Legal Code In a Version Control System? 334
coldmist writes "Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.) is on the Senate Finance Committee, which just finished work on the health care bill. The committee recently rejected an amendment which would have required them to post the legislation for public viewing for 72 hours before it went to final vote. Several senators felt that the actual legal code would be too cryptic and complicated to be useful. Carper himself said, 'I don't expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life.' So, why don't they put it in SVN (or some similar version control system) where people can tkdiff the changes (i.e. new legislation is in a branch) or output a patchset? If a bill is passed, it's merged into the trunk. It just seems so logical to me, yet I can't find any mention of doing this on the web. What do you think?"
The legislative language isn't that important... (Score:2, Informative)
Generally, if you want to learn the content of a bill, you can read the plain language version that's passed out of committee. That's the version that matters, that's the version that the members of Congress read, and that's the version that's controlling. The version of the bill that's translated is the legislation that is passed on. If that does not match up with the intent from the committee, then it is corrected to match the plain language version.
And as for whether some sort of tkdiff makes sense, maybe it does, but really for only a select few people who actually are writing and or editing the bills. Of course, if there was something free and open to the public, that wouldn't be a bad thing either. But generally, there's just not a whole lot of demand.
Re:If the legal code is too confusing (Score:2, Informative)
CHANGE THE LAW. Keeping the bible in Latin worked only for the priests and keeping the law in legal speak is working only for the lawyers.
Sigh. Another round of religion-bashing.
Keeping the bible in Latin worked because 1) Latin was the language of literacy throughout Europe, much like English is the language of commerce and international communication today worldwide; 2) none of the peasants could read anyway; 3) back then, it took years of work to copy a book, preserving all the artwork by hand - you might as well made sure everyone could read it when you're done; 4) most of the languages weren't exactly ready for these kinds of translations.
To rephrase your argument: Keeping the API in English worked only for the programmers.
Re:Lack of training/intelligence? (Score:4, Informative)
Lawyers generally use MS Word's version control system when negotiating new contracts. It may not be as good as CVS or Subversion, but it is at least something.
Re:If the legal code is too confusing (Score:3, Informative)
Methinks you doth protest too much. Surely keeping the bible in a language that only appointed priests could understand and have access to learning worked to the benefit of those priests and the people who had influence in appointing them (King, and Pope). The breaking up of this monopoly was a direct result of the invention of the printing press - which allowed plain English/German/Dutch/French translations to be mass produced for the first time. This caused bloody wars all over Europe. http://www.williamtyndale.com/0biblehistory.htm [williamtyndale.com]
In fact, the wars to bring about the monopoly in the first place under Charles the Great were pretty bloody also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden [wikipedia.org]
That being said, I'm not really convinced by the grandparent. I am not a lawyer but I do know that modern civilization with large populations is a very complicated thing. I don't believe it can run without a legal system that can cope with complex situations and come up with a ruling that at least largely works (or keeps some semblance of order). The language needs to be exact so that it can be interpreted accurately, hence, legalese has evolved. It is not comprehensible to the average Joe. However, because it is exact, a trained lawyer can interpret it and give a legal opinion that will probably be correct. A smart person usually has a good idea of right and wrong working through legalese - it just takes a long time. Even most libertarians are not so removed from Earth as to suggest that society can do away with courts (or military, or police). Whatever would be in place of the rules to stop people doing things that cause other people harm (usually having some sort of market basis) need to be exact enough.
The same is true of software. There is no silver bullet that will enable people with average joe levels of intelligence to code software. The language used needs to be precise; there is no way around it. To get to the point where we can type in English "construct me a game where I run around and shoot things and have lots of fun" and have the computer pop out the next Crysis after compiling for a bit... for that we need strong AI. Until then we have an array of cryptic English-based languages, unintelligible to the layman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet [wikipedia.org]
Re:where are the doc management lobbyists? (Score:3, Informative)
What I do not understand, is where are the lobbyists for the larger document management companies, (Documentum, Hummingbird, Filenet, or any others, and no I'm not endorsing here). Why is this space so quiet from those seemingly interested in Profit$?
It would probably not be profitable for them. Developing a special system for Congress gives you exactly one customer. To be profitable with only one customer you have to charge a huge amount of money for your system. That makes doing business with the government a completely different beast than anything else you do. And then since the government is spending public money there are all sorts of arcane procedures in place to prevent abuse and you have to know how to work that system.
