Slashdot Mirror
Judge Doesn't Know What a Web Site is
An anonymous reader writes "A British judge admitted on Wednesday he was struggling to cope with basic terms like "Web site" in the trial of three men accused of inciting terrorism via the Internet.
Judge Peter Openshaw broke into the questioning of a witness about a Web forum used by alleged Islamist radicals.
"The trouble is I don't understand the language. I don't really understand what a Web site is". he told a London court during the trial of three men charged under anti-terrorism laws.
Prosecutor Mark Ellison briefly set aside his questioning to explain the terms "Web site" and "forum." An exchange followed in which the 59-year-old judge acknowledged: "I haven't quite grasped the concepts.""
It's things like this that make me want to go to law school.
Jurors are frequently disqualified for knowing too much, but it should be the opposite for a judge, I think.
This Luddite should recuse himself and allow the state to pick, at the very least, somebody who once hooked a modem up to a ZX Spectrum, if nobody more modern is available.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Have Ted Stevens explain it to him
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
That seems to be common in the US also.
The judge wasn't so proud as to pretend understanding and then issue a potentially unjust ruling.
Would that all judges had the same strength of character in this regard.
Give him credit for admitting he didn't understand. Clearly he needs to be able to understand the concept in order to rule on the case. What are the options when a judge just doesn't understand? Do we need a "technical" set of judges to handle these types of cases?
Cheers.
Mark
Thank god I'm not the only one...
"Heh. Totally pwned that prosecutor. ZOMG! Ponies!"
website: noun: a doorway to a series of tubes
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
This is a ridiculous story, and not nearly news-worthy. The judge did *exactly* what you would want a rational, thoroughly investigative judge to do. He didn't understand the evidence presented in the trial, so he asked questions. What exactly is the problem here?
Some might say that 59 isn't that old, but the fact remains that there are still plenty of people that grew up before the computer and/or internet revolution. Eventually, however, having some knowledge of technical terms will be inevitable.
True story:
I once was in a conversation with a highly paid Ivy League-educated lawyer. Somehow (don't ask) the fact that the sun's surface temperature is thousands of degrees came up. The lawyer said, "oh, is that how it stays up, then?" No one knew what she meant. "Well, is that why the sun doesn't fall down, because hot things rise?" she continued. Stunned silence. Then everyone speaking at once about, you know, the copernican view of the universe. The highly paid lawyer was not embarrassed. Instead she asked a lot of questions. They started out stupid, but over the course of 15 minutes of intense questioning she picked
up pretty much everything I knew about solar and planetary astronomy (which is a lot). By the end she was asking really clever questions I couldn't answer.
Lesson I learned: you get to be a highly paid lawyer by being smart, not by knowing anything in particular. And I would happily have her defend me in a trial.
Just try looking up "person" in Black's Law Dictionary. The wording is important, as specific terms mean specific strings of legal precedents. Judges recuse themselves for good reasons all the time, and this guy did the right thing. Would you rather he'd judged a case with vague user-end impressions?
I wish everyone who wasn't up to an important job would say so.
PROSECUTOR: And so the state charges the defendant with making terrorist threats on a website via that site's forum--
JUDGE: Wait, wait. "Website"? "Forum"? Was there some sort of Town Hall meeting, or something?
PROSECUTOR: No, Your Honor, this was an online forum.
JUDGE: What were they standing on line for? To get into the meeting?
PROSECUTOR: No, sir. I mean, a forum on the internet.
JUDGE: The.. the what, now? What?
PROSECUTOR: (sigh) Your Honor, you know that big truck you drive?
JUDGE: Go on...
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Looks like everyone took the sensationalist bait on this.
Article is pretty light on details but it seems like the judge is trying to understand what a website actually "is"...it seems like an issue in this case is where the defendants' activities took place.
So perhaps he realized he needed to know more than "a window that comes up on your computer" as far as what a website is. It doesn't seem unreasonable for a 59-year-old in a completely non-technical job to not know how a website is put together; "what is a website?" is a feasible way to ask not only "describe this thing to me", but also "what makes up this thing?". Maybe he was asking the latter.
Look, nobody expects judges to be experts in everything. In particular, nobody expects judges to be knowledgeable about something that was INVENTED when they were in their 40s and was really a fad-for-young-people until a relatively short time ago.
What we expect judges to do is make fair rulings.
How can a judge who doesn't know anything about web sites and online forums make reasonable rulings? Well, he can't. And he knows this. So, the judge -- and MOST JUDGES -- have two choices:
- Learn enough to make a fair ruling
- Fake it and pick the lawyer with the nicest tie
Now, it has been fairly obvious that COMPLETELY CLUESS judges are making case law around the world. That is quite clearly BAD.
A judge willing to admit he lacks the deep understanding required to make a ruling, and taking steps to work around/solve the problem? NO PROBLEM, in my opinion, as long as he comes to the table with an open mind, impartiality, and a good sense of jurisprudence.
That said -- I think the judge should spend a few hours participating in IRC, reading bash.org, taking part in a forum about something he likes (maybe his car), checking out tubgirl, some pr0n, masturbating and so forth. Then maybe he will actually understand the medium. Somebody (prosecutor) should suggest that.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Luckily the prosecutor was able to explain: "It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes and You can dumb into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."
It is good to know that you can be in a position as Judge in an industrialized nation with nuclear weapons capability, yet not have used the internet enough to understand basic concepts. Perhaps the judge needs to be given a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge wikipedia?
m mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9019683&intsrc=hm_ list
Perhaps these would help too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum
And the winner is:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?co
or is this simply too harsh?
Sounds like the judge needs to say, "I need to recuse myself from this proceding and transfer this case to another judge who is familiar with the subject at hand." Those who do not know about the Internet can't exactly rule on what could be legal or not there. Plenty of judges who do know how to surf teh Intarweb are out there.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
"Stop it! Stop this jibber-jabber!"
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Honestly, how many people do you know, age 59 and older, that can participate in a technological conversation?
The judge in this case is probably just fine, as he probably is quite experienced with human behavior. Comparitivly, think of an opposite situation, like a teenager that is well verserd in computer technology, but lacks the critical life experience to make good judgements.
He's ready to retire and take up photography again. And he LOVES the digital options. He's already setup his own website and uses Photoshop. He knows more about digital cameras than I do.
It's not age. It's interest.
He's found that his old interest has taken a new turn with computerization and he has spent his spare time learning all about it.
as you can see from this early 1980's sketch featuring Rowan "Mr Bean" Atkinson.
At least he has admitted his ignorance, unlike a certain US senator...
I'm not normally a "the glass is half full" kind of guy, but after reading the climate myth comments I have to say that I'm impressed by the discussion here. Apart from the normal (and completely appropriate) joking, the discussion seems to be pretty courteous and postive. I expected to see alot of techno-elitism and I haven't. I could end all that with a reference to a political party or by misusing its, but I think I'll just appreciate the all too rare bout of civility and understanding. Still lets not make a habit of this ok... flamewars keep the moderators on their toes and we don't want them to get lazy do we?
Sigs are for losers.
UK isn't really part of Europe. Not only is it on an island, but it's not part of the EU, it uses a different currency, they drive on the other side of the road, the food is terrible, the girls aren't as pretty, etc. The UK really stands alone in most ways.
I'd probably be just as lost if the case was about powdered wigs.
Is headlice still such a problem?
Lice?
Still!?
IOU one (1) signature
Madness? This is SLASHDOOOOOT!
