In Part 4: Responses, Lessig asks whether we are capable of making the choices and decides that we are not.
We have to make choices but we are disabled to do it. Courts are subject to political constraints. In the case of latent ambiguities we have examined, they will be reluctant. Unable to choose. In the previous cases, courts thought they were discovering the ``Internet''. Unfortunately, there is no ``Nature'' in Internet. We build it. When they understand that they are choosing what Internet ``should'' be, they will avoid choosing. Likewise, we have lost faith in the democratic government. We do not think that the ordinary government might work. Even the US government showed that it thought so when it passed domain name system policy decisions to an independent organization. And when these decisions are made outside the democratic process, who shall control it? When the government goes away, others take its place. The last ill comes from the untouchable nature of code. We should discuss who writes codes, how we can have a part in defining the code and how we might go about changing it. We should decide whether the code, that is law, should be reviewed by public.
Lessig has told that we are trapped in indecision in front of major political choices to make. Now he gives us a plan to evade it. Professor advises that judges, especially lower court judges can be stronger. When there is a simple translation, judges should steadfastly preserve liberty and when there is a latent ambiguity they should acknowledge the open questions so that they can be addressed. For understanding the regulation of code, we should seek to increase the open-ness in code. We should adapt free software and increase the modularity of the code so that what it does is evident and users have enough control over functionality. Finally, we can build a sense of deliberation and understanding into our democracy utilizing the Internet. By means of virtual communities people can collectively argue and think about the political choices to make, like juries in US courts. Then people may give the very decisions that we need.
Simple minded libertarianism can be a threat to these decisions. Y2K bug has been seen as a disaster, but it was in fact it was man made. It was simply that code writers could not be held responsible. With nobody thinking about these choices, leaving the market to decide, our liberties will disappear one by one and we shall deem them as thunder striking upon us. It is high time that we act as citizens of cyberspace.