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.""
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.
Go easy on him, guys... it's not easy for guys practically in retirement to learn about these new fangled computers. I recently had to teach my father-in-law how to read e-mail. Apparently, he'd already gone through all of his immediate family, who had given up in disgust. Here's literally how the phone-call went:
...
me: Open up your e-mail program and tell me what you see.
him: How do I do that?
me: Click on the start menu, and select the program that has 'mail' in the name.
him: I don't have a start menu.
me: It's on the lower left corner of your screen.
him: Ok, I see it! Now what?
me: Click on it.
him: With what?
me: Your mouse
him: I don't have a mouse
me: It's that white thing on the right with two buttons. Push it around. See the cursor move?
him: I see the mouse, but I don't have a cursor.
me: Yes, you do.
him: No, I don't
me: Yes, you do.
him: Oh! I see it!
me: Now click on the Start button. Do this by dragging the cursor over it, and pressing the left button on the mouse
It took pretty much a whole Saturday afternoon to talk him through it. It was one of the most tiring experiences of my life. The Judge is probably just like him. BTW, my father-in-law is a darned smart dude and well respected doctor. He just hates computers (or at least he did until he learned to use e-mail).
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Unfortunately, I've seen far younger judges who wouldn't know what a website is.
Most Chambers here in Britain (the offices where collections of Barristers work - self-employed lawyers who speak in court but not to clients) and even some solicitors firms (like U.S. lawyers but they can't speak in court) require applicants to submit pen written application forms. Compared to the usual cut & paste exercise which accompanies applying for jobs, this becomes an extremely annoying process after writing a few.
The point is the judiciary in Britain is an extremely old fashioned institution, few solicitors and barristers, let alone judges even have computers on their desks!
It will be a long, long time before they start blogging and such.
Absolutely. In an ideal world every case would be judged from first principles, in this case from basic mathematics and Charles Babbage upwards.
Sadly, we have too many accusations and too little money for that to work. But at least the judge had the good grace to ask for an explanation, which they sometimes do on behalf of the jury if there is one. Remember that the technicalities of a website, rather than using Google and then reading one, are still relatively specialist areas for Joe Public, especially when they might be expected to make a decision on those details.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
But judges are smart guys and many of them understand exactly what is going on. Look at this recent appeals court ruling for example (about a pornography website suing Google for making their images available through image search). Can you point to a single technically inaccurate statement in the entire 50-page ruling? (The only thing that caught my eye is referring to HTML markup as "instructions", but even that is not really inaccurate in context, simply out of sync with usual jargon).
My dad is a 70 year old x86 assembler hack, and contributes regularly to the open software community (see http://jdmcox.com/). I write place-and-route algorithms for a living, founded one company, was the key technical lead at one other, and basically feel like a fairly smart SOB. When I come home to dad's house, he humors me when I talk about my programming exploits. I know he feels there is little chance I will ever be a very advanced programmer compared to him. He was a Delta pilot for his entire career, and only started playing with computers when he saw me playing with them in college. Go figure.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Its things like this that *did* make me go to law school.
I currently work for a judge and he refuses to have a computer in his chambers. Well, ok... there is a computer in his chambers but its unplugged and in the corner, with the screen facing the wall. His secretary prints out his email for him and he dictates his replies onto tape.
The scary thing is that I'm not actually kidding or even exaggerating.
That said, he does have a computer at home and a personal email address that he seems quite capable of using.
I can believe it. A friend of mine works for a group of lawyers who insist that *every* email they receive (which can be hundreds per day per person - they're not shy with this 'techie' stuff) is printed out and filed with the appropriate case. This stuff eventually gets shuffled off to an off-site storage facility - usually without ever getting looked at. This is not a particularly small office - and they have appropriate backups in place. Unbelievable...
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".
You should be careful when you read these kind of stories because judges sometimes "play dumb"; it's called "judicial ignorance".
Remember that any court case might turn out to be important and end up getting cited for years (Salomon v Salomon for example was a case heard in 1896 which is still imporant today). So the judge has to bear in mind that people reading the transcript in hundreds of years time won't have the assumed knowledge that all the rest of us have. When they ask dumb questions like "who are these Rolling Stones?" it may not be that they really don't know, it may be for the sake of making sure the explanation is in the record.
Not that I'm necessarily saying that's what happened in this case.
You're absolutely right.
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.
Its exactly this combination of arrogance and pedantry that makes a good lawyer. The obsessive need to be absolutely, comprehensively and demonstratably RIGHT and for everyone to know it.
I knew that when I went to law school. Two things did surprise me though:
1. Law nerds have exactly the same sense of humour as computer nerds (pun or other liguistic trick based jokes, Monty Python etc); and
2. It really is exactly the same thought pattern for legal problem solving as it is for software development problem solving.
A misplaced semi-colon or the use of the wrong synonym can be as destructive in a piece of legislation or a 20 page judgment as it can in any piece of code.
The Judge should know about the law. Other matters such as the changes in confirmation of the co-enzymes in the Krebs cycle, or indeed the technical aspects of communications technology, are best brought into evidence via expert witnesses.
Would you trust a judge who's never ridden in a car to rule on traffic law? (Popular legend holds that the first legislators to set traffic law had never driven, and often came up with some hilarious laws...for example, that cars must be preceded by a flag man.)
Huh?! Can you cite some legal authority stating that judges are required to recuse themselves on the basis that they have no personal knowledge of some technical aspect of deliberations?
