Slashdot Mirror
IANAL
You might remember the story a few months ago about the 15-year-old stock manipulator, who pumped and dumped stocks on message boards full of gullible idiots. Now the NYT Magazine has a story that is even better - that legal professional answering your questions about criminal law? Maybe he's a 15-year-old too.
Mr. Demara... Mr. Ferdinand Demara... please call your office.
http://www.anakin.com/Pages/pretend/who.html
* Play fair.
* Don't hit people.
* Put things back where you found them.
* Clean up your own mess.
* Don't take things that aren't yours.
* Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
* Wash your hands before you eat.
* Live a balanced life.
* Take a nap in the afternoon.
* Be aware of wonder.
And basically, it's true. Kindergarten is when you become a social human being. A good kindergarten teacher will train you to be a good adult.
Unfortunately, these days, the parents then go and fuck it all up.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
In a nutshell, no. The problem is that of determining "perfect imitation". The Turing test has this very problem, and its biggest weakness is human gullibility. This particular example has a similar problem -- (moving to the Turing test analogy) the "interrogators" are not legal experts and hence not immediately able to observe bad answers. This is partly because they may not ask the right questions, and partly because they don't know how to identify a wrong answer.
Having a MSCE or an A+ does mean shit in the grand scheme of things. You're a fool to think it simply has no significance. You may argue that someone without a MCSE, for example, may be more qualified for a position than someone with.. but you cannot say it doesn't mean "shit" if you have one.
Would you prefer nobody was formally trained, tested, and certified in professional practices? Perhaps we should all just drop out of school and jump on the 'net to learn the things we need to know.
Besides, I'd bet old Marcus would never be able to hold his own in court. It takes more than just knowledge of the law to be a good lawyer, just like it takes more than C++ knowledge to be a good coder. It comes down to not just knowledge, but experience. It comes down to not just experience in the thing you're doing (law, C++ coding) but also in life in general. This could mean how to interact with people, how to work as part of a team (which involves knowing your and your coworkers limitations and expertise) among other things. A 15 year old has no experience and no education in the finer points of law, and that is exactly what you're paying for.
The reason Marcus was able to pull off what he did, I'd hypothesize, is not because he has an incredible understanding of the law, but because he is one of the (many) people who have the talent to tell people what they want to hear and inherently understand the psychology of answering questions. I bet Marcus would make a hell of a Slashdot troll. Mix in a little bit of "Court TV" knowledge where it applies, and blammo, instant at-home lawyer. We just see the lawyer and the stock broker, but how many other 15 year olds with Marcus' skill are out there pulling off the alternative life as experts in car maintenence, cooking, and other less jaw-dropping fields? Looking at slashdot, you can see there are many 15 year olds who pass themselves off, occasionally successfully, as DBAs or sysadmins.. though they're weeded out quickly because 1) This is a tech site and 2) The Internet is a tech phenomenon. The same couldn't be said of our 15-year-old online gourmet chef.
Legal advice, cooking advice, programming advice, etc. is one thing.. being in court, making a dish for a crowd of people, or developing a app to be used in the real world is quite another.
To argue that the education system does not teach the finer points of law is a different argument. I'm assuming that certification (be it MCSE, a degree, or membership to the ABA) indicates that you have been trained in a certain field of knowledge, and have picked up all the experiences involved along the way. Coming out of college with a degree doesn't get you a job just because you've been certified to know X, Y, and Z.. it's because having a degree tells an employer that you were able to accomplish all the goals given to you (and in some cases performed better than most all your peers) without getting sucked under by the wave.
--
While it is true that stereotypes in regards to race, religion, etc. are very rare on the web, to say that it is the "great equalizer" is wrong. People who are unable to express themselves effectively online using English, either because of a lack of education or because it is not their native language, are taken less seriously. It's not far fetched to have a non-native English speaker trying to present an astute point in a web forum but having their readers take them less seriously due to their grammatical errors.
Also, stereotypes do exist. Linux users. AOL users. Windows users. People who read Slashdot. People who read Stile Project. People who use Netscape. People who use IE. People on a certain forum with a lot of posts. People with a few posts. The list goes on and on. A particularly horrible stereotype seen on the web is that if someone is somewhat computer illeterate (just well versed enough to get online) they are then assumed by many to be uneducated or overall incompetent.
There are less ways for these individual traits to be determined (an @aol.com email, for example, is a dead giveaway for an AOLer,) but they are still used to jump to conclusions about the person expressing themselves, in a fundamentally identical manner to the way people do so IRL based upon race, creed, economic status, etc.
