Slashdot Mirror

An anonymous reader writes "The California Air Resources Board (CARB) just passed a new regulation that requires glazed glass in automobiles that is supposed to reduce the need to use air conditioning. The catch is that the same properties that block electromagnetic sunlight radiation also block lower frequency electromagnetic radio waves. That means radios, satellite radios, GPS, garage door openers, and cell phones will be severely degraded. Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and no air conditioning.'"

Hugh Pickens writes "New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming. While the 30 percent increase would be an average for both cars and light trucks, the percentage increase in cars would be much greater, rising from the current 27.5 mpg standard to 42 mpg. Environmentalists praised the move. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, called it 'one of the most significant efforts undertaken by any president, ever, to end our addiction to oil and seriously slash our global warming emissions.' Obama's plan also would effectively end litigation between states and automakers that had opposed state-specific rules, arguing that having to meet several state standards would be much more expensive for them than just one federal rule. The Detroit News reported that automakers were on board with the new rule and had worked with the administration on creating a timeline for the transition." There's a case to be made that raising the CAFE won't save oil or reduce greenhouse gases.

Slashdot regular Bennett Haselton summarizes his essay by saying "Spammers really do lie more often under oath than other parties in court (surprise). Judges and prosecutors could promote respect for the law by cracking down on it, and maybe make a dent in spam in the process." Read on to learn of his experiences with (shocking!) spammers who lie in court.

I'm sure everyone feels like their opponents in court are the most reprehensible liars that ever walked the face of the Earth. But these instances seem unusually clear-cut even for a courtroom:

• When I sued one Ohio company for sending me spam, they sent a letter to me (and, when that didn't work, to the court) claiming that someone had dropped a business card in their box at a trade show with an e-mail address one letter different from mine, and they must have mis-read the address when typing it in. They didn't know that after I first got their spam, I called them pretending to be an interested customer, and tape-recorded a conversation with their advertising manager, pretending to be impressed and asking him how he did it (I was in Arizona, so it was legal to tape the call). He admitted that he used a program to scrape e-mail addresses from Web pages into a list and spam them from his desktop.

• A spammer who lived in Washington appeared in court and claimed that he had never sent the spam in question and wouldn't know how. I then produced a tape recording of another conversation in which I had talked to him on the phone, again pretending to be an interested customer, and he talked about sending the mails from a server in China to make it harder for people in the U.S. to block them.

• One company called "Lions Pride Enterprises" actually sent a representative from out of state to tell the judge, "I can tell you, under penalty of perjury, that we looked up the address bhas (at) speakeasy.net in our records, and verified that he had signed up for our list via confirmed-opt-in" (this was right after he explained to the judge, more or less accurately, what confirmed-opt-in meant). Except the mail hadn't been sent to bhas (at) speakeasy.net, the headers showed it was sent to bennett (at) peacefire.org and then forwarded to bhas (at) speakeasy.net. Presumably the spammer just looked at the first address they could find in the headers and assumed that's the one they had mailed, and claimed that address had "opted in." (Much later, this same company apparently branched out into infecting people with spyware.)

• A spammer from Michigan called in to the court hearing by phone, to defend against charges that he'd sent me a spam advertising credit card processing services, and claimed, "I don't even sell merchant accounts." (He lost, due to inconsistencies in his story -- the judge in that case was unusually tech-savvy.) A few weeks later, the same guy sent me another merchant account spam, so I sued him again, and this time he called in to the court hearing (with a different judge) and admitted that he'd sent the spam, but claimed it was legal. I tried to challenge his credibility on the grounds that he'd testified under oath earlier that he "didn't even sell merchant accounts," but the judge said I wasn't allowed to bring that up.

Meanwhile, I've sat through dozens of other people's Small Claims cases, and I've never seen anyone in a non-spammer case get caught really, brazenly lying under oath. Of course, it always seems more egregious when it's your opponent -- but I probably would have noticed if someone had gotten tripped up by a physical document or a recording of their own voice.

The traditional cost-benefit analysis of prosecuting people who lie under oath in a civil trial is that it's just not worth it. The King County Prosecutor's office responded to my inquiry to say they could not recall any instances of someone prosecuted for perjury committed in a civil case. It is not true, by the way, that civil perjury is never prosecuted — when this assumption was making the rounds in 1998 during the Clinton perjury controversy, Professor Stephen Gillers of NYU published a list of counterexamples -- but he conceded in an e-mail that it's nevertheless highly unlikely. Perhaps this makes sense for most trials, where parties come from a general population that includes some honest people and some dishonest people, and even dishonest people often just bend the truth to a degree that outright lying would be hard to prove. (Although I still think it's possible that the costs of prosecuting people who lie under oath in civil cases, might still be outweighed by the benefits of having everyone be scared into being a little more truthful in court proceedings.)

But spammers are different. In the U.S., all spammers are liars — either they are lying to their hosting provider about what they're doing, or, if they have a secret agreement with their provider to avoid getting kicked off, they are complicit in their provider lying to the rest of the world by claiming that they don't allow spam to emanate from their network. (I'm assuming that 100% of U.S. providers at least claim not to allow the sending of spam. This may not be true of the entire world.) Those lies in themselves can't always be punished in court — I can't sue a spammer for lying to their service provider — but I think that courts just haven't realized that all spammers are liars to some degree, and they're more likely than average to lie under oath. This may make the cost-benefit analysis different in the case of prosecuting spammers who get caught lying. You wouldn't need a "spammer perjury law"; there are already laws against perjury, if judges wanted to enforce them.

Courts could start with deterrents that don't cost anything. All judges start out their Small Claims hearings by laying out the rules. Some of them include some very stern admonitions about parties not interrupting each other or the judge (one judge, who possibly had a bad morning, started the afternoon session by threatening to have anyone thrown in jail who argued with him). But I've never seen a judge say anything about being strictly required to tell the truth under oath, with penalties for lying that theoretically include jail time. And if someone does get caught lying, the judge could reprimand them as strongly as possible and stop just short of recommending a criminal prosecution. "Oh, wow," you're laughing, "a stern reprimand! That'll teach them!" But that's what judges do to people who interrupt the judge or each other, and it does get people's attention.

