4 ms·

I am a lawyer (this is not legal advice) and agree with the main thrust of this comment. The law is not “hackable.” Ultimately people are making decisions abou

I am a lawyer (this is not legal advice) and agree with the main thrust of this comment. The law is not “hackable.” Ultimately people are making decisions about guilt and punishment. And judges really, really don’t take kindly to defendants who think they’re trying to outsmart the court.

davidwritesbugs 2mo ago
Second lawyer here, well - ex-lawyer, I'm saying the first Law Talking Guy is 100% right.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
lisper 2mo ago
> The law is not “hackable.” It absolutely is. The rich and powerful do it all the time.
- agile-gift0262 2mo ago
  it's not a hack, it's a feature
- antonvs 2mo ago
  Paying for something is not really a hack, because at least in this case, it’s the system working as intended.
  - type0 2mo ago
    > Paying for something is not really a hack Although bribery is a felony in itself > it’s the system working as intended. Maybe it is
    - antonvs 2mo ago
      It’s not bribery if the system is designed to support it.
  - lisper 2mo ago
    Not sure what you mean by "in this case." I'm pretty sure that the founders intended the Bill of Rights to apply everywhere including the border.
    - antonvs 2mo ago
      Why do you think the Supreme Court disagrees with you? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
      - lisper 2mo ago
        The Supreme Court has a long history of ignoring both the letter and the spirit of the law for the sake of politics and practical expediency. I can legally buy an AK-47 but not a Patriot missile despite the fact that the second amendment makes no distinction between different kinds of armaments. Allowing Patriots to be banned but not AK-47s is a distinction that the Court invented out of whole cloth. Likewise the weakening of the fourth amendment at the border is an exception that the Court invented out of whole cloth. Both of these exceptions were invented for defensible reasons. I don't want people to be able to buy Patriot missiles or nuclear bombs (or AK-47s). But that doesn't change the fact that there is a line that was invented by the Court out of whole cloth. The problem is that the Constitution is broken, and has been since it was drafted. The right to bear arms probably should be conditioned on something more clear than the necessity of a well regulated militia (whatever the hell that means) to the security of a free state. The requirements for warrants probably ought to be weakened somewhat at border crossings. But the plain text of the Constitution does not allow this. The plain text contains no exceptions, and does not empower Congress to make exceptions. But changing the Constitution is hard, so rather than go through this slow, arduous process, everyone just punts the problem to the Court and says, "You deal with it." And so they do. The Court just does end-runs around the Constitution for defensible and practical reasons. But this doesn't change the fact that it is doing end-runs around the Constitution.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Probably not in the same sense of "one weird trick" though.
blurbleblurble 2mo ago
If the law isn't hackable what do you call what these billionaires and religious fundamentalists are doing to it right now?
- TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
  You've answered your own question. The law is hackable for certain kinds of people. If you're not one of the protected categories, it's prudent to consider it unhackable.
willis936 2mo ago
Then why have circumventions of the 4th amendment not been shut down immediately in court (this specific case, ALPRs contracted by police departments)? Same question for the first amendment with the FCC using license leverage to control speech?
- garyfirestorm 2mo ago
  It’s a provision not circumvention, also not a hack. /s
Melatonic 2mo ago
There are also novel situations for which precedent is set and becomes defacto law. Personally I think this is a big issue with how the US works.
noisy_boy 2mo ago
> The law is not “hackable.” The point the sibling comments miss is that for the hoi polloi, this one-weird-trick does not work because such laws has been written to broaden the scope as much as possible by heavily relying on intent instead of the micro mechanics (which keep changing) AND the enforcers focus on the intent. For the rich and wealthy, the law may be the same but the enforcement is wildly different because they absolutely have the enforcers on their side. I bet such people don't get strip searched like the unwashed masses as they roll off their private jets.
- attila-lendvai 2mo ago
  i used to work for a rich one like that ~20 years ago. we were walking through the border without a word, boarding his private jet, and crossing the Schengen border.
bonoboTP 2mo ago
It is somewhat hackable, but not to the extent that a computer is. Sometimes laws have some unintended loopholes that can be exploited for benefit if it isn't something obviously malicious. But there are often vaguer higher level principles that can stop the fun, involving concept like "reasonable person" and "good faith" which are interpreted by humans. But this also doesn't happen always. Sometimes people do get away on technicalities, though many may suspect corruption in those cases, but sometimes the law is indeed powerless against certain novel tricks. There is no general answer.
jarym 2mo ago
Is the government not hacking the law with its weird interpretations and assertions?
goosejuice 2mo ago
Not a lawyer, but the law is hackable in a sense. Interpretation sets precedent and strategic litigation is common.
inigyou 2mo ago
At the same time, courts regularly get outsmarted without knowing it. The key is that they don't know it. Right? So don't brag about how you outsmarted the police or the courts, especially not to the police or the courts. I am not a lawyer and you are, but I hope I'm right about this point.

