And you're absolutely right, and you notice it's the word that we use in the law. But of course, what I mean by notice is giving people enough information to make an informed decision, right? You can't have consent in a meaningful way. You can't have the conform to the consent without notice about the risks involved in the decision you're trying to make. One thought I've had is that with, this is something that in the law sometimes happens when you're dealing with a relatively fast moving, tricky, inchoate question or set of problems. It sometimes makes sense to shift away from hard and fast rules, to more flexible standards. And so one thought is that in this space what we really care about is identifying the core underlying principles, and then we can instantiate them in rules that say, you have to try to get to informed consent. And what that means in one context, might be very different than in another context, right? But the underlying principle is the same of informed consent. So my inclination is to say, we could fall back on broader standards. And then, as the technology develops, because we can't write a rule now that's going to a very hard and fast, black and white, you gotta do this, check the box rule. That's going to cover the use case in ten years because we just have no idea what that use case is going to be. But we can clearly identify the standards now that say you, Google, if you're going to develop medical devices, these are the principles that have to guide that use. And these are the values by which you will be judged when the case occurs, the tort case or the criminal case, whatever it is, that's going to happen in ten years. I mean, the rules standards thing, which is like a classic law school distinction, right. In some countries, we say at all intersections you must stop at the stop sign before proceeding. And in some countries, the rule is simple, sorry, the law is you must proceed through intersections safely, right? That's a standard. So the cop in the US, implementing the rule, can very easily see whether you stopped at the stop sign or not, right? There's no discretion given to the cop. It's all about did you stop or did you not stop? Of course, because of enforcement, the way it ends up working because it's generally not enforced, there's a lot of discretion. because they can just decide, since no one's actually stopping, when to enforce it. But that's a very different regime from one in which we say, what matters is that you drive safely, right? So in the US, if you're driving down the freeway and you're going above the speed limit, there's no question, you violated the law. Where as in Germany, if you're driving on the autobahn, there is a question about whether you drove safely, right? The standard is drive safely. And that requires lots of evidence but it's a much more flexible standard. And it could accommodate different kinds of behavior depending on ones capabilities, the technology involved. So a very skilled driver in a very well-built car might be able to drive safely at a higher speed than a poorly skilled or inebriated driver in a very cheaply made car, right? So you have the benefit in that flexibility standard, in that flexible standard, you have the benefit of applying the rule differently depending on the unique scenario you're dealing with.