The UK isn't part of the EU? Are you drunk or something?
It's Scary. Shiver
I spent five minutes stealing cool sigs and all I got was this.
I'd much rather have judges like him who say "Look, I just don't get this stuff, I've never had the time or inclination to really deal with it. Someone teach me." As opposed to judges who pretend they have a clue and then make completely bonehead decisions. If more judges were like him and came forward to admit when they don't feel up to par on the background material in a case, maybe the legal system would be a couple percentage points less FUBAR.
When I was a youngster, 14-15 years old, I had to testify on modern technical issues in a trial. A guy I had thought was a friend from my high school had visited my house once, and I showed him my dad's Apple //c and the cool pirated software I had - California Games, woot! Anyway, a couple months later he was caught in the middle of the day while breaking into our house - through a door which, by the way, was less than 50 feet from a convenience store/gas station...Genius! When his case came up for trial (I guess he must have been 18+), I was asked to testify because he had claimed that I gave him permission to come into our house and "pick up" some discs I promised to copy for him.
Anyway, when my day in court came up I had to sit on the witness stand and explain to the judge and jury what floppy discs were, what videogames were, the process of copying them, the fact that doing so wasn't legal, etc. I must have spoken for 45 minutes on just the technical aspects while it took less than a minute to say, "No, I never told him to come over and pick up anything."
Of course, in 1986 it was understandable that nobody knew what I was talking about. To not understand the concept of a website in 2007 is, to my mind, reason enough to force a judge's retirement. Being that out of touch with modern life simply can't be conducive to making good justice.
What?? A government official makes comments that shows he knows nothing of a particular technology that is vital to him performing his job? Wow....good thing this kinda stuff never happens in the USA!
Ride the skies
Is it possible for me to just say "DUH" and not have my karma changed to negative or worse?
sit here and nod, or talk about tubes :-) I mean the only real dumb questions are the unasked ones. Right?
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
they could show him.
qz
Radical terrorism have already had "a Web forum",but the real judge haven't quite grasped the concepts. WHY?
Want to know better China? Email me chenchen-0327@sohu.com
I think that we should praise him. It's far better to have a judge telling "I don't quite grok those concepts" than to have a judge that keeps silent about his ignorance and then go deciding against innocents just because some Mafiaa impressed him with techno-bable that he can't decode.
Your ad could be here!
I would hope so, I'm kinda happy the judge didn't just try to act like he knew what was going on. I think, "Good for him".
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
Actually I applaud the Judge and he is wise. When conforted with something he didn't understand, he asked questions for clarification. A judge isn't an IT admin, he is an interpreter of the law and a decision maker based on that and the facts presented.
While it is funny to think of someone who doesn't know what a web site is, in this case he is a better judge than one who would pretend, make assumptions and possibly make wrong decisions based on that knowledge.
-Xen
It is a good thing to admit you don't know meaning of a specific term instead of pretending to know...
especially if you are a judge.
We need more people like him...
If one is in a position of authority, and is expected to determine how laws should be applied to society -- one has an obligation to be a part of society and understand that society. This judge has clearly done neither. He has failed to enter the 21st century along with the rest of his countrymen, and has failed to keep up with the most basic social trends. Is is therefore unfit for work. Dismissed.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Somebody pass him the Tech Support gavel.
Here's a good judge. It's very professional to admit that he doesn't understand something.
Perhaps one would think that it would be easy to explain what a web site is. However, the definition of a website might not be so easy as you may think. Judges, like computer scientists, often have to tackle with very fine details and seek answers to subtle questions. For example: Should every website use the HTTP protocol? If yes, what if there is a law saying terrorist websites are illegal but the defendands used a slightly customised HTTP version? Furthermore, should every website include webpages? What if the law prohibits terrorist webpages, but the defendands just placed some gzip or pdf files on a public indexed directory served by Apache httpd? Is a non-indexed directory served by Apache a website? Can a website on the Principality of Sealand be prosecuted under US law? If you tunnel HTTP traffic through another protocol, would this qualify as website data? Is a website a publication? Is it still a publication if you open a website on a non-networked server? If you create a website unreadable by humans but readable by computers, would this qualify as a publication? Is a website that was online only for 3 minutes a kind of publication? Is the printout of a website still a website? Would the browser cache be regarded as copying potentially copyrighted material? If a very sucky webserver can only handle 3 requests per minute and you hit your Refresh/Reload button 4 times within a minute bringing the server down, would this be a DoS attack?
Absolutely. However, I think the gap is MUCH larger than we think it is. I am certain all of us have had that, "are you really serious?" moment when talking to someone over 50 and the gap between the generations is particularly large when it comes to computers and technology.
Every younger generation thinks the older generation is clueless. I understand that. I just think in this case, the gap between the two is much much larger than for previous generations. Perhaps those who had electricity vs those who didn't might be comparable but it is not the same as the baby-boomers vs. depression era folks.
Don't forget how big of a change computers and the "information society" is to the world as a whole. Nothing like this has ever been seen or experienced by mankind before. It is truly revolutionary. We are the first generation to "get it".
There are certain things that I would expect everyone to have learned by the time they reach adulthood. It just so happens that one of them is that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
The lawyer in this story may have been quick to pick up information from conversation, but I find it VERY difficult to believe that a highly intelligent person does not spend nearly all of their conscious time paying attention to surroundings and absorbing information.
That being said, I have to assume that either the story is BS or the lawyer was just playing a game with the poster and the people around her to see if she could play a convincing dunce. I'm sure she isn't the only smart person who likes to see if she can fool people who think they're smarter than her.
Secretary: "Sir, you got slashdotted." Judge, with curiosity: "Slashdotted?" Secretary: "Yes sir, it's a news website" Judge: "A website? um...?"
BA
When I was in college, I took an environmental law class. The guy teaching it used to work county public health or whatnot and had a few good stories.
One of the stories was to show how judges are sometimes in the position to interpret laws and regulations that are outside their scope of knowledge. One story goes that a case was about dumping of hazardous waste. The waste wasn't specifically listed as hazardous, but there are other procedures to test the compound's toxicity - such as exposing a certain species of fish to the compound for X days and seeing how they are doing at the end. If the fish are dead, then it's pretty obvious that the compound is toxic.
In this case, the fish toxicity testing data was presented to the judge and it went something as follows:
Judge: And do we have any of these fish in our county?
Answer: No, we don't have any of these fish in our county.
Judge: Then what do we have to worry about?
Grump
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
So the answer is yes, of course hes drunk. It's 9:30 AM where he's posting from.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Not a very good troll, really...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
British judges like this are typically upper class, and live in a different world to the one that we know. Even a TV is considered vulgar, and most upper class types wouldn't have one in the mansion, never mind a computer.
It's hard to imagine for most of us, but people with that kind of privilege are completely distanced from the outside world. They're so cosseted they need to have their morning paper ironed before they can read it. Learn about the internet? Why? It's a mere trifle to keep the peasants quiet!
I was conned by an old man in a cloak. It turns out those *were* the droids I was looking for.
Hydrogen is lighter then air you know!
Eventually it will all fuse to Helium which is still lighter then air, so we'll be OK.
But when it fuses further it will all come crashing down, sometime in 2037 or so.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Take it as a challenge: How would YOU describe a website and forum to a layperson? Without getting all stupid star-trek and shit? Explain it so that someone can grasp not just *what* it is, but *why* it is the focus of a case brought up to a judge.
n/a
I got an uncle a computer and the hardest part for him was the frustration of typing. He was used to a manual typewriter. For instance, when he typed email, he'd get alternating long and short lines because of word wrap. He was trained by 50 years usage to return the carriage when it got near end of line, and would invariably do that just after the last word had wrapped to the next line.
