Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Source Control For Bills In Congress?

Posted by kdawson on from the real-subversion dept.

grepya writes "An article in Slate talks about the sneaky way a major change in the Patriot Act reauthorization bill was made by (possibly) a Congressional staffer without even his boss knowing about it. (The change increased the power of the Executive at the expense of the other two branches of government.) Now, I write software for a large and complex system containing millions of lines of code and I know that nobody could slip a single line of code into my project without my knowledge. This is because everything that goes into the build goes into a source control system, and email notification is generated to interested parties. This is for a body of work that affects perhaps a few hundred thousand people at most (our company and the combined population of all our customer organizations). Shouldn't the same process be applied to bills being debated in national legislatures that affect potentially hundreds of millions of people?"

45 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... maybe the US Congress should read the bill before they pass it into law.

    1. Re:alternatively... by Baricom · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Absolutely. I was just discussing this with someone today - if the "readings" in Congress were mandatory and could not be bypassed by consent, we'd have a much better legal system for a variety of reasons - Congressional representatives couldn't claim ignorance, there would be an incentive to keep bills shorter, and an unexpected change would be noticed more readily.

    2. Re:alternatively... by vyrus128 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are already people who agree with you...

    3. Re:alternatively... by krotkruton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The use of the word "readings" made me think a bit. When I had to do a reading for the day's discussion in English class in high school (or any other class really), I was held accountable for reading the material, yet Congress members aren't held accountable for reading the material they discuss each day. They may not be completely analogous, but that's pretty messed up when you think about it.

    4. Re:alternatively... by newt0311 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually a wasteful system seems like a very good idea. Historically, there is a direct correlation between how oppressive and how efficient a government is. It seems like all governments have an inherent urge to oppress their constituents and that greater inefficiency slows it down. Then again, we all hae to pay for that in terms of taxes so it sucks either way.

    5. Re:alternatively... by eli+pabst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ROTFLMAO. As if someone would actually sit through the hours it would take to read (aloud) many of these bills - and even if they would, I doubt they'd notice a change of a few dozen words out of thousands.
      So just blindly voting on a bill you haven't read is somehow better? I'd rather they didn't do anything rather than pass shitty laws. Look at the freakin DMCA mess.
    6. Re:alternatively... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason they don't read the bills is that the majority does not provide the text of the bill until a few hours (or in some cases minutes!) before the vote. How do you suggest even the best reader complete a 500-page read of a bill with any level of insight in 30 minutes or less? This isn't a coincidence or "laziness"--it is calculated manipulation by the majority. I used to say "the Republicans" because they really perfected shutting out the minority during their last reign of terror, but the Democrats are showing they're not afraid to play the "last minute text" game too! Where, oh where, is a mainstream third-party?

      This isn't a pizza-delivery, its our government. Our Representatives are behaving in a shamefully negligent manner. We need Congress to change its rules to require at LEAST 24-hours for the text being voted on the be processed by the body before a vote is taken. They could, of course, waive this requirement in emergency circumstances, but not by voice-vote. This would cut drastically down on this game... I would wager MOST congressmen don't really know what is in every bill they vote for or against. Their could be a provision to legalize the eating of puppies, or a proposition to give $200 to every guy named Steve in Tuscaloosa, AL... they'd never know until the checks were cut--and then only if the press got wind of it.

      --
      Who did what now?
    7. Re:alternatively... by spike2131 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If this came to pass, I would foresee a huge market for Congressional Cliffs Notes.

      --
      SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
    8. Re:alternatively... by IPressedTheFireContr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Version control is just duck tape on a broken pipe. The real problem is that these bills are so unnecessarily long and convoluted that there is no chance a last minute change will be noticed, especially when that last minute change is not open to the public. The Read The Bills Act will require any yes-voter on a bill to read through the bill in its entirety (under penalty of perjury). This will ensure that bills will be short and concise. Furthermore, every bill must be published online for 7 days, unchanged, before the vote. This will ensure no last minute additions or deletions. Politicians are not technical people, they won't be able to understand version control. It will just be delegated to their underlings, just as the actual reading of the bills is delegated.

  2. I don't think you understand by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They want it to be this way by design.

    --
    Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
    1. Re:I don't think you understand by Kobayashi+Maru · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know, this is a damed good idea. So simple that I just HAVE to look for pitfalls.

