4 ms·

Is it not absurd that the supreme and appeal courts disagreed on a syntactical matter? Never mind that this isn't uncommon, or that (IMHO) it would be ridiculou

by Y_Y 2y ago

Is it not absurd that the supreme and appeal courts disagreed on a syntactical matter? Never mind that this isn't uncommon, or that (IMHO) it would be ridiculous to interpret it as "any file layouts at all, and other stuff too, but only bad other stuff". It's crazy to me that were happy for laws to sit on the books being utterly ambiguous. I know this suits the courts who benefit from the leeway, and that (despite valiant efforts) we're not going to get "formal formal" language into statutes. I know that the law is an ass. I know that the laws are written by fallible and naive humans. Even after all that, if the basic sentence structure of what's in the law isn't clear to the courts, hasn't the whole system fallen at the first hurdle?

tptacek 2y ago
To me it feels like the kind of dispute that is exactly why we have multiple levels of appeals court. The "file format" thing is super dumb, and they got it wrong, but the "that if disclosed" statutory interpretation is a thing that seems important to get a final, consistent determination on.
- Y_Y 2y ago
  Of course I can't disagree that it's good that it's now settled. Still I can't help but imagine a world where the meaning, at least in terms of which words apply to which others (rather than qualifiers like "reasonable"), should be settled before the law is debated, voted on, and passed. Even (some) programmers have learnt the dangers of parsing at run time (e.g. "eval is evil"). How can we decide it's the law we want if we don't know what it means yet?
  - NoboruWataya 2y ago
    > How can we decide it's the law we want if we don't know what it means yet? FWIW, judicial interpretation of legislation is generally seen as an exercise in figuring out what the legislature meant. Courts start by looking at the "plain meaning" of the words used, but where that doesn't yield an unambiguous answer they will often look at the overall scheme or purpose of the legislation to try and figure out which interpretation is most consistent with that. It's far from perfect of course, but it's not like legislation just consists of a bunch of random symbols that are later imbued with meaning by a court operating in a vacuum. The meaning of most legislation is clear most of the time. I'm sure the authors of the bill thought it was sufficiently clear, for any scenario they could contemplate (or, at least, the ones they cared about). But it's hard to see every potential corner case (and if every potential corner case did have to be identified and settled before the bill could even be debated, it's likely Illinois wouldn't have a FOIA today).
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > Courts start by looking at the "plain meaning" of the words used, but where that doesn't yield an unambiguous answer they will often look at the overall scheme or purpose of the legislation to try and figure out which interpretation is most consistent with that. There is also the concept of a "canon of construction", which exists specifically to handle these kinds of reoccurring grammatical issues. I'm surprised there isn't one for dangling modifiers.
    - Paracompact 2y ago
      > It's far from perfect of course, but it's not like legislation just consists of a bunch of random symbols that are later imbued with meaning by a court operating in a vacuum. Isn't this exactly what happened? A court of computer laypeople reached for Merriam-Webster in order to disambiguate a sample of programmer argot that was written into law by another group of computer laypeople. The legal profession isn't just dirty, it seems doomed to defeat itself in even its most rigorous practice.
  - Xelynega 2y ago
    That's not the only alternative though. Why are experts not involved in the interpretation and it's left up to how two seperate non-technical groups interpret it? Other countries have legal specialists for different areas and update their laws continuously based on expert opinion, common law gets expert testimony but is based on generalists to make the final determination
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Something something something Article III of the US Constitution something.
- olau 2y ago
  I find it slightly odd that you get hung up on the file format thing. The law as you quoted it says "including but not limited to" and the first example given is then "software".
copypasterepeat 2y ago
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that's just how the justice system works. Reasonable people can disagree about what exactly a complicated statement says, since language is full of ambiguities. People have been discussing what the U.S. Constitution says exactly from the day it was written and there are still a lot of disagreements. The standard response to this is that laws should be written in ways that are non-ambiguous but that's easier said than done. Not to mention that sometimes the lawmakers can't fully agree themselves so they leave some statements intentionally ambiguous so that they can be interpreted by the courts.
- skissane 2y ago
  I’ve often thought we’d get more sensible results in court cases on computer-related issues if we had specialised courts where the judges were required to have a relevant degree (computer science, software engineering, computer engineering, information systems, etc). But I doubt it is going to happen any time soon.
  - ptsneves 2y ago
    Civil code law uses that way of thinking, where there are specialised courts for different areas: administrative, civil, labor, family, commercial and so on. I actually am not so sure it is great as these courts increase the depths of the bureaucracy to the point of being self serving. They also serve to segment expertise.
    - skissane 2y ago
      > Civil code law uses that way of thinking, where there are specialised courts for different areas: administrative, civil, labor, family, commercial and so on. This happens in common law countries too. For example, the US has specialised courts (at the federal level) for bankruptcy, federal government contract disputes (US Court of Federal Claims), taxation (US Tax Court), among others. It also has a nationwide appellate court (Federal Circuit) with jurisdiction limited to certain topics (patents, trademarks, federal government contracts, among others), and another (DC Circuit) which despite being technically geographic in practice also has topical jurisdiction (many-but not all-lawsuits against federal agencies). Many states have specialised courts for various areas of law It is very common in common law countries to have specialised courts/tribunals (or divisions thereof-there isn’t a big difference between a specialist court and a specialist division of a generalist court) to deal with certain types of cases, especially bankruptcy, family law, probate, child welfare, juvenile crime, patents, taxation, administrative law, military law, immigration, small claims - the exact set varies, but specialised courts/tribunals/divisions are very common. But I’ve never heard of a specialised court/tribunal/division for computer cases

by Y_Y 2y ago

tptacek 2y ago

To me it feels like the kind of dispute that is exactly why we have multiple levels of appeals court. The "file format" thing is super dumb, and they got it wrong, but the "that if disclosed" statutory interpretation is a thing that seems important to get a final, consistent determination on.

