I agree that the law had become quite complicated, but I do not think it is beyond the comprehension of any techies. One of the things techies are best at is learning, and law is not so terribly difficult that one cannot be versed in it, as well as the lastest technology.
To get to the point, the law is actually based on a handful of very exact, definite models. As was mentioned earlier, Blackstone's outlines most of these. The process of stare decisis is also an exact procedure that is governed by common law. Judges can't just go with "whatever." Their decision must show logic and reasoning, or the other justices will not allow it to be entered.
Reading through state statutes on computer crime, etc., or taking a class in law at the local community college will highlight these models. Though technology is changing rapidly, the models are of utmost value, because they will still be applied to new situations instead of the bar creating new models. For example, laws that orginially were used to protect against mail and telegram frauds have been easily and fruitfully adjusted to meet people's needs with the advent of the telephone. Likewise, many of our current laws governing telephone use apply also to computers. This is the type of evolution we will see in high technology law, not novel, drastic measures.
Of course, the law is still very intricate, and one cannot be expected to learn its details even in three short years. However, the underlying principles can be learnt and understood by everyone. No JD required. Familiarity with these models and principles will help to understand why and how certain news-headline cases turn out the way they do.
Well, to sum up an excessively long post, I just ask my fellow tech heads to dig a little deeper into the law... what you will find may surprise you... it has me, and it is a fascinating topic, as well. By this time next year, I will hopefully be studying it in more depth at Suffolk Law in Boston.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the law had become quite complicated, but I do not think it is beyond the comprehension of any techies. One of the things techies are best at is learning, and law is not so terribly difficult that one cannot be versed in it, as well as the lastest technology.
To get to the point, the law is actually based on a handful of very exact, definite models. As was mentioned earlier, Blackstone's outlines most of these. The process of stare decisis is also an exact procedure that is governed by common law. Judges can't just go with "whatever." Their decision must show logic and reasoning, or the other justices will not allow it to be entered.
Reading through state statutes on computer crime, etc., or taking a class in law at the local community college will highlight these models. Though technology is changing rapidly, the models are of utmost value, because they will still be applied to new situations instead of the bar creating new models. For example, laws that orginially were used to protect against mail and telegram frauds have been easily and fruitfully adjusted to meet people's needs with the advent of the telephone. Likewise, many of our current laws governing telephone use apply also to computers. This is the type of evolution we will see in high technology law, not novel, drastic measures.
Of course, the law is still very intricate, and one cannot be expected to learn its details even in three short years. However, the underlying principles can be learnt and understood by everyone. No JD required. Familiarity with these models and principles will help to understand why and how certain news-headline cases turn out the way they do.
Well, to sum up an excessively long post, I just ask my fellow tech heads to dig a little deeper into the law... what you will find may surprise you... it has me, and it is a fascinating topic, as well. By this time next year, I will hopefully be studying it in more depth at Suffolk Law in Boston.
-A