He was also not at all ready for the concept of proper shutdown. He'd just trip the power switch when he was done, not even wait for it to finish printing or sending email sometimes.
He did learn, but he had 50 years of habits to break, and that was tough. Other concepts like menus and the mouse were so different that they didn't collide with ingrained habits.
Infuriate left and right
Here's something you'd *never* hear in an U.S. court.
"Ah... yeah, i still got nothin"
Bravo, Judge Limey.
now go read up so you can justifiably preside over such a case.
Seriously, how many judges presiding over tech-related cases right now actually understand what's going on?
If he's in-touch enough with what he's supposed to be doing to say this and not just hand out rulings like the asshats in this country, at least there's hope for one english-speaking judicial system.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
Here is a person, supposedly judging people. Concerning a much larger crime (at least still larger) than anything that we find "usually" connected to the net, like copyright, domain grabbing or slander. We're talking about whether people get their hides skinned for being terrorists, using the net to conspire.
And here's a judge who should come to a verdict. A judge who admits now he doesn't even have the foggiest idea what's going down in this case.
I don't hold that against the judge. Far not! I respect him a lot for having the courage to actually admit he doesn't know it. How many don't have a clue about new technology and still issue verdicts, not knowing at all just WHAT they just did?
Proof? Look at some verdicts concerning the net!
Over here, a judge would simply call in what we call an "expert adviser". These are people, sworn in like judges, with expertise in a relevant field, from IT over linguistics to things like archaeology. For pretty much every field in science our legal apparatus affords itself quite a staff of experts. Yes, they cost.
But they're worth it, believe me that!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
At least he could admit it. There are probably plenty of people who don't really understand what a web site is other than as some page they can browse to.
Are we allowed to even quote the rules?
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
...Not the fact that he doesn't know what a website is, but the fact that he admits to not knowing what a website is. The fact that he doesn't know what it is isn't a problem -- you can teach someone out of their ignorance. But think about how much worse it would be if he did what most judges do, i.e., pretend they know what they're talking about and make poor judgments and court decisions..
I hear there's more than one nowadays.
so the judge doesn't know what a website or forum is. doesn't sound material to the case.. if these guys are being brought up on terrorism charges, as long as the judge understands the concept of posting text or images in a matter that can be instantly viewed by anyone in the world.. he's probably qualified to preside over the case. i don't think the medium by which the suspects conveyed their message is critical look at it this way - he's made the declaration early on in the trial. the defense and prosecution now have a chance to ask the judge to recuse himself so the trial can continue. if his declaration came after the verdict, the possibility exists for a mistrial. at least he's not a certain Senator who pretended to know how the internet works, and made an ass of himself explaining to the rest of us how the tubes can get clogged.
Yes this guy should be praised for his honesty of his utter ineptitude. What he should do is recuse himself from the case for someone who knows something. And he should be thanked and rewarded. He should then go take some courses to learn something about the internet. Meanwhile judges who don't admit that they don't know what it is should be hunted down and fired or noted that they are inelligible to serve on any technological case.
Contrary to another poster I don't believe that a lack of being knowledgeble in the field brings about true justice. It means that such a person could easily be confused and misled by the guck that the expert and lawyers present to them. It has nothing to do with bias for the justice side of it, it has to do with not being competant enough on the topic to resolve the issue. More time and money will be wasted in trial getting him a clue then actually on the legal matter at hand. How is that good for anybody? It isn't.
If you ask me this is one more sign that serious reform is needed in the judge system, and the whole "tenure for life" good old boys network of judges is the first target. Though not neccessarily true, they are the most likely to be completely ignorant of technology and to have never bothered to learn what the internet is. What's worse is I'd bet that these are same morons who are letting all the legislation regarding to technology through. I say let's test their general knowledge and have endorsements for highly technical cases involving things such as various facets technology. Why not, they have to study tax law if they want to deal with taxes, they should have to study technology and IP law if they want to rule on stuff with that. From the tests results issue endorsements; if they can't pass a test on technology they can't be assigned a case that hinges upon internet technology very simple.
Would you let a foot doctor give you advice on heart surgery? No. And it's not a superiority thing either, I wouldn't let the cardiac surgeon tell me how to treat my feet other. As long as the issue is dealt with respectfully and judges are forth coming let them stay in the system. But when judges are found to be presiding over cases they dont have the proper knowledge of that should be treated just as unethically as a lawyer neglecting to properly represent a client.
My real question, if he's forthcoming enough to admit his lack of knowledge why not be forthright enough to remove yourself from the case to be replaced by someone who knows it to speed up the case. In our country at least I have a right to a speedy trial, which definately does not include educating a judge on the internet.
It's far time judges, teachers and other public officials were held to the same standards that other workers are in regards to time. Time goes on and new technologies come along as well as new techniques and trends. To be a viable worker we have to keep up with these things, why don't they have to? The tenure systems are crippling us.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
They may need hard copies to bill for interactions, like, if a client emails them and they answer it, they charge for that... but need a hard copy to make it look more like "work." Also, some places charge clients for every xerox they make, so it stands to reason they might chage for every page printed too,
Got a digital camera last year. Has a nice P4 Windows XP box, with a 21" LCD monitor. Good laser printer too. Sure, he's not going to become a developer, but he is more confident with the tech than many people half his age.
Best Slashdot Co
With a big Z in the face! uppercase!!
ghostbar page.
I was waiting for the part where the judge got replaced because it's a waste of taxpayers' dollars to get that moron up to speed, but it never came.
The internet is such a central aspect of life these days the judge is remiss in not having informed himself of at least the basics.
It's not age, it's interest. Not all 'old guys' are clueless.
My mom, who passed away at age 76, never really used a computer. My son, at age 3, was trying to teach her. "Just do this, Grandma" She had no clue.
My dad, who passed away a couple years ago at age 81, was a computer geek before all of you (and me) were born. Radio shop repair in in highschool in the 30's, patent holder for various electronic and radio wave propagation principles, charter member of Compuserv and AOL (before it was screwed up AOL), gave me my first programmable TI-99, VIC-20, C-64 and IBM XT....his castoffs. Passed away 4 months after putting in his resignation as a MS Office instructor for Microcenter. Previously built computer controls for various nuclear power plants and DoD messaging services.
Don't discount 'old people'.
Puts a whole knew meaning to the term "Ignorance is not an excuse"
At any rate...
Everybody should know by now that the intertube is a pornucopia of terrorists, pirates, sexual deviants, and spam monkeys. That's why we need a universal RIAA, MPAA and WIPO sanctioned international ID for Intertube users; so that we can easily monitor and track down Intertube abusers like peace frogs and 420 freaks. Do it for the children.
Wish we had a President who could admit his ignorance.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Then I'd declare that web sites that don't execute code on external computers should never be considered weapons of terror and that we must hold true to the ideal of convicting real perpetrators of real crimes, of which there are plenty. It's easy to lock up the lunatic fringe that shouts about tearing down society. It's much harder to lock up people like Osama et al, who are not only intent on actually doing so, but also have real weapons at their disposal.
I'm not saying these folk are scapegoats - they may well be genuinely dangerous. I know little to nothing about the case and... I am not a judge.