In the examples above, what was surprising was not that the spammers lied to the court but that the judges seemed so blasé about it. In the first case, I had gotten spammed by an Ohio company called SAY Security. After I filed the Small Claims suit and served the papers on them in the mail along with a copy of the spam, I got an e-mail from the owner, Jason Szuch, claiming that they had received a business card at a trade show with 'bnas (at) speakeasy.net' handwritten on it, and accidentally replaced the 'n' with an 'h', and that's how I had gotten their mail. They later made the same claim in a letter to the judge. At the trial, SAY Security didn't show up, so I first pointed out that the e-mail had been sent to bennett (at) peacefire.org and automatically forwarded to bhas (at) speakeasy.net, so it was another case of the spammer mis-reading what address it was sent to, and coming up with a story after the fact. I also had a recording of a conversation with SAY Security's advertising manager, in which he explained how he used a program called Email Extractor to scrape e-mails from Web pages and send the ads.

At that point, the judge thought he had me: You're not allowed to record phone calls in Washington without the consent of all parties. I told him that I knew this, which is why I had made the call and recorded it while I was visiting my Mom in Arizona, which has no such law (and neither does Ohio, which was where the other party was — in order to secretly tape a phone call, it has to be legal in both the caller's state and the call recipient's state). The judge still said I couldn't use it as evidence in Washington. This raises an interesting question. My understanding is that the rules of evidence in Washington don't say "You can't use a secretly taped phone call as evidence." They say, on the one hand, "You can't secretly tape a phone call in Washington," and on the other hand, "You cannot use evidence that was obtained illegally" — but if the call was taped in Arizona and then brought to Washington, it wasn't obtained illegally. I compared it to winning money by gambling in Vegas and then bringing it to Washington to pay the Small claims filing fee — what difference does it make that gambling is illegal in Washington? Oh well, different judges probably would have come to different conclusions on that.

But the real point is that even if the judge did think the recording was inadmissible, couldn't he have still said something like, "Well, if the court did admit this evidence, and if these defendants were here, then they could very well be arrested for perjury — if they were here, I'd tell them that they just had a really close call." At least for the benefit of everyone else who was in the courtroom, waiting for their case to be heard — send a message that the court does care if you get caught lying. As it was, he just shrugged it off, and I got a default judgment since SAY Security didn't show up.

The second case was against a spammer named Joe Spies, who did live in Washington, and who came to court claiming that he didn't know how to send spam and had never made anyone an offer to send spam for money. Again, I had a recording of a phone call in which I pretended to be an interested customer, and he said he could send "5 million e-mails for $500" from a server in China. (This time, since both parties were in Washington, I used a phone number I had specially set up so that people who called it would hear a disclaimer saying "Your call may be monitored or recorded," before it forwarded to my home phone.) Judge Karlie Jorgensen said that even with that phone call, there was not enough evidence that the defendant had sent the e-mail. (This was also the case that I wrote about when I filed a motion with the middle two pages stuck together in the center, and after the motion was denied, I went to the courthouse and saw that the pages were still attached, so I knew that she hadn't read it.)

Lions Pride Enterprises was the other company who sent a representative claiming that they had sent the mail to bhas (at) speakeasy.net and saying, "I swear under penalty of perjury [he was already sworn in, but repeated it presumably for dramatic effect] that I checked personally, and the address bhas (at) speakeasy.net subscribed to our list via verified opt-in," even though the mail had actually been sent to bennett (at) peacefire.org. This was my first spam case, so at the hearing I stuck to my script and I didn't think to point this out to the judge. But if the courts took a harsher view of defendants lying under oath, maybe it would have been worth the time to write a letter to the judge later after I realized the defendant had lied. (In theory, you can be prosecuted for lying under oath even if it's not discovered until after the original trial is over -- since "in theory" is the only place where spammers are punished for lying under oath anyway.)

Finally, in May 2008, a spammer in Michigan named John Tucker called in to a court hearing in which I'd sued him for sending me more spam advertising merchant accounts, as well as the company, Pivotal Payments, on whose behalf he was sending the spam. Tucker admitted that he had sent the spam but claimed that Pivotal Payments had nothing to do with it, at which point I attempted to discredit him by bringing up what he'd said at the last trial:

Me: I wanted to address something that Mr. Tucker said. He sent the faxes saying that he sent this e-mail but he doesn't think it's a violation. But he has stated under oath, to the court, at one point: "I don't even sell merchant accounts." Now I want to introduce that statement because there's a specific rule in the Rules of Evidence, ER 801, which says--
Judge Eiler: Well, don't quote the Rules of Evidence at me. The Rules of Evidence do not necessarily apply in Small Claims Court. If I were to apply the Rules of Evidence, we would have hearings that lasted about 25 seconds. So, don't quote to the rules of Evidence. If you think there's something that you want to tell me, tell it to me straight out.
Me: All right. I want to challenge the credibility of John Tucker as a witness, because he has in the past said under oath in court, "I don't even sell merchant accounts."
Judge Eiler: Did he do it in this court?
Me: Yes.
Judge Eiler: Did he do it today?
Me: No. It was under oath.
Judge Eiler: Well, while you may tell me it's under oath, it wasn't in front of me, I'm not going to hear it. Move on.
Me: Well--
Judge Eiler: Move on.
Me: Do you want the audio?
Judge Eiler: Do you want to move on?

Now there's an odd statement -- "If I were to apply the Rules of Evidence, we would have hearings that lasted about 25 seconds." In Small Claims, the Rules of Evidence are sometimes relaxed in the other direction -- evidence that would be excluded from a regular trial is sometimes allowed to be presented -- but what's the point of making Small Claims more restrictive, excluding evidence that is explicitly allowed under the rules?

Largely on the basis of John Tucker's testimony absolving Pivotal Payments, and their claims that they refused to pay him once they found out he was spamming, I didn't get a judgment against them (I did get another judgment against John Tucker, although I doubt that he has any assets). Later John told me on the phone that Pivotal Payments did pay him the money they owed him after the trial, in accordance with their agreement with him that he would get paid once they were dismissed from the lawsuit. If that's the case, then they lied under oath, too.

