4 ms·

This and SOPA lead me to think at some point we might need technically-trained judges and congresspeople. Understanding whether Eckhart was peddling 'inaccurac

This and SOPA lead me to think at some point we might need technically-trained judges and congresspeople. Understanding whether Eckhart was peddling 'inaccuracies' hinges, I think, on at least some technical proficiency. I'm not a legal expert, and even if there were inaccuracies I don't know if that establishes the plaintiff's claim or whatever. As more and more legal complaints involve more and more complicated tech, how can we expect even a brilliant legal scholar with no technical expertise to determine facts in complicated cases?

lawnchair_larry 15y ago
Yes, we need a technocracy: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Technocracy https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Technocracy
- daeken 15y ago
  While a technocracy is a good thing in theory, I'm always concerned about the likelihood of it turning into a serious echo chamber. If the only people involved in, say, banking are people who have domain-specific knowledge, what is the likelihood that you're going to get anything new out of it? It seems to me that it'll almost always devolve into a terrible feedback loop. That said, it isn't necessarily worse than what we have now.
- kevinalexbrown 15y ago
  I'm not sure I'd go that far; I don't believe that technical experts are by virtue of their expertise the best at making judgments, weighing alternatives, etc. I certainly wouldn't want a judge with only technical expertise making decisions. I'm just wondering whether you can be a good judge without understanding the technical details as well as the legal ones, or at the very least be an exceptionally fast learner. At the same time, few people are both technically and legally proficient - even most patent lawyers don't need to fully understand the tech they're dealing with to write cease and desist letters, or advise their clients to settle, etc. But maybe the judges do, and as tech progresses even more, how can we reasonably expect judges to know enough of both? I'm not trying to make the obvious point of "gee, shouldn't judges know how an iPhone works before ruling on it" but asking whether it's even possible to understand both technical and legal sides well enough.
karamazov 15y ago
Judges can draw on technical experts to help analyze the facts in a given case. It definitely helps be technically literate, but the judge doesn't need to be making open source commits by night to evaluate the situation fairly. On the other hand, it's not unreasonable to acquire some knowledge for the specific case, but again this can be on the level of a few hours of research (to be able to understand and communicate with the expert), rather than expecting the judge to take the time to become an expert him/herself.

lawnchair_larry 15y ago

Yes, we need a technocracy: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Technocracy https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Technocracy

daeken 15y ago
While a technocracy is a good thing in theory, I'm always concerned about the likelihood of it turning into a serious echo chamber. If the only people involved in, say, banking are people who have domain-specific knowledge, what is the likelihood that you're going to get anything new out of it? It seems to me that it'll almost always devolve into a terrible feedback loop. That said, it isn't necessarily worse than what we have now.
kevinalexbrown 15y ago
I'm not sure I'd go that far; I don't believe that technical experts are by virtue of their expertise the best at making judgments, weighing alternatives, etc. I certainly wouldn't want a judge with only technical expertise making decisions. I'm just wondering whether you can be a good judge without understanding the technical details as well as the legal ones, or at the very least be an exceptionally fast learner. At the same time, few people are both technically and legally proficient - even most patent lawyers don't need to fully understand the tech they're dealing with to write cease and desist letters, or advise their clients to settle, etc. But maybe the judges do, and as tech progresses even more, how can we reasonably expect judges to know enough of both? I'm not trying to make the obvious point of "gee, shouldn't judges know how an iPhone works before ruling on it" but asking whether it's even possible to understand both technical and legal sides well enough.

karamazov 15y ago

Judges can draw on technical experts to help analyze the facts in a given case. It definitely helps be technically literate, but the judge doesn't need to be making open source commits by night to evaluate the situation fairly. On the other hand, it's not unreasonable to acquire some knowledge for the specific case, but again this can be on the level of a few hours of research (to be able to understand and communicate with the expert), rather than expecting the judge to take the time to become an expert him/herself.