6 ms·

When I read the executive order it appears to explicitly target people "outside the US". Basically the internet changes the paradigm of law enforcement. I get

When I read the executive order it appears to explicitly target people "outside the US". Basically the internet changes the paradigm of law enforcement. I get the impression this is a step toward allowing US to "penalize" people who actively seek to disrupt computers / networks in the US from abroad. If you spend too much time trying to figure out all the tiny details and put them into the eo this is where (a) you can waste time nitpicking instead of spending that time enforcing, (b) cases get thrown out of court on technicalities just because "this is what the law / eo says". Instead I prefer a system where executive / judicial branches of government can spend all their time analyzing a case based on the merits alone and not on the technical jargon that may or may not be included in the law / eo. I prefer the approach of "give the elected representatives a leash, but a short one". Spend less time agonizing over exactly what the law should say, and more time analyzing whether or not the law / eo is being enforced in good faith. The one exception to this rule is if you have (a) an overly broad law / executive order, and (b) an executive branch who is not transparent about how they enforce those laws / executive orders.

akshatpradhan 12y ago
>Spend less time agonizing over exactly what the law should say, and more time analyzing whether or not the law / eo is being enforced in good faith. The Patriot Act wasn't being enforced in good faith. In fact, the Patriot Act was being used for drug investigations, not terrorism. 303 points on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8536292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8536292
- datashovel 12y ago
  That's a perfect example of a situation where the feedback loop needs to be tightened in government. The more I think about it the more I feel governments should be alot more nimble than they have been historically. Alot more like an agile development team. There needs to be just as often "amendments to" or "repealing of" laws that aren't working as originally intended as there are signings of new laws. Instead we have in government the equivalent of a team of developers working on a project for months or maybe years nitpicking all the details before launching only to find that no one wants the product they spent all that time working on, or that it's out-dated, or impossible to maintain given all the complexity, or that it doesn't work on half the computers people try to run it on.
weland 12y ago
I would argue that (a) and (b) are exactly what's happening now, and why people are so unhappy with this law: it's overly broad, and it will be applied by organizations that have traditionally given little importance to the boundaries of the law, right to defense, and even human rights.
valar_m 12y ago
I could not disagree more. The only way to keep the "leash" short is with a great amount of precision in writing laws. There is no "enforce[ment] in good faith", and the evidence is everywhere. The Patriot Act is used domestically for any and every type of law enforcement investigation, far beyond what it was supposedly intended to be.[0] We've seen civil forfeiture become essentially a license to steal for LE agencies.[1] The government has stretched the meaning of the "exceeds authorization" component of the CFAA to the point of being almost meaningless.[2] The point is this: the natural tendency of government is to stretch any power it is granted to the absolute max. We have reached a point that an assumption that government will exercise enforcement in "good faith" is simply naive. I assert that there is little evidence to the contrary. [0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/post/patriot-act-used-to-fight-more-drug-dealers-than-terrorists/2011/09/07/gIQAcmEBAK_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/post/patriot-... [1] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken [2] http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf
- datashovel 12y ago
  In a somewhat ironic way I agree with you. However I am speaking from the perspective of what I want the US government to be more like instead of what it is right now. When you have no faith in your government I think you want no leash at all. Put all the details in the laws if you want more power than you already have. But when you have sufficiently capable and competent actors in government I would lean on the side of trusting and giving the leash. EDIT: And come to think of it, enormous weight of huge bills / laws I imagine could become a hindrance to a government's ability to do its job. Think about it. What if you inherited a highly complex legacy application that you were not allowed to rewrite from scratch or even refactor it, but were stuck maintaining it. And all that you ever get to do is add more code on top of the old (alot of times bad) code. It seems a cycle of futility. Instead given limited resources of a government I want a lean system where people are allowed to use their judgment and intuition.
  - PostOnce 12y ago
task_queue 12y ago
The leashes are the words of the law and their ultimate interpretation. Everything follows from those words. Transparency and good faith are ideals that are rare in powerful bureaucracies. Expecting those with the most power in the world to act in good faith is a scorpion and frog tale.
- datashovel 12y ago
  I am only thinking out loud right now, but I'm trying to picture what the US Constitution would look like (or if it would have even been finished) had the founders agonized over all the minutiae they could've consumed themselves with when writing it.

akshatpradhan 12y ago

>Spend less time agonizing over exactly what the law should say, and more time analyzing whether or not the law / eo is being enforced in good faith. The Patriot Act wasn't being enforced in good faith. In fact, the Patriot Act was being used for drug investigations, not terrorism. 303 points on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8536292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8536292

datashovel 12y ago
That's a perfect example of a situation where the feedback loop needs to be tightened in government. The more I think about it the more I feel governments should be alot more nimble than they have been historically. Alot more like an agile development team. There needs to be just as often "amendments to" or "repealing of" laws that aren't working as originally intended as there are signings of new laws. Instead we have in government the equivalent of a team of developers working on a project for months or maybe years nitpicking all the details before launching only to find that no one wants the product they spent all that time working on, or that it's out-dated, or impossible to maintain given all the complexity, or that it doesn't work on half the computers people try to run it on.

weland 12y ago

I would argue that (a) and (b) are exactly what's happening now, and why people are so unhappy with this law: it's overly broad, and it will be applied by organizations that have traditionally given little importance to the boundaries of the law, right to defense, and even human rights.

valar_m 12y ago

I could not disagree more. The only way to keep the "leash" short is with a great amount of precision in writing laws. There is no "enforce[ment] in good faith", and the evidence is everywhere. The Patriot Act is used domestically for any and every type of law enforcement investigation, far beyond what it was supposedly intended to be.[0] We've seen civil forfeiture become essentially a license to steal for LE agencies.[1] The government has stretched the meaning of the "exceeds authorization" component of the CFAA to the point of being almost meaningless.[2] The point is this: the natural tendency of government is to stretch any power it is granted to the absolute max. We have reached a point that an assumption that government will exercise enforcement in "good faith" is simply naive. I assert that there is little evidence to the contrary. [0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/post/patriot-act-used-to-fight-more-drug-dealers-than-terrorists/2011/09/07/gIQAcmEBAK_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/post/patriot-... [1] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken [2] http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf

datashovel 12y ago
In a somewhat ironic way I agree with you. However I am speaking from the perspective of what I want the US government to be more like instead of what it is right now. When you have no faith in your government I think you want no leash at all. Put all the details in the laws if you want more power than you already have. But when you have sufficiently capable and competent actors in government I would lean on the side of trusting and giving the leash. EDIT: And come to think of it, enormous weight of huge bills / laws I imagine could become a hindrance to a government's ability to do its job. Think about it. What if you inherited a highly complex legacy application that you were not allowed to rewrite from scratch or even refactor it, but were stuck maintaining it. And all that you ever get to do is add more code on top of the old (alot of times bad) code. It seems a cycle of futility. Instead given limited resources of a government I want a lean system where people are allowed to use their judgment and intuition.
- PostOnce 12y ago

task_queue 12y ago

The leashes are the words of the law and their ultimate interpretation. Everything follows from those words. Transparency and good faith are ideals that are rare in powerful bureaucracies. Expecting those with the most power in the world to act in good faith is a scorpion and frog tale.

datashovel 12y ago
I am only thinking out loud right now, but I'm trying to picture what the US Constitution would look like (or if it would have even been finished) had the founders agonized over all the minutiae they could've consumed themselves with when writing it.