6 ms·

Money quote in the last paragraph: "When we get into things like this," [Judge William Downing] said, "anonymizing stuff, that’s well over my head technologica

• dsmithatx 11y ago
  Let's hope that was his quick answer to reporters. I'd hate to think that when a Judge has a hard time learning something he decides, well I don't understand this so, let's just violate someone's 4th amendment rights and go harrass them rather than learning how I should apply the law (aka do my job).
• mistermann 11y ago
  The tech community would undoubtedly volunteer resources in the interests of a better world, the problem is it seems the government has very little interest in the justice system actually dispensing justice, it seems to increasingly be one of many tools used to control the populace. It's not only "a" tool, it is almost a magical "wild card" where you can put any opponent away forever if you so choose, and it is completely indefensible.
  • ethbro 11y ago
    Would it / they / we? From what I've seen, the tech community (on the whole, averaged) isn't great at synthesizing and communicating information to non-technical people.
    • geggam 11y ago
      the same non technical people whose eyes glaze over and change the subject first chance they get ?
      • deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      • mulmen 11y ago
        The judge didn't get a chance to ask in this case.
      • 15charlimit 11y ago
        The blade cuts in both directions. Yes it is a disservice to themselves and others that non-technical people zone out as soon as someone starts talking about technical issues. But it is also a disservice to themselves and others when technical people don't even try to simplify (in a non-patronizing way) high level concepts for consumption by the general public. Both sides aren't actually "trying". Both sides should be. Someone has to take the first step toward a halfway point, and history shows it ain't gonna be "joe/jane public".
        • CaptSpify 11y ago
          We need a Nye/Tyson/Sagan/Feynman for computers.
      • Joof 11y ago
        "Oh, I don't understand computers." To be fair, I rarely understand what they do even if it's rather mundane. I do like to hear passionate people talk and see them work, but I admit that my curiosity is higher than most.
• Balgair 11y ago
  It likely will never 'keep up' and really, the law never has been 'up to date' with technology. American law allows most things until a lawyer is needed and then makes a decision to forbid or not (this is law, so there are many exceptions). We are a common law system (except Louisiana), not a code law or theocratic law system [0]. As such, the law will inherently lag. Remember, we are dealing with humans here, nothing can be perfect nor can we anticipate the ingenuity of idiots. [0] http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/law/3-kinds-of-legal-systems-that-exist-in-different-countries-across-the-world/5918/ http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/law/3-kinds-of-legal-syste...
• vidarh 11y ago
  He is willing to admit that it goes over his head, which presumably also means that he'd be willing to read up on it or seek advice if necessary. The biggest problem isn't judges who doesn't know everything - they have to deal with cases covering every possible discipline and can't possibly know everything about everything put before them. The problem is when they believe they do, or don't care, or don't want to admit it and decides to just trust law enforcement blindly instead. I'd like to think that a judge that readily admits what he doesn't know will make sure to learn or seek suitable advice when necessary.
  • ownagefool 11y ago
    There's other problems, such as not having enough knowledge or context to know if what the paid for expert is telling is resonable.
  • 300bps 11y ago
    Exactly. It's the job of the police to present exculpatory evidence in their possession and it is the job of the judge to understand it.
    • gohrt 11y ago
      ... which is absurd and why the US Constitution provides for a better system, which sadly does not extend to protection for invasions short of prosecution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistance_of_Counsel_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistance_of_Counsel_Clause
  • bargl 11y ago
    Or when a judge is given a request with missing information and he can't ask an expert, do research, or say, "Wait, what is a Tor Exit Node and why did you mention it in your report?" The point of this article is given the fact that they left that off then he can't reasonably ask for more information.
    • 11y ago
• Zigurd 11y ago
  The judge is allowed not to be an expert. The police are not allowed to lie by omission when getting a warrant.
  • sickbeard 11y ago
    A lie is a false statement, hence you cannot "lie by omission". This is an absurd assertion.
