6 ms·

It wasn’t too long ago I began to understand that lawyers are just hackers, but instead of computers they hack the law. For some, hacking the law is a game -

It wasn’t too long ago I began to understand that lawyers are just hackers, but instead of computers they hack the law. For some, hacking the law is a game - to the point where they can lose sight of the humanity intrinsic in law and simply try to penetrate through the vulnerabilities while seeking a “win”.

smt88 2y ago
This is mostly untrue and essentially the point of judges. A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes or misinterpretations of a law.
- csallen 2y ago
  I think you're essentially proving the op's point. In your own words, "A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes." In that sentence, "people" === lawyers
  - ozim 2y ago
    I think parent meant that you cannot hack the law because judge will see it and tell you to go away. But I do agree judges are hackable too. It is more hassle to do it right and I hope stupid attempts from Disney will be met with some kind of repercussions.
    - csallen 2y ago
      Ah, I see. But I also think that sircastor's point when they said "hackers" was not that lawyers can bypass the intent of the law with impunity. Rather, I think the point was that lawyers will frequently attempt to interpret, use, and even abuse both the letter and the intent of the law in clever ways in order to achieve their goals on behalf of their clients.
    - Closi 2y ago
      One hack though is to drag out proceedings to cause additional cost, which a judge can limit but not entirely avoid.
      - happymellon 2y ago
        A denial of service?
        codetrotter 2y ago
        Denial of justice :(
        LgWoodenBadger 2y ago
        In the US, if you don’t have money, legal recourse is essentially unavailable to you. Sometimes even if you do have money, finding a lawyer who specializes in your need is often impossible. Imagine if you had to pay, as a victim, for the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators. And find a lawyer who handled “just simple battery” and not only murders. My spouse and I are dealing with this now. It’s awful not being able to get justice.
- dylan604 2y ago
  The current SCOTUS would disagree strongly as they are using ridiculous loopholes from the bench
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      True, SCOTUS hasn't been using ridiculous loopholes in a few decisions recently. What legal professionals are saying is that they have simply ignored the explicit text and spirit of several laws or the constitution in a few recent decisions, particularly their presidential immunity case.
      - pfannkuchen 2y ago
        I remember thinking as like a 10 year old that it was weird that presidents are immune from prosecution. So it’s definitely not a new thing. Is there something very nuanced about the Supreme Court ruling that I am missing? As with many political issues, online discussion about the topic is mostly screeching, and it’s hard to tell what’s really going on.
    - raverbashing 2y ago
      It's the other way Discussions about software are (and in most cases) what works best here. But anything else the quality of discussion goes down a lot The funny exception is that sometimes you see a very insightful and relevant comment about a niche subject in a tangential discussion
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Are you gonna say what's wrong or just make a big deal out of being disappointed? Or, if you really just mean flippant with no other implications, then software discussion here gets equally flippant all the time.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
  The judge can and likely will strike this down, but the damage has been done by that point (delay the procedure and wear the very human opponent down) and I doubt there will be meaningful consequences or compensation for trying.
  - knallfrosch 2y ago
    I believe this is a US case, so the free citizens of this wonderful democratic country can just vote better lawmakers into their parliament at the next election.
    - truckerbill 2y ago
      Ironic
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      Most of our lawmakers are lawyers, for who is more qualified to write laws? They write laws that serve the interests of their colleagues. Trust the experts.
    - BobaFloutist 2y ago
      At least the lawmakers in both of our legislative bodies are democratically elected, unlike the UK which somehow still has hereditary positions in their government in the year 2024.
      - cafard 2y ago
        I thought that only life peers got to vote. Not so?
      - sickofparadox 2y ago
        Don't forget that the UK is one of only two countries in the world that has dedicated positions (26 Lords Spiritual) in their government for members of the state religion. The other country is Iran.
- SkyBelow 2y ago
  Is that really the case? Judges shut down some loopholes or 'hacks', but then others are allowed as being perfectly acceptable. The rational that decides when one is allowed and one is not seems to be a second level to the hacking. You can't just exploit the law, but find a way to ensure the exploitation is ruled valid. Given judges are people, it does make it more 'squishy' than things on the tech side. Hacks have to appear clever but not insulting, and sometimes you have to fish for the right judge or court to support you, but that is all just the social engineering part of the hacking.
syndicatedjelly 2y ago
I don't think that's a very good understanding of what lawyers do
dylan604 2y ago
It's also for the cred. In legal circles, the first lawyer to do something enters l337 status. You think the legal team for Trump are doing it for the money he's going to not pay them? Hellz naw! Their names will be written about from here to eternity.
devjab 2y ago
Just wait till you learn that law isn’t really law. I once worked on an OSS project for 8 municipalities to handle employee work related driving. The Danish tax law on the area is short and the simplest law text I’ve ever read, and we implemented it as such. Only to find out that the 8 cities interpreted this short piece or law in more than 8 different ways. Yes, even within the same admin they didn’t agree on how it should be interpreted. Some of the lawyers even got in heated discussions because they felt the other were breaking the law. Anyway it wasn’t till later in the process where one of the lawyers who didn’t seem to have a whole lot of fucks to give explained it to me at the coffee machine. Basically our tax agency decides which interpretation is correct, but you don’t actually have to be correct until they directly tell you that you’re wrong. Which often won’t ever happen as virtually every organisation in the country handles employee driving and there are only five members of the tax agency doing check ups.
- Jolter 2y ago
  Sounds like your software, if programmed the way you wanted, would have unified it all to one single interpretation of the law. Then you would have put a few lawyers out of work… No wonder they shot it down!
  - devjab 2y ago
    Technically there is only one. Our tax agency happened to actually audit one city, and then all the others after it was revealed that the first one did indeed break the law.
- djtango 2y ago
  This is essentially why social trust is so important especially in non-authoritarian systems
- ozim 2y ago
  I think this is why lots of software projects fail - not because they are wrong - but it is just not what people want (and people might want things that are not according to the law ;) ). Then if it rubs the wrong way people who are in power then even if your project is technically right it gets canned and they blame developers on not delivering :( I can see it in business software I work on. Interesting part is "required fields", someone makes 10-20 fields required on a form to fill in - but then people start complaining it takes too much time and why they have to fill in those fields and managers of those people come over complaining that software sucks ... well, great but we did not make the requirements, that was company/customer that wanted that.
strogonoff 2y ago
A lawyer friend back in law school heard that people who go into law are disproportionately psychopaths seeking the ability to manipulate society and power over people for personal benefit. They tested it by somehow sneaking in psychopath test questions to other law students (without them knowing), who “passed” (not in a good way). This is anecdata, but I found it convincingly told. I wonder whether a proper study would assess it (having doubts that would be allowed).
pfannkuchen 2y ago
I heard an interesting perspective from Alan Dershowitz (one of the prominent lawyers on the OJ Simpson case) that the trial system is fundamentally adversarial, and that accepting this quality is critical to its proper functioning. Basically within the scope of the legal rules the system is a prisoners dilemma with respect to honesty. If the defense is completely honest but the prosecution isn’t, then an innocent man may go to jail, and vice versa. The system has no way to enforce honesty, so it is set up in a way that honesty isn’t required. In a system where honesty isn’t required, being honest is basically illogical. If we want that to change we need a way to detect and enforce honesty in a trial system. I think that is an impossible goal.

