You Are Not a Lawyer 693
Paul Ohm is starting a new "very occasional" feature on the Freedom To Tinker blog called You Are Not a Lawyer — "In this series, I will try to disabuse computer scientists and other technically minded people of some commonly held misconceptions about the law (and the legal system)." In the first installment, Ohm walks through the reasons why many techies' faith in the presence of "reasonable doubt" is so misplaced. "When techies think about criminal law, and in particular crimes committed online, they tend to fixate on [the 'beyond a reasonable doubt'] legal standard, dreaming up ways people can use technology to inject doubt into the evidence to avoid being convicted. I can't count how many conversations I have had with techies about things like the 'open wireless access point defense,' the 'trojaned computer defense,' the 'NAT-ted firewall defense,' and the 'dynamic IP address defense.' ... People who place stock in these theories and tools are neglecting an important drawback. There are another set of legal standards — the legal standards governing search and seizure — you should worry about long before you ever get to 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'"
Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like the piece should be called "Ohm's Law".
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
A couple of considerations:
(1) the attorney author comes from the DOJ's Cymbercrime division -- the DOJ may have one interpretation of the law but the courts might have another;
(2) Academic lawyers generally have a slanted view on the world; and
(3) the facts and circumstances of your given situation are very important, blanket generalizations are risky. Facts can sometimes be fluid a good lawyer, can setup the playing field to the benefit of his/her client.
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Funny)
(2) Academic lawyers generally have a slanted view on the world
As opposed to ACs?
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) you are not a lawyer.
(2) Lawyers think differently depending on the situation they are in. A "DOJ" lawyer might have completely opposing viewpoints to his employer when writing on a blog.
(3) The DOJ cybercrime division is not known for producing academic lawyers.
(4) Situations have common facts and courts often analogize.
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Funny)
A couple of considerations...
Here is one more:
(4) If you are not in the US, US law does not apply.
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is one more: (4) If you are not in the US, US law does not apply.
I wished that was true :/
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is one more:
(4) If you are not in the US, US law does not apply.
Tell that to Gary McKinnon [freegary.org.uk] and Hew Raymond Griffiths. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, lets rephrase that: "If you are not in the U.S., your rights under U.S. law do not apply."
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
His point was that long before you ever get your day in court for "reasonable doubt", you will be arrested, jailed, your friends & family will be questioned about you, your stuff searched, etc... all with a much lower burden than "reasonable doubt".
So while you may ultimately prevail with "reasonable doubt", the police/prosecutors can your make you life a living hell until you get your day in court.
XKCD (Score:5, Funny)
As always, XKCD has already covered this [xkcd.com]. ;)
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:4, Informative)
As part of an engineering education, you take one course in law. Basically, it's an overview of contract law, the legal system, various appeals you can go through, etc. The idea is to make you realize that lawyers go through as much or more schooling as engineers do (often more), they go through an articling phase, and they're professionals at what they do.
You wouldn't get a lawyer to design a bridge, so don't try to get a "techie" to answer legal questions.
If you've got a legal question, ask your attorney. If you don't have one, get one on retainer.
If the police ask you questions, the only appropriate answer is "My lawyer's name is ____."
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to wonder - how much does an average lawyer retainer cost? I can see $1,000 a year vs $20,000 a year making a big difference between what a middle class person would be able to do. Any recommendations for finding lawyers for handling general stuff a normal person would go through (basic contracts, etc)?
The problem I have is finding a lawyer has got to be like finding a doctor - you almost have to be one to do anything better than pin the tail on the lawyer!
What do slashdotters do who have lawyers?
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Interesting)
mod parent up. I want answers to BOTH those questions.
Everyone says 'get a lawyer'. How much is this going to cost.
I've always assumed they were expensive, and paying a lot just to have someone to call is quite frankly, too expensive. In the last 10 years, I've never needed one. How much would have having one, even just a basic, "starter model" someone competent and cheap, but no frills... what would that have cost me?
And the second question... how does one find a competent one? No one in my social circle has one... so a friends referral is out.
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, You've Discredited Ohm, But... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, let's assume you've discredited Ohm to some degree. But, is that degree relevant? The general points you've made to do so have some merit. However, Mr. Ohm is probably a lot closer to having the pulse of the US legal community that you or I. Therefore, even if he's done work for the RIAA, Exxon/Mobil, Altria, SCO, *and* Lord Cheney himself, his legal insights are going to carry more weight than ours. Why? Because he (probably) has much more extensive experience in how DAs, courts, and Federal/State/Local law enforcement work than we do.
Hell, even a law professor [hackaday.com] at Liberty University [wikipedia.org] - of all places - has a leg up on 99.007% of the citizens when it comes time to decide: 1) am I about to step into the kimchee, and 2) if I do, what my odds are of keeping my okole and my assets out of harms way.
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:4, Insightful)
A couple of considerations:
(3) the facts and circumstances of your given situation are very important, blanket generalizations are risky. Facts can sometimes be fluid a good lawyer, can setup the playing field to the benefit of his/her client.