Not required, no. There are very few hard-and-fast rules that require a judge to recuse himself. But in this case, he is not only ignorant of the details, he has admitted that he cannot grasp the explanations thereof. He, as the judge, has to consider whether his lack of understanding is hindering the process of justice.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
You should know better than to equate hacking skill with programming skill.
In turn, you are confusing programming skill with development skill.
But I still write better code than most of those people. Good code is code that is well documented, easy to understand, easy to verify, and easy to maintain.
This is software development as a whole, of which programming is a part.
But he doesn't sound like the kind of person I would ever hire to work on a real system.
No shit? He was a Delta Airlines pilot.
So, don't feel bad. You may not be an "advanced" programmer compared to him, but I bet you write code that is far more consistent, far better documented, and, ultimately, far more useful.
For fcuk's sake, just let the guy talk about his 63 year-old dad!
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.
The difference I have seen is that when gathering constraints, the CS is an optimist and the legal is a pessimist. What I mean is that when there are wholes in a spec/constraints/contract, I, as a designer, assume we'll all just use standards. Lawyers assume someone will use that hole to screw someone else. In design, there is normally an incentive to make it work, not to impede progress. In law, those holes in the constraints can be worth a lot of money.
Joe
Joe Batt Solid Design
I see your point, but perhaps its not a lack of curiosity, but a matter of time. He might feel that his time is better spent than learning about computers, and perhaps justifiably so. If he needs to have a cursory knowledge about every possible technology that comes in front of his bench, he would nearly need to spend the rest of his life in school. Medecine, Computers, the Automotive Industry, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, just to name a few, and that is in addition to whatever changes the legal world may be undergoing. Computers do amazing, powerful things but they are just another tool, and it seems to me that what a person has or hasnt done, and what the intent of doing so was is going to be more important to a judge than the tool they used to do it with. The article is pretty light on details, but if they are being tried for disseminating hate speech, does it really matter if they used a website, or sent out a newsletter with photocopies? I suppose that there is a matter of scale, but that could simply be addressed by "Your Honor, we have have these logs that show that X number of people visited the site and read the material"
Again, you're misunderstanding me. Let me pose this to you in another way...
Let's say we have a man who, through no fault of his own, has managed to live right up to the present day without being exposed to the Internet. Now, he turns on the television to watch the news and the anchor mentions that "more information about today's top story can be found at our website." Isn't that the point where one would ask "What's a website? Where can I get this information of which they speak?"
Or, let's say that the same fellow never gets exposed to television. Instead, he picks up a newspaper to find out what's going on in the world (you know, something in which educated people tend to have an interest). Maybe the front page has a story about an Internet virus. "What's that? Can I catch Internet from casual contact?" Or, perhaps the paper suggests visiting - I know you're ahead of me here - their website. "What's a website and why would a newspaper have one?"
Do you see what I'm saying here? Anyone paying any attention at all to the outside world is going to have the Internet offered to them (for better or worse, advertising is everywhere), even if s/he has NO friends who mention websites to him/her (what are the chances, honestly?). A human with that much exposure to an alien concept is going to at least want to found out what all the hubbub is about. If s/he doesn't then s/he is purposely separating from the society and culture and, again, that is my objection. While it's true that judges don't have to be our "peers," it's also true that they should be a part of the society on which they're daily sitting in judgement, and they should want to know what said society is up to.
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
I'm a a literature geek, and I liken this to grammar rules. A passage by Gibbon or Proust would be marked to hell by an English teacher because they wrote half-page long sentences with nested subordinate clauses and overly convoluted structure, but dammit their stuff is good. Their prose wouldn't make you a good grade, but it's written on a far higher level than the vast majority of people can write.
I understand the value of conventionally good programming technique (or good technique in any field) but I reserve a special sort of respect for the lone hacker in any field who just does interesting things that a formal team probably couldn't come up with.
I think I remember a teacher saying it can all be broken down to addition; because subtraction is just reverse addition, multiplication is just shorthand addition, and division is shorthand subtraction. There may have been more to the explanation but that was 10 years ago.
Actually, this story got me to thinking of getting a law degree...
Die hard raving geek, with a libertarian streak, getting a law degree. Wonder what I'd do?
I'm thinking IP and (C) law reform?
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
> 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
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.
You just described one of my friends. He's upset he didn't get into Stanford for law school and therefore can't study with Lessig.
All that stuff up there with the if/then/except/unless/provided is that you need a really BIG truth table or a well-nested set of if or switch statements and lots of continue & break.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
he cannot be expected to be an expert in every subject
This is not about expertise. It's about basic literacy. This is an age where vast stores of knowledge are transferred over the internet, and an inability to use it is pretty close to an inability to read.
It means you can't get to the knowledge that most people can.
It means that you can't be as informed as those around you.
And if your job is to be generally knowledgeable about the world so that you can make wise decisions on any subject someone gives you with a bit of research, you're not in the right position.
If he was an expert in the law, but couldn't read, would that be okay? What about if he was an expert in the law but an idiot savant? Or an expert, but deaf, dumb, and blind? Or remembered everything about law, but otherwise couldn't remember anything longer than 10 minutes?
I refuse to believe that being a judge is all about knowing law. They need to have knowledge flowing into them like a river so that they can see the currents. Otherwise, they'll make myopic decisions.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!