12 ms·

Do you think Rayiner is representative of law clerks in general?

by ericd 13y ago

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Exactly, he isn't[1], thank goodness (nothing personal rayiner, but I disagree with quite a lot of your opinions). [1] There is no question about his competence with computers.
anigbrowl 13y ago
No, but nor do I think much of the author's snide dismissal of law clerks as 'people who use Facebook a lot,' (and who, by implication, are incapable of parsing the defense team's arguments). This is a popular trope on HN, but not a very well-founded one. There is intense competition for clerking assignments, which means they go mostly to the cream of the academic crop, and good law students and lawyers are the kind of people who are able to accurately assess their own level of knoweldge on a particular subject and rectify it through research, because their professional reputation depends on the ability to do so. Frankly, I would trust a law clerk who knew nothing about computers to understand the subject better after study than I would a programmer who knew nothing about law.
- ericd 13y ago
  I agree with your opinion of law clerks as generally competent people, which probably extends somewhat to technology with the younger set. That said, I know a lot of young, competent engineers and scientists who know next to nothing about the workings of computers and networks. They could figure out a lot if they had the time to put into it (I've seen a couple switch into development successfully), but usually they don't and their knowledge is of the surface-level stuff. That could still help with gut checks about what's reasonable behavior online for a casual user, but it's far from the nuanced understanding necessary to understand the ramifications of and make calls about things like the various applications of the CFAA in cases involving more advanced users. Most people are not curious about technology and generally don't have a good understanding other people's curiosity about the subject. Should they be the ones to judge whether someone was just playing around or trying to attack something? Or should it be people with that curiosity who have had experience in playing around with security? I would say that programmers' interpretation of the law via intent and current context in tech cases is frequently more consistent with what a just society needs than most judges' attempts at maintaining consistency with past rulings until a higher circuit corrects the precedent. I wouldn't dismiss the whole class as overenthusiastic amateurs. I may just not be seeing the value in the judges' attempts at finding consistency, though, and I'm curious as to why they strive so hard for it versus trying to find the correct interpretation. My understanding is that that's just an attribute of the common law system. If someone could tell me why that's valuable (perhaps for consistency of enforcement/predictability of outcomes?), that'd be great. Sorry for the tangent, but it's something I'm curious about.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I get where you're coming from, but I'm not willing to join you over there - I honestly think your position is flawed and that programmers are terrible at judging such issues. I may just not be seeing the value in the judges' attempts at finding consistency, though, and I'm curious as to why they strive so hard for it versus trying to find the correct interpretation. This is very much an epistemological question. I'm personally a utilitarian but as we are not granted with the gift of foresight I accept that we need to work within an established framework (ie maintaining consistency with precedent) because what is correct is not nearly as obvious as we would like it to be (eg in this article I think the assumption of what user agent strings are for is too pat by far). A good, accessible, and affordable book on this subject is Bad Acts and guilty Minds by Leo Katz - written by a law professor but for a lay audience. I would be a good deal more utilitarian than he is, but then I'd have approached the defense of Weev's case far differently too.
    - ericd 13y ago
      Thanks for the suggestion, it's on its way to my Kindle for later.

Do you think Rayiner is representative of law clerks in general?

by ericd 13y ago

Do you think Rayiner is representative of law clerks in general?

Exactly, he isn't[1], thank goodness (nothing personal rayiner, but I disagree with quite a lot of your opinions). [1] There is no question about his competence with computers.

anigbrowl 13y ago

No, but nor do I think much of the author's snide dismissal of law clerks as 'people who use Facebook a lot,' (and who, by implication, are incapable of parsing the defense team's arguments). This is a popular trope on HN, but not a very well-founded one. There is intense competition for clerking assignments, which means they go mostly to the cream of the academic crop, and good law students and lawyers are the kind of people who are able to accurately assess their own level of knoweldge on a particular subject and rectify it through research, because their professional reputation depends on the ability to do so. Frankly, I would trust a law clerk who knew nothing about computers to understand the subject better after study than I would a programmer who knew nothing about law.

ericd 13y ago
I agree with your opinion of law clerks as generally competent people, which probably extends somewhat to technology with the younger set. That said, I know a lot of young, competent engineers and scientists who know next to nothing about the workings of computers and networks. They could figure out a lot if they had the time to put into it (I've seen a couple switch into development successfully), but usually they don't and their knowledge is of the surface-level stuff. That could still help with gut checks about what's reasonable behavior online for a casual user, but it's far from the nuanced understanding necessary to understand the ramifications of and make calls about things like the various applications of the CFAA in cases involving more advanced users. Most people are not curious about technology and generally don't have a good understanding other people's curiosity about the subject. Should they be the ones to judge whether someone was just playing around or trying to attack something? Or should it be people with that curiosity who have had experience in playing around with security? I would say that programmers' interpretation of the law via intent and current context in tech cases is frequently more consistent with what a just society needs than most judges' attempts at maintaining consistency with past rulings until a higher circuit corrects the precedent. I wouldn't dismiss the whole class as overenthusiastic amateurs. I may just not be seeing the value in the judges' attempts at finding consistency, though, and I'm curious as to why they strive so hard for it versus trying to find the correct interpretation. My understanding is that that's just an attribute of the common law system. If someone could tell me why that's valuable (perhaps for consistency of enforcement/predictability of outcomes?), that'd be great. Sorry for the tangent, but it's something I'm curious about.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I get where you're coming from, but I'm not willing to join you over there - I honestly think your position is flawed and that programmers are terrible at judging such issues. I may just not be seeing the value in the judges' attempts at finding consistency, though, and I'm curious as to why they strive so hard for it versus trying to find the correct interpretation. This is very much an epistemological question. I'm personally a utilitarian but as we are not granted with the gift of foresight I accept that we need to work within an established framework (ie maintaining consistency with precedent) because what is correct is not nearly as obvious as we would like it to be (eg in this article I think the assumption of what user agent strings are for is too pat by far). A good, accessible, and affordable book on this subject is Bad Acts and guilty Minds by Leo Katz - written by a law professor but for a lay audience. I would be a good deal more utilitarian than he is, but then I'd have approached the defense of Weev's case far differently too.
  - ericd 13y ago
    Thanks for the suggestion, it's on its way to my Kindle for later.