This was the same Judge Eiler who, in an earlier case, said that an e-mail "didn't quite have the earmarks" of "spam" sent in bulk, when the e-mail said "I run the web site Work At Home Business Opportunities [...] Please post a link to my site as follows...". The Commission on Judicial Conduct formally reprimanded her in 2005 for being rude to plaintiffs representing themselves; she is currently facing charges for the second time for the same issues, including "preventing pro se litigants [i.e. people representing themselves] from fully presenting their testimony or their positions in court." The CJC receives hundreds of complaints every year about rude and inappropriate behavior by judges, and rejects 97% of the complaints. For a judge to get on their radar even once is an achievement; to do it twice probably warrants a steroids test.

But with regard to laxity towards spammers lying under oath, she is indeed no worse than any other judge. Although Professor Gillers's article showed it's not true that no one is ever prosecuted for civil perjury, it's no wonder that people think that's the case, based on the rarity of prosecutions, combined with the outcomes of the two famous cases that people have heard about. Bill Clinton was disbarred from practicing law before the Supreme Court and had his Arkansas law license suspended for five years, but was never prosecuted; Kwame Kilpatrick was heavily criticized for lying under oath, but only went to jail for violating the terms of his bond. The defenders of both men had a point that even if they lied under oath in a civil case, hardly anyone else ever got punished for that.

In fact, I don't think all perjurers should be prosecuted — Clinton and Kilpatrick were lying to cover up extra-marital affairs, after all. When Clinton was asked during Paula Jones's sexual-harassment lawsuit whether he had ever had a sexual relationship with any other subordinate, if he had answered "Yes" out of the blue and voluntarily spilled out all the lurid details about Monica Lewinsky, wouldn't you have thought, "Dude, you could have just said, 'No'"? They probably shouldn't have gone to jail for perjury. But the mud-slinging they endured, as partisan as it was, at least reminded everyone that a rule had been broken.

The judicial branch can instruct judges at all levels to take perjury in civil cases seriously — at the very least, judges should act angry when someone gets caught lying under oath, at least as angrily as they act when someone interrupts them. That promotes respect for the rule of law, and it doesn't cost anything. And if some parasite like a spammer gets caught lying, prosecutors may be doing the world a favor by pressing criminal charges against them.

In other words, I agree with Thomas Sowell, who responded to defenders of Bill Clinton who said that "everybody" lies about sex: "Everybody urinates every day, but if you do it in a court of law, you will be arrested. And then you will be tried by a jury of your PEERS." OK, I made the last part up.

dstates writes "The automobile industry may be hurting, but Microsoft is doubling down and making a massive new investment in its automotive business unit. Microsoft already works closely with a number of car companies and will enhance that effort with more people and more resources. Sync developed as a collaboration with Ford Motor Co. allows motorists to control their cell phones, music players and navigation systems with voice commands while they drive. Microsoft is also making 'Live Search' technology available to automakers to develop in-car search and navigation. Detroit native Tom Philips, the new unit leader said 'There are a lot of technologies that are two to three years out that are going to provide even more connectivity and innovation. There's such a disconnect between what people experience in their cars and what they experience in the rest of their lives.'"

Frequent Slashdot Contributor Bennett Haselton writes with his latest which starts "If I were writing laws such that I wanted everybody to agree on how to interpret them, I would use the software development life cycle: First, have lawmakers (analogous to "developers") write drafts of the laws. Then a second group (the "test case writers") would try to come up with situations that would be interpreted ambiguously under the law. Then a third group, the "testers", would read the proposed law, read the test case situations, and try to determine how the law should be applied to those cases, without communicating with the law writers, the test case writers, or each other. If there's too much disagreement in the third group on how the law should be applied, then it's too vague to be a proper law. The only laws which made it through this process would be ones such that when they were finally passed, most citizens (the "users") could agree on how to interpret them, in cases sufficiently similar to the ones the test case writers could come up with."

The irony is that this is how laws are supposed to work anyway. Laws have been struck down as being "void for vagueness" on the theory that people ought to be able to read them and know what they mean. But what does "vagueness" mean, if not that different people cannot independently agree on what a law means, and even the nine highest-ranked legal experts in the country are split 5-4 on how to read it? Some Supreme Courts, such as under William Howard Taft, tried to reach unanimous verdicts whenever possible on the theory that it would persuade people of the correctness of their decisions. But unanimity doesn't prove anything if it was achieved by agreeing to agree. Only if judges were put in separate rooms and independently agreed on how to apply a law to a given case, would that prove that the clarity came from the text of the law itself. Legislators ought to start at least trying to pass laws that would meet that test.

For some reason we seem to have just accepted the alternative as the status quo, where laws are passed that express a general sentiment ("no spam with a 'misleading' subject line") but nobody thinks that you could put two people in different rooms and expect them to agree on how the law would apply in most cases. The parties involved in the first court cases may have to spend ruinously large amounts of money to get to the point where judges rule on how to interpret the law, only to find that lower court judges disagree with each other. Meanwhile, anybody bringing a case now has to look up not just the law, but reference the lower court rulings that support their side, while their opponent of course references the other rulings. And even if a case does finally get appealed up to the Supreme Court, which issues a ruling binding on all lower courts, future researchers still can't find out the state of "the law" by looking up the statute; they have to look up the statute and read the Supreme Court ruling which states how the statute should be read (which may still be ambiguous as applied to their current situation). All of this costs a lot of money, which results in a huge waste of resources if both sides can afford it, and tilts the playing field if only one of them can.

I wonder if the reason this is so widely tolerated is because people have absorbed the notion that making and interpreting laws has to be hard, like brain surgery. But brain surgery is hard because the brain is naturally complex and not man-made. Lawyers also have to learn a lot of complex procedures, but not as complex as brain surgery; the major difficulty in a court case is guessing how the judge may interpret an ambiguous law (which is not "difficult" so much as a matter of being lucky), and knowing the unwritten rules that govern what actually happens (including which written rules are followed and which ones are ignored). And there's no reason in principle why this guesswork couldn't be reduced by having laws be more clear to begin with, and putting the "unwritten rules" down on paper.

I watched a scaled-down version of this play out in the first few cases that I brought against spammers in Small Claims court in Washington (although it involved only a waste of resources, not money, since Small Claims doesn't allow lawyers). You know the chorus, so all together now: Some judges said you could sue people out-of-state, and some said you couldn't. Some judges said you could sue for statutory damages in Small Claims, and some said you could only sue if you'd lost money. Some judges said that you could represent a corporation that you own, and some said that if you're a non-lawyer, you can't even represent your own corporation. Some said you could sue under a federal law in Small Claims, and some said you could only sue under a federal law in federal court. There are many more examples, and those were just the contradictions about Small Claims court procedure generally, not even counting the specific issues raised by the anti-spam law.