smt88 2y ago

This is mostly untrue and essentially the point of judges. A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes or misinterpretations of a law.

csallen 2y ago
I think you're essentially proving the op's point. In your own words, "A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes." In that sentence, "people" === lawyers
- ozim 2y ago
  I think parent meant that you cannot hack the law because judge will see it and tell you to go away. But I do agree judges are hackable too. It is more hassle to do it right and I hope stupid attempts from Disney will be met with some kind of repercussions.
  - csallen 2y ago
    Ah, I see. But I also think that sircastor's point when they said "hackers" was not that lawyers can bypass the intent of the law with impunity. Rather, I think the point was that lawyers will frequently attempt to interpret, use, and even abuse both the letter and the intent of the law in clever ways in order to achieve their goals on behalf of their clients.
  - Closi 2y ago
    One hack though is to drag out proceedings to cause additional cost, which a judge can limit but not entirely avoid.
    - happymellon 2y ago
      A denial of service?
      - codetrotter 2y ago
        Denial of justice :(
        LgWoodenBadger 2y ago
        In the US, if you don’t have money, legal recourse is essentially unavailable to you. Sometimes even if you do have money, finding a lawyer who specializes in your need is often impossible. Imagine if you had to pay, as a victim, for the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators. And find a lawyer who handled “just simple battery” and not only murders. My spouse and I are dealing with this now. It’s awful not being able to get justice.
dylan604 2y ago
The current SCOTUS would disagree strongly as they are using ridiculous loopholes from the bench
- refulgentis 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    True, SCOTUS hasn't been using ridiculous loopholes in a few decisions recently. What legal professionals are saying is that they have simply ignored the explicit text and spirit of several laws or the constitution in a few recent decisions, particularly their presidential immunity case.
    - pfannkuchen 2y ago
      I remember thinking as like a 10 year old that it was weird that presidents are immune from prosecution. So it’s definitely not a new thing. Is there something very nuanced about the Supreme Court ruling that I am missing? As with many political issues, online discussion about the topic is mostly screeching, and it’s hard to tell what’s really going on.
  - raverbashing 2y ago
    It's the other way Discussions about software are (and in most cases) what works best here. But anything else the quality of discussion goes down a lot The funny exception is that sometimes you see a very insightful and relevant comment about a niche subject in a tangential discussion
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Are you gonna say what's wrong or just make a big deal out of being disappointed? Or, if you really just mean flippant with no other implications, then software discussion here gets equally flippant all the time.
tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
The judge can and likely will strike this down, but the damage has been done by that point (delay the procedure and wear the very human opponent down) and I doubt there will be meaningful consequences or compensation for trying.
- knallfrosch 2y ago
  I believe this is a US case, so the free citizens of this wonderful democratic country can just vote better lawmakers into their parliament at the next election.
  - truckerbill 2y ago
    Ironic
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Most of our lawmakers are lawyers, for who is more qualified to write laws? They write laws that serve the interests of their colleagues. Trust the experts.
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    At least the lawmakers in both of our legislative bodies are democratically elected, unlike the UK which somehow still has hereditary positions in their government in the year 2024.
    - cafard 2y ago
      I thought that only life peers got to vote. Not so?
    - sickofparadox 2y ago
      Don't forget that the UK is one of only two countries in the world that has dedicated positions (26 Lords Spiritual) in their government for members of the state religion. The other country is Iran.
SkyBelow 2y ago
Is that really the case? Judges shut down some loopholes or 'hacks', but then others are allowed as being perfectly acceptable. The rational that decides when one is allowed and one is not seems to be a second level to the hacking. You can't just exploit the law, but find a way to ensure the exploitation is ruled valid. Given judges are people, it does make it more 'squishy' than things on the tech side. Hacks have to appear clever but not insulting, and sometimes you have to fish for the right judge or court to support you, but that is all just the social engineering part of the hacking.

