5 ms·

I always marvel how our legal systems manage not to collapse given the imprecise language they use. So while they have similar problems it seems to me that they

by danbruc 12y ago

I always marvel how our legal systems manage not to collapse given the imprecise language they use. So while they have similar problems it seems to me that they are just ignoring them for the moment and let somebody else figure out what the precise meaning is if the necessity arises.

scromar 12y ago
This is true.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
chillingeffect 12y ago
Yes, in programming, the goal is to communicate clearly to an indifferent interpreter. In legal worlds, the goal is to express the intention while excluding the maximum number of outsiders. Why else does every coding language provide plain-language comments, but legal documents do not? In technology, the machine is a stand-in for a human relationship - the cell phone app keeps track of restaurant ratings so people don't have to keep asking one another. The code is a part of the system of distributing the power in the form of information. In the legal world, the intently obscure language is the means of hoarding and securing the power. W/r/t to legal systems collapsing, they're protected by guns and myths. The baillifs and police believe Columbus was a hero and they kill to uphold his dream. The incentive to power is enough to entice enough new scholars each year to sustain the illusion. So to respond to the poster above, the pains of the programmer and legal system are no more similar than the programmer and the chef. Each attempts to communicate a procedure, but the legal system has an entirely different and less noble set of requirements.
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  > W/r/t to legal systems collapsing, they're protected by guns and myths. This is true enough in many parts of the world, but a careful reading of the history of English Common Law reveals a fascinatingly iterative legal process that formed a bulwark against monarchal oppression for hundreds of years. For a good introduction, check out this book: http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Freedom-English-Speaking-Peoples-Modern-ebook/dp/B00BATKSIO http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Freedom-English-Speaking-Peo...
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    Through a lot of blood, deaths, public executions, and religious declarations, schisms and wars (civil and otherwise.) The history of English common law is far more akin to natural evolution than any intelligent design.
    - vinceguidry 12y ago
      > The history of English common law is far more akin to natural evolution than any intelligent design. So are many of the software projects I've been called on to maintain.
      - kyllo 12y ago
        That's actually an arguably better way to think about code. "The computer is a machine, but a codebase is an organism." http://www.meltingasphalt.com/technical-debt-of-the-west/ http://www.meltingasphalt.com/technical-debt-of-the-west/
    - baddox 12y ago
      Which is interesting, because the vast majority of people (including and perhaps especially those who reject intelligent design in biology) think that a relatively stable and successful society and economy can only exist when organized by a centrally and deliberately planned body called government. That's essentially the "intelligent design" belief for human societies.
      - notahacker 12y ago
        If you believe that intelligence is the product of natural selection, and also observe that nature has very strongly selected for human social organization under a government, it's far from unreasonable to use the advantage of the intelligence we've evolved to augment the advantages of the governments we've evolved.
        lutusp 12y ago
- nhaehnle 12y ago
  I liked your comment, and share a lot of your cynicism about the legal system. To be fair, though, I think you see technology and code in too positive a light, because code is also often a means for accruing power. Your own example of a cell phone app that keeps track of restaurant ratings could serve to illustrate this quite well: such services have a tendency to become highly centralized with at most a handful of alternatives. [0] Whoever controls the rating service then has considerable power, because they get to subtly influence the way that results are displayed, which can directly influence restaurants' bottom line. This type of thing is even more obvious with services like Google and Facebook. Just something to keep in mind before patting oneself too much on the back... [0] This is due to network effects: people use the service with the highest pervasiveness (basically, the most ratings and comments), and the service with the most users tends to get the most ratings and comments.
kyllo 12y ago
Every time I read legal language that comes across as highly imprecise or ambiguous, my default assumption is that someone powerful wanted it written that way, to allow them some sort of loophole.
- eli 12y ago
  Do you assume every security flaw is a secret backdoor too? :)
  - HillRat 12y ago
    Only if they're deliberately introduced. Very little accidental ambiguity makes it into legal contracts (unlike legislation and agency regulation!), but deliberate ambiguity is a very valid strategy, and often is designed to break the spirit of an agreement by creating loopholes in the letter. Always, always, always assume that if the same language could be interpreted two different ways, the guy on the other side of the table intends to argue the one that hurts you the most.
goodcanadian 12y ago
I have found that legal language is often very (overly) precise. The confusion comes from the fact that words may be used in a different manner than in common discourse, but that does not mean that they do not have a precise meaning in a legal context.
baddox 12y ago
> I always marvel how our legal systems manage not to collapse given the imprecise language they use. That's only surprising if you consider the language of laws to be of paramount importance. But generally, that's not the case. Most legal outcomes just come down to the discretion of police, prosecutors, judges, and juries, in descending order of prominence. A lot of people, and probably especially programmers and engineers, think of the legal system as a formal system. It's quite common, when discussing some court case, or perhaps some unscrupulous act from a government official, to hear people say "but isn't that illegal?" The surprise implied by that question only makes sense if you assume either that a legal document has actual power to prevent an act (which we know it does not), or that the people who decide legal outcomes are somehow bound by the meaning of a legal document rather than the other way around.

