Criminal Law in Cyberspace Page 8 The problem of cybercrime is a larger one of how the law deals with new technologies Sometimes, the law treats crimes that employ new technologies as different and deserving of special gulation(wire fraud, hijacking of airplanes, grand theft auto)and other times it does not(crimes performed with typewriters and the theft of most objects, which carries the same penalty whether accomplished with James Bond-style panache or by a simple break-in). Lurking underneath this differential regulation is a complex symbiotic relationship between technology and law. Computer crime forces us to confront the role and limitations of criminal law, just as criminal law forces us to reconceptualize the role and limitations of technology After all, computer crime is not simply constrained by law. Before Bob Ellickson and Larry Lessig's pathbreaking work, many scholars assumed that law was the primary mechanism for the regulation of conduct. Ellickson and Lessig helped introduce a second constraint, social norms. They showed how such norms can regulate as effectively, or even more effectively than law could. Lessig's recent work has suggested a third form of regulation, architecture or Code. Rather than relying on social pressure or legal sanction, Lessig explains how physical and electronic barriers can prevent harmful acts. In realspace, installing lights on street comers can prevent muggings and other forms of street crime, and placing concrete barricades near inner-city highway ramps will prevent suburbanites from quickly driving in and out to purchase drugs. In cyberspace, Internet browsers can 9See CAROLYN MARVIN. WHEN OLD TECHNOLOGIES WERE NEW: THINKING ABOUT ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION IN THI LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY 6, 88-97(1988)(suggesting that electricity and telephones modified crime control) 1See Neal Kumar Katyal, Deterrence's Difficulty, 95 MICH L REV. 2385, 2416-20, 2447-55(1997)(distinguishing between three forms of social regulation: legal sanctions, monetary price, and social norms) ROBERT C ELLICKSON, ORDER WITHOUT LAW(1991); Lawrence Lessig, The Regulation of Social Meaning, 62U CHIL REV.943(1995 "LESSIG, supra note 4 Richard Weizel, A Tentative Farewell to the Bridgeport Barriers, N.Y. TIMES, July 5, 1998, at Sec. 14, p 1; Fred Musante, Drug Trade Links Bridgeport and its Suburbs, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 14, 1993, at Sec. 13, p ICriminal Law in Cyberspace Page 8 9 See CAROLYN MARVIN, WHEN OLD TECHNOLOGIES WERE NEW: THINKING ABOUT ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION IN THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY 6, 88-97(1988) (suggesting that electricity and telephones modified crime control). 10See Neal Kumar Katyal, Deterrence’s Difficulty, 95 MICH. L. REV. 2385, 2416-20, 2447-55 (1997) (distinguishing between three forms of social regulation: legal sanctions, monetary price, and social norms). 11ROBERT C. ELLICKSON, ORDER WITHOUT LAW (1991); Lawrence Lessig, The Regulation of Social Meaning, 62 U. CHI. L. REV. 943 (1995). 12LESSIG, supra note 4. 13Richard Weizel, A Tentative Farewell to the Bridgeport Barriers, N.Y. TIMES, July 5, 1998, at Sec. 14, p.1; Fred Musante, Drug Trade Links Bridgeport and its Suburbs, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 14, 1993, at Sec. 13, p.1. The problem of cybercrime is a larger one of how the law deals with new technologies. Sometimes, the law treats crimes that employ new technologies as different and deserving of special regulation (wire fraud, hijacking of airplanes, grand theft auto) and other times it does not (crimes performed with typewriters and the theft of most objects, which carries the same penalty whether accomplished with James Bond-style panache or by a simple break-in). Lurking underneath this differential regulation is a complex symbiotic relationship between technology and law.9 Computer crime forces us to confront the role and limitations of criminal law, just as criminal law forces us to reconceptualize the role and limitations of technology. After all, computer crime is not simply constrained by law.10 Before Bob Ellickson and Larry Lessig’s pathbreaking work, many scholars assumed that law was the primary mechanism for the regulation of conduct. Ellickson and Lessig helped introduce a second constraint, social norms. They showed how such norms can regulate as effectively, or even more effectively, than law could.11 Lessig’s recent work has suggested a third form of regulation, architecture or Code.12 Rather than relying on social pressure or legal sanction, Lessig explains how physical and electronic barriers can prevent harmful acts. In realspace, installing lights on street corners can prevent muggings and other forms of street crime, and placing concrete barricades near inner-city highway ramps will prevent suburbanites from quickly driving in and out to purchase drugs.13 In cyberspace, Internet browsers can