syndicatedjelly 2y ago

I don't think that's a very good understanding of what lawyers do

dylan604 2y ago

It's also for the cred. In legal circles, the first lawyer to do something enters l337 status. You think the legal team for Trump are doing it for the money he's going to not pay them? Hellz naw! Their names will be written about from here to eternity.

devjab 2y ago

Just wait till you learn that law isn’t really law. I once worked on an OSS project for 8 municipalities to handle employee work related driving. The Danish tax law on the area is short and the simplest law text I’ve ever read, and we implemented it as such. Only to find out that the 8 cities interpreted this short piece or law in more than 8 different ways. Yes, even within the same admin they didn’t agree on how it should be interpreted. Some of the lawyers even got in heated discussions because they felt the other were breaking the law. Anyway it wasn’t till later in the process where one of the lawyers who didn’t seem to have a whole lot of fucks to give explained it to me at the coffee machine. Basically our tax agency decides which interpretation is correct, but you don’t actually have to be correct until they directly tell you that you’re wrong. Which often won’t ever happen as virtually every organisation in the country handles employee driving and there are only five members of the tax agency doing check ups.

Jolter 2y ago
Sounds like your software, if programmed the way you wanted, would have unified it all to one single interpretation of the law. Then you would have put a few lawyers out of work… No wonder they shot it down!
- devjab 2y ago
  Technically there is only one. Our tax agency happened to actually audit one city, and then all the others after it was revealed that the first one did indeed break the law.
djtango 2y ago
This is essentially why social trust is so important especially in non-authoritarian systems
ozim 2y ago
I think this is why lots of software projects fail - not because they are wrong - but it is just not what people want (and people might want things that are not according to the law ;) ). Then if it rubs the wrong way people who are in power then even if your project is technically right it gets canned and they blame developers on not delivering :( I can see it in business software I work on. Interesting part is "required fields", someone makes 10-20 fields required on a form to fill in - but then people start complaining it takes too much time and why they have to fill in those fields and managers of those people come over complaining that software sucks ... well, great but we did not make the requirements, that was company/customer that wanted that.

strogonoff 2y ago

A lawyer friend back in law school heard that people who go into law are disproportionately psychopaths seeking the ability to manipulate society and power over people for personal benefit. They tested it by somehow sneaking in psychopath test questions to other law students (without them knowing), who “passed” (not in a good way). This is anecdata, but I found it convincingly told. I wonder whether a proper study would assess it (having doubts that would be allowed).

pfannkuchen 2y ago

I heard an interesting perspective from Alan Dershowitz (one of the prominent lawyers on the OJ Simpson case) that the trial system is fundamentally adversarial, and that accepting this quality is critical to its proper functioning. Basically within the scope of the legal rules the system is a prisoners dilemma with respect to honesty. If the defense is completely honest but the prosecution isn’t, then an innocent man may go to jail, and vice versa. The system has no way to enforce honesty, so it is set up in a way that honesty isn’t required. In a system where honesty isn’t required, being honest is basically illogical. If we want that to change we need a way to detect and enforce honesty in a trial system. I think that is an impossible goal.