But as much as I've complained about that in the past, I don't blame the judges for that part. If the law is unclear, then judges have to come down one way or the other. (What I've complained about is when judges say that their interpretation is "the law", and that if you don't get it, you have to do more research. Lawyers know to take this kind of comment with a grain of salt, but a non-lawyer who takes it at face value, could end up wasting dozens of hours or hundreds of dollars in lawyer's fees before realizing that the judge's interpretation was not actually the law, and a different judge might have said the opposite. The judge should just be honest and say, "Well, I'm the ref and this is how I'm calling it. On another day with another judge you might get something else." I've had cases heard by some judges who basically said as much.) Often both interpretations are reasonable, but that's the point -- if both interpretations are reasonable, then there's something wrong with the way the law is written!

For example, there was the judge who said that you couldn't sue in Small Claims unless you'd lost money, because Small Claims jurisdiction is limited to "cases for the recovery of money only if the amount claimed does not exceed four thousand dollars". Most judges interpreted "recovery of money only" to mean that Small Claims courts can only award money damages, and not, for example, order someone to return property. Two judges, however, said that "recovery of money" implied that you could only literally "recover" money that you used to have and then lost (relying on the common English meaning of the word "recover"). In legal jargon, however, "recover" often simply means taking something from another party, and I won one such case on appeal after I submitted three Supreme Court rulings as evidence that used the phrase "recover statutory damages" or "recover punitive damages" in that sense, since statutory damages and punitive damages refer to money over and above what the plaintiff actually lost. (The original judges did not change their minds, but one of them later recused herself from any future spam cases filed by me, a move that I thought was questionable.)

Here's another example where there's no excuse for the law not to be completely clear, since it's specifying a number. To appeal a Small Claims ruling in Washington, you have to post a bond for "twice the amount of the judgment and costs, or twice the amount in controversy, whichever is greater". Presumably the "amount in controversy" means the amount that the plaintiff was suing for. But hang on -- in Small Claims you can't possibly be awarded more than you sued for. And that means the "the amount of the judgment and costs" will always be less than or equal to "the amount in controversy"! So why not just say "twice the amount in controversy"?

Or perhaps the "amount in controversy" only means the amount that the plaintiff and defendant disagree on. So if you sue someone for $2000, and the defendant agrees on the first $500 but not the remaining $1,500, and the judge's interpretation falls in between and she awards you $1,200, how much of a bond do you post if you want to appeal? $3,000, literally twice the "amount in controversy" between you and the defendant? $2,400, twice the amount of the judgment? $1,600, twice the difference between what you sought and what the judge awarded you? $4,000, twice the amount you sued for?

Beats me. When I first started out, I'd drive myself and my lawyer friends crazy asking, "Well, what's the rule? What's the answer?" Well, now I know: There is no rule, it just depends on what the judge says. Actually in this case, it depends on what the clerk says -- because it's the clerk at the courtroom's front office, not the judge, who handles the paperwork for an appeal and checks that you posted a bond for the right amount, so you have clerks effectively deciding how to interpret the law. (Just last week, after I sued a telemarketer for $1,500 and won a judgment for $565, the telemarketer appealed by posting a bond for twice that amount, or $1,130. This doesn't seem correct under any interpretation of the law, since the "amount in controversy", however you define it, was greater than the "amount of the judgment" of $565.)

Sometimes, courts have settled on how to interpret a rule, but the interpretation is still different from what the rule actually says. The Small Claims form that you serve on defendants says, "You are further notified that, in case you do not appear, judgment will be rendered against you for the amount of the claim as stated herein below..." This is not true -- you can lose even if the other party does not appear (if the judge thinks, for example, that a spam's subject line was not misleading enough). I understand that having that line on the form serves a useful purpose by getting people to show up. But it's still wrong, and everybody knows that it's wrong, and it's on the form anyway.

A more serious example: When I first started suing spammers, if I thought they would show up in court, I'd sometimes try to go to the trouble of catching them in a lie, like the guy who showed up and claimed he didn't know anything about any spam, before I showed that I had recorded a phone call where he admitted that he could send out 5 million e-mails from Chinese servers for $500. (Yes, taping the call was legal -- follow the link for more info.) The written rule is that if you lie under oath in court, you can be arrested for committing a felony, even if the case is only a civil trial. But it turns out the unwritten rule is that perjury in a civil case is almost never prosecuted, and in most of my cases where I had proof that the defendant lied, the best that would happen was that I'd just win the civil case anyway, and sometimes not even that. It's not just Small Claims, either -- in one currently ongoing case, the defendant's lawyer just filed an answer to our complaint stating "Plaintiff subscribed to receive our e-mails". There's absolutely no way their attorney believes that to be true (with the spam in question being sent by mortgages spammers from forged domains, it's hard to see how anyone could "subscribe" to receive those mails even if they wanted to), but attorneys are required to submit such briefs with good faith in their veracity. So why isn't he on the hook for that? Because of the unwritten rule that courts just don't make a big deal out of it.

The point is that none of these issues is hard to grasp. The difficulty lies not in understanding the problems, but in the impossibility of guessing how a judge will interpret an ambiguous rule -- or, in the case of an unwritten rule which contradicts the written ones, the difficulty of knowing the unwritten rule if you don't have a lawyer's experience.

So, ambiguous laws could be divided into three categories:

1. Laws and rules where there ought to be no ambiguity at all -- for example, rules about who can be sued where, and for how much, and what size bond you have to post if you want to appeal. The fact that these laws are not clear enough to be universally agreed up on, is just silly. (Again, if judges have a conference or an e-mail discussion and decide on an interpretation, that doesn't mean the law as written was clear -- in fact, the fact that they had to have that discussion, proves that it wasn't.)

