4 ms·

One of the issues is that laws are made on paper and then everyone needs to figure out how to map it to software. Instead, laws should be codified in software a

One of the issues is that laws are made on paper and then everyone needs to figure out how to map it to software. Instead, laws should be codified in software and legal APIs should be binding. This would do wonders for efficiency, but also force laws to be cleaned up, be consistent, simple and logical.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
I don't even know what this would entail. Reality is continuous and subjective; computers are not. And there's no reason that "legal APIs" would be any more cleaned up, consistent, simple or logical than our current legal system.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Wait until you hear about “case law”. Just because it’s not on the law books doesn’t mean it’s not legally binding. If a court rules something unconstitutional or whatever, the law sometimes remains on the books instead of being removed. “Why bother writing and passing a bill to repeal a law when the court said it’s unenforceable?”
vlovich123 6y ago
So the government writes up a spec for how the legalese should map to code that engineers then implement? How is that different from what happens now?
- UweSchmidt 6y ago
  Only the programmed end result in code would be legally binding. Lawmakers would have a big interst in making sure the code is correct and provide incentives/change procedures accordingly. The inmates in this article would be released immediately after the code-law is implemented; you could apply new tax laws (i.e. as a config file) to your accounting software. Why maintain an obfuscated legal text when you need it in software anyway?
  - oftenwrong 6y ago
    The legal text is the specification. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of the classic "the spec is whatever the implementation does", and would erase the distinction between correct, incorrect, and undefined behaviour.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      In other words: “it’s not a bug. it’s a feature!”
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jakelazaroff 6y ago

I don't even know what this would entail. Reality is continuous and subjective; computers are not. And there's no reason that "legal APIs" would be any more cleaned up, consistent, simple or logical than our current legal system.

colejohnson66 6y ago
Wait until you hear about “case law”. Just because it’s not on the law books doesn’t mean it’s not legally binding. If a court rules something unconstitutional or whatever, the law sometimes remains on the books instead of being removed. “Why bother writing and passing a bill to repeal a law when the court said it’s unenforceable?”

vlovich123 6y ago

So the government writes up a spec for how the legalese should map to code that engineers then implement? How is that different from what happens now?

UweSchmidt 6y ago
Only the programmed end result in code would be legally binding. Lawmakers would have a big interst in making sure the code is correct and provide incentives/change procedures accordingly. The inmates in this article would be released immediately after the code-law is implemented; you could apply new tax laws (i.e. as a config file) to your accounting software. Why maintain an obfuscated legal text when you need it in software anyway?
- oftenwrong 6y ago
  The legal text is the specification. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of the classic "the spec is whatever the implementation does", and would erase the distinction between correct, incorrect, and undefined behaviour.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    In other words: “it’s not a bug. it’s a feature!”
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]