      First, I read about something called the Federal Register the other day. As I understand, it is a daily publication of the GPO, responsible for creating a record of public government communication.

      Where does this fit into the equation? Wikipedia says it has been operating since the 1930s. That to me suggests existing infrastructure. Could this program be adopted to handle pending Congressional legislation? Does something similar exist already? Are these even valid questions? I'm trying to get a sense of the public accounting context that exists today.

      Now, once we set up a legislative mechanism to get the information in place, there are practical considerations. I happen to agree with the parent's cynicism. Open government is less corrupt government, and there will surely be resistance to a program like this. What is the likelihood that something like this would be ignored? The aforementioned Wikipedia states that the Register is for public notices not "classified." Do government agencies really bother? Would Congress bother? Would it matter, practically speaking?

      Then there's the question of volume. I understand the current Register is thousands upon thousands of pages. What would be the best way to handle all this data? Pressure our Congressmen to form a committee to look into the possibility of proposing vaguely worded, easily subverted legislation that would create a billion dollar, privacy infringing, twenty-year behemoth of a program? Or dictate simply that the data should be available in a specified format (something akin to a patch) in a timely manner.

      I think the latter would be better, because it would force We the People to take a little responsibility for the program. I mean really, who doesn't think that an enterprising group of dedicated people, working for free in their spare time would work more efficiently than a monstrous bureaucracy? Sound like a familiar Slashdot battle?

      Either someone will rise to the challenge and write a utility to "visualize" the data in an interesting way, or not. If not, I think we have bigger problems than Congressmen not reading their bills.

      Make the data (near) freely available, then leave it up to The People to figure out how to use it. That's my take.

  3. Fat chance by El+Cubano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shouldn't the same process be applied to bills being debated in national legislatures that affect potentially hundreds of millions of people?

    You mentioned getting email notifications about changes to the repository. You work with the code every day (or nearly every day). You see, these representatives in congress often times vote on bills which they have not even themselves read. They get the executive summary.

    That is like the difference between you reading the code for a newly modified parser class and getting one of your underlings to brief you about the changes. You might spend an hour or more reading source code for a whole new class, and only two minutes getting briefed on it. You have to get them actually read the bills first.

    Maybe we should require that all bills be read aloud in their entirety in an open session of congress?

    1. Re:Fat chance by nick_davison · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If people are determined to obfuscate, they'll find a way to.

      You add version control... The first thing they'll do is hire aides to add literally thousands of minute ammendments to every bill for the simple reason that it now becomes impossible to read every minor change log. They may well not sneak anything nefarious in to this bill, the next one or the next ten. Then, one day, fifty bills later, after people have long since given up reading change logs, one of the thousand minor edits will do just what they're currently doing.

      With source control for code, you can monitor what goes in because people are rarely actively trying to sneak anything in. If you do have someone who wants that chance and so starts spamming change logs, you can identify their malicious intent, go to your boss and get them fired. In congress, sadly, they've long since turned a blind eye to such pork barrel behavior and, if they turn a blind eye to it in this form, there's no reason not to expect them to turn a blind eye to it in a future form.

      The original poster's mistake is thinking that congress somehow wants to not be corrupt. Yes, we can force a fix on one form... not that they actually want that fix... but, as the old saying goes, "Where there's a will, there's a way." and a lot of politicians have a very strong will for sneaking in self serving measures.

    2. Re:Fat chance by Albanach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the point is that while such a change could be slipped in, it couldn't be slipped in anonymously. It'd be interesting if politicians had to take personal ownership of each line of every bill.

    3. Re:Fat chance by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then, one day, fifty bills later, after people have long since given up reading change logs, one of the thousand minor edits will do just what they're currently doing.
      Make the change log public.

      Even if the watchdog groups don't catch the shenanigans before the bill passes, there will at least be a transparent record of who did what.

      Public accountability has a way of leading to public pressure. A Senator/Congressman will only be able to fire so many aides for sneaking in legislation before the public will say "maybe the problem isn't with the aides."
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Fat chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think there are two points you overlook here related to commit privileges.
      First, you don't give commit privileges to interns. The only people with commit privs are actual senators/representatives/PMs. So some lackey can't change things without express authority from their privileged boss.

      Of course, lackeys will still do all the typing and doc prep. Then somebody with access to commit privs will do the final commit without even proofreading it. So you say that everything is same old, same old. But the changelog will show who authorized the commit. You have to take responsibility for your commits. You didn't proofread before signing off on a commit? You take the blame. You gave your credentials to one of your staff lackeys to do commits for you? You take the blame.

