4 ms·

Because it is a good overview of their intentions. Why is this a problem?

mikecb 9y ago
Because Congress' intentions are taken into account only after the actual text, and most of the time not at all (or they would have written their intentions clearly within the enforceable provisions.)
- bluetwo 9y ago
  I disagree.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    That wasn't a statement of opinion.
    - bluetwo 9y ago
      I still disagree.
- non_sequitur 9y ago
  This is actually incorrect. Courts including the Supreme Court will take into account "legislative intent" when interpreting a law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent
  - tptacek 9y ago
    You just said the same thing he did, added a Wikipedia link, and called him incorrect. There should be a name for this. A "triple HN" or something.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      pedaHNtic²?
      - bluetwo 9y ago
        Well that's the pot calling the kettle black.
        tyingq 9y ago
        That's why it's funny. Don't mind a little self depreciation. We're a bit self-important here and could use a little humility.
    - nl 9y ago
      The irony of the "non_sequitur" user missing the logical clause sequences and saying it was incorrect is quite amusing.
Roboprog 9y ago
I feel like I’m looking at the output of the legal equivalent of “git show” when I tried to read the senate document - first, the commit comment (which does nothing, but does describe intent and list the author), followed by diff style patch script. Anybody else get that feeling?
- tptacek 9y ago
  I think that's a very good analogy.
Bartweiss 9y ago
It's not uncommon for the intent component of laws to be substantially different than the effects of the actual text. Sometimes because writing laws about complex topics like computer access is difficult, sometimes because the law has some effects Congress would rather not publicly announce. And since the text of the law takes precedence over this sort of statement in court, it doesn't necessarily offer any information as to what changes might actually happen. Notably, laws like this almost always end up applying far beyond their envisioned scope simply because the landscape changes so fast. The intent of the DMCA or CFAA is substantially irrelevant when major legal cases end up hanging on technicalities in their wording.

Because Congress' intentions are taken into account only after the actual text, and most of the time not at all (or they would have written their intentions clearly within the enforceable provisions.)

bluetwo 9y ago
I disagree.
- tptacek 9y ago
  That wasn't a statement of opinion.
  - bluetwo 9y ago
    I still disagree.
non_sequitur 9y ago
This is actually incorrect. Courts including the Supreme Court will take into account "legislative intent" when interpreting a law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent
- tptacek 9y ago
  You just said the same thing he did, added a Wikipedia link, and called him incorrect. There should be a name for this. A "triple HN" or something.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    pedaHNtic²?
    - bluetwo 9y ago
      Well that's the pot calling the kettle black.
      - tyingq 9y ago
        That's why it's funny. Don't mind a little self depreciation. We're a bit self-important here and could use a little humility.
  - nl 9y ago
    The irony of the "non_sequitur" user missing the logical clause sequences and saying it was incorrect is quite amusing.

Roboprog 9y ago

I feel like I’m looking at the output of the legal equivalent of “git show” when I tried to read the senate document - first, the commit comment (which does nothing, but does describe intent and list the author), followed by diff style patch script. Anybody else get that feeling?

tptacek 9y ago
I think that's a very good analogy.

Bartweiss 9y ago

It's not uncommon for the intent component of laws to be substantially different than the effects of the actual text. Sometimes because writing laws about complex topics like computer access is difficult, sometimes because the law has some effects Congress would rather not publicly announce. And since the text of the law takes precedence over this sort of statement in court, it doesn't necessarily offer any information as to what changes might actually happen. Notably, laws like this almost always end up applying far beyond their envisioned scope simply because the landscape changes so fast. The intent of the DMCA or CFAA is substantially irrelevant when major legal cases end up hanging on technicalities in their wording.