2. "Unwritten rules" that are generally agreed upon by lawyers and judges, but which are not actually written down or may even contradict the rules codified into law. Are trials and proceedings actually conducted according to written rules? The acid test for this would be: Hire a physics professor or somebody (so the legal establishment can't use the excuse of calling him a dumbass) and have him look at the history of events and documents in a typical civil case, from the vantage point of one side's lawyer. At each stage in the proceeding, before the professor sees what the lawyer actually did next, have the prof try to figure out what they would have done, based on the written rules. (The question is not whether the prof would have come up with the same strategy as the lawyer, but whether they would have done something that was procedurally correct at all.) If there are too many cases where the professor does something that technically conforms to the written rules, but where the lawyer says it would have been rejected by the court as procedurally invalid -- and if the same thing keeps happening with more and more smart non-lawyers trying the same experiment -- then this suggests that either the procedures need to be changed to conform with the written rules, or the written rules should conform with the procedures. (Because actually changing laws and rules is so hard, a better idea would be to publish an "annotated version" of the court rules which describes the procedures the way they are actually followed.)

3. Laws governing situations where ambiguity is hard to get rid of -- for example, the part of the Washington anti-spam law prohibiting "misleading subject lines". Here the question is whether a mushy category like that could ever be clearly defined so that people would independently agree on what it meant.

For the first two categories, bringing some clarity to those laws ought to be a no-brainer. Some candidate like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich who can say whatever they want because they're not going to win anyway, should make an issue out of it. They wouldn't have to fix the problem all at once. They could just promote it as a core American value that has been overlooked: Laws and court rules should be clear, and they can't be called clear unless people can independently agree on how to read them. The Left could get behind it because it would bring more equality between the rich and poor in the legal system. The Right could get behind it because they style themselves as the party backing judges who are "strict constructionists" that apply the law as literally as possible. (Although at the risk of alienating potential right-wing supporters, I don't think that "strict constructionism" would have much meaning until laws are clarified using something like this process. To say that this or that judge is a "strict constructionist" under our current laws, often sounds to me like a bunch of hooey, when the laws are too ambiguous for anybody to strictly construct anything out of them. Clarence Thomas, who is often held out as an example of a "strict constructionist" judge, has said that Tinker vs. Des Moines, the Supreme Court case that extended First Amendment rights to high school students, is "without basis in the Constitution". But there's nothing in the First Amendment to say that it's limited to individuals over 18, although ironically most "strict constructionist" judges and their supporters, read it as if it is.)

The third category of ambiguous laws would be more interesting to try to fix. Would it be possible to come up with a standard for a "misleading" subject line that everyone could agree on? Probably not. But I think you could measure the ambiguity of a law by using testers and test case writers in the kind of procedure I suggested in the first paragraph, and you could get to the point where there was less disagreement among the testers on how to interpret the law as applied to typical subject lines.

If lawmakers knew in advance that their laws would be subject to that kind of test, they would write them more clearly the first time around. Why couldn't laws be written to include a list of hypothetical situations, for example, specifying which situations the law covered and which ones it didn't? For example, a list of sample spam e-mails to illustrate what the law means by a "misleading subject line". Of course, the trouble with picking examples to illustrate your own points, is that people tend to pick examples that fall squarely in the middle of the categories they're illustrating ("your refund has been processed" is misleading, "printer cartridges for sale" is not). If the lawmaker included illustrative cases like this that were too-obvious examples of what they were describing, then the "test case writers" would be able to shoot down the proposed law by picking hypothetical cases that were closer to the borderline (so that in the third phase, when the testers tried to apply the law to those borderline cases, different testers would classify the borderline cases differently, and the law would fail the vagueness test). To mitigate this, the author of the law should pick illustrative examples that would be at or near the borderline, thus providing clearer guidance as to where the boundary lies between a misleading and non-misleading subject line. Which is what they should be doing in the first place.

Now, there are some problems that even the double-blind test for unambiguous laws, would not solve:

• Judges could be systematically biased against a particular law (and even proud of it), in which case they can make things difficult for you even if the law is unambiguous. Or, they might be so biased in favor of a law that they carry it further than the clearly proscribed boundaries, as in the case of a judge who upheld the conviction of a man for sending sexually explicit instant messages, even though the law in question was clearly limited to e-mails.

• Judges may not take cases seriously from non-lawyers. In one series of cases that I brought, I filed written motions with two of the pages stuck together by a tiny thread of paper, so that after the judge ruled, I could examine the motions in the court file to see if the thread was still intact. I found that about half the time, the judge had rejected the motion without reading it.

  This is a hard obstacle to overcome, especially after the Commission on Judicial Conduct ruled that it was not a violation of the Code of Conduct for a judge to reject a motion without even turning the pages. It wouldn't do any good to show that judges ruled against pro se (self-representing) plaintiffs more often than against lawyers, because judges could claim it was because pro se plaintiffs just made more errors (although it would be hard to use this excuse to explain why judges rejected briefs without reading them at all). One way to test this would be to have judges conduct the trials "blind" so that they would see the briefs presented by each side, but they wouldn't know whether the brief was submitted by a lawyer or a non-lawyer representing themselves. However, this would require difficult changes to the way legal procedures are conducted

  A simpler way might be: Once the "unwritten rule book" has been authored, such that your typical non-lawyer in the above experiment knows what kind of briefs to submit at each stage of a trial, have a legally trained third party look at briefs written by the lawyer and briefs written by an average lawyer, and see if they can tell which is which. If the third party can't tell, then that indicates the non-lawyer is writing the briefs almost indistinguishably from a lawyer -- and then if a judge in a real trial keeps hammering them for "procedural violations", it would be because of the judge's knowledge that the party was a non-lawyer, and not because of what the party actually did. On the other hand, if the judge ruled against the person in the same proportion that that person's briefs were being flagged as "obviously written by a non-lawyer" in the double-blind experiment, then that would indicate the judge was being fair.

• Even if a law is perfectly unambiguous, judges may disagree on whether it is constitutional under the First Amendment, for example. Making these situations unambiguous would involve tampering with the First Amendment, probably not a good idea in this or any other political climate.

• It wouldn't do anything about the corrupt process by which laws are often passed in the first place, in exchange for campaign contributions. (As one scholarly analysis says, "It's exactly like buying a hamburger, except that under our laws, everybody must pretend that nobody is buying anything, and nobody is selling anything.")

