3 ms·

The law handles ambiguity all the time. See Judge Learned Hand's negligence rule for example. He famously stated that a defendant is negligent (say, a shop owne

The law handles ambiguity all the time. See Judge Learned Hand's negligence rule for example. He famously stated that a defendant is negligent (say, a shop owner whose customer slipped on some ice on his steps) if the cost of taking precautions is less than the product of the magnitude of the likely damage and the probability that such damage will occur. In our example of the shop owner, spreading salt on one's steps is very cheap and the expected magnitude of damages is a bit larger, so a shop owner must keep his steps free from ice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_negligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_negligence This is an ambiguous standard, but it gives the judge a guideline to make his ruling. Similarly in criminal cases, intent must be present for criminal act to have occurred. This is another fuzzy rule, but probably a good one. Law is never hard and fast. Don't believe me? Ask a lawyer.

netcan 18y ago
I think I must have been unclear. That was my point. Ambiguity is presented as an insurmountable barrier here with slippery slop type arguments: 'By that logic.' Common sense gives is a pretty clear sense of legality here. Pirate Bay = Mostly illegal content. Google = All content (mostly legal). Youtube = ambiguous but has a clear substantial & non-trivial legal component.
- Brushfire 18y ago
  It may be nice to think of the law as common sense, but in most countries this is not the standard. Because 'common sense' changes, frequently and without cause. 'Common Sense' can be misleading in many situations -- medicine, law, business strategy, crime, etc. What is common sense to you about software may not be common sense to someone with no IT knowledge, and vice versa with regards to, say, how cheese is manufactured. The law adapts, sure, but it also tries to maintain order by being resistant to quick change. The fact that most of our legal system defaults to prior case law should say something about this. That said, I am not an attorney. I just know using common sense seems like an incredibly bad basis for determining legality.
  - netcan 18y ago
    What I was saying is not that law is common sense. What I was saying is that in many cases, law tries to reach the same conclusions as common sense by other means. IE try to mimic common sense.

netcan 18y ago

I think I must have been unclear. That was my point. Ambiguity is presented as an insurmountable barrier here with slippery slop type arguments: 'By that logic.' Common sense gives is a pretty clear sense of legality here. Pirate Bay = Mostly illegal content. Google = All content (mostly legal). Youtube = ambiguous but has a clear substantial & non-trivial legal component.

Brushfire 18y ago
It may be nice to think of the law as common sense, but in most countries this is not the standard. Because 'common sense' changes, frequently and without cause. 'Common Sense' can be misleading in many situations -- medicine, law, business strategy, crime, etc. What is common sense to you about software may not be common sense to someone with no IT knowledge, and vice versa with regards to, say, how cheese is manufactured. The law adapts, sure, but it also tries to maintain order by being resistant to quick change. The fact that most of our legal system defaults to prior case law should say something about this. That said, I am not an attorney. I just know using common sense seems like an incredibly bad basis for determining legality.
- netcan 18y ago
  What I was saying is not that law is common sense. What I was saying is that in many cases, law tries to reach the same conclusions as common sense by other means. IE try to mimic common sense.