      And finally, if somebody tries to game the system by submitting 50 last minute changes everytime, you just vote no. Then you say, "I move to take a vote on changeset 1492, the last branch that has been stable for more than 90 minutes, and the only one that we have all been able to read." "Seconded." "A motion has been made and seconded... there will be a 30 minute pause while the build server compiles changeset 1492, after which the voting will commence."

  4. Paperless Congress by Benaiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its all done with paper.

    Maybe if some of the politicians passing laws about technology were a bit more tech savvy we wouldn't see any of this. Corruption by camouflage. I bet that even though the changes weren't supposed to be in there. They won't be amended. That would just be silly.

  5. Read the Bills Act by remahl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Make Congress Read the Bills. If they have to sit through a reading, maybe they'll cut down on the length and complexity of the laws. Here, apparently nobody knew what they were passing into law.

    1. Re:Read The Bills Act by Asic+Eng · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shouldn't be too difficult to have a staffer slip that into a bill.

  6. Should, yes... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Funny

    This problem should really take care of itself. Just get a staffer to SQL-inject* the necessary clause as a rider for some boring budget stuff that no one will read all the way through, wait for Dubya to sign it, and then pop out and shout p0wned! Then they'll have to build that foolproof system, and we'll be all set.

    *SQL = Staffer Quill Language

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  7. Yes, and a debuggable malloc too. by istartedi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I once had a conversation with a lawyer friend, who explained that there are portions of the law that refer to laws that have been repealed. I tried to explain to him that in computing this is directly analogous to de-referencing a pointer to memory that's been free()'d. We all know what this does in a program. In law, it perhaps there is a default judgement in cases like this. He was just a law student at the time, and IANAL, so maybe some real lawyers could explain how this situation is handled now.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  8. Don't be silly ... by jc42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That would make "earmarks" and "pork" very difficult to insert in bills without leaving evidence of who did it. Congress would never allow such things to be audited.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  9. Has happened before... by HaeMaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Courtney Love describes how all recording contracts became "Work for Hire" by a similar process:

    http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/l ove/index.html

  10. Read The Bills Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is another way to look at controlling legislation, IMHO much more important than mere source control:

    A group called DownSizeDC.org is promoting a bill that would force every legislator who votes for a bill to sign a declaration that have either read the entire text of the bill, or had it read to them. The "Read the Bills Act" would also require that every piece of legislation be posted on the Net in its final form for a full 7 days before any vote could occur, giving the rest of us time to read and react...

    There used to be requirements in US House and Senate for reading of the bills, but they both routinely waive that requirement. If it were required, the number and complexitiy of bills actually presented would go down dramatically.

  11. Throw in a garbage collector as well. by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we could pass laws/amendments to "sunset" EVERY existing law, then our esteemed representatives could spend their time deciding what laws are important enough to renew, rather than making up new malarkey.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Throw in a garbage collector as well. by istartedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OK, as long as there's somebody to implement an OnSunset() function that notifies the legislature. Otherwise, you could end up with situations where, for example, the meat industry suddenly no longer has to control rodents, and nobody realizes it until they walk into their local KFC and find that all the chicken has been replaced by.... oh... nevermind.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  12. Not needed. by afeinberg · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sadly, this is a bit alarmist.

    Bills are already drafted using XML assigned numbers. Any amenment to a bill has its own number, bills which are "engrossed" or passed have a different number. They know exactly what they are voting for.

    http://xml.house.gov/

    1. Re:Not needed. by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but i don't see anything there that indicates to me that their use of XML constitutes a document control system.

      and another thing, as many are alluding to, a document control system won't prevent the compiling of assinine code. but what it will do is give you a forensics system. it makes people accountable in a way which is easily monitored. if bad legislation is enacted, you can always make amendments, and the dcs will make it easy to highlight exactly what was changed so that you may check it with a minimum of labor at the last minute before voting again. both legislators and congressional aides would have little excuse for their improper actions and inactions.

      now for the bad news. the system relies on computers, and most of your legislators (senators at least, and probably most representatives) are still computer illiterate. their aides aren't, of course, but most of these people just want you to show them the piece of paper to sign, or the yes/no button to push, so that they can get back to their golfing/schmoozing.

      and also, who controls the document control system? it would be necessary to have complete openness so that the googles of the world could record every change as it occured in real time. and for matters of national security, much of the publicly-accessible law would have to be redacted. perhaps something like a checksum for redacted material could be provided to at least ensure that unviewable text hasn't been tampered with.