But notwithstanding these problems, I think any law that could pass the double-blind interpretation test, would be an improvement over one that can't. First, because it appeals to our sense of fairness to have rules clearly laid out. Second, if we really followed the void for vagueness doctrine, laws would be able to pass that test anyway. Third, economists have documented that there are economic benefits to having stability and predictability in the law. Economist Thomas Sowell wrote in Race and Culture that in some historical periods, even when groups given second-class status under the law (such as Jews in Eastern Europe or the Chinese in Southeast Asia), they were able to prosper better than they did elsewhere, as long as their basic property rights were protected, and the laws, even the discriminatory ones, were consistent and predictable!

This isn't something that would require a wholesale change in a state's constitution or lawmaking procedure. Any legislator could voluntarily try this process out to see if it resulted in laws that were easier for constituents to understand, and had a greater chance of being interpreted by judges to give the result that the legislator wanted. Imagine having an anti-spam law, for example, which said:

Misleading subject lines are prohibited. This includes not only subject lines which contain false advertising, such as:

• 'lotion that cures baldness'
• 'legal copies of Windows for $20'

but also subject line that mislead the user into wasting time on a message. This is because a large part of the harm done by spam is not due to the falsity of the advertisements, but due to the time that users waste on each message before realizing that it's an advertisement. As such, misleading subject lines include those that mislead the user into thinking that the message is from a personal acquaintance, such as:

• 'Congratulations!'
• 'Touching base'

or a subject that misleads the user into thinking that the message is a 1-on-1 communication, such as:

• 'Re: Question about your website'
• 'Shareholder request'
• 'urgent cancer call'
• 'Reminder: link to your website http://slashdot.org/'

[Except for the first group, all of these are subject lines from real spams that I received, which Small Claims judges ruled were not misleading. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I think they are applying the standard of whether a spam constitutes fraudulent or deceptive advertising, not whether it tricks you into opening it. But the original author of the anti-spam law, when talking about other proposed measures, stated that the point of anti-spam laws is that "Computer users should be able to know instantly what's spam and what isn't."]

If you were reading a series of legal statutes and came across one written like this, it would be jarring, like reading a Wikipedia article about cell division and then getting to the part where someone wrote "And Bennett is gaytarded". But that's because we're accustomed to laws being ambiguous, not spelling out how they should be interpreted using reasons and examples. I would like to see some lawmaker, somewhere, insert a law into their state's legal code that looked and sounded something like this. The idea is so radical that maybe it could only be done by an eccentric, like the congressman who had Elmo testify before a Congressional committee before he was arrested for bribery (the Congressman, not Elmo), or the guy who passed a House Resolution commending Napoleon Dynamite ("any members who choose to vote 'Nay' on this concurrent resolution are "FREAKIN' IDIOTS!"). Or maybe it would be up to a regular lawmaker who thinks, what the hell, let's write a law so that people can agree on what it means, and see if it starts a trend.

As for taking the rules that ought to be clear once and for all, like who can be sued where and for how much, some 3%-getting-candidate should start talking about it. When I read an article about how some lawsuit was stalled because a lawyer complained that it was filed in the wrong district, I can barely keep reading because I get sidetracked thinking this is such a pathetic reflection on our legal system. If the rule about where the suit can be filed is unambiguous, why aren't the lawyers sanctioned for raising it as a false issue? If the rule really is ambiguous, why hasn't it been made clear a long time ago? If you support (or are) a politician or candidate who wants to ask these questions, the field is wide open.

thinkzinc notes a story indicating that, according to a new study, men have a harder time putting down a controller than women do. Researchers at Stanford did brain imaging work on a group of young test subjects while they played a simple PC game. Besides the 'obvious' conclusion that men were more 'aggressive at gaining territory on the screen', the tests also indicated that male brains showed more activity in the reward and addiction components of the brain. "The lead author, Dr. Allan Reiss, noted that most of the video games that are popular with men are territory and aggression-type games. 'These gender differences in the brain may help explain why males are more attracted to, and more likely to become hooked on video games than females,' he said. Other recent surveys indicate that about 40 percent of Americans regularly play games on a computer or console, but young males are two or three times more likely than females to feel addicted to video games, Reiss said. "

MrCopilot pointed out that every year there are a slew of gadgets geeks desire for Christmas, and approximately 7 million web pages dedicated to compiling lists of them. So why shouldn't we join in the fun. Here are stories from Dallas News, CBS News, Seattle Times, E Media Wire, Detroit News and MSNBC. So lets take a crack at your own list. There's still another day or two where things could conceivably be shipped on time for the holidays. I highly recommend Rock Band, although my aching hands might disagree.

bbbbryan writes to tell us about the commercialization of the elusive alarm clock prototyped at the MIT Media Lab a couple of years back. This alarm clock actually runs, hides from you, and beeps to ensure that you'll be awake enough not to go back to sleep by the time you find it and get it shut up. Detroit News has a writeup on the device, which you can buy from the inventor's site for $50.

Guinnessy writes "Physics Today has an article on Vehicle Design and the Physics of Traffic Safety. The article analyzes in detail typical crashes experienced between cars, and cars with SUVs'. According to Marc Ross, Deena Patel, and Tom Wenzel, "The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars under existing conditions. That problem is critical because so many light trucks are used nowadays as car substitutes." They suggest some ways in which both cars and SUVs' can be redesigned to improve safety. Meanwhile Detriot News reports on a Pediatrics journal study says that claims that children are no safer in SUVs than cars because of the rollover risks."