Thinking about it, this probably is a timeless concern. If a judge stopped similar proceedings in the early 20th century because he didn't understand how the murderer had got away so fast in a carriage without horses, I'd like to think he'd have been similarly ridiculed. Judges aren't required to keep up with modern technology but surely they should be required to keep up with the everday tools of mainstream society? I would have thought any conviction handed down by a judge that was ignorant of the contemporary infrastructural context of the case would be unsound. Yeesh. Who'd be a judge?
That is nice he was honest. I hope that the terrorists don't get out of jail for his ignorance. That would be a heavy thing on one's conscience.
Uh. No... Neither is right. The UK consists of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of course a lot of islands come under the jurisdiction of both of those two legal entities.
The island you refer to is the island of Great Britain, the largest of the British Isles.
this is all it took to get you pissed off enough to sign up so your name would be associated with your post? motherfucker, there's no question: you're new around here.
what a douche.
Al Gore is that you?
I'm a full-time web software developer and have been for ten years and I'm not completely sure what a "web site" is. Is yahoo.com a website? Or dozens of websites? Or web services? Or? It's murky. Is a website equal to a domain name? Does a web site mean "anything that uses http"? Or does it mean "something based on HTML"? These are not sharply-defined terms and the judge is asking good questions here.
Nearly every reply I see here falls into one of two categories:
- "Wow, what a stupid judge! He doesn't know what a website is, like we teh smaert peoples do!!!"
- "No, the guy is wise to admit his limitation, and ask us, the smaert peoples who know what a website is, to tell him."
The tacit assumption is that it's perfectly clear what a "web site" is.Now, of course, I'm going to call that assumption into question. What is a web site? How do you tell where one web site ends, and where another starts? Is Geocities a web site? Is it rather a collection of web sites? Is it both, simultaneously? How does this decision interact with other legal reasoning that may be relevant to the case? What criteria ought to be applied in the kind of case he's handling?
The judge's supposed "admission" of "ignorance" could, for all that we know from TFA, not be because the judge has no concept of what a website is; it could be because his concept of what a website is is good enough for using, um, web sites, but not good enough for deciding this particular case.
Are you adequate?
even some 'webmasters' I have known...
Most people know it has text an imgages, but they don't know any of the details. Much like most people don't know what gows on in any program.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I didn't know my dad was a British judge!
Thank you :)
[Northern Irish slashdotter, anon because moderated above]
Shouldn't this story have a Monty Python icon? As in "I always wanted to be a judge, but they are very rigorous on a judge exam. The problem with being a miner is that once you are too old and too stupid to be a miner, they don't want you anymore. The opposite is true of a judge." This is is probably paraphrasing of Monty Python too much, but it does seem to prove the point.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
How many people, much less judges, know what a website is, really? I mean, how many people understand the distinction between port 80 and HTTP? How many understand that a web forum and a non-web-forum are not different kinds of websites, but merely have different website content?
That kind of understanding requires knowledge that only techies have.
Eh? What? Where? Having lived here for 20 odd years now I've never run into a place which accepts euros bar a few tourist shops in London and obviously currency exchange places... Though not to disagree with you entirely, I think of myself as a bit of a baconneseur and I absolutely agree with you, there shouldn't be anything *but* pork in bacon. Leeds has the best I've tried. Oh, also we have a *lot* of stunners (in the summer at least).
You have to remember, he is your Dad. In a certain part of his mind you will always be about two years old. Like the way I always remind one of my sons about putting two 3.5 inch floppies in the Amiga drive. OK, he was nearly three years old at the time, is now 21 and did an internship at Google last christmas....
:)
Hmm, the captcha for this is ejected, which is what the two disks wouldn't do, I had to dismantle the machine.
It was good of him to admit he didn't understand. However, at that point he should have recused himself, and probably retired completely, or at least taken a leave of absence for remedial education.
Food in London is only good when you avoid British food though (and of course the tourist traps)...
Also, people who like steak might want to consider avoiding ordering it in the UK. I've lived in London for 7 years now, and have yet to find anywhere that serve steaks that have been more than somewhat tolerable. People rave about the steaks in our local pub, so I tried it a few weeks ago and it took one bite to realize that I've never had steaks that bad anywhere outside the UK. Despite that, it was by far the best I've ever had IN the UK.
Generally steaks in British restaurants and steakhouses are overcooked (try getting staff in a British restaurant to understand the concept of rare steaks... I've had waiters stare at me incomprehensibly until I explained that I wanted it cooked at high temperature short enough to be heated through but stay red inside...), tough, poorly cut, covered in bland sauces (especially if you visit the evil that is Angus Steakhouse/Aberdeen Steakhous/Garfunkels/Brasserie Maxine's - in essence, avoid any "steakhouse" with mainly red interior...) as if they are afraid you might actually find the meat, often grilled so badly it tastes more of coal than meat.
Compare that with California (or anywhere else I've been in the US), where it's a rare occurrence to get steaks that are mediocre (which still will be far above the best steaks I've had in London...)
So it really depends - I've had many of my best steaks in the Bay Area, though for Chinese I definitively prefer London (assuming you go to a proper Chinese restaurant like New World or Royal China, not one of the take-away quality ones). And of course if you go to any of the Michelin guide restaurants in London the quality is fantastic and you have many of them to choose from..
Will any precise definition of the word "web site" actually help to decide the merits of this case? I suspect the best conclusion that the judge could reach is that the really important questions are which parties have control over which individual pieces of content, and what responsibilities does such control entail.
That is, I think that the correct conclusion that the judge hopefully will arrive, by questioning people about the term "web site," is that despite the fact that the parties to the case use it in their filings, it is in fact irrelevant to the case. But before you can figure out that the term "web site" is irrelevant, you have to understand it better.
Are you adequate?
Mod Judge +1 for honesty. Better to admit he doesn't know what's going on than to blunder along and make a bad decision because he doesn't understand them.
But, he's only 59 years old and still employed. I am surprised he hasn't used the Internet - if even on his desk at work to get his email and read judgedot.org.
I drink to make other people interesting!
So what? Just because we /.ers are nerds doesn't mean the judge is.
Perhaps you could define what a website is, then. And don't be vague about it.
Mod parent down! Mod parent down!
Yeah, I'm with you.
I'll say something more: I suspect the right conclusion that the judge should reach in this case is that the precise meaning of the term "web site" is probably irrelevant to deciding the case. What will really matter is which parties have what kind of control over the content that gets displayed to users over the internet, and what rights or obligations various forms of such control entails.
But, if you don't know what the term "web site" means in the first place, you can't reach that conclusion until you understand how the parties to the case are using it. And to do that, you need to ask very fundamental questions of them.
Are you adequate?
Are you adequate?
I dunno, all I know is your grandma is TOTALLY HOT.
$META_SIG_JOKE
The should have Ted Stevens explain it to him
"They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material" - Ted Stevens
http://www.gamertex.com/
I do have to say good on the judge for at least admitting this. It suggests to me that he's at least seeking to understand before making a ruling, rather than having his own opinion on what something is and then ruling based on some ill-conceived notion of the Tubes.
Reply here with your definition (legally sufficent for a court case) of what a web site is ?
... that's a URI or URL ? ... isn't that the content ?
... that he is somewhat confused as to what a Web Site is.
I've developed them for years, written then, installed them rebooted them when they died... but what is the exact definition of a web site ?
http://www.slashdot.org/ isn't one
The stuff on the box in the ~slashdot directory
www.slashdot.org is a DNS name ?
The box itself is a server or a computer ?