In general, companies that do business with the government specialize in it (or have a separate business division that does). Everyone else realizes that it is just a distraction and that there is more money to be made by concentrating on the private sector.
Re:The legislative language isn't that important.. (Score:3, Informative)
It does sometimes happen that the people in charge of enforcing the law, do not understand what is intended, or perhaps the law is not written clearly; at a recent public meeting the town planning and economic development manager professed not to know what the phrase "six or zero" meant for side setback, when it had been repeatedly described as intended to mean "a minimum of six feet, except that zero is also allowed" (which is perhaps how it ought to be phrased, but it was patched into one of those tables with a column titled "minimum"). The idea is that if buildings are not actually abutting, then the alley between them must be usefully wide enough to allow trash removal, etc.
Re:If the legal code is too confusing (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're missing the point.
Here [loc.gov] is an example of bill.
Go to section 3.
You will see that the bill is actually a diff on previous laws.
To read the law modified by this bill, you need to get the text of the laws referenced by this bill.
Hence the idea of using a version control system, to be able to read side-by-side the law before and after the bill.
Re:If the legal code is too confusing (Score:4, Informative)
If laws had the same nature of programming languages, we'd have robot lawyers by now.
Re:Too early yet (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't the health bill, but here is an example of the crap that Congress comes up with. This is unacceptable. These people earn almost $200,000 a year and this is the best they can come up with? They don't want to read it because they would then be forced to fix it.
http://volokh.com/2009/09/23/recent-computer-crime-legislation-the-actual-text-so-you-can-read-it-yourself/
Text of H.R. 5938 [110th]: Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008
(a) In General- Section 1030 of title 18, United States Code, is amendedâ" (1) in subsection (a)(5)â"(A) by striking subparagraph (B); and(B) in subparagraph (A)â"(i) by striking â(A)(i) knowinglyâ(TM) and inserting â(A) knowinglyâ(TM);(ii) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and(iii) in subparagraph (C), as so redesignatedâ"(I) by inserting âand lossâ(TM) after âdamageâ(TM); and(II) by striking â; andâ(TM) and inserting a period;(2) in subsection (c)â"(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking â(a)(5)(A)(iii),â(TM);(B) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking â(a)(5)(A)(iii),â(TM); â(4)(A) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case ofâ" â(i) an offense under subsection (a)(5)(B), which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, if the offense caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)â" â(I) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value; â(II) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;â(III) physical injury to any persons; â(IV) a threat to public health or safety;â(V) damage affecting a computer used by or for an entity of the United States Government in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security; or â(VI) damage affecting 10 or more protected computers during any 1-year period; or â(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; â(B) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case ofâ"â(i) an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A), which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, if the offense caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused) a harm provided in subclauses (I) through (VI) of subparagraph (A)(i); or â(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; â(C) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, in the case ofâ" â(i) an offense or an attempt to commit an offense under subparagraphs (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(5) that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or â(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; â(D) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case ofâ" â(i) an offense or an attempt to commit an offense under subsection (a)(5)(C) that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or â(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; â(E) if the offender attempts to cause or knowingly or recklessly causes serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; â(F) if the offender attempts to cause or kn
Re:Too early yet (Score:4, Informative)
The bill as written allowed people to simply walk into a hospital and demand healthcare, whether they were american, illegal residents, or foreign tourists just dropping-in for a visit.
How is that different than the situation we have today?
Re:Seems consistent with every issue (Score:3, Informative)
Australia 362
Canada 388
United Kingdom 434
United States of America 460
Out of the above four nations, the US has the most expensive health system on a per capita basis, and gets the lowest quality care in return. Conflating Stalin with health care over the last 40yrs has done the US a great diservice by way of the ideologically convoluted health "system" it has created.
Re:Seems consistent with every issue (Score:3, Informative)
Death Panels are real. I don't know what the fuss is on this score. We have a Death Panel here in the UK, which with a complete lack of irony we call NICE. Insurance companies run Death Panels, which decide what they're willing to pay for. And of course, in more individualised health care systems, like Singapore's, the individual acts as their own Death Panel.
Death Panels are mandated by the simple fact that our resources are not limitless while the number of ways human bodies can fuck up more or less is. Most people never run foul of them. They still exist though.