...which is relevant in the trial. What he's talking about is BEFORE that, the investigation has a much lower bar on what they need to prove that they can go rifling through your stuff.
"A good lawyer" isn't going to do you any good at 10:00 on a Tuesday night when the police knock on the door with a warrant in hand, ready to arrest you if you don't cooperate right then.
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Funny)
I'll start a feature called "You are not a techie."
My first entry? Make sure your webserver/webhost is up to snuff before letting /. loose on it.
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for that. It's an interesting read but, for anyone who wants to save some time, here it is in a nutshell:
If your computer is targeted in a police investigation, your life is going to be a huge pain in the ass for a while even if you somehow manage an acquittal.
IANAL.
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
You left out expensive - A huge expensive pain in the ass.
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
For real.
To use the open wireless access point as an example. If someone sits outside your house and downloads kiddie porn, or starts running brute force attacks against NSA through your connection, the feds will show up and confiscate every electronic computer and storage device in your house so they can run forensics on it, which may take them 2-3 years to get to. Meanwhile all your stuff is sitting in an evidence room depreciating.
Sure you might not get into trouble if there's no evidence on any of your gear or storage, but by the time you get it all back, it will be useless and way out of date.
If you factor this depreciation, and you have a lot of gear and storage, the cost is huge. Then you have attorney bills and your reputation to worry about. You will never fully recover your reputation even if you are 100% innocent.
Leaving that default password on your router has a lot of potential to screw your life up in ways you wouldn't expect.
-Viz
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:5, Funny)
Years ago I saw a US Air Force training document refer to "Ohm's Three Laws". :P
V=IR, I=V/R, and R=V/I.
Re:Ohm's Law? (Score:4, Funny)
But what about Ohm's Fourth Law, V/IR=1?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Totally off topic now but what the hell (Score:5, Funny)
Wow! Who ever would have guessed that!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do I care about this? This confusingly assuming post is trying to say that techies are so stupid that they can only comprehend there being one piece of evidence in a trial and they think that if they cast doubt on this one piece of evidence then the accused is in the clear. I know this isn't true. If I prove that a screenshot of an IP address could be photoshopped yet there are logs upon logs provided by the ISP backing this up, I have done little if anything.
So draw a Venn diagram of all evidence (shadow-of-a-doubtable evidence unioned with unshadow-of-a-doubtable evidence) and show that if there exists any evidence outside of the shadow-of-a-doubtable circle than you're boned. That was essentially the only point you had in your windy post, correct? What else was there? A lesson on how police can opt to legally collect information regarding a case?
Thank you for the world class revelation, Paul. And also thank you for the imagery of "techies" being bumbling buffoons aping Perry Mason in their dreams. Perhaps my father was on to something when he tried to teach me that for all lawyers that exist none of them have any interest other than money and sucking the blood out of other people.
Re:Wow! Who ever would have guessed that!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people are idiots, that they call themselves a techie doesn't change that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow! Who ever would have guessed that!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I basically agree with you, but I think your description of the problem is oversimplified and misleading. People are not monolithically "smart" or "stupid". Everybody's smart and stupid about different things. Like those wizards in the Harry Potter books that can master complicated magic spells, but can't mail a letter. What turns smart people into assholes is when they assume their smartness in one field automatically transfers to another.
I think computer techies are particularly bad this way because they tend to be self-taught. Often the most effective strategy for learning a technology is to just sit down and fiddle with it. Or they read a book that was probably written by another self-taught techie that often gets details wrong (how many of you can correctly define "ASCII"?) but gets enough essentials right to get the job done.
What techies don't get is that this style of learning just doesn't work with the law. Even if you understand a legal principle (and when techies try to understand something as abstract as a legal principle they often get it wrong) you don't have a practical understanding of its proper application in every context. Lawyers spend years studying and arguing about this stuff, and even so they have to specialize in order to develop any real expertise.
Re:Wow! Who ever would have guessed that!? (Score:4, Funny)
PROTIP: Memorizing Latin phrases doesn't actually mean you didn't manage to completely miss the point of the post by quoting the example of his point, then reiterating the point he was trying to make.
Re:Wow! Who ever would have guessed that!? (Score:5, Interesting)
I read this as a warning that such and such ironclad defenses are not the complete picture of how a prosecution would go, and to listen to your lawyers legal advice.
True, smart people would have thought this through. There is no shortage of dumb criminals, the newspaper is full of them. Particularly so for teenagers, I can't count how many times I've heard "ironclad" loopholes for smoking pot, carrying drugs, getting away with shoplifting that any reasonable person would know has to be BS. Living in California for most of my teenager years, you can't imagine how many times I've heard the "minors cannot enter into contracts" law used as a defense in ways that couldn't ever work. Everyone was a lawyer...
I think it's healthy to point out that this isn't a game, that there is no magic pixie dust to escape you from criminal activity. The subtext might be, if you're going to commit a crime, assume big brother is watching and think through how he's go about proving you guilty. Assume he's competant.
