> Plus, it's plenty useful to have memorable named for laws, rather having to remember bill/session numbers (or, worse, the weird practice in California and som

> Plus, it's plenty useful to have memorable named for laws, rather having to remember bill/session numbers (or, worse, the weird practice in California and some other places where laws, even when they actually have friendly names, are frequently referred to by bill numbers without session numbers, even long after adoption, when such identifiers are decidedly non-unique.) That's very easy to fix by adding the year and jurisdiction where appropriate. For example, in my opinion, Prop 8 does not need any qualifier but should there be any ambiguity we could call it the 2008 California Prop 8. I don't think the value is there in banning names though. For example, the CFAA* would be just as horrible with any other name. *While we are at it, please support a complete repeal of the CFAA. https://www.eff.org/helpout https://www.eff.org/helpout