3l1za writes ""President Bush on Thursday announced the recipients of this year's Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civil award." Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn -- for their design of "the software code used to transmit data over the Internet" -- are among those to be honored next Wednesday. "

wstearns writes "The Detroit News is reporting that the FBI has raided Alan Ralsky's home. In the raid, the FBI took computers and financial records, effectively shutting him down. Mr. Ralsky has been frequently covered here."

spoonyfork wrote to mention an article detailing a collaboration between Ford, Boeing and Northwestern to research how nanotechnology can improve car and plane design. From the article: "Ford hopes the alliance will help it build more fuel-efficient cars and engines that are more durable because they run cooler. The research also will focus on designing vehicles that run on alternative energy sources, such as hydrogen and electricity. Nanotechnology should allow batteries for hybrid vehicles that produce more energy while weighing less and taking up less space, Stevens said. CEO Bill Ford Jr. recently said half of the company's models will have hybrid capabilities by 2010. By making batteries and other components smaller, it opens up space for more features that consumers want in their vehicles, Stevens said. Designers will be forced to make fewer compromises when choosing materials and amenities."

cgibby98 writes "The AP reports: 'In the last few months, major record labels have signed licensing deals with companies working to field file-swapping services that would block unauthorized files from being traded online.' Most interesting is a service called Peer Impact, which 'can be used to find and purchase tracks from an initial catalog of a half-million songs from all the major labels.... After a user buys a song from Peer Impact, future buyers get it from that member -- or others who have gotten it in the meantime -- instead of from a central server. Users have to pay for each track they download, but sharing songs they've purchased from Peer Impact earns them credits they can spend on the service.'"

thedeletekey writes "The Detroit News recently ran an article about body modifications in the workplace. This got me thinking; do body modifications such as tattoos and piercings still hinder IT professionals in the workplace? Or is this a thing of the past, as these types of personal changes have become more common in recent years. In my experience, I've found both stringent dress codes requiring business casual attire, and no visible body modifications, to no dress code at all. What has the rest of the IT world found to be common?"

thedeletekey writes "The Detroit News recently ran an article about body modifications in the workplace. This got me thinking; do body modifications such as tattoos and piercings still hinder IT professionals in the workplace? Or is this a thing of the past, as these types of personal changes have become more common in recent years. In my experience, I've found both stringent dress codes requiring business casual attire, and no visible body modifications, to no dress code at all. What has the rest of the IT world found to be common?"

Devistater writes "Despite at least four states' laws to the contrary, the FCC has ruled that phone companies need not provide naked DSL service to customers, but can require bundling; for example: Voice and DSL. FCC Commisioners Copps and Adelstein say in dissent 'In this decision, the Commission unwisely flashes the green light for broadband tying arrangements.' 'If it is [ok] to deny consumers DSL if they do not [have] analog voice service, what stops a carrier from denying broadband service to an end-user who has cut the cord and uses only a wireless phone? What prevents a carrier from refusing to provide DSL service to a savvy consumer who wants stand-alone broadband only for VoIP?'"

y00nix writes "Oakland County, MI has plans to roll out a wireless Internet access program dubbed "Wireless Oakland" covering all 910 square miles inside the county. County Executive L. Brooks Patterson unveiled the plans at last night's State of the County address. Additional press coverage via the Oakland Press, and the The Detroit News." Similar in concept to Philadelphia's plans covered yesterday.

bob zee sent in this link about reinventing the wheel, err, tweel, err, whatever. Wheels are an interesting challenge in engineering design: they need to be hard to be durable, soft for a smooth ride, grippy to grab the road, but smooth to reduce rolling resistance, flexible to absorb shocks, yet stiff to reduce heat build-up, and so on. Rubber tires are a relatively recent invention.

Ant writes "According to ShackNews and Hollywood Reporter, American McGee's "Oz" is back on track in several ways. Infogrames dropped the Wizard of Oz based videogame a while ago, but it's being revived now that McGee will be writing an Oz movie script for producer Jerry Bruckheimer. McGee said: "The hero of the story, a teenage boy named Arthur, is whisked away from Earth to an Oz in turmoil. Like Neo in 'The Matrix' films, the boy makes a hero's journey and comes to grips with his powers," he said. "What Jerry Bruckheimer was able to do with 'Pirates of the Caribbean' was simply brilliant, and since 'Oz' is similar in tone to that film franchise, I'd like to follow that model.""

wakebrdr writes "Y2K all over again? A story in today's Detroit News explains how the vehicle ID numbering system (VIN) will soon run out of unique numbers. According to the article, a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers says, 'Longer codes would require a major overhaul of computer systems that would dwarf the challenges and expenses spawned by the Y2K computer dilemma.' Golly, if it's that serious maybe I should start stocking up on MREs and ammunition in preparation for the day the assembly lines come to a screeching halt."

Roland Piquepaille writes "In a new article, the Detroit News says that the adoption of nanotechnology by car manufacturers will produce safer, lighter and cheaper vehicles. While GM is already using nanocomposite materials for several vans, Ford is developing new nanoengineered catalysts to replace platinum. The newspaper gives other examples, such as auto-adaptive suspension systems, scratch-resistant paints or nanocoated windshields which will not crack. In fact, all parts in a car can be improved by using nanotechnology, according to the article. And if automakers are only going to introduce limited amounts of nanotechnology-related products in the next few years, their usage should be widespread within ten years. More details are available in this overview."

Thanks to the Detroit News for their article discussing how videogames have become a great selling tool for automobiles. The piece discusses the willingness of car manufacturers to see their models used in games, with a few exceptions: "Sony Computer Entertainment America spokesman Ryan Bowling says Ferrari, Porsche and Lamborghini demanded exorbitant licensing fees - but that's why they aren't in Gran Turismo." It also mentions the thorny issue of car damage, with Alex St. John of WildTangent, developer of a Chrysler 'advergaming' title, noting: "In the past, advertisers could never imagine a commercial where you dent a car... But half the fun of a game is driving recklessly." A Chrysler spokesperson explains this change of heart for their new game, saying "...corporate attorneys determined that gaming is enough of a 'fantasy' to make it permissible to damage vehicles."

uniformed1 writes "Eliminating red lights along the routes of their vehicles can give emergency response teams the few extra critical minutes that can save lives and property. A front page article in today's Detroit News details the emerging problem with a device that is now being made available to the public -- a traffic light changer. Originally intended only for emergency vehicles, the $300 MIRT (mobile infrared transmitter) emits an infrared beam that signals traffic signals to turn green and gives the vehicle the right-of-way. It is only a matter of time before self-centered drivers start using the devices widely to skirt traffic congestion, which is creating fears that chaos will ensue." Maybe if everyone had these, it would lead to smarter intersections.

uniformed1 writes "Eliminating red lights along the routes of their vehicles can give emergency response teams the few extra critical minutes that can save lives and property. A front page article in today's Detroit News details the emerging problem with a device that is now being made available to the public -- a traffic light changer. Originally intended only for emergency vehicles, the $300 MIRT (mobile infrared transmitter) emits an infrared beam that signals traffic signals to turn green and gives the vehicle the right-of-way. It is only a matter of time before self-centered drivers start using the devices widely to skirt traffic congestion, which is creating fears that chaos will ensue." Maybe if everyone had these, it would lead to smarter intersections.

