It’s been years that I’ve been hearing complaints that a lot of areas aren’t served well by the law. New laws being either too rigid, not applicable to the existing evolution or simply missing.
This didn’t seem to be too disturbing. Whenever there is law, there is also insecurity or the search for loopholes. For some, it is insecurity as they don’t have clear guidelines of what’s possible and what isn’t possible. For others, it is the search for loopholes in the quest to expand their possibilities.
Thus the fact that law always is behind and reacting to the current situation seemed normal. One of the side effects being that organizations also could benefit from extra space to develop new services and tools.
Things are different today.
If the lawmaking process continues to use the same approach it will soon have areas in which they can’t even create a useful law to react to the situation. With machine learning and AI on the progress, we’ve seen tools evolve towards unpredictable changes and results. When an entity learns and adapts its decision process to the learning, we can’t say how it will act based on the learning. Would a law validate the service as such it would not be clear after a while if the evolved product would still be valid according to the law.
The thinking that got us where we are can’t carry us on.
There is a need for a new framework for the law. One that allows adapting to the evolving product.
It could, for example, provide for a monitoring process determining the range within which the product needs to operate.