Chains of RFCs and Chains of Laws? 168
AlexNicoll writes "I recently completed a DNSSEC library for the .NET platform (thanks to Wouter @ NLNetLabs for his help!). While writing the library, I encountered the extremely entertaining concept of following the long chain of DNS-related RFCs on the IETF website. Some RFCs were obsoleted, some were updated, some updates were obsoleted by others, and some were never really formally related or linked — so even finding them was a challenge in search-fu. Finally, I think I got the whole picture, but I'm not sure. Then I got to thinking: searching for the relevant RFCs in IETF RFC chains was a lot like trying to figure out how (in the US) local, regional, state, and federal laws interact with themselves and each other. Since I just recently moved, I thought I ought to know the rules of the place I live in. It turns out to be just as non-trivial, if not more so, than parsing RFC chains. So here's the question: given that the processes are somewhat similar, does anyone know of a project that has tried to consolidate all the information in one place, so that it's in one comprehensive and up-to-date document, for either laws or RFCs?"
Update: 05/24 14:24 GMT by
KD :
Ray Bellis from Nominet took up the challenge and compiled dependency graphs for DNS-related RFCs.
works for rfcs and laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Do what works.
Don't get caught.
Re:Academia (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Refactoring (Score:4, Insightful)
I have actually been thinking about this.
Just like Computer Science got Design Patterns from architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander)
Lawmakes should take the concept of refactoring from computer science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_refactoring)
They kind of do, consult Restatement of torts, etc.
Zen RFC (Score:2, Insightful)
When you have a full understanding of the RFCs you must then appreciate that you cannot understand them because they cannot be understood. They are a Gordian Knot. The intricacies of their contradictions are beautiful both in their symmetry and their horror. Some of them are simply humor. That the Internet that we so rely upon is built upon these is nothing less than a triumph of irony.
They are not laws, per se. They are questions. Hence the title: "Request For Comments". The ambivalence is diabolical in its simplicity. It works only because nobody else has come up with better questions.
Re:Academia (Score:3, Insightful)
Lawyers and Network Engineers.
In all seriousness, they're probably our best tool invented to date.
There is of course the horrible situation that even when well-studied Lawyers and RFC "rules lawyers" get together, they can still disagree about things.
Then, when you get a person to decide their differing opinions, no one goes back and annotates the original source, so you end up with hojillions of instances of case law that you have to read to properly understand the law.
Re:probably illegal in most states (Score:5, Insightful)
When I worked at a public library in Virginia, we were told that we weren't allowed to show someone how to use the index of the federal and state codes without having a license to practice law in Virginia. I've heard similar tales of Texas. I am not a lawyer, so I can't possibly understand whether or not what I just typed related to actual law or whimsy.
Some states have ridiculously pedantic laws about who can practice law, or give legal advice. Then they have really wide interpretations of what constitutes "legal advice".
So often times, it becomes a matter of policy for various institutions to reduce their liability. They typically are told to do this by their lawyers.
Subjects must not know the laws! (Score:2, Insightful)
"Sorry, We are not required to tell you what laws you must abide by. We are only required to tell you which one's you've broken!"
Now get in the back of the car, sucker!
>.>
Re:Refactoring (Score:4, Insightful)
As a recently passed example, example: the full-text of SB-1070 [azleg.gov].
Some laws already are passed as if they were diffs. Although, we do a poor job of keeping version histories navigable such as they are on Wikipedia, but a recording agency could conceivably keep track of the legal text that way.
Common forms are to underline text that is being added, and strike-through indicating text that will be deleted.
For instance, scroll down to "Sec 4. Section 13-2319": the original bullet "E." has been struck through, and replaced with "F."