After a few decades of systems analysis, especially when the Victorian Rail (Australia) was asked what is a train and didn't get a straight answer - I'm not one to be critical of a judge who states honestly
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
Eh, it can happen, judgeship doesn't require technical knowhow. But you'd think he'd recuse himself from a case like this.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Can anyone here (/.) tell us what a website is? In nice, easy-to-understand, legal terms? (It's not a lie ... it's the truth after lossy compression).
From what I read, when Gibson wrote Neuromancer, he had never even owned a computer.
def: Using MVC (Model-View-Client), a website is a remote application accessed typically over HTTP/HTTPS protocols with the remote Model, local View (in an application called a "web browser"). The Controller may reside either remote or local or both.
This defines every single website, from HTML-dump sites to user generated websites like YouTube or Ebay. It is up to you to define MVC, application, and other terminology, just like a "normal" dictionary.
Not quite. As I've said elsewhere in this discussion, it can happen that you can't possibly know whether the question is "crappy" until you ask it and work through the answers you get. Faced with a technical term that you do not understand, but which, in fact, is irrelevant, you must first come understand the term to some degree before you can tell it is in fact irrelevant.
Are you adequate?
Old Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch on the subject of judges ignorant of technology.
Website is computer which contains information created by users or owner, avaialable for browsing through computer network.One computer can host several websites,given the capacity.
A message board is a website that allows
a structured text discussion to take place,where users of the website post
information using a handle for their identity.
What is the difference between a PDF file on an FTP server and a HTML file on a HTTP server, in the eyes of a judge? He really doesn't care. It is not the choice of file format and transmission protocol that makes the criminal act, it is the act of spreading and handling information.
If you cannot explain it without using the words "website" or "forum", then you should not be a lawyer.
All he needs to do is talk to Senator Ted Stevens, and these so called websites will no longer be a mystery.
I applaud his honesty, if nothing else. Too many men would, prideful, fail to admit to a lack of knowledge, preferring to appear knowledgeable rather than let people think them ignorant.
I hope he's educated, quickly, or that the case is assigned to a different magistrate so these guys can get a proper trial. If they're guilty, we don't want them walking free because the judge was incompetent, and if they're innocent we don't want them serving life in prison because the judge misunderstood something crucial.
> My opinion is that our minds are already geared for the IF definition THEN result,
> EXCEPT WHEN whatever kind of language that most laws that I've read are written in.
Legal and geek language are equally horrible. And if legalese is too difficult,
just translate it to plain ol' English:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
# "legalese2en.pl" - Converts legalese to proper English - (c)2007 by Jochen L. Leidner
# $Id$
use strict; # stick to the law of the Camel
while (<>) {
s/a large number of/many/g;
s/a number of/some or several or many or something more precise/g;
s/accord/give/g;
s/accord respect to/respect/g;
s/acquire/get/g;
s/additional/more/g;
s/additionally/also/g;
s/adjacent to/next to or near/g;
s/advert to/mention/g;
s/afforded/given/g;
s/aforementioned/often best omitted/g;
s/ambit/reach or scope/g;
s/any and all/all/g;
s/approximately/about/g;
s/ascertain/find out/g;
s/assist/help/g;
s/at present/now/g;
s/at the place/where/g;
s/at the present time/now/g;
s/at this point in time/now or currently or some such/g;
s/at this time/now or currently or some such/g;
s/attempt/try/g;
s/because of the fact that/because/g;
s/cease/stop/g;
s/cease and desist/stop/g;
s/circumstances in which/when or where/g;
s/cognizant of/aware of or knows/g;
s/commence/start/g;
s/conceal/hide/g;
s/concerning the matter of/about/g;
s/consensus of opinion/consensus/g;
s/consequence/result/g;
s/contiguous to/next to/g;
s/demonstrate/show/g;
s/desire/want/g;
s/despite the fact that/despite or though/g;
s/does not operate to/does not/g;
s/donate/give/g;
s/due to the fact that/because/g;
s/during the course of/during/g;
s/during the time that/while/g;
s/echelon/level/g;
s/elucidate/explain or perhaps clarify/g;
s/endeavor/try/g;
s/evince/show/g;
s/excessive number of/too many/g;
s/exclusively/only/g;
s/exit/leave/g;
s/facilitate/help/g;
s/firstly/first/g;
s/secondly/second/g;
s/for the duration of/during or while/g;
s/for the purpose of doing/to do/g;
s/for the reason that/because/g;
s/forthwith/immediately/g;
s/frequently/often/g;
s/fundamental/basic/g;
s/has a negative impact/hurts or harms/g;
s/(I would argue that|it is arguable that|it could be argued
[Paraphrased from memory - it was shown a long time ago...]
Lawyer: My client can produce receipts for the allegedly stolen digital watch-
Judge: A digital watch? What on earth is a digital watch?
Lawyer: A watch which uses an electronic display rather than hands to tell the time, your honour.
Judge: I see. Proceed.
Lawyer: Furthermore, he can produce a recepit for the video recorder-
Judge: Video recorder? What on earth is a video recorder?
Lawyer: A device which records television programmes on special tape, your honour.
Judge: I see. How fascinating! What will they think of next? Proceed.
Lawyer: And finally, my client can produce a receipt for the... 'deluxe model inflatable woman', whatever that is.
Judge: The deluxe is the one with the real hair.
You must think in Russian.
It is simply inconcievable that a 'normal' person does not know what a web site is.
You don't have to know how a car is designed, built, marketed, and sold, or even know how to drive one; but if you can claim to not know what a car is, you are not *normal*, and therefore NOT FIT TO JUSGE.
"We've all read some of the overlong slashdot replies/nerd emails that go to great lengths and painstaking detail, dismantling every aspect of the parent poster's point. Usually these posts include specific references to higher authority - textbooks, articles, past examples and other random websites."
I do not know what you mean. I've never seen anything like the things you describe, and even a more in-depth analysis of your claims show no signs that the point you make has any validity. Painstanking detail? Dismantling every aspect of a post? I would like to refer you to the researchpaper "On the origin of debating posts on slashdot" by Anonymous Coward, where it is clearly proven that what you describe has never been substantiated, nay, not even an example could be found to demonstrate...
oh...wait...
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I hope that the terrorists don't get out of jail for his ignorance
"Three men accused of inciting terrorism via the Internet", not proven terrorists. Let's not forget due process.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
I don't see this as a particularly big deal - he's a 60 year old man, why should he have used the internet? At least he actually admitted he didn't know what it was, and risked looking an idiot, rather than ploughing on regardless to save face. That strikes me as being a far better thing to do.
Tangential, perhaps, as he admitted that he himself didn't know what one was. But there's also the fact that cases are reported, and can end up being referred back to potentially hundreds of years later - by then, all the cultural touchstones and "common knowledge" will be totally different, so it can be important to have an explanation of these things in the judgement.
And let's not forget what people have already been accused of or questioned for inciting terrorism over the internet. Apparently "let's pray that Bush gets hernia" qualifies.
This reminds me of a sketch on the (late 70's/early 80's) BBC comedy sketch show Not The Nine O'Clock News where Rowan Atkinson played a Judge. I can't remember it verbatim but when the phrase VCR came up the Judge stopped precedings and asked what it was. It was explained it was a device for recording TV programs on to tape 'Oh, what will they think of next!' he says before they continue. Then the same thing happens with the idea of computers - all explained to the crusty judge. Then the subject of blow up sex dolls come up at which point the excited judge jumps in 'I know what that one is! The deluxe model with realistic hair and 3 holes!'
