Comment by Y_Y
2 months ago
Is it not absurd that the supreme and appeal courts disagreed on a syntactical matter? Never mind that this isn't uncommon, or that (IMHO) it would be ridiculous to interpret it as "any file layouts at all, and other stuff too, but only bad other stuff". It's crazy to me that were happy for laws to sit on the books being utterly ambiguous.
I know this suits the courts who benefit from the leeway, and that (despite valiant efforts) we're not going to get "formal formal" language into statutes. I know that the law is an ass. I know that the laws are written by fallible and naive humans.
Even after all that, if the basic sentence structure of what's in the law isn't clear to the courts, hasn't the whole system fallen at the first hurdle?
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that's just how the justice system works. Reasonable people can disagree about what exactly a complicated statement says, since language is full of ambiguities. People have been discussing what the U.S. Constitution says exactly from the day it was written and there are still a lot of disagreements.
The standard response to this is that laws should be written in ways that are non-ambiguous but that's easier said than done. Not to mention that sometimes the lawmakers can't fully agree themselves so they leave some statements intentionally ambiguous so that they can be interpreted by the courts.
Nobody reasonably expects all laws to be written completely unambiguously. But since laws (and indeed all manner of legal documents) are filled with lists and modifiers, I don't think it's unreasonable to require that they be written to a certain standard which defines how these lists and modifiers should be interpreted, similar to RFC 2119 https://microformats.org/wiki/rfc-2119.
I’ve often thought we’d get more sensible results in court cases on computer-related issues if we had specialised courts where the judges were required to have a relevant degree (computer science, software engineering, computer engineering, information systems, etc). But I doubt it is going to happen any time soon.
It happens from time to time. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15834800 42 comments)
> These days, he often looks for some kind of STEM background for the IP desk. It’s not necessary, but it helps. Bill Toth, the IP clerk during Oracle v. Google, didn’t have a STEM background, but he told me that the judge had specifically asked him to take a computer science course in preparation for his clerkship. When I asked Alsup about it, he laughed a little — he had no recollection of “making” Toth take any classes — but he did acknowledge that sometimes he gives clerks a heads up about what kind of cases are coming their way, and what kind of classes might be useful ahead of time.
Note that it's not necessarily the judge that's important as an individual knowing the material, but that the clerks who work for the judge are.
3 replies →
Civil code law uses that way of thinking, where there are specialised courts for different areas: administrative, civil, labor, family, commercial and so on. I actually am not so sure it is great as these courts increase the depths of the bureaucracy to the point of being self serving. They also serve to segment expertise.
1 reply →
Correction, that is how common law legal system works.
Alternatives like codified law exist and are practiced, just not in the US or Canada.
To me it feels like the kind of dispute that is exactly why we have multiple levels of appeals court. The "file format" thing is super dumb, and they got it wrong, but the "that if disclosed" statutory interpretation is a thing that seems important to get a final, consistent determination on.
Of course I can't disagree that it's good that it's now settled. Still I can't help but imagine a world where the meaning, at least in terms of which words apply to which others (rather than qualifiers like "reasonable"), should be settled before the law is debated, voted on, and passed.
Even (some) programmers have learnt the dangers of parsing at run time (e.g. "eval is evil"). How can we decide it's the law we want if we don't know what it means yet?
> How can we decide it's the law we want if we don't know what it means yet?
FWIW, judicial interpretation of legislation is generally seen as an exercise in figuring out what the legislature meant. Courts start by looking at the "plain meaning" of the words used, but where that doesn't yield an unambiguous answer they will often look at the overall scheme or purpose of the legislation to try and figure out which interpretation is most consistent with that.
It's far from perfect of course, but it's not like legislation just consists of a bunch of random symbols that are later imbued with meaning by a court operating in a vacuum. The meaning of most legislation is clear most of the time. I'm sure the authors of the bill thought it was sufficiently clear, for any scenario they could contemplate (or, at least, the ones they cared about). But it's hard to see every potential corner case (and if every potential corner case did have to be identified and settled before the bill could even be debated, it's likely Illinois wouldn't have a FOIA today).
2 replies →
That's not the only alternative though. Why are experts not involved in the interpretation and it's left up to how two seperate non-technical groups interpret it?
Other countries have legal specialists for different areas and update their laws continuously based on expert opinion, common law gets expert testimony but is based on generalists to make the final determination
1 reply →
I find it slightly odd that you get hung up on the file format thing. The law as you quoted it says "including but not limited to" and the first example given is then "software".