davidwritesbugs 2mo ago

Second lawyer here, well - ex-lawyer, I'm saying the first Law Talking Guy is 100% right.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

lisper 2mo ago

> The law is not “hackable.” It absolutely is. The rich and powerful do it all the time.

agile-gift0262 2mo ago
it's not a hack, it's a feature
antonvs 2mo ago
Paying for something is not really a hack, because at least in this case, it’s the system working as intended.
- type0 2mo ago
  > Paying for something is not really a hack Although bribery is a felony in itself > it’s the system working as intended. Maybe it is
  - antonvs 2mo ago
    It’s not bribery if the system is designed to support it.
- lisper 2mo ago
  Not sure what you mean by "in this case." I'm pretty sure that the founders intended the Bill of Rights to apply everywhere including the border.
  - antonvs 2mo ago
    Why do you think the Supreme Court disagrees with you? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
    - lisper 2mo ago
      The Supreme Court has a long history of ignoring both the letter and the spirit of the law for the sake of politics and practical expediency. I can legally buy an AK-47 but not a Patriot missile despite the fact that the second amendment makes no distinction between different kinds of armaments. Allowing Patriots to be banned but not AK-47s is a distinction that the Court invented out of whole cloth. Likewise the weakening of the fourth amendment at the border is an exception that the Court invented out of whole cloth. Both of these exceptions were invented for defensible reasons. I don't want people to be able to buy Patriot missiles or nuclear bombs (or AK-47s). But that doesn't change the fact that there is a line that was invented by the Court out of whole cloth. The problem is that the Constitution is broken, and has been since it was drafted. The right to bear arms probably should be conditioned on something more clear than the necessity of a well regulated militia (whatever the hell that means) to the security of a free state. The requirements for warrants probably ought to be weakened somewhat at border crossings. But the plain text of the Constitution does not allow this. The plain text contains no exceptions, and does not empower Congress to make exceptions. But changing the Constitution is hard, so rather than go through this slow, arduous process, everyone just punts the problem to the Court and says, "You deal with it." And so they do. The Court just does end-runs around the Constitution for defensible and practical reasons. But this doesn't change the fact that it is doing end-runs around the Constitution.
inigyou 2mo ago
Probably not in the same sense of "one weird trick" though.

blurbleblurble 2mo ago

If the law isn't hackable what do you call what these billionaires and religious fundamentalists are doing to it right now?

TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
You've answered your own question. The law is hackable for certain kinds of people. If you're not one of the protected categories, it's prudent to consider it unhackable.

willis936 2mo ago

Then why have circumventions of the 4th amendment not been shut down immediately in court (this specific case, ALPRs contracted by police departments)? Same question for the first amendment with the FCC using license leverage to control speech?

garyfirestorm 2mo ago
It’s a provision not circumvention, also not a hack. /s

Melatonic 2mo ago

There are also novel situations for which precedent is set and becomes defacto law. Personally I think this is a big issue with how the US works.

noisy_boy 2mo ago

> The law is not “hackable.” The point the sibling comments miss is that for the hoi polloi, this one-weird-trick does not work because such laws has been written to broaden the scope as much as possible by heavily relying on intent instead of the micro mechanics (which keep changing) AND the enforcers focus on the intent. For the rich and wealthy, the law may be the same but the enforcement is wildly different because they absolutely have the enforcers on their side. I bet such people don't get strip searched like the unwashed masses as they roll off their private jets.

attila-lendvai 2mo ago
i used to work for a rich one like that ~20 years ago. we were walking through the border without a word, boarding his private jet, and crossing the Schengen border.

bonoboTP 2mo ago

It is somewhat hackable, but not to the extent that a computer is. Sometimes laws have some unintended loopholes that can be exploited for benefit if it isn't something obviously malicious. But there are often vaguer higher level principles that can stop the fun, involving concept like "reasonable person" and "good faith" which are interpreted by humans. But this also doesn't happen always. Sometimes people do get away on technicalities, though many may suspect corruption in those cases, but sometimes the law is indeed powerless against certain novel tricks. There is no general answer.

jarym 2mo ago

Is the government not hacking the law with its weird interpretations and assertions?

goosejuice 2mo ago

Not a lawyer, but the law is hackable in a sense. Interpretation sets precedent and strategic litigation is common.

inigyou 2mo ago

At the same time, courts regularly get outsmarted without knowing it. The key is that they don't know it. Right? So don't brag about how you outsmarted the police or the courts, especially not to the police or the courts. I am not a lawyer and you are, but I hope I'm right about this point.