I would agree that this phenomenon is much better on the Internet than IRL, but again the Internet is far from the "everyone is equal" utopia you claim it to be.
--
Oh you mean the Ten Commandments?
The ten commandments are proper as religious rules (God's law), but the 1st four commandments are purely religious (and thus not proper subjects for secular law, unless your society represses other religeons).
The three (kill, lie, steal -- not) were suggested, and are arguably required for a functioning society.
Two of the remaining three are versions of lying (adultery -- making your vows false, and false witness, i.e. lying under oath). The last one is an injunction against covetousness, and while that's perfectly good advice, it's not something I want Big Brother to monitor (acting on it is stealing, but wanting it is just thinking).
There is an inherent complexity, and it takes work to say complex things in a simple way. But one can also take work and use it to make things more complex and less coherrent than the a merely straightforward statement.
It seems to me that laws are frequently made unreasonably vauge and complex. Possibly on the grounds that if nobody can understand it, then nobody can object. But even lawyers don't know what a law means until the judge tells them. And sometimes this isn't even about anything near any boundary. Just careless writing (or a simulation of same).
It is also manifestly unfair to expect someone to follow a law that is intentionally incomprehensible. And it is reasonably claimed to be unfair to expect someone to follow a laws that is incomprehensible to over 50% of all people. And it is arguably unfair to expect someone to follow a law that they don't understand.
When the volume of the laws became larger than the volume of the encycolpedia Brittanica, then it became unreasonable to expect a person choosen at random to know and obey a law choosen at random. (Actually, long before then, but I'm intentionally allowing the laws an unreasonable amount of leaway.)
Now, however, (at least in the US) we are in the position where there isn't anyone on the surface of the planet who knows all of the laws that effect their daily activities. Anybody. And yet the legal "profession" has the gall to pretend that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". This is manifestly immoral and unethical. It's only justifications are that
a) It is rarely used (probably). In practice this translates into "only social dissidents need to worry about this".
b) It's traditional. I'm hoping that this is the real reason. Unfortunately, I don't believe that there is any "real" reason. With lots of different people involved, there will be lots of different reasons.
c) We don't know what else to do.
d) We don't worry about that. We worry about getting elected. You don't earn votes by getting rid of laws, or letting people understand that you did something against their interests.
If there's another plausible explanation, then it hasn't occured to me.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
That works great. Of course, it pretty reduces you to subsistence farming, as participating in the modern global economy harms everyone.
He didn't call himself a lawyer, ever.
He did say he was a 'legal expert' on askme.com. People asked, he answered, and his answers were rated very high by not only his clients but by other lawyers on askme.com!
So.... a) He didn't misrepresent anything. He knows a great deal more about law than those asking the questions, that makes him an expert.
b) If even other lawyers thought his answers were good, it's kind of silly for them to come back later and start demoting his answers because he's 15.
c) Sure, after they found out, lawyers come in and ask harder questions, that he can't answer. So what does that prove? Nothing. He wasn't answering difficult legal questions; he was providing clear, concise answers to simply legal questions by Joe Average.
So, if this kid charges $500 per hour, he is suddenly as useful as an a laywer? [...leaving aside the question of how useful laywers are]
The quote from the article "the Internet undermined anyone whose status depended on a privileged access to information" is quite profound. If a 15 year old can provide the same answers as a laywer, what's the difference?
It's sort of like a generalized Turning test. If something can perfectly immitate an x, shouldn't it should be considered equivalent to an x? I'm not sure that's true, but I don't think I have any reason why, either.
Also read it on Yahoo (without registering) here.
that legal professional answering your questions about criminal law? Maybe he's a 15-year-old too.
Sounds like a certain website I know...
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Real people who come to real lawyers are facing real problems. Serious problems. Hard problems. Before they came with a question, they had already run the gamut of what was available.
The merits of the advice offered by this child can be encapsulated in a brief coloquy from the article:
"Where do you find books about the law?" I asked.
"I don't," he said, tap-tap-tapping away on his keyboard. "Books are boring. I don't like reading."
So you go on legal Web sites?"
"No."
"Well, when you got one of these questions did you research your answer?"
"No, never. I just know it."
"You just know it."
"Exactly."
Doh! Yeah, that's the kind of advice a client needs -- someone who "just knows it." Very useful when he's right. Very dangerous when he's wrong.