by danbruc 12y ago

scromar 12y ago

This is true.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

chillingeffect 12y ago

Yes, in programming, the goal is to communicate clearly to an indifferent interpreter. In legal worlds, the goal is to express the intention while excluding the maximum number of outsiders. Why else does every coding language provide plain-language comments, but legal documents do not? In technology, the machine is a stand-in for a human relationship - the cell phone app keeps track of restaurant ratings so people don't have to keep asking one another. The code is a part of the system of distributing the power in the form of information. In the legal world, the intently obscure language is the means of hoarding and securing the power. W/r/t to legal systems collapsing, they're protected by guns and myths. The baillifs and police believe Columbus was a hero and they kill to uphold his dream. The incentive to power is enough to entice enough new scholars each year to sustain the illusion. So to respond to the poster above, the pains of the programmer and legal system are no more similar than the programmer and the chef. Each attempts to communicate a procedure, but the legal system has an entirely different and less noble set of requirements.

vinceguidry 12y ago
> W/r/t to legal systems collapsing, they're protected by guns and myths. This is true enough in many parts of the world, but a careful reading of the history of English Common Law reveals a fascinatingly iterative legal process that formed a bulwark against monarchal oppression for hundreds of years. For a good introduction, check out this book: http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Freedom-English-Speaking-Peoples-Modern-ebook/dp/B00BATKSIO http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Freedom-English-Speaking-Peo...
- pessimizer 12y ago
  Through a lot of blood, deaths, public executions, and religious declarations, schisms and wars (civil and otherwise.) The history of English common law is far more akin to natural evolution than any intelligent design.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    > The history of English common law is far more akin to natural evolution than any intelligent design. So are many of the software projects I've been called on to maintain.
    - kyllo 12y ago
      That's actually an arguably better way to think about code. "The computer is a machine, but a codebase is an organism." http://www.meltingasphalt.com/technical-debt-of-the-west/ http://www.meltingasphalt.com/technical-debt-of-the-west/
  - baddox 12y ago
    Which is interesting, because the vast majority of people (including and perhaps especially those who reject intelligent design in biology) think that a relatively stable and successful society and economy can only exist when organized by a centrally and deliberately planned body called government. That's essentially the "intelligent design" belief for human societies.
    - notahacker 12y ago
      If you believe that intelligence is the product of natural selection, and also observe that nature has very strongly selected for human social organization under a government, it's far from unreasonable to use the advantage of the intelligence we've evolved to augment the advantages of the governments we've evolved.
      - lutusp 12y ago
nhaehnle 12y ago
I liked your comment, and share a lot of your cynicism about the legal system. To be fair, though, I think you see technology and code in too positive a light, because code is also often a means for accruing power. Your own example of a cell phone app that keeps track of restaurant ratings could serve to illustrate this quite well: such services have a tendency to become highly centralized with at most a handful of alternatives. [0] Whoever controls the rating service then has considerable power, because they get to subtly influence the way that results are displayed, which can directly influence restaurants' bottom line. This type of thing is even more obvious with services like Google and Facebook. Just something to keep in mind before patting oneself too much on the back... [0] This is due to network effects: people use the service with the highest pervasiveness (basically, the most ratings and comments), and the service with the most users tends to get the most ratings and comments.

kyllo 12y ago

Every time I read legal language that comes across as highly imprecise or ambiguous, my default assumption is that someone powerful wanted it written that way, to allow them some sort of loophole.

eli 12y ago
Do you assume every security flaw is a secret backdoor too? :)
- HillRat 12y ago
  Only if they're deliberately introduced. Very little accidental ambiguity makes it into legal contracts (unlike legislation and agency regulation!), but deliberate ambiguity is a very valid strategy, and often is designed to break the spirit of an agreement by creating loopholes in the letter. Always, always, always assume that if the same language could be interpreted two different ways, the guy on the other side of the table intends to argue the one that hurts you the most.

goodcanadian 12y ago

I have found that legal language is often very (overly) precise. The confusion comes from the fact that words may be used in a different manner than in common discourse, but that does not mean that they do not have a precise meaning in a legal context.

baddox 12y ago

> I always marvel how our legal systems manage not to collapse given the imprecise language they use. That's only surprising if you consider the language of laws to be of paramount importance. But generally, that's not the case. Most legal outcomes just come down to the discretion of police, prosecutors, judges, and juries, in descending order of prominence. A lot of people, and probably especially programmers and engineers, think of the legal system as a formal system. It's quite common, when discussing some court case, or perhaps some unscrupulous act from a government official, to hear people say "but isn't that illegal?" The surprise implied by that question only makes sense if you assume either that a legal document has actual power to prevent an act (which we know it does not), or that the people who decide legal outcomes are somehow bound by the meaning of a legal document rather than the other way around.