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
I mean, most people I know have no idea what a web server, a DNS server is, or exactly how a forum works. If the lawyers start being really technical about Domain Names, Database records, remotely or not hosted websites, which could be relevant to the case, I can understand that a judge wouldn't "grab the concepts" completely.
And as many pointed out, the admittance of the judge, especially in such a high profile court case, shows his competence and integrity.
"It would be worse to sentence three innocent men than to set 300 guilty men free." --Leonidas
Maybe I don't mix in the right circles, but I have never seen anyone spend a Euro in a shop in the UK, in London or not. I guess the tourist spots in London might.
That's probably smarter than it appears at first. If he knows little about computers, someone probably foisted MS Windows on him. If it's got MS Windows, is powered on and connected to the net, then it's cracked. (Physical access works, too.)
If it's cracked and if there is a microphone, discussions in his chambers can be easily followed.
This is exactly the scenario that was used in EU-level negotiations in recent years, so it's not just a hypothetical situation.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Look, Britain isn't some second world country where people disappear and are held indefinitely without trial (hello, Gitmo). Every person tried in a British court, whether a British national or not, is entitled to a full jury trial. The job of the judge is to conduct the legal proceedings and, if guilty, formulate an appropriate sentence. And yes, both prosecution and defence can call expert witnesses to provide sworn testimony.
No it wouldn't, 300 criminals at large in society would cause a lof of problems for a lot of people whereas 3 innocent men in prison might set a good example for the criminals and could possibly help with educating inmates or similar good works.
Exactly. Thanks for adding that.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Rather than just fuddle along and make up a ruling based on his lack of knowledge. I know we are all supposed to be uber geeks and all, but not everyone can know everything. I say give the guy a high-five for actually trying to figure it out.
Hell, I can imagine my mom trying to figure this out.....
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Your Honour.
> didn't just try to act like he knew what was going on
"It's not a big truck."
Unless, of course, the people outside the prison know that innocent men get sent to prison, in which case they might start thinking 'why not break the law? I'll probably end up in prison anyway...'
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yes , if the case was something highly technical and went into the intricacies of technology he could be forgiven. But a website is part of general culture in the UK now and I'm afraid if he doesn't know what it is then he's probably seriously out of touch with more than just the IT world. If there was some case about something illegal with cars we wouldn't expect him to know how the combustion cycle worked but we *would* expect him to know what a friggin car is else how the hell can he make any attempt at judging the case??
Hear hear, London has awesome food. Meanwhile, my experience of food in California (I cycled from SF to SD) were: * The restaurants only serve "sizzling", "super", "bonus", or "mega" meals * There's a plethora of novelty shaped crap corn snacks with stupid names, which I will collectively describe as "cheese cunties" * If you don't fancy chili or pizza or breaded mushrooms one night, you're pretty screwed * All the best places to eat were run by foreigners - the best was an Indian restaurant in Santa Barbara run by an Anglo-Indian man from Peckham, London * I got foot poisoning from a "ham sandwich" - a one dollar combination of two slices of bread, some cheese, some ham, and something resembling butter substitute. It was frozen when I got it. * Everything has far too much butter on it * All the restaurants have flyers and other stuff advertising special deals, in spite of the fact that you're already there paying the god damn money. * There was an exceptionally good French restaurant in Ventura, which was deserted, while there was a 200 yard long queue to get in the standard formulaic american everything-deep-fried-in-breadcrumbs bar/diner place over the road. Basically, Americans should take a good hard look at the shit they eat and the attitude they have towards food before making baseless claims about the UK, who are obsessed with food, have back-to-back cookery programs on all day on Saturday, and have reputedly the best restaurant in the world (The Fat Duck, Bray, Buckinghamshire). There's a reason why Americans are all fat and have bowel cancer, and it sure as hell isn't anything to do with foreign food.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
Certain people actively investigate new appliances, others are busy enough as is that they simply don't care. One of my grandma's has vowed never to touch a computer, even though the family is full of IT-nerds. My other grandma is IM'ing more than I am.
The best thing a judge can do in such a case is acknowledge he doesn't understand the topic, and preferably have a different judge that does know the topic take over, regardless of the topic.
This sig is intentionally left blank
Subject says it all. I understand the fear of viruses, of needing it to be legally sound, etc. So handle the first by using Linux, and figure out the second -- financial institutions have managed to go more and more paperless, why not legal ones?
If forgery in the backups is a concern, why not cryptographically sign everything and dump it onto WORM memory (DVDs)?
I'm not saying such a system would be invincible, but it would be no worse than paper, and probably significantly better.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Even if he uses it, it doesn't mean he grasps the concepts of how it works. There are enough people who drive cars but have no idea of how an engine works. For many people the web is just a program (mostly internet explorer) in which you click on colored text to access information.
Even if you know a little more, the concepts of what exactly a website is, is a kind of vague. Are pages linked to wich reside on an other webserver part of your website ? And if you have a google searchbox which displays results in a frame, are the results then part of your website ? Or is a wesite restricted to one webserver, then what about loadbalancing webservers ? To me a website is a loose collection of pages that have a direct connection to each other, but to give an exactly fitting defenition is kind of hard.
At least the judge is honest, rather than being the sort of guy that just makes a ruling based on unconfessed mis-understanding.. I give him points for that.
It means you can then go on to define each of those terms as needed until the judge stops asking questions. He's a judge. If he can understand the law even moderately well, he should be able to process new jargon and abstract concepts fairly easily.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
You're not looking hard enough :-) Some great steaks in London (that you won't have to book weeks in advance) are:
:-))
* Gaucho grill, Swallow Street (off Regent street)
* Mon Plaisir, Seven Dials
* L'Estaminet, Garrick Street
* Belgo, Neals Yard
* The Italian on Brewer Street (can't remember the damn name, but there's only one, and it's between two sex shops
* Le Deuxieme, Long Acre
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
Hundreds of islands. Great Britain, 6/32 of Ireland, and a swarm of islands of various sizes around the coasts of both.
The currency is pounds sterling, but most places will accept euro's, at least in London.
Maybe parts of London, where there are likely to be lots of visitors from the mainland around, and perhaps in other tourist-heavy areas, but not in most of the country.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Y'all think he could grasp the concept of retirement?
How does that saying go? That the first step to wisdom is knowing what you DON'T know?
I'm sure the judge knew what a website was, as a user of one. Knowing the legal ramifications of running one, and where responsbilities end etc. is an entirely different matter. I for one respect the judge for admitting that he didn't know these things, instead of making up daft laws based on failed analogies with older tech.
This is exactly why ALL public office positions should be elected and 2-4 years the max term! We as citizens rely on our public officials being aware of all aspects of our society and if these dinosaurs cannot 'grasp' something as basic as a 'website' they need to resign!
My son was 4 years old (and that was 3 years ago) and not only new what a website was, could easily navigate the net without ANY training from anyone. Now he is better at a game like Warrock than me and I am an ex recon scout in the army!
The net is and will continue to be a driving force in our society and if these judges (and ALL other positions) cannot adapt, QUIT. If this was involving Fuel, Tobacco or anything along those lines, you could bet they would know 'everything' and make an informed decision about it.
Wake up people, we need to swamp our politicians with mail/email and MAKE them change these positions to temp, not in set in stone.
Tell you what, I am merely a middle class individual. I have to
work for the little that I can have and guess what...