  13. Would PARALYZE government by Creosote · · Score: 3, Funny

    If all Congressional documents were stored in a Subversion repository, Homeland Security would positively short-circuit trying to follow up on all of the suspicious emails from young DC residents saying things like "Hey, are you sure the latest pages are committed to Subversion yet?" and "Something just bombed in my sandbox, I'm going to have to nuke everything in sight and do an update!"

  14. Fragile base class by michaelmalak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Going off on the same tangent, here's an example of a fragile base class. The Virginia legislature shortened (rather than completely eliminate, as in your malloc() dangling reference example) a list of businesses subject to some exemptions, not realizing that that same list was also used by another law saying which businesses had to be closed on Sundays.

  15. alternatively...RTF(_) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The irony of slashdot telling people to RTFB is black hole massive.

  16. Been there... Done that by zerrubabul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Such things already exist. I know someone who works for a company that makes version control software for documents. Their biggest customers are law firms. Nobody in a fortune 500 company wants some new hire paralegal modifying a clause in a billion dollar contract that it took months to negotiate. Congress people know the system could be made more fool proof but that would remove one more venue of plausible deniability they can use with their constituents. In Washinton crap just doesn't naturally roll down hill, it's designed to do so. Just as "Scooter"...

  17. The vote without even reading/knowing the bills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Congressmen do not read the bills for the simple fact that most of the major bills, tax, spending, etc., are not finalized (i.e., have major changes being made) utill the last minute. They often admit that they don't know what's in the bill being voted on.

    They 'know' that cuts in any pet spending program cannot be made because we cannot 'afford to pay for the cuts'.

    They hypocritically claim to know that we cannot afford to cut anything and yet admit that they vote for legislation that they do not know how much is being spent and what items it is spent on in bills.

    The third Congressional sham is that they claim that reducing the rate of growth of spending on a particular program is a cut. A cut is an actual reduction in spending year over year. This is due to the 'baseline-budgeting' where spending on each program is automatically increased by 4% a year without congressional action.

    These are reasons why you should not believe the parroted lines from each party.

    Congress should be judged based on the actual bills they pass and not on the CNN Crossfire type of sound-bites.

    1. Re:The vote without even reading/knowing the bills by digitalgimpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't it ironic we're all expected to read and understand tax law (and the changes every year), yet law makers never bother to read the laws they pass?

      On a sidenote, taxes are in addition to jobs. Laws ARE their job.

    2. Re:The vote without even reading/knowing the bills by WED+Fan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As an admitted conservative with libertarian leanings:

      They 'know' that cuts in any pet spending program cannot be made because we cannot 'afford to pay for the cuts'.

      The fun is, if the program is up for a 10% increase, and it gets knocked to an 7% increase, its called a C U T .

      Now, to the rest of it:

      The sneaky language and the ability to get provisions in, and the human, lazy, congress critters no controlling their own bills, or reading them prior to voting for them is exactly why sweeping security bills are very bad for the U.S.

      Also, the fact that many laws are never sunsetted, or have their sunsets extended indefinately, and laws that have no further purpose that are never repealed or removed is another problem. (Witness the Spanish-American War Tax that we, in the U.S. are finally getting a $20 refund on this year.)

      I propose a "Year of Reduction" in which there are no spending increases, and no new laws, and Congress goes through the books removing old and bad laws, old and bad taxes, and reviews Constitutional Amendments that are no longer needed because we no longer have slavery, prohibition, and etc.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  18. Re:I think I saw this. by trimbo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wasn't this in the last episode of "24"?

    No, no no, you're thinking of the one where Jack yelled into his cellphone "Chloe, There's NO TIME!", got shot and died, was brought back to life, saved the President, yelled "DAMMIT!", confonted the bad guy (a different high ranking government official bad guy than last week), pulled out his gun, pistol-whipped the high ranking government official and threatened to kill him with "TELL ME WHAT I WANT TO KNOW NOW!"

  19. Re:I think I saw this. by hazem · · Score: 3, Funny

    DAMMIT! You just gave away the entire next season!

