法律將是科技顛覆的下一個(gè)目標(biāo)

When the investor Marc Andreessen wrote in 2011 that “software is eating the world,” his point was a contentious one. He argued that the boundary between technology companies and the rest of industry was becoming blurred, and that the “information economy” would supplant the physical economy in ways that were not entirely obvious.

2011年，投資者馬克•安德烈森(Marc Andreessen)寫道，“軟件正在吞噬這個(gè)世界”，這種觀點(diǎn)在當(dāng)時(shí)備受爭(zhēng)議。他認(rèn)為，科技公司與其他行業(yè)之間的界限正變得模糊，“信息經(jīng)濟(jì)”將以不完全明顯的方式取代實(shí)體經(jīng)濟(jì)。

Six years later, software’s dominance is a fact of life. What it has yet to eat, however, is the law. If almost every sector of society has been exposed to the headwinds of the digital revolution, governments and the legal profession have not. But that is about to change.

6年后，軟件的統(tǒng)治地位成為現(xiàn)實(shí)。然而，它尚未吞噬的是法律。如果說(shuō)幾乎所有社會(huì)領(lǐng)域都受到數(shù)字革命的不利影響，政府和律師行業(yè)沒有。但這種情況即將發(fā)生變化。

The rise of complex software systems has led to new legal challenges. Take, for example, the artificial intelligence systems used in self-driving cars. Last year, the US Department of Transportation wrote to Google stating that the government would “interpret ‘driver’ in the context of Google’s described motor-vehicle design” as referring to the car’s artificial intelligence.

復(fù)雜軟件系統(tǒng)的崛起帶來(lái)了新的法律挑戰(zhàn)。就拿自動(dòng)駕駛汽車中使用的人工智能系統(tǒng)來(lái)說(shuō)，去年，美國(guó)運(yùn)輸部(US Department of Transportation)致信谷歌(Google)，聲稱“就谷歌描述的機(jī)動(dòng)車設(shè)計(jì)而言”，政府將“把司機(jī)解讀為”指車上的人工智能。

So what does this mean for the future of law? It means that regulations traditionally meant to govern the way that humans interact are adapting to a world that has been eaten by software, as Mr Andreessen predicted. And this is about much more than self-driving cars. Complex algorithms are used in mortgage and credit decisions, in the criminal justice and immigration systems and in the realm of national security, to name just a few areas.

那么這對(duì)于法律的未來(lái)有著什么意義呢?這意味著傳統(tǒng)上旨在管理人類互動(dòng)方式的監(jiān)管規(guī)定，正在應(yīng)這個(gè)被軟件吞噬的世界而改變，正如安德森所預(yù)測(cè)的那樣。這遠(yuǎn)不僅僅關(guān)乎自動(dòng)駕駛汽車。復(fù)雜算法用于抵押貸款和信貸決策，刑事司法和移民體系以及國(guó)家安全等諸多領(lǐng)域。

The outcome of this shift is unlikely to be more lawyers writing more memos. Rather, new laws will start to become more like software — embedded within applications as computer code. As technology evolves, interpreting the law itself will become more like programming software.

這種轉(zhuǎn)變的結(jié)果不太可能會(huì)讓更多律師撰寫更多備忘錄。新的法律將開始變得更像軟件那樣，像計(jì)算機(jī)代碼那樣嵌入應(yīng)用中。隨著技術(shù)的發(fā)展，解讀法律本身將變得更像是軟件編程。

But there is more to this shift than technology alone. The fact is that law is both deeply opaque and unevenly accessible.

但除了技術(shù)，這種變化還有更多的意義。事實(shí)是，法律嚴(yán)重模糊，其使用也不平均。

The legal advice required to understand both what our governments are doing, and what our rights are, is only accessible to a select few. Studies suggest, for example, that an estimated 80 per cent of the legal needs of the poor in the US go unmet. To the average citizen, the inner workings of government have become more impenetrable over time.

要理解我們的政府正在做什么以及我們的權(quán)利是什么所需要的法律建議，只有少數(shù)人才能獲取。例如，研究顯示，在美國(guó)，據(jù)估計(jì)窮人的法律需求有80%沒有得到滿足。對(duì)于普通公民而言，隨著時(shí)間的流逝，政府的內(nèi)部運(yùn)作也變得更加難以理解。

Granted, laws have been murky to average citizens for as long as governments have been around. But the level of disenchantment with institutions and the experts who run them is placing new pressures on governments to change their ways. The relationship between citizens and professionals — from lawyers to bureaucrats to climatologists — has become tinged with scepticism and suspicion. This mistrust is driven by the sense that society is stacked against those at the bottom — that knowledge is power, but that power costs money only a few can afford.

不錯(cuò)，自政府存在以來(lái)，法律對(duì)于普通公民而言就一直是難以理解的。但對(duì)體制以及管理體制的專家的失望正給政府施加新的壓力，迫使政府轉(zhuǎn)變方式。公民與專業(yè)人士(從律師到官員到氣候?qū)W家)之間的關(guān)系籠罩在懷疑中。這種不信任受到下列看法的推動(dòng)：社會(huì)建立在壓迫底層民眾的基礎(chǔ)之上——知識(shí)是力量，但這力量要花錢，只有少數(shù)人才負(fù)擔(dān)得起。

The hazards of this disillusionment are already driving governments to embrace a software-based approach to interpreting the law. In 2013, for example, the Obama administration recognised the importance of these dynamics, signing an executive order specifically designed to make federal laws machine-readable to ease the burden on accessing the law.

這種失望可能出現(xiàn)，已在推動(dòng)政府接受用基于軟件的方法來(lái)解讀法律。例如，2013年，奧巴馬政府意識(shí)到了這些因素的重要性，簽署了一項(xiàng)行政命令，專門旨在讓聯(lián)邦法律變?yōu)闄C(jī)器可讀，以降低使用法律的難度。

While this effort has yet to bear much fruit, the underlying need has only become more pressing.

這種努力尚未結(jié)出累累碩果，但根本的需求變得更為緊迫。

Technological change and the need for increasing accessibility are going to create new opportunities in the field of law. A software-driven approach will enable new technologies to remain compliant with the law and enable easier access to legal information. Soon, understanding our basic legal rights will be as easy engaging in a conversation with Siri, Apple’s digital assistant.

技術(shù)變革與讓更多人能夠使用法律的要求，正在法律界創(chuàng)造新的機(jī)會(huì)。由軟件驅(qū)動(dòng)的方法將讓新技術(shù)得以遵守法律，并能夠讓人們更容易獲取法律信息。很快，理解我們的基本法律權(quán)利將像我們與蘋果的數(shù)字助理Siri聊天一樣容易。

Are there dangers to a software-based approach to law? Yes. By making law easier to access, we will also be making legal practice itself more technical, and more inaccessible in other ways. And there is always the threat to cyber security as software takes on more important roles. But such is the inexorable advance of the digital revolution, which has left its mark on nearly every area of society. Our governments are next.

通過基于軟件的途徑運(yùn)用法律是否存在危險(xiǎn)?是的。通過讓法律變得更容易使用，我們還將讓法律工作變得更具技術(shù)性，同時(shí)在其他方面變得更不易觸及。隨著軟件承擔(dān)更重要的角色，網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全總是會(huì)面臨威脅。但數(shù)字革命不可阻擋的發(fā)展就是這樣，這場(chǎng)革命在幾乎所有社會(huì)領(lǐng)域都留下了印記。我們的政府是下一個(gè)。