3 ms·

It isn't just the federal government. State governments are just as bad. http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaughterhouse/ http://www.then

It isn't just the federal government. State governments are just as bad. http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaughterhouse/ http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaug... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/05/iowa-judge-rules-states-laws-banning-flag-burning-are-unconstitutional/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/05/iowa-judge-rules-... And that is just the 1st amendment recently.

alanwatts 11y ago
The Constitution is, after all, just a piece of paper, so it can easily be ignored and misinterpreted without the system breaking and throwing an "error message". Paper has no power to enforce the rules written on it. Digital systems, however, are programmed deterministically and do not have such problems: >"The only way to ensure the human rights of citizens around the world are being respected in the digital realm is to enforce them through systems and standards rather than policies and procedures." https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn/couqgc5 https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_...
- danharaj 11y ago
  What exactly is the difference between systems and standards and policies and procedures? Algorithmic systems can be internally deterministic and consistent, but always always the problem is ascribing significance to symbols. Rights and laws try to solve fundamentally ill-posed problems. Rights and laws inevitably conflict with each other and the baroque complexity of law is the result of top-down systems attempting to resolve such inconsistencies as they arise. I for one do not welcome our algorithmic overlords. It sounds like the revenge of Han Feizi and the Legalists, who wanted to bind all human behavior to a systematic, all-pervading set of rules and thus bring human subjects into perfect harmony with the state. I do not see why systems and standards are better than policies and procedures.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    >What exactly is the difference between systems and standards and policies and procedures? Policies and procedures are paper based sets of instructions. I.e. the 4th amendment. Systems and standards are electrically programmed. I.e. encryption. It is the difference between saying "this should not be done" and actually designing a system in which it cannot be done. >"The mere existence of the "police state" anywhere is the sure sign of old arrangements being propped up by newer forms that have already rendered the older forms irrelevant." -Marshall McLuhan, Take Today: The Executive as Dropout
malnourish 11y ago
If I remember correctly, the Bill of Rights only applies to the states when a case has been challenged and the amendment applied to the states via selective incorporation.
- jayess 11y ago
  True, but with the addition of the second amendment through DC v Heller, all of the bill of rights now applies to the states (expect, maybe, for the third amendment).
  - bradleyjg 11y ago
    Parts of each of the first eight amendments, leaving aside the third, have been incorporated against that states. But not the entirety of all of them. For example the Grand Jury clause off the Fifth Amendment and the Excessive Fines clause of the Eight Amendment have not been incorporated. The Ninth Amendment has sometimes been used as a partial basis of modern sexual privacy law (see penumbras and emanations) and inasmuch as those doctrines also apply to the state I guess you could say that the Ninth has kind-of, sort-of been (partially?) incorporated. It wouldn't make any sense to try to incorporate the Tenth Amendment.

alanwatts 11y ago

The Constitution is, after all, just a piece of paper, so it can easily be ignored and misinterpreted without the system breaking and throwing an "error message". Paper has no power to enforce the rules written on it. Digital systems, however, are programmed deterministically and do not have such problems: >"The only way to ensure the human rights of citizens around the world are being respected in the digital realm is to enforce them through systems and standards rather than policies and procedures." https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn/couqgc5 https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_...

danharaj 11y ago
What exactly is the difference between systems and standards and policies and procedures? Algorithmic systems can be internally deterministic and consistent, but always always the problem is ascribing significance to symbols. Rights and laws try to solve fundamentally ill-posed problems. Rights and laws inevitably conflict with each other and the baroque complexity of law is the result of top-down systems attempting to resolve such inconsistencies as they arise. I for one do not welcome our algorithmic overlords. It sounds like the revenge of Han Feizi and the Legalists, who wanted to bind all human behavior to a systematic, all-pervading set of rules and thus bring human subjects into perfect harmony with the state. I do not see why systems and standards are better than policies and procedures.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  >What exactly is the difference between systems and standards and policies and procedures? Policies and procedures are paper based sets of instructions. I.e. the 4th amendment. Systems and standards are electrically programmed. I.e. encryption. It is the difference between saying "this should not be done" and actually designing a system in which it cannot be done. >"The mere existence of the "police state" anywhere is the sure sign of old arrangements being propped up by newer forms that have already rendered the older forms irrelevant." -Marshall McLuhan, Take Today: The Executive as Dropout

malnourish 11y ago

If I remember correctly, the Bill of Rights only applies to the states when a case has been challenged and the amendment applied to the states via selective incorporation.

jayess 11y ago
True, but with the addition of the second amendment through DC v Heller, all of the bill of rights now applies to the states (expect, maybe, for the third amendment).
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  Parts of each of the first eight amendments, leaving aside the third, have been incorporated against that states. But not the entirety of all of them. For example the Grand Jury clause off the Fifth Amendment and the Excessive Fines clause of the Eight Amendment have not been incorporated. The Ninth Amendment has sometimes been used as a partial basis of modern sexual privacy law (see penumbras and emanations) and inasmuch as those doctrines also apply to the state I guess you could say that the Ninth has kind-of, sort-of been (partially?) incorporated. It wouldn't make any sense to try to incorporate the Tenth Amendment.