without the harmful substances that have been the rationale for outlawing narcotics. How do we draw a line on the conscious decision to avoid reality altogether? We have seen that people are now making money in the virtual world. Are we to allow a society to evolve whose entire world exists on a silicone substratum?
Marcel Kinsbourne is a neurologist and cognitive neurologist at the New School for Social Research. In speaking about electrodes placed inside the human brain, he said, “We take ourselves to be durable minds and stable bodies." But this reassuring conception of the self will turn out to be yet another of our all-too-human egocentric delusions. Kinsbourne continues, “Do we, strictly speaking, own stable identities? When it sinks in that the continuity of our experience of the world and of ourselves is at the whim of an electrical current, then our fantasies of permanence will have yielded to the reality of our fragile and ephemeral identities.”
Nothing I have ever read has scared me more than this quite basic observation. Are we nothing more than a low-voltage current? Our thoughts, our memories, our dreams, our entire lives nothing more than a mild electric pulse. It’s miraculous to think the human brain runs on the same current as my iPod. Suddenly I see that the new society in the virtual world would in many respects be no different from the world I presently believe to be “real.” My dishwasher is running on 110 volts, along with my vacuum cleaner. When all is said and done, are we nothing more than dressed-up meat with a battery slapped on? Or is it possible that, given the vast nothingness of space, a low voltage current is actually something to be quite proud of? So far we have focused on the legal issues that exponential technical growth will create for us in the near future. Now it is time to back up and take a broader view of our economic systems in general. The exponential growth of technology, whether we describe it in terms of The Singularity or Moore’s Law, has the capacity to disrupt more than a specific legal process or individual business model. It has the power to disrupt our entire economic system. Our capitalist system requires people to trade labor for wages that they then use to buy goods, creating the demand that is filled by industries that, in turn, hire people. A circle, or a three legged stool, if you will. We will now take a look at how this system may fare, given what we know is coming.