9 ms·

This is certainly a problem, but I see a larger, more troubling problem here associated with access to the legal code. Yes, what laws exist should be made avai

This is certainly a problem, but I see a larger, more troubling problem here associated with access to the legal code. Yes, what laws exist should be made available in as many formats as possible, including some easily accessible electronic format. I doubt that anybody here would disagree with that. But the real issue here is that there are so many laws and regulations that it becomes impossible for any one human being to know all of them. Any person who goes about their day in a normal fashion breaks multiple laws every day. When the state starts policing moral and ethical behavior rather than merely defending people against aggression, you come up with page after page of laws and it becomes impossible to know what is correct. This culture of "every problem needs a law to solve it" is in my opinion the priority here, not merely making thousands of pages of useless laws somehow more accessible. You're never going to read them anyway.

jrs235 14y ago
The people we have elected to make the laws have steadily moved in the direction that "we the people" on a jury (grand or otherwise) can't determine whether someone has committed a crime or not so everything must be codified so we no longer can determine our own cultural and common law. Perhaps we should focus on writing laws that protect people and allow common sense back into our court rooms? These "protecting" laws would primarily used by appellate courts to throw out "bad" convictions (i.e. ones where race or social class likely were used as motive to convict someone, thus preventing legal injustices such as were committed during the Jim Crow era).
rayiner 14y ago
There has never been a successful society of an serious complexity that had law that could be codified in a form where one person could understand them all. In feudal England prior to the ascension of the common law courts, instead of law you had power: the King (acting through representatives) or lower lords would adjudicate disputes and regulate society. Saying "we have too many laws--nobody can know them all at once" is like saying "Linux has too many lines of code--nobody can understand it all at once." The complexity is unavoidable. You can shift it around, but you can't get rid of it.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  There has never been a successful society of an serious complexity that had law that could be codified in a form where one person could understand them all. Even if, for the sake of argument, we take that as true... the fact that something hasn't been done yet does not necessarily prove that it's impossible. If everyone simply accepted the status quo as inevitable, we would never make any progress at all.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > the fact that something hasn't been done yet does not necessarily prove that it's impossible. No, but it does suggest that if it were easy and efficient, someone would have done it already.
    - ISL 14y ago
      Once you know how, Calculus is relatively easy and efficient. Lots of very smart mathematicians predated Newton and Leibniz.
    - btilly 14y ago
      No, it suggests that it is not in the interests of the powers that be to make things easy and efficient. A hypothesis for which there is much independent evidence. For example when a regulated group achieves regulatory capture, it is in their interests to create new regulations of great complexity. See, for instance, the way that under Bush regulations on the financial industry increased, at the same time as the amount to which those regulations kept incumbents from doing what they wanted to decreased.
- Retric 14y ago
  That's not true, the Code of Hammurabi had 282 laws which really was it. Now most people could not read but the average person had a much better understanding of what to avoid doing. The issue is the separation between well understood laws with fuzzy edge cases and laws that people simply don't know about.
joe_the_user 14y ago
I agree the problem you mention is important but you really shouldn't derail the important point of the parent to rail about your important, somewhat-related but distinct issue. Write a blog, submit it here (with yet another throwaway account if you feel the need). Access to legal codes and excess proliferation of legal codes both matter, both should be talked about and both benefit from avoiding cross talk. I had thought Hacker News was smart enough to avoid letting even the most intelligent, well articulated thread derailment to get to the top of its pages.
btbuildem 14y ago
I agree -- but having transparency and access would allow us to see the multitude of the laws, and perhaps press the legislature for repealing some of them.
rthomas6 14y ago
>Any person who goes about their day in a normal fashion breaks multiple laws every day. I've heard this assertion so many times, and after thinking about it, I don't think it's actually true. I agree with the sentiment of your comment, but I don't think I'm actually breaking multiple laws every day. Feel free to prove me wrong. Edit: Could anyone at least provide me with an example of some laws that many people, and perhaps I, break every day unknowingly? That would be a start.
- rosser 14y ago
  Do you browse non-work-relevant websites on your company provided computer outside your lunch hour or other explicitly defined break times and against defined company policy? You've "exceeded authorized access". Do you have specific knowledge of someone possessing controlled substances in a jurisdiction or situation where they're forbidden (e.g., someone in a medical marijuana state who possesses even misdemeanor amounts of pot but doesn't have official medical sanction for its use, or anyone possessing any amount in a "dry" state)? Obstruction of justice. Have you ever taken a "mental health day" and called in sick when you aren't actually sick? You've defrauded your employer. These are all acts specifically described as illegal by the relevant statute. EDIT: clarifying language on "exceeding authorized access" case.
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    > Do you browse non-work-relevant websites on your company provided computer outside your lunch hour or other explicitly defined break times? You've "exceeded authorized access". Not true: http://www.pcworld.com/article/253581/court_violating_work_computeruse_policies_not_a_crime.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/253581/court_violating_work_c...
    - rosser 14y ago
      I don't think that ruling means what you think it means. The court adopted this interpretation and expanded its scope, ruling that an employee "exceeds authorized access" under the CFAA when they use a computer in way that violates an employer's access restrictions... They decided that, as a logical extension of this finding, the question of whether an employee "exceeds authorized access" is likewise determined by the employer's actions, including (but not limited to) the promulgation of computer use restrictions. Since Korn/Ferry indeed had such computer use restrictions, which the defendants violated when they accessed the executive database for fraudulent purposes, the Ninth Circuit court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the district court to reinstate the five counts under Section (a)(4). [1] If your employer says you can't browse Facebook or Hacker News with your work computer, and you do, you're "exceeding authorized access". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nosal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nosal
jarrett 14y ago
While I entirely agree in principle with the idea that laws cannot solve all problems, I must disagree that we should aim for a society where any one person can understand all the laws. Our society is extremely complex. There are many many industries and activities that need to be individually regulated. Let's take a few examples of very specific, arcane laws that are important for everyday people who might not even know about them. 1. Suppose you buy a home, and in the bathroom, there is an exhaust fan. You use that fan for years, and one day discover that it has been venting into your attic, and that your attic is thus absolutely full of toxic mold that will cost a small fortune to remove. And if you don't remove it, you're endangering your health and possibly making your house unsellable. As it turns out, most jurisdictions in the US require, by way of the building code, that bathroom exhaust fans be vented directly outside. Had that law been in place in your jurisdiction, perhaps you wouldn't have a mold problem today. 2. Now imagine the FTC doesn't exist, or perhaps that its regulations are vastly simplified. You have a pension plan. You don't pay much attention to how your pension fund is invested. One day, you see on the news that your pension fund has dropped in value by 50%. It turns out the plan was heavily invested in a certain company that looked good in its prospectus but was actually in very bad shape. If today's FTC existed, with its complex and obscure regulations on how a company must report its financial state, perhaps your pension fund managers would have been able to make a better decision. 3. Now suppose you rent an apartment. Your landlord turns the heat way down for no apparent reason, and it's 50 degrees in your unit all the time. In many jurisdictions, there are laws requiring landlords to provide a minimum level of heating. With such a law in place, you could force the landlord to turn the heat back up. ========= Each of these examples hinges on a law that most people will probably never think about. Yet you may indeed benefit from them many times in your life, without ever knowing it. It could also be argued that such laws are not guaranteed to prevent the negative outcomes imagined above. This is true. No law will be obeyed 100% of the time. But that doesn't make them useless. Laws can and do influence behavior--when they come with an adequate enforcement mechanism, that is.
neilxdsouza 14y ago
My startup idea for this round of YCombinator is to translate the laws into Prolog like clauses and have a search engine interface which replies with relevant sections applicable. Not like the idea would be accepted but, this is a good direction to move into.