Like most professionals, a lawyer is useful not for their routine practice, but for their capacity to identify when a non-routine issue arises, and the ability to solve that problem (complete with research from scratch where necessary).
Whether or not the law should be simple, it is not. Whether or not someone should suffer for technical, even hypertechnical, subtleties, under the law, they will. This 15 year old may provide entertainment, but little sound advice.
No doubt he does a fair imitation of a lawyer fielding trivial questions -- but the lack of sophistication of the answers makes it clear that the advice he gives is of the most dangerous kind -- the advice of someone with a little knowledge.
Reference was made earlier to the Nolo press books, the best of which are of sound quality. The difference between the 15 year-old's advice, is that many of these nolo books were written by lawyers and understated their advice, frequently advising where were the limits of their simple advice -- with strong suggestions to contact a lawyer facing a difficult problem.
To avoid this, why not simply create new titles for people who are not formally educated to the standards required to call themselves "lawyers" (for the British, as I understand it, these are divided into barrister and solicitor professions), or other professional titles? Such as:
Bar Member: Someone who passed the Bar Exams.
Lawyer: Someone who graduated law school.
Shyster: Someone like the 15 year old, or anyone else dispensing legal advice without formal education.
This could be extended to several other professions (and partly is):
M.D., G.P., Intern, Quack;
Certified Engineer, Engineer, Technician;
Certified Hacker, Software Engineer (sorry, I don't buy that these are actual engineers), Programmer;
Topiarist, Gardener, Lawn Cutter;
Barber, Hair Stylist, Lawn Cutter (oops, used that already)...
Anyway, except in the rare cases (and they are rare) where the safety of the uninvolved public is truly at risk, let the market choose according to the customer's own decision as to his possible liability, the seriousness of the situation, and ability to pay, and let the customer assume any liability for choosing the wrong level of service.
Or for picking the info off the internet themselves, if they want.
Why should they alone have the right to give legal advice?
Damn straight.
The US was created by people with essentially no "legal standing" - who just got approval from a bunch of like-minded people and went out and DID it (not necessarily in that order B-) ).
The legal system was INTENDED to be simple enough that anyone could understand the rules he must live by, to allow anyone to bring his own case when disputes arise, and to guarantee that he would be able to have advice by someone more knowledgable if he didn't feel confident to do it all himself. (Note that even supreme court justices do NOT have to be lawyers - and some were not. It "just happens" that lately they all are.)
But the government grew, and the legal code grew, and the precedents accumulated, and the spoken language drifted - causing the words whose precice meanings had been tested in court and thus frozen to become a technical jargon. And as the amount of law grew to mind-boggling proportions the schools gave up and/or deteriorated, so that people of legal adult age may have nothing but lore about the laws they are expected to live by.
Meanwhile the government decided to limit the people who would be allowed to charge for legal advice and "waste judges' time" to those it certified as having some expertese. As always, it cloaked its market-limiting move as consumer protection. But what about the guarantee of the right to council of your own chosing? Why, you still have that - just chose them from the licensed lawyers and pay the fee. Can't pay? That's OK - if you're a criminal defendant we'll draft a random lawyer and make him represent you. If you're really lucky he might actually know something about that branch of the law. Civil case? Tough luck!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
(That's kind of like asking your /. demographic if watching hundreds of episodes of "The Lone Gunmen" make you a computer expert.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
How to learn through a periscope
We had enrolled our 4-year-old daughter in a neighborhood swim team, not for the sake of competing but simply for safety reasons, to ensure she would be competent in the water. During one of the team's meets, in one heat a clerical error had her swim as the only small kid among 8-, 9- and 10-year-olds. To our amazement, she swam far faster than ever before and finished right in the middle of the pack.
"How did you do that?!?" we asked her. Her reply: "I made-believe I was one of the big kids."
---
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
I don't recall the kid ever passing himself off as anything but an 'expert', which is a completely reltaive term. There is no 'Law Expert' registry, but there is a Bar Association.
The kid fudged his name (common on the internet) as well as age. Then he posted his real age after he had gained status, and posted his real phone number!
IMO anyone asking for legal advice for free isn't going to get a real expert opinion, unless it's a teaser/advertisement from a law firm. I assume that all the advice I get from the internet comes from a 15yo kid, and I take it accordingly (ie do further research).
Anonymous advice is a good way to -start- a research project, but anyone who considers it their 'final answer' needs a lesson. Hopefully they'll get one by reading this article rather then getting burned badly.