I don't own a television and I consider watching television if not
vulgar, then self-defeating.
You see, my mind is precious and it's the only thing I can really
take control of in this stage of my life.
As far as the internet is concerned, I would say his Lordship is
painfully aware that it is severely interfering with the peace of the land, i.e. the ignorance of the serfs:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?multimedia
http://www.informationliberation.com/
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.disinfo.com/
http://deoxy.ory/
are just a fair sample right off the top of my mind.
It's near England, which is close to Britain....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
If you have a URL with nothing on it is it still a web site? .txt file is it a web site?
If you have just a
Does it have to contain HTML or other meta language?
Does it have to have hyperlinks?
How much stuff does it have to contain before it's considered a site and not a page?
"Wonder what I'd do?"
Starve.
And you can prove everything by these basic axioms
e teness_theorem for discussion, explanation & qualification.
Oh no you can't. Godel's imcompleteness theorem says that there are statements within a given axiomatic framework which can be neither be proved true or false with those axioms. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompl
OK, point taken. You're not a good assembler programmer.
Ummm, aren't you missing some logic here? What is it about the fact that you can't code assembler well that makes you a better programmer than someone (whom, by the way, you know nothing about) who writes assembler extremely well? And how do you know how well assembler programmers document their code? The assembler I've seen (and that's a lot) has had excellent documentation.
True, but irrelevant if it doesn't work. Furthermore most assembler code must necessarily be memory and time efficient. So you won't get the job.
Sounds like you're applying, not hiring!
But I'd hire a former commercial pilot over a jackass who idly denigrates other highly-skilled programmers anyday. Hell, I might even hire the commercial pilot if he couldn't program at all! Long term he'd be more useful and less likely to come up with such horseshit so early on a Monday morning.
Look at yourself. You're jealous because someone described his father as a "70 year old x86 assembler hack" and here you're doing everything but applying for a job. You're obviously very, very unhappy with your life.
I don't think they would, people generally think stuff always happens to other people and not themselves, free love in the swinging 60's for example always happened to other people as does cancer in smokers, death by falling great distances in parachutists etc etc
There are a lot of people too macho to admit they don't understand and end up making bad choices.
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
I grew up with electronics, computers and programming. I basically followed the full-fledged nerd path through high school, college and well into my career. I understand most acronyms relating to anything electrical or electronic and web/cyber/l33t speech translates quite easily.
Unfortunately I deal with a business world the language of which I do not speak.
I can analyze business needs, but when someone from purchasing or manufacturing starts talking about their process, how they're pulling from this PO to handle this order or manipulating stock, I get lost. When an accountant starts speaking, my eyes roll back into my head. I know I have the capacity to understand their concepts and procedures, but it's typically explained in a manner using their terminology and I need a glossary just to get past that.
Are our languages and processes really so different? I think they are. I think focusing and specializing in a certain field tends to blot out "common" language. Computers are a relatively recent (40 years) addition to business. I think business and financial procedures have evolved and become more complicated in their own right during that time, but I think business especially has trouble speaking to IT and vice versa.
Sadly it has fallen upon the shoulders of the geeks to learn business language instead of business learning ours. Apparently because of our more structured and logical thinking, we have the capacity to absorb more, adapt more easily and see connections where others miss them.
This may sound arrogant coming from a geek, but isn't this the current paradigm? Aren't the geeks expected to know more and do more while business plods along doing what they've always done for hundreds of years? When will IT be truly seen as an incorporated part of the business and not the infrastructure add-on?
Yes, I'm glad this judge spoke up instead of playing along. I'd wager this is newsworthy simply because he is the first to admit that he didn't know. What I wish and would dearly hope to see emerge over the next 20 years is a more common "language" that allows all fields to communicate back and forth without any misunderstanding or need for explanation. We have enough challenges getting past the languages of the world and the pitfalls of English that we shouldn't also have to learn specific languages/terminology.
website isn't all that technical of a term and i'd bet a 6 year old knows this one.
I haven't fully grasped the concept of shoes yet.
Why would anyone be surprised that a 59-year-old man is not comfortable with computers or the Web? Sure, there's plenty of AARP members who know what a Web-site is, but certainly not such a solid majority that this guy is at all notable.
I'm only 44 and personal computers were just rolling out to the general US population as I finished High School in 1981. So, this guy, 15 years older, he grew up in a pre-PC world.
While the judge may not quite grasp what a website is I can assure anyone reading this that I am _almost_ as old as this judge and I do grasp why he doesn't grasp what a website is. This person was cast in stone the day he entered his 20's. Some people are like this. They can't adapt.
People like this choose careers which are filled with rules and the less change for them the better. What better field than law?
Another comment made the point that public servants should be limited to 2-4 year terms. I will go along with this and further suggest that they should be older than 50 as well. This way the free enterprise system will weed out the inpractical ones long before they can do harm.
I can only guess as to the judgments this fellow has inflicted. Fortunately I am not British.
Yeah, mod parent up. *Good* for the judge. It gets attention here because people are amazed to learn that someone doesn't understand what a web site is, but to ask about it was the right thing for the judge to do (better than proceeding without knowing), and the ability to step in and say they need more information is an important asset for a judge.
I mean, how many people in this forum know the details of, say, banking industry regulations? Or plumbing? Or time-domain reflectometry? Oh, wait, scratch that last one. Anyway, it is inevitable that during cases there will be all sorts of concepts that will be unfamiliar to the participants -- either judge or jury -- and somebody has to be bold enough to step forward and request further explanation.
- a cork-board where a bunch of fliers are posted
- a television program
- a library of articles, sound recordings, or videos
- a rolodex
- a letters-to-the editor page like that of a newspaper
- a mail (or instant message) delivery system
- an encrypted dead-drop for clandestine messages
- a telephone system
- a dedicated computer in a closet somewhere
- one of many tasks running on a bunch of massive computers
Do you suppose that the judge wondered, too?"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
The currency is pounds sterling, but most places will accept euro's, at least in London.
It's euros. Where on Earth did you get the idea that 's was used to denote a plural? The apostrophe is only ever used in two instances, neither of those is pluralization.
Just to further piss me off, the captcha for this post is inasmuch, which isn't a fucking word, it's a stupid fucking Americanisation.
Judges in the UK often use this type of a question. They really know the answer. They just want an explanation of ew(ish) terminology to be read into the record so that there is no later arguement about what was / was not meant by the term.
It's actual;ly a good idea - means that all of the terminology is VERY clear to all of the people involved in the case - and form part of later binding precident.
Here's how I understand math complexity:
1. The increment. This defines the reference point (zero) and the reference length (one).
2. Addition (shorthand incrementation).
2a. Subtraction is reverse addition.
3. Multiplication (shorthand addition).
3a. Division is reverse multiplication.
4a. Powers (shorthand multiplication).
4b. Roots are reverse powers.
These are just the easy examples. I'll leave the hard ones (trig, etc) to the professionals.
This is not my sig
If we are going to have to change things like copyright law, patent law and such, and the people in positions of authority in our legal system haven't figured out what the term "Website" refers to, what chance do we have to actually get something useful done.
http://timcol6.freehostia.com/
To be fair to the old gent, I'd imagine a judge needs to know a little bit more about the term than just that it's what you find in a web browser.
The legal definition would include issues about its originality, uniqueness, authorship, authenticity and so on. Without a detailed grasp of how and where a website exists, and how, where and by whom it can be created, edited, accessed, or removed, the judge wouldn't be able to reach legal conclusions.