I suspect that in most of the cases this guy is writing about, the people caught never expected they'd be investigated. The likely compounded their problem with lame defenses after the fact, because they're shocked/outraged/scared, and not listened to their lawyers advice, assuming he/she was too stupid to understand the technology. It comes across a bit weak that because one lawyer writes about the issue and clearly understands it, that should assume all lawyers would...but then I think he did a good job of explaining why it doesn't matter anyway.
[And no, I don't think "troll" is the right moderation for parent, although it could have been more civil]
Re:Absent ironclad proof (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't shut up until the Supreme Court had heard the case.
Best of luck. There are a great many people that would love to get in front of the Supreme Court. Something tells me that your "There is no password on my WAP - Anybody could have downloaded that. I just didn't bring it up during trial to make a point." defense, although perfectly valid, will be your last words if you really keep repeating it until either getting through to the Supreme Court or dying of old age.
And I'd want enough money to be set up for life from the jurisdiction that was stupid enough to let their public officials have search warrants when there was still reasonable doubt as to innocence.
Good luck with that too. It's up to the jury to decide whether or not there's "reasonable doubt as to [your] innocence". Are you suggesting that we re-work our system so that the police can only collect evidence after conviction?
Re:Wow! Who ever would have guessed that!? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a lawyer, and I'm getting a kick out of these replies, etc.
A technique that defence lawyers use is to attack the legitimacy of the gathering of the evidence. Succeed there, and it all becomes inadmissible, and the prosecution fails.
Never mind your fucking Venn diagrams.
That, I believe, settles the matter.
Re:Wow! Who ever would have guessed that!? (Score:5, Funny)
Never mind your fucking Venn diagrams.
!?
*squints his eyes*
You just made a powerful enemy.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hans's plan:
1) Kill wife
2) Hide body where cops can't find it
3) Throw up smokescreen in court
4) Don't testify at trial in such a way that makes me look like a murdering loon.
You'd have thought 1, 2 and 3 were the hard ones, but sometime
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In case you haven't noticed, the standard for a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty." In a civil case, it's "the preponderance of evidence," which is an even lower standard. Nowhere in American law is there a standard of "beyond the shadow of a doubt." I'm not saying your idea is wrong, just that you're not expressing it correctly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Burden of evidence can be a killer.
Sure, you're running an Open AP and your computer's been rooted. But they found the CP neatly categorized in a non-hidden folder on your desktop named 'fun stuff', CP on your work machine and logs showing you downloading it from your home machine and elsewhere, the same sorts of sites as at work. Said downloading occurs when you're at home or at work for the appropriate machine.
What are the odds that some outside party would do all that?
Even if I was trying to frame some
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And there is a problem that reasonable people can be convinced by a good lawyer to think an I.P. address is equivalent to a fingerprint and a DNA sample combined when in reality, anyone can take on my I.P. address.
Likewise, the presence of a file called "Sympathy For The Devil.mp3" does not mean that I actually have the song. And likewise, the presence of the song on my computer doesn't mean that I put it there (give me 2 minutes access to your windows computer and I can put stuff on there that would ruin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While what you say is consistent with the rules of formal logic, that really doesn't matter. The que
Re:Wow! Who ever would have guessed that!? (Score:4, Insightful)
So it's not reasonable to believe that "Sympathy For The Devil.mp3" is an audiobook of Holly Lisle's novel by that name? The title enough, combined with the fame of the song, is sufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt? That's harsh.
All this persecutor in the YANAL blog is saying is that there ain't no justice, and it doesn't matter how much evidence there is, innocent or guilty they can fuck up your life. That's true, but it doesn't really take a lawyer to know it -- or a non-lawyer not to.
Legal standards of search and seizure (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean the ones the Florida Highway Patroll pioneered ignoring back in the 80s, and which are now routinely ignored by law enforcement agencies nationwide? Trust me, I worry about those legal standards all the time...
Re:Legal standards of search and seizure (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL but I know some Law facts.
1 - dont trust cops.
2 - Dont trust judges.
3 - Dont trust lawyers.
4 - assume that everyone is trying to shaft you.
5 - Once you are in the legal system THEY OWN YOUR BUTT.
6 - If you are going to do something illegal, make sure you CANT GET CAUGHT.
7 - Dont do anything illegal.
Honestly, Judges hate you, cops hate you, everyone on a jury if you get that far hates you. you are considered Guilty until proven innocent. Dont even believe the Bullshit given to you as a youth that it's the other way around. It's not and never has been that way.
Finally, you cant talk a cop out of arresting you. You can make him think it's more bother than it's worth and let you go if it's not worth it and you're being a nice guy. They will let a nice guy in Abercrombie that says yes sir, no sir, thank you sir go with a warning way before the dont touch me pig screaming hoodie wearing blacked out eyesocket head shaved like the damned pincushion for a head guy. It blows my mind how stupid many criminals are, if you dress and look like a punk, the cops will treat you like a punk.
I never got in trouble as a kid. but then I was aware of my location and had a scanner in my pocket with a earphone in all the time. Friends learned that if I left a party or gathering, they need to as well.
Re:Legal standards of search and seizure (Score:4, Funny)
I never got in trouble as a kid. but then I was aware of my location and had a scanner in my pocket with a earphone in all the time.