  20. Re: Very Simple To Do by DumbSwede · · Score: 5, Funny

    Has I understand it, it should be simple enough to just have somebody just slip this new Mandatory Read law in.

    Anyone here at Slashdot know someone on the inside?

    --
    Letter To Iran
  21. Re:Alternative 2 by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Funny

    cvs? It sounds like someone's already using subversion...

    --
    Do you have ESP?
  22. I think I can see it now... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The legal system on an index card, volume 1:

    1) Don't be a twit.

    Sincerely,
            Congress

    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:I think I can see it now... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Instead, we get 2500 pages of byzantine gunk and a cover page that says:

      BROUGHT TO YOU BY EXXON-MOBIL

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  23. Really need both: change control & full review by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, that would be a start, but I still don't think that it obviates the sort of version-control system that the GP is talking about.

    Just think: if you were working on a big software or documentation project, would you want your QA process to involve nothing but some guy standing up and reading the source code out loud? No way -- everyone would be asleep or bored to tears (well, unless it was Perl, then they'd probably be waiting for his face to just fall off).

    There's a reason that change management is a big issue, in addition to peer review and transparency. In fact, they compliment each other. When you can produce a list of what each person has changed, you have a basis for what you want to concentrate your reviewing efforts on.

    Now, change-management isn't a cureall -- anyone in software knows that just because something hasn't changed, doesn't mean it's not buggy. You could change something that causes something that hasn't been changed to break, or you could just discover a bug later; either of those things are possible with laws as well as software. Unless you also have some way of tracking dependencies within the bills (cross references, etc.), it might be possible to "break" the law (make it internally inconsistent) with a minor change somewhere else. So that would still require full readings.

    Still, it's ridiculous that there isn't something in place right now, to prevent some staffer from just sneaking language into a bill that's a surefire pass, without anyone noticing until it gets printed up in the Congressional Record.

    On the whole, maybe Congress needs to hire some QA people? I mean, it's obvious they have a "client satisfaction" (voters) issue, and that the "deliverables" (laws) really suck ... maybe it's because they're pushing half-baked, half-assed stuff out the door to the "users" (citizens)?

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  24. Let's look at the change log by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    First, we're talking about 109th Congress, H.R. 3199, section 502, "INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS." Version control is in Thomas, run by the Library of Congress. (Unfortunately, you can't link to Thomas documents effectively; it's a front end to a non-Web system and the URLs are temporary.)

    So where did that go in? The versions passed by the House and Senate are quite different, and this bill was rewritten in conference committee. This language isn't in either the House or the Senate version. We go to the Bill Summary and Status File, and look under "Amendments". This is the change log for the bill. Nothing about this is in there.

    This change was added in the House-Senate conference committee, which is how stuff like this usually sneaks in.

    The only reference to this change is in the conference committee's report, at House Congressional Record page H1130. The text is:

    Section 502. Interim appointment of United States Attorneys

    Section 502 is a new section and addresses an inconsistency in the appointment process of United States Attorneys.

    That's where it went in. But there's no indication of who put it there. The members of the conference committee were appointed by the Speaker of the House, and they were:

    • Sensenbrenner
    • Coble
    • Smith (TX)
    • Gallegly
    • Chabot
    • Jenkins
    • Lungren, Daniel E.
    • Conyers
    • Berman
    • Boucher
    • Nadler
    • Scott (VA).
    • Hoekstra
    • Wilson (NM)
    • Harman.
    • Norwood
    • Shadegg
    • Dingell.
    • Oxley
    • Bachus
    • Frank (MA)
    • King (NY)
    • Weldon (PA)
    • Lofgren, Zoe

    One of those members of Congress is responsible.

  25. Re:Really need both: change control & full rev by Silverstrike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not to be an ass, but have you ever read a law in its original form?

    I'd hardly call it english. Legalise really is its own form of code.

    I think the GP's point stands, it'd be useful to have some sort of independent QA organization that would validate a bill against its intent.

    Of course, then again, I think Pork should be illegal as well. Putting a $100 million into a defense spending bill for Senator Tube's state to build a bridge to an island of 50 people should get someone hung.

  26. mod parent up! by __aawbkb6799 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the point of having a painfully slow congressional process. Anyone who has ever watched the House debate something on the floor via c-span (or committees online) knows that the time taken to decide anything (*especially to decide that something is worthy of a decision) is outrageous. And that is exactly what the framers had in mind when they established the rules for engaging in Congressional debates.