If a website exists that says I teach people to make bombs, for example, is that the truth, an allegation, a confession, or a dirty lie? Legally speaking, that depends on the exact definition of "web site".
If the judge really wants to find out the advantages of a website, he should visit http://www.rystique.com/
But would an American judge allow their pride to be destroyed by their profession if they didn't understand some technical/complex/abstract portion of an argument? Sure, they have clerks that aid in such areas, but would a respected judge be willing to reduce his/her own pride to seek a definition from an aide? I don't know how judges can be so knowledgeable on rising technical issues fast enough to make an ethical ruling. It seems like an enormous scholarly life-undertaking. Judges aren't the only people who have that task. Politicians are at the mercy of the 'technology curve' by being able to craft ethical laws concerning the use of new technology. Perhaps that's why the United States of America has such poor laws and rulings regarding technology and its use --obviously being argued by large corporations with enough young, smart, money-hungry, legal wranglers to be as general (or not) as possible when crafting a bill **cough DMCA** or to obfuscate just enough to hack out a favorable ruling **cough SCO**
No sig for you! Come back one year!
I used to be with it, but then they changed what "it" was, and now what I'm with isn't it. And what's "it" seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to YOU! -- Abe Simpson
FWIW, I don't think we have enough information about this case, the judge or the circumstances to pass judgment. We don't know if the judge really was clueless, or (as other people have suggested) was asking a dumb question for the benefit of the jury (or others), or if he was trying to get a more nuanced definition, or if he was just "fishing", and/or if the news story was sensationalized precisely to cause this kind of stir.
One such episode, while not in relationship to tech, but to motorcycles had me feeling sorry for the guy who lost. I forget the overall logistics of the case, but what it boiled down to was "Motorcycles are boy toys, not commuter vehicles." I was floored. I am someone who has analyzed the financial cost savings of riding a motorcycle to work vs driving my truck. With current trends in rising fuel costs, on average, I can spend $960 a month on 87 octane for my 2-wheel drive, Dodge Ram 1500. In comparison, I can drive the same amount of mileage on my Kawasaki Ninja ZX6R (600cc) using 91 octane and spend approximately $140 per month at the pump.
Whether we are discussing technology or motorcycles or under water basket weaving, I am wondering if some of these Judges need to take a few refresher courses at the local Junior College with regards to modern trends and advancements.
It is one thing to point at a screen and say "that is a website" and quite another to nail it down in legal terms. If your webpage includes content from several sources aggregrated by server side scripts (themselves at several sites), includes client side elements (javascript) and the viewer further post-processes it with greasemonkey, pointing at that screen is not going to provide any kind of usable legal definition.
What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish? One is a scum-sucking bottom feeder... The other is a fish.
Beware the fury of a patient man
- John Dryden
Regarding your signature, "timely" can act as an adjective or an adverb. "You gave me a timely warning about proper word usage" -- 'timely' modifies 'warning,' a noun, hence it's an adjective. "Please be timely with your reply" -- 'timely' modifies 'be,' a verb, making it an adverb.
Sony ha
I actually respect a great deal the kind of humility it would take to admit being out of touch with current day technology. The human mind seems very malleable early in its years, and to become more static, and inflexible, as time wears on. It illustrates this judge is not out of touch with the basic, and mostly unchanging concept, of justice--- especially when lives are hanging in the balance. I think our American justice system, and our law making bodies, suffer a great deal from "The Internet is like a series of tubes" misconceptions, and illustrations, of how out of touch older generations are with the rapid progression of technology--- and perhaps a basic flaw in the character of individuals selected to lead our justice system, to have humility when faced with situations they do not entirely understand. How can you make a judgment, about inappropriate use of technology, when you yourself are struggling with the rapidly changing environment of technology? It seems these people often profess absolute knowledge, knowledge the mostly invented in a vacuum of their own thoughts, to the point of absurdity. We seem faced with this very problem in decision making bodies here in the U.S., whom are charged with determining the very basic characteristics of how the Internet will be distributed in the future. If you are truly concerned with making the just, and right decision--- it takes humility to admit where there are large holes in your understanding of these situations.
On the same note... Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning? A: Did you actually pass the bar exam? __________________________________ Q: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he? _____________________________________ Q: Were you present when your picture was taken? ______________________________________ Q: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th? A: Yes. Q: And what were you doing at that time? ______________________________________ Q: She had three children, right? A: Yes. Q: How many were boys? A: None. Q: Were there any girls? ______________________________________ Q: How was your first marriage terminated? A: By death. Q: And by whose death was it terminated? ______________________________________ Q: Can you describe the individual? A: He was about medium height and had a beard. Q: Was this a male, or a female? ______________________________________ Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work. _______________________________ Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people? A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. ______________________________________ Q: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to? A: Oral. ______________________________________ Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m. Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time? A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy. ______________________________________ Q: Are you qualified to give a urine sample? ______________________________________ Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse? A: No. Q: Did you check for blood pressure? A: No. Q: Did you check for breathing? A: No. Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? A: No. Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor? A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless? A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.
There is a subtle power struggle at play here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumptyism
See if you can understand Humpty Dumpty's (Lewis Carroll's) angle in the Wikipedia quote.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
"... knows exactly what a web site is ..."
Does this means understanding what DNS is and how it works, what a web server and web client are and how they interact? Or does it mean just being acquainted with the metaphor of a website as a bunch of pages shown in a web browser that appear to be related to each other?
Judges make decisions that affect more than just the case they are considering, and making those decisions based on a description by an attorney of what the attorney comprehends as "being a website" which most often would have little to do with what a website is or what a website might be five years from now might very well lead to decisions that would complicate the future in unwanted ways.
The internet and the web are not just another fact of life. The internet is a universal communications medium and the web is a universal repository of information. Communications is converging into the internet and information is converging into the web as universal platforms, and all aspects of life become related to these technologies, because of their universality.
So I see a need that people such as judges and decision makers be more thoroughly educated about what these mean. They don't need to get to know the bits. They do need to get to know the concepts and the infrastructure so whan they make decisions they are not just based on the superficial knowlege of what things look like (a website, a message etc.) but also on what they really are and how a decision about them can affect other related concepts.
I think legal minded people should know a bit on how it works behind the scene, such as how there's a network of computers that have numbers, and tables that map names to these computers, how computers ask each other to send information, and how this information is constructed to create a metaphor of a website or an email message. Show them a few RFCs (such as the one the defines MUST, SHOULD etc that they can relate to) so they understand there are standards working in a way quite similar to the laws they are enforcing, only they work to make computers get along with each other while laws work to make people get along with each other. Then they can make better decisions, or at least they can grasp Lessig's "Code".
I wonder how well he grasped the above term, or followed the 'golden thread of British Justice'.
He could emigrate to the States, where the 1776 rebellion put an end to the Presumption of Innocence, and concentrate on revenue generation.
The Web has been available to all since around 15 years ago, give or take.
This judge would have been in his mid forties, I think the situation is more like others have described, playing dumb for posterity.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You can take what the posters on groklaw understand about the law and 25 cents and it won't buy you a cup of coffee.
Don't kid yourself.
It is to make specific threats.
For example, some guys a few months ago demanded the execution of the people that make cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.
Specific threat=jail time.
It is completely unnecessary if you ask me, I am sure there are laws before this one that would have applied to trheats of any kind, but governments nowadays think they have to be seen to be doing something, and one of the things they can do is to legislate more.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A web page is like a porn magazine that goes thru the tubes.