Wow. Just seriously paranoid, or did you commit lots of crimes?
Re:Legal standards of search and seizure (Score:5, Funny)
Friends that got nailed a LOT and watched their pain. Also I had a brother that got nailed and was ground up through the system.
when you see it happen and pay attention, you know what happens and what to do to stay away from it. I also was a big protester in college.. I was never arrested because I would not be stupid and dress like the others protesting. I always looked like a innocent bystander on purpose..
Once when asked by a cop why I was holding a sign I said, "some cute chick over there gave it to me, I dont want to drop it and litter" He took the sign as a favor to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Once when asked by a cop why I was holding a sign I said, "some cute chick over there gave it to me, I dont want to drop it and litter" He took the sign as a favor to me.
Glad to see you're standing by your convictions.
Re:Legal standards of search and seizure (Score:5, Funny)
Encrypt everything, hide everything, obfuscate everything, always assume that THEY are out to get you. Keep your bags packed at an alternate (undisclosed) location, keep some cash hidden and have an extra passport ready (always lose the first one they send you) in case they confiscate your first. Always pay cash, wear a broad brimmed hat and large dark glasses in public, grow a beard (you can quickly change you appearance by shaving). Use anonymous pay as you go cellphones or be careful what you say over the phone, keep your phone turned off and the battery removed.
Remember it ain't paranoia if they really are out to get you!
Re:Legal standards of search and seizure (Score:4, Insightful)
Note to Lumpy: In the following post, anyplace that I used the word "you", this is not meant to apply to you, Lumpy. I agree with what you said. I just wanted to "mee too" with my own version. I agree with you, and with the original "You Are Not A Lawyer" guy that there are far too many folks out there that don't get how the legal system really works.
I wanna make a few points:
1. It's not that the police/judges/lawyers hate you, it's just that they really *don't* care about you *at all*. I mean you really are just another number to them. The good ones out there, they care that you get the legal definition of a "fair" trial, but that's all. And, btw, it's entirely possible for you to have a legally defined "fair" trial and for you to still get totally screwed over and railroaded. If you don't believe this, you're living in a fairy land. I hope fairy land is still working for you when you get locked up in Oz.
2. On point 5: yes, I totally agree.
3. On point 6: If you're going to do something illegal, first BEFORE you start, find out exactly what the consequences and eventualities will be for if you *do* get caught--because it's impossible to be absolutely sure that you can avoid being caught. See my earlier point about fairy land.
4. On point 7: I agree. This almost, but not quite, guarantees that you won't be going to jail for anything. (You could still get falsely accused and wrongfully imprisoned. Please don't talk to me about how that doesn't bother you because then, in the end, you'll make a fortune off the movie rights or something. The plain fact is that spending five years in prison is going to fundamentally change who you are and what you're like for the rest of your life.)
5. If the police ever bring you in for questioning on anything, don't talk to them without a lawyer present. I don't care how innocent you are, and I don't care how polite the police are. If something really bad happened, it is the police and prosecutor's job to eventually hold someone accountable for the bad thing that happened. If no other more "worthy" suspects pop up, they might just choose to put it on you. This can happen even without the police being corrupt, and that's why there's that pesky rule about you being allowed to have legal council present. Of course, even that is no guarantee that you won't get falsely accused and wrongfully imprisoned, but if you go talking to the police sans legal council you are seriously screwing yourself over. Don't be a dope. Demand a lawyer.
In summary: The legal system isn't really out to get you, but it's much bigger than you are and it tends to be capricious and merciless--kind of like an uber-deity tripped out on mescaline and crystal meth. You really don't *ever* want to be on the wrong side of it. Because of all this, even though it isn't out to get you (most of the time), you'll be safer if you act as though it is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You obviousally dont understand anything about a scanner and ear plug.
I had a real one, it was thin, it fit inside my pockets (I started the baggy pants thing, all of you copied me!) hidden. And I ran the wire up my shirt to my earpiece that was flesh colored. you could not see it under my long hair. Two reasons, I did not let party-ers know I had it, 2 cops get PISSED if they see you with a scanner. It was easy to ditch it if need be.
Proud of it? yup. it's smarter than simple fool that get's the name o
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Legal standards of search and seizure (Score:4, Insightful)
Going by the line Friends learned that if I left a party or gathering, they need to as well - I'd say they were the sort of parties where knowing in advance that the police were on their way was a big advantage. In other words, really good parties.
Pfft, lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
Difference between them and us?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
WE would be driving more mercedes and BMW's if we did the same thing.
Problem is IT guys are whores. we give up our craft for free at the drop of a hat. Lawyers simply grin and make you supply the lube.
Re:Pfft, lawyers (Score:4, Funny)
Problem is IT guys are whores. we give up our craft for free at the drop of a hat.
Whores don't give anything away for free. Sluts do.
Techies are sluts. Lawyers are whores. Personally I prefer sluts to whores, but YMMV.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> WE would be driving more mercedes and BMW's if we did the same thing.