ComaVN writes "Not a big surprise for those who have followed the recent SCO misery, but SCO is going after SGI. According to SGI, SCO intends to terminate their Unix System V license, much like they did with IBM earlier. I guess it's hard to stop once you've chosen a certain direction for your company." sheddd writes "Does this case have any merit? Joe Formage has written a good article on SCO's strange behavior." Read on below for SCO's odd tactic of attacking the GPL by belittling IBM's legal diligence in not avoiding GPL'd software, and word on why Linux users aren't being served SCO invoices.

larry2k writes "PR newswire has an open letter from SCO to IBM.

From the letter: 'SCO believes that the GPL -- created by the Free Software Foundation to supplant current U.S. copyright laws -- is a shaky foundation on which to build a legal case.'" The release is also carried by NewsForge. Among other things, SCO says "By so strongly defending the controversial GPL, IBM is also defending a questionable licensing scheme through which it can avoid providing software indemnification for its customers."

Doesn't supplant mean "replace"? That's not what the GPL does.

And if you're wondering why you have not received an invoice from SCO for any Linux-based OS you may be running, benploni writes "From Groklaw: In this Detroit News story Blake Stowell explains why no one has received an invoice: 'SCO in August said Linux users could avoid lawsuits by paying a one-time fee of $699. The fee will rise to $1,399 on Oct. 15. Since the response to its appeal was adequate, SCO didn't send bills to thousands of Linux users, company spokesman Blake Stowell said.' [emphasis added]. We all knew there was no way they'd risk actually sending out invoices, and here's the proof."

PnViking writes points out this story in the Detroit News, writing "HP is now covering any claims from SCO if you bought Linux and have a support contract from them: '"We will provide full indemnity across the entire suite for any SCO-related action," said Martin Fink, HP's vice president of Linux. "If (customers) were to get sued by SCO, we would take over their defense and assume liability on their behalf."'" The catch is, you have to be running it on HP equipment ;)

panthan writes "The Washington Post has has an article about a proposed meeting of the WIPO concerning open source having been removed from consideration, apparently due to pressure from the US State Department and the USPTO. 'In short order, lobbyists from Microsoft-funded trade groups were pushing officials at the State Department and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to squelch the meeting. One lobbyist, Emery Simon with the Business Software Alliance, said his group objected to the suggestion in the proposal that overly broad or restrictive intellectual-property rights might in some cases stunt technological innovation and economic growth.'" Lawrence Lessig has some comments.

scubacuda writes "Detroit News: Nikki Hemming, CEO of KaZaA, says KaZaA wants to be the official online distributor for the entertainment industry. 'Realize that this technology is inexorable, and come to the table,' says Hemming to our friends Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti."

Ken@WearableTech writes "Checking the Court's Opinion site every day has paid off. Verizon's action on the FCC's number portability ruling was dismissed by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The court found that Verizon had waited far too long to bring the challenge and it also sided with the FCC's interpretation of the Law rather than Verizon. Barring any other action we may see number portability this year. Unfortunately, Verizon is already lobbying to have the law changed. But it was also nice to see Cingular was on the FCC's side of the case."

redfenix writes " Here, there, and everywhere, the words "Internet Tax" are being uttered with intentions of bolstering state budgets. It may be inevitable that products purchased on the net will be taxed someday. The real question is: can the fragile internet economy really help local tax economies now?"

BostonMACOSX points to this report in the Detroit News that says, in part, "Boston College researchers have found a way to store about 19 times more data on a disk than a common DVD can hold, using optical media made with common products, the December issue of Nature Materials reports." And it's a mix of high and low tech: the disk is formed of "an epoxy glue sold at hardware stores and a glass-like substance," but written with a currently expensive laser.

LunarFox writes: "This article on Wired says a New York City councilman is trying to ban cellphones in 'places of public performance'. It would be the first legislation of its kind, following the recent state-wide ban on cellphone use while driving. Wired mentions that actor Laurence Fishburne, in the middle of a Broadway performance, yelled to an audience member to "turn your f___ing phone off!" And here I thought I was the only one who didn't like hearing Flight of the Bumblebee as a ringtone."

raindr writes "The Detroit News has this article on how comcast is going after people with modified Cable TV boxes.These fines (170k) seem a bit much to me." They apparantly send out a "bullet" to deactivate modded boxes. In other coax news,Shynedog writes "Boston.com is running a story about AT&T broadband users in the Northeast who are complaining about the unfair price hike that has been imposed on subscribers who own their own modems. It the wake of recent customer complaints, AT&T has started offering coupons to offset the monthly increase, but only for the next six months."

An Anonymous Coward excerpts this short Detroit News story, which begins "PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Hewlett-Packard Co. must defend the sale of half-full ink cartridges with its printers after a Minnesota appellate court reinstated a lawsuit against the world's largest maker of printers. Three Minnesota women claim that the company doesn't reveal that the 'economy cartridges' installed on new printers are only half full of ink." The cost of refills is why I've given up on inkjet printers entirely (for now) -- guess which division of HP made more money than the other four combined?

eeex writes: "The SmarTruck, built by the US army, is the ultimate Bond car, able to spill oil and tacks behind itself, equipped with bulletproof glass, a built-in grenade launcher and laser gun, electrified door handles, night vision devices, and more." And on a more civilian note, Irish writes: "alphaWorks is making some sort of car, a 2002 Ford Explorer called the TechMobile, that incorporates a funky combinations of technologies including communication middleware, voice recognitions car controls, and Bluetooth PAN." (Read more below.)

"The Bluetooth PAN will be created using BlueDrekar and Bluetooth Ethernet Emulator. You will be able to inter-connect PDA, cellphones, and a laptops to play games, exchange data, and control things like the doors, lights of the car, and stereo. TSpaces will be the backbone communication middleware for accessing and controlling the electrical functions of the car. They are going to use Blue Eyes, a user interface that detects a person's eyeballs and responds to blinking commands to turn on/off the lights and doors of the car. ViaVoice will perform voice recognition email management, voice-activated control of air conditioning in the car, as well as voice-enabled access to MP3 files through the car stereo system. The car will debut at a conference in San Francisco."