Y_Y 2y ago
Of course I can't disagree that it's good that it's now settled. Still I can't help but imagine a world where the meaning, at least in terms of which words apply to which others (rather than qualifiers like "reasonable"), should be settled before the law is debated, voted on, and passed. Even (some) programmers have learnt the dangers of parsing at run time (e.g. "eval is evil"). How can we decide it's the law we want if we don't know what it means yet?
- NoboruWataya 2y ago
  > How can we decide it's the law we want if we don't know what it means yet? FWIW, judicial interpretation of legislation is generally seen as an exercise in figuring out what the legislature meant. Courts start by looking at the "plain meaning" of the words used, but where that doesn't yield an unambiguous answer they will often look at the overall scheme or purpose of the legislation to try and figure out which interpretation is most consistent with that. It's far from perfect of course, but it's not like legislation just consists of a bunch of random symbols that are later imbued with meaning by a court operating in a vacuum. The meaning of most legislation is clear most of the time. I'm sure the authors of the bill thought it was sufficiently clear, for any scenario they could contemplate (or, at least, the ones they cared about). But it's hard to see every potential corner case (and if every potential corner case did have to be identified and settled before the bill could even be debated, it's likely Illinois wouldn't have a FOIA today).
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > Courts start by looking at the "plain meaning" of the words used, but where that doesn't yield an unambiguous answer they will often look at the overall scheme or purpose of the legislation to try and figure out which interpretation is most consistent with that. There is also the concept of a "canon of construction", which exists specifically to handle these kinds of reoccurring grammatical issues. I'm surprised there isn't one for dangling modifiers.
  - Paracompact 2y ago
    > It's far from perfect of course, but it's not like legislation just consists of a bunch of random symbols that are later imbued with meaning by a court operating in a vacuum. Isn't this exactly what happened? A court of computer laypeople reached for Merriam-Webster in order to disambiguate a sample of programmer argot that was written into law by another group of computer laypeople. The legal profession isn't just dirty, it seems doomed to defeat itself in even its most rigorous practice.
- Xelynega 2y ago
  That's not the only alternative though. Why are experts not involved in the interpretation and it's left up to how two seperate non-technical groups interpret it? Other countries have legal specialists for different areas and update their laws continuously based on expert opinion, common law gets expert testimony but is based on generalists to make the final determination
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Something something something Article III of the US Constitution something.
olau 2y ago
I find it slightly odd that you get hung up on the file format thing. The law as you quoted it says "including but not limited to" and the first example given is then "software".

copypasterepeat 2y ago

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that's just how the justice system works. Reasonable people can disagree about what exactly a complicated statement says, since language is full of ambiguities. People have been discussing what the U.S. Constitution says exactly from the day it was written and there are still a lot of disagreements. The standard response to this is that laws should be written in ways that are non-ambiguous but that's easier said than done. Not to mention that sometimes the lawmakers can't fully agree themselves so they leave some statements intentionally ambiguous so that they can be interpreted by the courts.

skissane 2y ago
I’ve often thought we’d get more sensible results in court cases on computer-related issues if we had specialised courts where the judges were required to have a relevant degree (computer science, software engineering, computer engineering, information systems, etc). But I doubt it is going to happen any time soon.
- ptsneves 2y ago
  Civil code law uses that way of thinking, where there are specialised courts for different areas: administrative, civil, labor, family, commercial and so on. I actually am not so sure it is great as these courts increase the depths of the bureaucracy to the point of being self serving. They also serve to segment expertise.
  - skissane 2y ago
    > Civil code law uses that way of thinking, where there are specialised courts for different areas: administrative, civil, labor, family, commercial and so on. This happens in common law countries too. For example, the US has specialised courts (at the federal level) for bankruptcy, federal government contract disputes (US Court of Federal Claims), taxation (US Tax Court), among others. It also has a nationwide appellate court (Federal Circuit) with jurisdiction limited to certain topics (patents, trademarks, federal government contracts, among others), and another (DC Circuit) which despite being technically geographic in practice also has topical jurisdiction (many-but not all-lawsuits against federal agencies). Many states have specialised courts for various areas of law It is very common in common law countries to have specialised courts/tribunals (or divisions thereof-there isn’t a big difference between a specialist court and a specialist division of a generalist court) to deal with certain types of cases, especially bankruptcy, family law, probate, child welfare, juvenile crime, patents, taxation, administrative law, military law, immigration, small claims - the exact set varies, but specialised courts/tribunals/divisions are very common. But I’ve never heard of a specialised court/tribunal/division for computer cases