jrs235 14y ago

The people we have elected to make the laws have steadily moved in the direction that "we the people" on a jury (grand or otherwise) can't determine whether someone has committed a crime or not so everything must be codified so we no longer can determine our own cultural and common law. Perhaps we should focus on writing laws that protect people and allow common sense back into our court rooms? These "protecting" laws would primarily used by appellate courts to throw out "bad" convictions (i.e. ones where race or social class likely were used as motive to convict someone, thus preventing legal injustices such as were committed during the Jim Crow era).

rayiner 14y ago

There has never been a successful society of an serious complexity that had law that could be codified in a form where one person could understand them all. In feudal England prior to the ascension of the common law courts, instead of law you had power: the King (acting through representatives) or lower lords would adjudicate disputes and regulate society. Saying "we have too many laws--nobody can know them all at once" is like saying "Linux has too many lines of code--nobody can understand it all at once." The complexity is unavoidable. You can shift it around, but you can't get rid of it.

mindcrime 14y ago
There has never been a successful society of an serious complexity that had law that could be codified in a form where one person could understand them all. Even if, for the sake of argument, we take that as true... the fact that something hasn't been done yet does not necessarily prove that it's impossible. If everyone simply accepted the status quo as inevitable, we would never make any progress at all.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > the fact that something hasn't been done yet does not necessarily prove that it's impossible. No, but it does suggest that if it were easy and efficient, someone would have done it already.
  - ISL 14y ago
    Once you know how, Calculus is relatively easy and efficient. Lots of very smart mathematicians predated Newton and Leibniz.
  - btilly 14y ago
    No, it suggests that it is not in the interests of the powers that be to make things easy and efficient. A hypothesis for which there is much independent evidence. For example when a regulated group achieves regulatory capture, it is in their interests to create new regulations of great complexity. See, for instance, the way that under Bush regulations on the financial industry increased, at the same time as the amount to which those regulations kept incumbents from doing what they wanted to decreased.
Retric 14y ago
That's not true, the Code of Hammurabi had 282 laws which really was it. Now most people could not read but the average person had a much better understanding of what to avoid doing. The issue is the separation between well understood laws with fuzzy edge cases and laws that people simply don't know about.