And of course we wind up naming the one kid the abuser, since it's easier than making the 1000's of people who sought advice from total strangers (with no verifiable credentials) accountable.
Caveat scavenger!
And to all of the lawyers: Yes, my personal freedom =is= priceless, but charging $200/hour to maintain it is not getting-what-you-pay-for. That turns me into a slave to the bills you send</$0.02>
...Time is the best teacher, unfortunately it kills all of its students.
You get what you pay for.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
[Usenet] Abbreviation, "I Am Not A Lawyer". Usually precedes legal advice.
How to contact me - http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
...
I am a lawyer. I work for a firm in Sonoma, California. My employer has a radio program where he answers legal questions on the air.
I started working for my employer in 1994, fixing and upgrading his computers (eventually I built up a network). In early 1995, I was hired on full time to put together a book proposal consisting of a bunch of newspaper columns written by this attorney. Eventually I started drafting answers to letters written to the newspaper column (which were always reviewed and rewritten by the attorney). I also did on-the-fly legal research for persons calling the radio program.
Eventually, my boss took me aside and said "You're a schmuck if you don't go to law school". After an hour of arm twisting, I relented. I started law school, and liked it.
Here I am.
Much of my job today consists of dealing with questions posed by persons calling or e-mailing the radio program. I do research and draft answers for my employer to use on the air. The questions are highly varied, such as "How can I get my 20 year old marijuana conviction purged from my record?" and "My boss's check bounced. How can I get the money?" For this reason, I can understand the position Marcus Arnold is in. I've been there (albeit at a much older age, and under the supervision of an attorney).
Arnold is not doing poorly, but I have to admit that some of his answers leave something to be desired. As an example, the answer concerning the Miranda rights of a criminal defendant is not necessarily correct. The statements of a person under arrest made in response to a custodial interrogation without benefit of the Miranda warning are admissible to impeach the testimony of the defendant (at least they were two years ago while I was studying constitutional law). It's hard to know things like this unless you have recently taken a class in criminal procedure or constitutional law or you work in the field.
The advice that Marcus can give (and it is legal advice - we should not kid ourselves) is good, but it's not enough. He can spot some issues, but he really cannot give anyone a definitive answer. Why? Because he hasn't been trained enough in the law to be able to spot all the important issues posed in a question, and without access to the applicable statutes and case law, he's really just guessing as to what the law is on a particular subject.
Having said that, more power to him. I don't have any problems with him dispensing his opinion via e-mail, as long as he's not masquerading as a person actually licensed to practice law. His coorespondents should not read his answers with the belief that they are a correct statement of the law, because it could get them in trouble.
I hope that Arnold goes to law school and becomes a lawyer for real. Not many 15-year-olds have as powerful an interest in the law as he has.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
Can be found here.
The old New Yorker cartoon about how 'on the Web no one knows you are a dog,' is so true. How appealing it must be to those society marginalizes or ignores to reinvent their personas online. Online, you are what you know and project, not who you are, or what you look like, or how much money you have, or where you live. None of that matters on the Net, and thus it becomes the great equalizer.
Mind to mind, that is what counts. All other factors, so important in 'real' life, melt away to insignificance here.
________________
________________
Private Essayist
"How did you do that?!?" we asked her. Her reply: "I made-believe I was one of the big kids."
An engineer comes in to work in the morning to find his Boss, screwdriver in hand, rooting around in one of the server boxes. Cables and cards are strewn haphazardly on the floor.
Somehow succeeding in suppressing his shock and horror, the engineer manages to keep his grip on his coffee cup and stammers, "What are you doing? ... How did you do that?!?"
The Boss says, "I read this book about 'borrowed genius'. I made-believe I was one of the engineers."
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Nearly everyone in the "real world" is just faking it. Whether it be philosophy, business, or psychology. Trends are often successful because people *believe* them to be. And when they're not, well, that's just the general statistical flaws. Anyone who claims authority on a subject *is* an expert to the rest of us for all intents and purposes. The only ones who would know otherwise are those who have more knowledge on that subject. And when talking about things about the future, or things we have *soft* evidence of, there is really no one who can be said to have more knowledge than anyone else. Only people who's past predictions have vindicated them. But how many of us ever bother to look up someone's track record? If we take bad advice from a teen thinking he's an *expert* then we only have ourselves to blame, for trying to take the easy route instead of looking up things for ourselves.