What you get when my brain crashes…

How to write laws - the RIGHT Way

At least, I think it’s the right way:

“If I were writing laws such that I wanted everybody to agree on how to interpret them, I would use the software development life cycle: First, have lawmakers (analogous to “developers”) write drafts of the laws. Then a second group (the “test case writers”) would try to come up with situations that would be interpreted ambiguously under the law. Then a third group, the “testers”, would read the proposed law, read the test case situations, and try to determine how the law should be applied to those cases, without communicating with the law writers, the test case writers, or each other. If there’s too much disagreement in the third group on how the law should be applied, then it’s too vague to be a proper law. The only laws which made it through this process would be ones such that when they were finally passed, most citizens (the “users”) could agree on how to interpret them, in cases sufficiently similar to the ones the test case writers could come up with.”

Read the whole thing here. Despite all the nay-saying comments that follow, I think this is a superb idea, and clearly the right and just way to write laws.

The Four Boxes used to Defend Liberty

Still another great sig seen on Slashdot:

There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

I hope you’ve been using the first two recently - I know I have.

Effects of REAL ID

C|NET News has a great writeup on what the effects of REAL ID are going to be to people in different states - depending on whether your state has complied or not.

There are some SERIOUS problems here of course - for example, you may not be able to go visit your representative in Washington DC if you don’t have a REAL ID - which is a clear violation of your right to petition your government.

And of course, today the news broke that the Department of Homeland Security is suggesting that REAL ID might be required to buy medicines that contain pseudophedrine. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with the original goal of REAL ID - it’s clear feature creep and the start of that slippery slope thing… that we were promised wouldn’t happen this time (really!).

As usual, the law - as it was originally passed - was supposed to be used to “stop terrorists.” Now it’s expanded to include immigration control, drug restrictions, and a “big stick” to beat down rebellious states - within our own country! States that have the guts to stand up and say “this is wrong, we won’t do it” are being beaten down with the power given to the DHS by the REAL ID Act.

Once again, we have taken another step towards becoming a police state. May I see your papers, please?

The Power of Nightmares

An interesting BBC Video that explores the origins of Islamic Fundamentalism and Neo-conservatism. Well worth the time it takes to watch.

“Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today’’s nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.”

Security vs. Privacy

As usual, Bruce Schneier puts it more eloquently than I can:

…it’s precisely why, when people in their business are in charge of government, it becomes a police state. If privacy and security really were a zero-sum game, we would have seen mass immigration into the former East Germany and modern-day China. While it’s true that police states like those have less street crime, no one argues that their citizens are fundamentally more secure.

That is spot on. And it’s something that I’ve been trying to get more people to understand. In this post-9/11 world, everyone is telling us to be afraid of this, that, and the other thing, and we are then being told that in order to make ourselves “safe” we need to let people into our homes, our businesses, and our private lives, and that it’s OK, they’re trustworthy, just trust us on this one, folks, we won’t screw anything up for you. Just be good little sheep and get in line.

And by and large, we’ve been good little sheep, and we’ve gotten in line. And believe it or not, we’re headed for the slaughter.

But it’s not even a this vs. that debate here - being secure doesn’t mean we have to let government into our homes and personal lives. Once again, let me quote Bruce:

The debate isn’t security versus privacy. It’s liberty versus control.

You can see it in comments by government officials: “Privacy no longer can mean anonymity,” says Donald Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence. “Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information.” Did you catch that? You’re expected to give up control of your privacy to others, who — presumably — get to decide how much of it you deserve. That’s what loss of liberty looks like.

What we really aught to be scared of is not each other, or vague “terrorist threats,” but instead this creeping encroachment into our personal liberties. If anything, that should be what keeps us awake at night.

It’s what keeps me awake at night, anyway.