Lawyers don't hide any secrets, it's all in lawbooks and much of the stuff can be found for free on the Internet. The difference is they have a trade guild that enjoys a government granted monopoly. Non members cannot practice law without the threat of prison so non lawyers quickly lose interest in expending the time required to learn the dark arcana since it can only be of passive interest. On the other hand anyone with the curios
Stereotypes (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem I have with any grouping is that it always degenerates to stereotypes. And before you know it, you are the stereotype, simply because you're grouped with those people. I'm not saying that there are not lawyers that are not sharks, and that there are not techies that teach, but that because of these assholes in each camp along with the stereotype, everyone in that group carries the blame.
This is all fine if made in good humor, but when it gets personal, or taken too far, the result is enemies and flaming rather than meaningful discussion. Simply put, there is no discussion if either side or both sides choose to close their minds to criticism.
Re:Pfft, lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
They claim that ignorance of the law is no defense. This requires that the law be accessible to the average person. However, if I were to read all laws (and regulations with force of law, as many electrical "laws" are a national book that isn't actually published law, but carries the force of it, as is the FCC and many other such sub-laws), I would die of old age before I could read them all. So, I'm not allowed to claim I didn't know it was against the law, and it's impossible for me to know all the laws. That alone sums up "law" as a profession. Sure, as a mechanic, I could be good with Mercedes and not know about Fords. But if I own a Mazda, I can get the Chilton's or such and have a good bet at figuring out most I'd need to know, and have a good idea when I'd need to call in support. For the law, you are expected to call in support before you ever start. Asking your neighbor for help with your Mazda is perfectly fine, but illegal in Law.
And lawyers also have 7 years of school to pay for.
So anyone that can get through an MBA program at 6 years should be able to charge about what a lawyer does? It's not just supply and demand, it's that the law creates a monopoly. Only Bar members may practice. Then, the lawyers got together and made laws to protect their racket, driving up prices. Lawyers making laws don't make them as simple as possible. Ever read a law? It's impossible. The law was passed in the 1800s. Then it was amended once every 5 years for the past 100+ years. And many of those amendments were to amdendments. So you have to spend hours per line figuring out what the law actually says now. And yes, I've seen them done this way. However, now it's more common to have an "unofficial" recording of the law with it written as amended, as opposed to written as written/stricken/overwritten/repeat.
And you got that from the judge. The joke goes, "What do you call the person that graduated last in his class in medical school? Doctor. What do you call the person that graduated last in his law school? Your honor."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pfft. Yeah, technically, lawyers have a monopoly. In reality, it's not that hard to take the LSAT, go to law school and pass the bar exam. That's not a huge barrier. The median starting salary for a lawyer is around $55K; in a number of states, it's around $40K. Sure, lawyers from Harvard and a few other top schools get the $160K jobs (plus $25K+ bonus), but there are relatively few of those and they cater largely to corporate America.
The main reason lawyers are expensive is because most things they do
Re:Pfft, lawyers (Score:4, Interesting)
That's untrue, unless you consider the NEC an "official" legal body. My local codes state something to the effect that "all electrical work must conform to the NEC." Thus, if you violate the NEC, you break the law, and if you don't, you are following the law. So you must pay a private organization for a copy of a book to figure out if you are breaking the law. However, I think you were talking about my reference to the laws being accessible, and that is based on the laws being available online first by private organizations that charged. If you wanted them for free, you went to the library, which had the oldest possible copies, and then years of amendments, rather than a re-publish of the entirity every year. Now, it is common to find most places put the actual laws as applied online. But that's very recent. So, between regulations like the EPA regulations, the FCC regulations and laws that give legal power to private organizations like the NEC, coupled with case law, I stand by my statement that the laws are unknowable. If they weren't, then why is it necessary to even have a lawyer? And ever notice how lawyers specialize? Try asking a lawyer about something outside their speciality. "I don't know about that, I can barely keep up with the law in my one very small specific part of the law I work with 40+ hours per week."
"An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. An assault is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment."
As stated by someone else, the first clause alone could take hours to decipher. "An assault is an unlawful attempt..." Well, it wouldn't be illegal if it were a lawful attempt. That's what we are there to look up. So does that mean that lawful striking is not assault, while unlawful striking is? And if so, what is the manner in which unlawful is defined? Can you spank your child, but not a neighbors? Can the cops strike someone in the course of arresting them? What about a regular person making a citizen's arrest (which in Texas, is nearly indistinguishible from a real one)? Wouldn't boxing be an assault? Or is that excluded by the "unlawful attempt" exclusion?
If you think that is all perfectly clear and that there exists no case law on those first 6 words, then we can look at the rest, but I'm guessing that there have been hundreds of hours of official time spent on those 6 words alone. But, with "case law" being as official as the written law and completely inaccessible to the average person, how could anyone ever know?
Re:Pfft, lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that politicians make laws, not lawyers. I seriously doubt all politicians are lawyers.
