3 ms·

No one is saying nor implying that computer programmers possess a superior moral compass to make judgements on the rule-based systems as you have stated. The l

by wallawe 14y ago

No one is saying nor implying that computer programmers possess a superior moral compass to make judgements on the rule-based systems as you have stated. The laws are fucked up because of pervasive unethical political practices in the U.S. (and the entire world for that matter) where laws are made from the top down by those with the most money as opposed to the bottom up as our founding fathers intended via our representative democracy. (Side note, the internet is changing all of the above through the forums you denote as irrelevant as well as social media) In regards to programmers calling the shots, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a group of people as intellectually capable percentage wise to make unbiased judgements on the nature of our laws. They are certainly more capable that the majority of clowns in Washington.

tptacek 14y ago
I swear to god I read this comment after I wrote that last comment about nerds and the law.
chc 14y ago
You don't think maybe lawyers, who are actually versed in the frameworks on which the laws are built, are more capable than a group that by and large doesn't even seem to understand the difference between different kinds of intellectual property?
- tptacek 14y ago
  Someone needs to start a site where we can submit HN comment links and then bet on the responses that they're likely to generate.
  - unimpressive 14y ago
    A HN prediction market? I'm not sure that comments have a long enough shelf life for people to bet.
  - J3L2404 14y ago
    Well you won't make any money on these endless copyright circle jerks.
- wallawe 14y ago
  Of course they are more capable. But are you saying that these opinions aren't worth listening to as well? "Without understanding your opponent's argument, you can't fully understand your own." If nothing else this can be an educational experience thanks to you and tptacek.
  - chc 14y ago
    I guess it depends on how much time you have to listen. Based on the evidence on display in HN comment threads, I think on average most programmers' opinions on the law are probably a little bit better-informed than those of a Starbucks barista, but not enough so that I'd give somebody's opinion deference just because he knew C++. Most programmers' opinions on the law (like most people in general) fall into one of two categories: fundamentally mistaken (e.g. "sharing an encrypted file can't be copyright infringement because they didn't copyright the encrypted form") or merely indignant. That's not to say a programmer can't be well-informed, but just that it's hubris to think that programming knowledge alone can give you some keen insight into the law without actually studying the law. On the other hand, I definitely stop and read when I see something by, say, grellas — because I know what he'll have to say is very likely to be the result of study and careful analysis. (And for the record, I don't pretend to know a lot about most aspects of the law. I'm not trying to act high and mighty here. And that's why I feel so apprehensive about blindly trusting programmers about this sort of thing — I know how much I don't know.)
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Sometimes nerd opinions about the law are worth paying attention to. Sometimes they aren't. Part of what put me on my recent CISPA jihad is that CISPA is a case where I think nerds actually had a chance of collecting the context required for informed debate; unfortunately, the CISPA debate got hijacked by militant activism. But there are cases where nerds clearly have little to offer. Look at the old Reiser threads if you want to groan about very smart people looking dumb talking about the law. "There's no such thing as circumstantial evidence! If you can't find a body, you have to acquit!" Similarly, in most cases revolving around computer hacking and unauthorized access, nerd mentality does more harm than good; nerds tend to fall back to arguments like "if it's common knowledge how to bypass some control, then bypassing that control can't reasonably constitute unauthorized access".

by wallawe 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

I swear to god I read this comment after I wrote that last comment about nerds and the law.

chc 14y ago

You don't think maybe lawyers, who are actually versed in the frameworks on which the laws are built, are more capable than a group that by and large doesn't even seem to understand the difference between different kinds of intellectual property?

tptacek 14y ago
Someone needs to start a site where we can submit HN comment links and then bet on the responses that they're likely to generate.
- unimpressive 14y ago
  A HN prediction market? I'm not sure that comments have a long enough shelf life for people to bet.
- J3L2404 14y ago
  Well you won't make any money on these endless copyright circle jerks.
wallawe 14y ago
Of course they are more capable. But are you saying that these opinions aren't worth listening to as well? "Without understanding your opponent's argument, you can't fully understand your own." If nothing else this can be an educational experience thanks to you and tptacek.
- chc 14y ago
  I guess it depends on how much time you have to listen. Based on the evidence on display in HN comment threads, I think on average most programmers' opinions on the law are probably a little bit better-informed than those of a Starbucks barista, but not enough so that I'd give somebody's opinion deference just because he knew C++. Most programmers' opinions on the law (like most people in general) fall into one of two categories: fundamentally mistaken (e.g. "sharing an encrypted file can't be copyright infringement because they didn't copyright the encrypted form") or merely indignant. That's not to say a programmer can't be well-informed, but just that it's hubris to think that programming knowledge alone can give you some keen insight into the law without actually studying the law. On the other hand, I definitely stop and read when I see something by, say, grellas — because I know what he'll have to say is very likely to be the result of study and careful analysis. (And for the record, I don't pretend to know a lot about most aspects of the law. I'm not trying to act high and mighty here. And that's why I feel so apprehensive about blindly trusting programmers about this sort of thing — I know how much I don't know.)
- tptacek 14y ago
  Sometimes nerd opinions about the law are worth paying attention to. Sometimes they aren't. Part of what put me on my recent CISPA jihad is that CISPA is a case where I think nerds actually had a chance of collecting the context required for informed debate; unfortunately, the CISPA debate got hijacked by militant activism. But there are cases where nerds clearly have little to offer. Look at the old Reiser threads if you want to groan about very smart people looking dumb talking about the law. "There's no such thing as circumstantial evidence! If you can't find a body, you have to acquit!" Similarly, in most cases revolving around computer hacking and unauthorized access, nerd mentality does more harm than good; nerds tend to fall back to arguments like "if it's common knowledge how to bypass some control, then bypassing that control can't reasonably constitute unauthorized access".