Re:Refactoring (Score:2, Insightful)
For Americans who can't grasp the idea of corporate relevancy and the disgusting lengths corporations go to maintain it; keep in mind that throughout the entirety of human history there has yet to be a single democratic or representative government that avoided succumbing to a domestic and/or foreign authoritarian imperialist influence. On another note, until large factions of the military adopt a strict doctrine of supporting the aforementioned kinds of reform(and/or the military decentralizes into regional militias), it is very unlikely we will see the masses wrenching control back from international banks and money institutions(our primary obstacles in achieving liberty atm)
Fuck no (Score:5, Insightful)
If such a thing were done, it would make the laws easy to understand and follow, and we can't have that, otherwise we'll bankrupt the lawyers!
As much as I hate the bitch, Ayn Rand was right about one thing--that governments make needless laws to create criminals of its citizens in hopes they'll pay them to not be criminals any more (well, paraphrased, anyway).
This thought process doesn't really work for computer standards, so I couldn't give a reason for the disorganization of the RFCs.
That said, one counter argument to the second paragraph of this is Hanlon's Razor--"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."--which would play to the disorganization all around.
Re:Academia (Score:2, Insightful)
Practically speaking, this is the exact role played by academia. Parse and make things understandable, then teach.
Re:probably illegal in most states (Score:2, Insightful)
Well part of the difficulty is that we have a common law legal system. So the decisions of appeals courts as usually binding upon (precedent for) inferior courts below them. They are therefore considered "law" as well as the statutes. And Lexis and Westlaw have done a pretty good job of privitizing the public domain works of court decisions.
Re:Academia (Score:2, Insightful)
that's why you'll never see a tool like the one the author wants for laws. and also why you'll never see the laws simplified, no matter how much injustice is perpetrated using our increasingly convoluted system of laws.
i think our laws and case law need to be refactored.
Re:Refactoring (Score:3, Insightful)
You could, perhaps, think of the US Federal/State relationship as being more like the European Union/European Union member country relationship. At least, that's how it seems to have been originally intended, and how some of us (US citizens) still view it. States are fairly independent entities with the responsibility for most of the legislation. The federal government has a restricted set of power specifically granted to it by the agreement under which the individual States agreed to participate in the Union. This document describes the constitution of the federal government (and hence is called the "Constitution").
So US Federal law covers those powers specifically set aside for Federal control. US State law covers just about everything else, except for some amount of county and town/city-based legislation that takes care of fine details at the local level. At least, that is the way that the Constitution describes it.
Unfortunately, in the normal course of events the areas into which the Federal government has become entangled has grown enormously, helped along substantially by the so-called "interstate commerce clause" of the Constitution. This clause gives the Federal government certain authorities over elements of interstate commerce. It has been used (and overused) to extend Federal jurisdiction quite broadly.
Re:Refactoring (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect that a lawyer SHOULD be able to definitively answer the question "is it legal if I...". It's also reasonable to expect the law to at least be self consistent.
I agree it's a matter of scope rather than kind, but it's also a qualitative matter. Programmers at least maintain the information even if comprehensive analysis might be intractable. In cases where life hangs in the balance we as a profession get a lot more strict about the ability to complete the analysis (and life DOES hang in the balance in criminal justice).
Re:Refactoring (Score:3, Insightful)
Ethics by nature have a lot of gray areas. However, justice demands an ability to determine as a matter of fact what a person may and may not do, otherwise an innocent infringement can too easily become a conviction. This is especially true if we claim (as we do) that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I fully recognize the difficulty of that task. Anyone who writes software will recognize the analogous situation. I get the feeling that programmers try a LOT harder than lawmakers (who have been known to vote on a bill without reading it) to get it right.
As a sort of safety feature (sorta like enclosing an entire program in a try block so any exceptions that leak will restart it), we are to grant the defendant the benefit of all doubts and technicalities. We are not to even prosecute if the illegality of an act is questionable. However, we have allowed that to steadily erode in the form of prosecutors using technicalities as a way to get an indictment (such as teens taking nude self portraits technically manufacturing child porn).
I don't expect the legislative or judicial branches to get it right every single time any more than I expect an end to all bugs in software, but I do expect them to at least not mark every bug as user error and "won't fix".