"All" is a very strong statement, but there is no question that the overwhelming majority of politicians are lawyers, at least in the USA. If you made it something of a research project, you would probably have difficulty naming even a few politicians (at least on the state and federal levels) who do not hold law degrees. It does make sense that most of the people who make new laws have the qualifications necessary to understand and work with existing laws. Unfortunately the idea that their profession is special and exclusive can also be more important to them than the idea that all citizens are expected to know and obey all laws, which is why many laws appear (in my humble unqualified opinion) to be written by lawyers, for lawyers.
As a side comment, the fact that the vast majority of politicians are lawyers is why I feel that they should be held personally responsible (i.e. face criminal charges) when a law that they created or endorsed is later found to be unconstitutional. This would be a much-needed counterbalance against the fact that a citizen cannot challenge an unconstitutional law until after he or she has suffered because of it and risked experiencing the business end of state power. But then, I have always felt that when officials and authority figures screw up, it is far worse than when an average citizen screws up because when officials do it, it undermines the respectability of the law as an institution. I think too that the prospect of power attracts some extremely undesirable personality traits; there is a shortage of good, wholesome, selfless reasons why someone would want it. So, I like the idea that if you want power, you should be held more accountable for your actions than someone who doesn't. Perhaps incorporating these ideas into our legal system would reinforce the idea that public officials are our servants and were never intended to be our masters.
IPBIC* (Score:5, Funny)
IANAL
YANAL
then who the hell is a lawyer?
TWTHIAL?
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
*I post because I care
Re:IPBIC* (Score:5, Funny)
That doesn't make any sense.
Talk about timing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Talk about timing (Score:4, Insightful)
Part of the problem is that "the geeks" got hold of economics and constructed their big, deterministic, agent based models. Models can be illuminating true, but in the case of economics, when reality and models parted company, the economists bemoaned the inability of the real world to match theory.
What is desperately needed in economics is a more reality based outlook that attempts to truly deal with the social and economic problems of wider society, rather than a bunch autistic, antisocial, arrogant geeks who don't even realise they're only allowed to keep doing what they're doing because it serves the interests of the powerful (and they're not getting in the way too much).
IAAE
YANAL (Score:5, Funny)
No, I think the converse is true (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that all the evidence the RIAA offers shows a link to the computer AND NOT THE USER seems to be something that people (lawyers, judges) IGNORE shows they don't actually care about the FACTS. Until you start taking photos of people through their webcams as they do naughty things, or come up with a way to show exclusive use of a devise or connection, then this still happens to be evidence wrongly taken into consideration.
Re:No, I think the converse is true (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing: a lot (i.e. the majority, actually) of these technical arguments you've referred to here are just silly. For example, you complain that the RIAA evidence links only to the computer, not the user. This is, of course, true. However, in the case of a family home that means the prosecution can narrow it down to the household members, so your argument would merely be "Well, you don't know if it was the dad or the son, so you can't sue", and that'll end up just bumping into group liability (which I won't bore everyone with here).
In the case of a shared computer, you'd have more of an argument, e.g. one a library computer or whatnot. But realistically, how many prosecutions have involved such a machine? So far, as far as I know, all the prosecutions have involved machines in private homes or apartments, so what exactly are you arguing?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, GP has a point, considering the RIAA has made the leap from "Pirating -> Computer" to "Father's Computer -> Daughter who doesn't live with father anymore", deciding to sue the cancer patient rather than the deadbeat dad.
Re:No, I think the converse is true (Score:4, Interesting)
That a lot of times people (judges) simply DON'T UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF A TECHNICAL ARGUMENT and rule the way they want anyways. This is why patent suits were always held in west texas
Because people from Texas are mouth-breathing retards who wouldn't understand a technical argument?
Actually, no. Patent suits are frequently held there because the law, being federal, is the same everywhere, and that particular district has a docket almost completely free of other cases. Not much interstate fraud, racketeering, large-scale drug importation, etc., the way there is in New York.
Did you know that plaintiffs are actually less successful in the E.D.Texas than elsewhere (and yes, it's Eastern, not Western where the majority of patent suits are filed)? No, you couldn't know that, or you wouldn't be making this argument.
... seems to be something that people (lawyers, judges) IGNORE shows they don't actually care about the FACTS.
Facts like eastern vs. western district, the availability of space on the docket, the fact that patent cases get fast-tracked through the system resulting in lower costs...?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Reasonable Doubt. (Score:5, Interesting)
The conviction rate in the the US above 98%
The conviction rate during the Spanish Inquisition was 96%.
Therefore, either we're really good at identifying people, or "reasonable doubt" has become unreasonably weak defense.
Re:Reasonable Doubt. (Score:5, Funny)
At least people expect the cops to break down your door in the U.S. Nobody expects the...
Oh, forget it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Reasonable Doubt. (Score:4, Informative)
From the DOJ:
If you don't plead, DOJ only has a 30% rate (Score:5, Informative)
Doing some simple math with those statistics, they tell us that if you don't plead guilty, there is a 70% chance you will get off. (Either the charges are dropped, or the DOJ loses in the courtroom.)
From those stats, I'd say it is possible our justice system is fairly healthy.