    • tremon 11y ago
      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission
    • gingerrr 11y ago
      A statement made that leaves out pertinent information in order to suggest a different conclusion than would be reached with the information is an implicitly false statement. Logic is fun, kids.
• Rhapso 11y ago
  This will be the question that defines the era. The singularity has come in the sense that technological progress has been accelerating and the rate of legal adaptation to it is constant. The rate of technological change outpaced legal change 20-30 years ago and now the difference is really starting to hurt. This problem will only get worse. Can we build new laws that handle the ever growing expanse between the capacity of technology and the legal system and cultural expectations?
  • rayiner 11y ago
    The purpose of the legal system is to enforce cultural expectations. There is no reason to let technology run ahead of cultural expectations. Maybe one day running Tor will be routine and not a cause for suspicion. Until then, there is nothing wrong with investigating the origin of illegal activity, with appropriate measures, and requiring Tor to be raised and proven as an affirmative defense.
• derefr 11y ago
  The judge wouldn't have known what a Tor node is—but that's not a bad thing. What he's saying here is that the facts as originally presented to him translated into a well-known "cached" judgement; but the facts as they actually were would require original thought and research on his part (and/or those of analysts working for the judge) to come to a decision. "Guy has child porn on his computer" has a clear-cut answer; "open proxy server contains child porn" is indeed much less clear-cut. What the law says about that subject is murky; hazy, even. It's something you would need to think about. And this thinking is, in practice, what the vast majority of a judge's every-day job is: to Do The Research—to become experts in the things they're asked to rule on, to build up the context necessary to discriminate between assertions made to them by opposed parties. Judges are already experts on the law; but that only helps when the law is already so well-established that a judge isn't even necessary. In most cases, the law is vague: it doesn't already have the answer for what should happen in this particular case, with these particular facts. The point of the judge is to decide what the law should be—to gather facts about the world, and use them to answer a question in a way that sets legal precedent going forward. Everyone else in the court's job is, then, to feed the judge all the necessary facts about the case, on both sides, so that the judge can know just what subjects must be made clear—must be researched, or questioned, or followed up on—before the case can be decided. (Even the irrelevant statements; the judge is the one expected to know what the law must blind itself to, so the judge wants to hear everything, and then cull the pile of statements themselves. When a jury is present and must be the one to decide, the judge will attempt to moderate the jury using this same legal-blinding... but with mixed results. In jury trials, you'll see judges trying to keep attorneys from making certain assertions that might irreparably bias a jury; but in non-jury trials, judges just want all the information they can get.) In short: as long as judges are doing their jobs, the law keeps up. That's what we pay judges to do. If the law isn't keeping up, we've just hired some bad judges.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • Floegipoky 11y ago
• alanwatts 11y ago
  >Technology isn't slowing down, so how can we make sure the law keeps up? That depends on what you me by "the law". Paper based systems simply can't keep pace with the speed of information flow in electro-magnetic systems.
• cmurf 11y ago
  For good or bad, the American legal system (and the English one on which it's largely based) is about who makes the better argument. It's a debate contest among expert jurists. The judge is supposed to be knowledgeable about the law, and particularly good at recognizing logical fallacies. A good judge who is not an subject matter expert should be good at asking the salient questions and stopping a rambling jurist in their tracks. The whole idea isn't to become an expert, it's to find the right questions, and provide the opportunity to expediently arrive at conclusions and solution to them. And it often is just one question.
  • wookasz 11y ago
    Glad to see someone here understands the basics of our legal system. All this arguing about what happens when a judge is deciding a case they don't understand makes me cringe.
• intherdfield 11y ago
  Just pointing out that the judge who authorized the warrant didn't say that. From the article: Judge Bowman, who authorized the warrant, said he could not talk about the case and referred me to his colleague Judge William Downing, who spoke about some of the underlying issues. "When we get into things like this," he said, "anonymizing stuff, that’s well over my head technologically, then it becomes very murky and hazy.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• gozur88 11y ago
  Sounds like just the judge you'd want to go to if you had a warrant that really wouldn't fly if he understood the technology.