joe_the_user 14y ago

I agree the problem you mention is important but you really shouldn't derail the important point of the parent to rail about your important, somewhat-related but distinct issue. Write a blog, submit it here (with yet another throwaway account if you feel the need). Access to legal codes and excess proliferation of legal codes both matter, both should be talked about and both benefit from avoiding cross talk. I had thought Hacker News was smart enough to avoid letting even the most intelligent, well articulated thread derailment to get to the top of its pages.

btbuildem 14y ago

I agree -- but having transparency and access would allow us to see the multitude of the laws, and perhaps press the legislature for repealing some of them.

rthomas6 14y ago

>Any person who goes about their day in a normal fashion breaks multiple laws every day. I've heard this assertion so many times, and after thinking about it, I don't think it's actually true. I agree with the sentiment of your comment, but I don't think I'm actually breaking multiple laws every day. Feel free to prove me wrong. Edit: Could anyone at least provide me with an example of some laws that many people, and perhaps I, break every day unknowingly? That would be a start.

rosser 14y ago
Do you browse non-work-relevant websites on your company provided computer outside your lunch hour or other explicitly defined break times and against defined company policy? You've "exceeded authorized access". Do you have specific knowledge of someone possessing controlled substances in a jurisdiction or situation where they're forbidden (e.g., someone in a medical marijuana state who possesses even misdemeanor amounts of pot but doesn't have official medical sanction for its use, or anyone possessing any amount in a "dry" state)? Obstruction of justice. Have you ever taken a "mental health day" and called in sick when you aren't actually sick? You've defrauded your employer. These are all acts specifically described as illegal by the relevant statute. EDIT: clarifying language on "exceeding authorized access" case.
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  > Do you browse non-work-relevant websites on your company provided computer outside your lunch hour or other explicitly defined break times? You've "exceeded authorized access". Not true: http://www.pcworld.com/article/253581/court_violating_work_computeruse_policies_not_a_crime.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/253581/court_violating_work_c...
  - rosser 14y ago
    I don't think that ruling means what you think it means. The court adopted this interpretation and expanded its scope, ruling that an employee "exceeds authorized access" under the CFAA when they use a computer in way that violates an employer's access restrictions... They decided that, as a logical extension of this finding, the question of whether an employee "exceeds authorized access" is likewise determined by the employer's actions, including (but not limited to) the promulgation of computer use restrictions. Since Korn/Ferry indeed had such computer use restrictions, which the defendants violated when they accessed the executive database for fraudulent purposes, the Ninth Circuit court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the district court to reinstate the five counts under Section (a)(4). [1] If your employer says you can't browse Facebook or Hacker News with your work computer, and you do, you're "exceeding authorized access". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nosal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nosal

jarrett 14y ago

While I entirely agree in principle with the idea that laws cannot solve all problems, I must disagree that we should aim for a society where any one person can understand all the laws. Our society is extremely complex. There are many many industries and activities that need to be individually regulated. Let's take a few examples of very specific, arcane laws that are important for everyday people who might not even know about them. 1. Suppose you buy a home, and in the bathroom, there is an exhaust fan. You use that fan for years, and one day discover that it has been venting into your attic, and that your attic is thus absolutely full of toxic mold that will cost a small fortune to remove. And if you don't remove it, you're endangering your health and possibly making your house unsellable. As it turns out, most jurisdictions in the US require, by way of the building code, that bathroom exhaust fans be vented directly outside. Had that law been in place in your jurisdiction, perhaps you wouldn't have a mold problem today. 2. Now imagine the FTC doesn't exist, or perhaps that its regulations are vastly simplified. You have a pension plan. You don't pay much attention to how your pension fund is invested. One day, you see on the news that your pension fund has dropped in value by 50%. It turns out the plan was heavily invested in a certain company that looked good in its prospectus but was actually in very bad shape. If today's FTC existed, with its complex and obscure regulations on how a company must report its financial state, perhaps your pension fund managers would have been able to make a better decision. 3. Now suppose you rent an apartment. Your landlord turns the heat way down for no apparent reason, and it's 50 degrees in your unit all the time. In many jurisdictions, there are laws requiring landlords to provide a minimum level of heating. With such a law in place, you could force the landlord to turn the heat back up. ========= Each of these examples hinges on a law that most people will probably never think about. Yet you may indeed benefit from them many times in your life, without ever knowing it. It could also be argued that such laws are not guaranteed to prevent the negative outcomes imagined above. This is true. No law will be obeyed 100% of the time. But that doesn't make them useless. Laws can and do influence behavior--when they come with an adequate enforcement mechanism, that is.

neilxdsouza 14y ago

My startup idea for this round of YCombinator is to translate the laws into Prolog like clauses and have a search engine interface which replies with relevant sections applicable. Not like the idea would be accepted but, this is a good direction to move into.