SirWired
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Those numbers also don't show the cases in which formal charges are never actually filed, not because the cops and prosecutors don't think they're guilty, but because the prosecutors aren't sure they can establish a case "beyond a reasonable doubt".
So, a part of the 98% conviction rate is undoubtedly due to prosecutorial conservatism. The 70% acquittal rate for non-pleaders that you cite is arguably the result of prosecutorial incompetence -- not that they failed to put everyone away but that they failed
Re:Reasonable Doubt. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Could be worse, Japan's [wikipedia.org] is 99.97%.
Conviction rate comparison [wordpress.com]
China is 98%
The USA is listed as 65-80% because statistics are mostly state level.
Therefore, either we're really good at identifying people, or "reasonable doubt" has become unreasonably weak defense.
Or you're using made up statistics.
Summary for those who didn't RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's my summary:
"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" may get you acquitted in the end, but that doesn't apply to all the things that happen to you BEFORE the trial: Cooling your heels in jail while charged, having every piece of technology you own seized as evidence, incredibly high legal fees, yada yada.
So, I guess the summary of the summary is:
Keep yer nose clean.
I suppose if you look at all the RIAA cases that routinely pop up here on /. you can easily see what he's talking about: look at all the costs and hardships those accuesed have to go through... The old lady who had probably never even listened to an mp3 in her life could probably attest to the pain. No reasonable jury would ever have convicted her, but that didn't stop the RIAA from causing her a big bunch of trouble.
False charges (Score:3, Insightful)
Keeping your nose clean doesn't always work. If they have enough suspicions the police (or the RIAA, whatever) will do their best to nail you to the ground, which includes all the above.
As you mentioned: "the old lady who had probably never even listened to an mp3 in her life could probably attest to the pain"
Innocence is no defense against having your life ruined by invasive investigation, reputation-destroying accusation, and many other such things.
Re:Summary for those who didn't RTFA (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, I read the article as "technological arguments, though sound, won't stop the legal system being 100% broken."
LEARN (Score:4, Interesting)
How irksome that judges, juries and lawyers should have to learn how technology works in order to do their jobs properly.
Yes, people do have to use an ounce of cation online. Installing virus-checkers and securing your Wi-Fi are very important security measures.
However, if we are entering an era where the justice system simply can't be bothered learning anything about the most basic computer technology, we're entering an era of wrongful convictions.
I remind everyone of the schoolteacher who was fired [go.com] over spyware popups. It's time for the justice system to educate itself, not bury its head in ancient jurisprudence.
Re:LEARN (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, people do have to use an ounce of cation online.
I prefer to use an ounce of anion, but I guess I'm just a negative kind of guy.
Only thing more annoying... (Score:5, Insightful)
For the record IAAL (though not your lawyer) working in house at a company. Our "techies" are engineers, builders, power system analysts, traders, etc. Another word for these people is "clients." The legal department exists to further the interest of the company and enable our techies to do business. Sure, criminal prosecutions are different than commercial contracts, etc., but the principle is the same -- the lawyer exists to aid his client in getting the best possible deal. I think the difference in outlook often results from the fact that criminal defendants tend not to be those in society best equipped to aid in their own defense, but good attorneys do their best to bring their clients along.
If fact, the best thing about being a lawyer is helping your clients execute our common goals. Really, lawyers really provide the same service as good tech support -- except we help clients navigate the twisted corridors of the law instead of technology or computer code.
Re:Only thing more annoying... (Score:5, Insightful)
...navigate the twisted corridors of the law instead of technology or computer code.
That y'all built yourselves... talk about job-preserving legacy code... ;)
Re:Only thing more annoying... (Score:4, Insightful)
...navigate the twisted corridors of the law instead of technology or computer code.
That y'all built yourselves... talk about job-preserving legacy code... ;)
As opposed to techies?
Re:Only thing more annoying... (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to techies?
Actually, as a scientist (but not your scientist, please consult your scientist) with a great respect and liking for my institution's lawyers: After going through some workshops ("law for techies" and vice versa), once you get over the jargon (e.g. days can be spent on "legal significance" vs. "scientific significance") you'd be downright amazed at the similarities.
Reputation VS incarceration (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically what it seems this article is saying is "despite all the technical 'doubts' you may throw against the charges, your live will already be ruined by the seizure of your equipment and the trial-by-media that ensures various charges"
And sad as it is, that's probably a fairly true statement. Even here on slashdot I remember that when some guy stated that the kiddiepix on his computer came from a trojan that had massively owned his machine (and it was shown it had been fairly owned), many still believe that the possibility was too low.
From my own experience, it's not that impossible. Where I used to work, we had a contractor setup a machine in a horribly insecure way. The box was owned over the weekend, and when I got back to the office it was pretty much unfixable short of a full format. In addition, the filenames I did see before I wiped it were fairly disturbing.
So when you think about it, if your machine is owned, what is somebody going to do with it? The answer would be, "all sorts of things they wouldn't want to be caught doing with their own machine."
Now fast-forward to another event in my own life. I was at one time accused of shoplifting from a video store. The cop on the phone told me it was on camera, gave a description that could have well enough been me, and gave my license plate # as the vehicle identified. After a few days of trying to get things sorted out, and being constantly threatened by the police, I contacted the video store in question to see if the tape-in-question had been misplaced and not stolen. After talking to the manager, I found out that no tapes had been stolen at all, and that they never carried a tape by the name given (oh, and their cameras actually only monitor, not record). However, there was a file with the police, which I can only guess originated from somebody calling in a fake complaint.
It took the video-store owner calling the police dept up to get them to stop threatening me, and after that the calls just stopped (no apologies). If I hadn't called into the store to check on things myself, who knows how far it might have gone.
So if you're trusting the thoroughness of the legal system or the good sense of a jury to save your ass, think again. Even if you're innocent your life could still be ruined by a false accusation, a suspicion, or bad luck. When the police believe that you're guilty, they will come after you heatedly and often without regard for your potential innocence. The can lie to you, they can make your life miserable, and they aren't going to stop just because of some obscure "open wireless" defense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
lawyers are the same as computer programmers (Score:3, Insightful)
they both work in a complex technical language
a programmer worth his salt knows most of the important classes and functions and syntax in a given language needed to get a programming task done, whether serving webpages or making an operating system run. a lawyer does exactly the same thing: he knows certain important case points, the usual range of legal maneuvers in case law, and the prevailing legal opinions, and he applies them to the given legal task at hand, whether criminal or civil
an ASP.NET C# programmer wouldn't jump in and start telling a C++ device driver how to do his work. with the same sort of humility in mind, techies really should learn a little more about the law before shooting their mouths off
Well, at least if you are not a lawyer . . . (Score:3, Funny)
. . . you won't be among the first against the wall when The Revolution comes.
Hard skills, like hacking Perl scripts to keep The Leader supplied with porn, will trump soft skills, like litigating about microwaving poodles.
Beware . . . it IS coming . . .
Hans Reiser (Score:3, Interesting)
Reiser is an excellent example of someone who should have had this explained to them. He thought he could get up on the stand and wave away a mountain of circumstantial evidence with implausible arguments that created (un)reasonable doubts.
"I removed the passenger seat so I could sleep in my car, not because it was covered in my wife's blood."
"But Mr. Reiser, after removing the seat, there's still a metal bar three inches off the floor that crosses the space. Are you telling us that you slept on that?"
"... Yes. Yes, I am."
"In a pool of water an inch deep?"
"I didn't say it was comfortable."
"Why was there water in the car?"
"I hosed out the interior."
"Why?"
"It was dirty after removing the passenger seat so I could sleep there."
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
My best advise (Score:5, Informative)
Do. Not. Talk. To. Cops.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik [youtube.com]
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE [youtube.com]
This takes an hour to watch, but well worth your time. In these videos a lawyer and then a cop explain very clearly why talking to cops never works in your favor. Watch it. Learn it. Live it.
As far as the article is concerned: He is bringing up old news that being put through the legal wringer will cost you time, money, and reputation in the community that you can not get back - even if you are innocent and/or found innocent. The best bet is to not do the crime (though if you watch the videos you will see that it is just about impossible to avoid breaking all laws).
Good luck.
Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, as a techie, did it ever occur that some times, in arenas other than tech, it is *you* (and me -- I'm not pointing fingers) that is the know-it-all who just doesn't get it?
Re:IANAL and who would want to be? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the point is getting involved, it is that many tech types, and more likely self proclaimed techies, will stray into gray areas and they need to know that their short sighted, I can't be punished theories aren't all that strong outside of their mind or circle.
I have seen this in the past where people on IRC serve ip copyrighted materials and think a simple warning "if you are a law enforcement or affiliated with them, you are not allowed in the server" will get any evidence thrown out if they are busted. It's stuff like that which people think justifies behavior or removes possible penalties from it that is being addressed. It's the I'm using Lime wire but I have an open access point which I will blame everything on, just to have your computer taken by warrant before you can delete the lime wire program or any of the files your sharing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about hiding something for wireless NAS in a less than obvious place and just let them take the machines? Keep the things you want hidden on the disk in the wireless NAS and don't log your transfers.
If you think it's to hard to hide it what about hiding it at the neighbors apartment? Good luck with happening to bring that back for investigation ..
Re:IANAL (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much, yes. I am unaware of any laws in Sweden that prevent you from having your stuff seized and searched and your reputation ruined if you are suspected of a crime (and they can gather enough evidence). This isn't an "the American Government are all Nazis" article it's a "Being investigated for a crimes sucks almost as much as being convicted" article. It's pretty much true anywhere. The Police in more "civilized" countries still search for evidence, they still arrest you before you are put on trial, and good attorneys still cost lots of money. The man's argument is undeniable. If the Police suspect you of a crime, they can make your life hard. If they can get enough evidence to search your premises, they can make your life VERY hard. If they can get enough evidence to arrest you, they can make your life MISERABLE. Even if you wind up getting acquitted, It will cost you time, reputation, and money. In Sweden, the United States, Canada, or the North Pole.
Re:Oh praise ...whatever! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The JD is a doctoral degree.