Ming the Mechanic:
Blind and Automatic Punishment

The NewsLog of Flemming Funch
 Blind and Automatic Punishment2011-11-24 00:54
10 comments
picture by Flemming Funch

I got my first HADOPI warning in an e-mail today. If you didn't know, HADOPI is the French three-strikes law that bans people from using the Internet if they 3 times have been caught downloading something that somebody has a copyright claim to. Not caught by the police, mind you, not verified by anybody. It just means that a few multi-national media companies have been given the power to just send an IP address and a date/time to a certain government agency, and whoever happens to have been using the IP address at that time will be punished. They don't have to even mention what I possibly might have downloaded.

This is one example of a dangerous and growing trend: For people in power to use automated means of catching and punishing people who don't follow their rules.

Politicians are notoriously bad at making rules. As are lawyers, and most anybody who appears to have the job of making rules for everybody. To make good rules that actually would work for everybody would require some kind of basic understanding of abstraction and the limitations of words. If not, it becomes simply a string of thinking fallacies. And, if connected with automated enforcement, very destructive things happen.

The rules (laws) in most countries are considered absolute, unless they clearly can be shown to have been ambiguous or conflicting with other laws. Per definition, a law is something that is just supposed to be exactly as it says, or somebody will be punished. The trouble is that most laws are based on something that makes sense in a very specific context, but they're applied generally, at all times, in all contexts. The law maker might really just have tried to make a statement, to communicate the importance of an idea, but he unfortunately used the medium of law.

If there are humans involved, such as police officers, or judges, or juries, or public opinion, there's a chance that an unfair application of a law gets corrected. If you have a good enough reason, the police officer might let you go. If you explain yourself to the judge, he might see that you did the right thing, despite what the law said. If everybody can see that it is a silly law, it might just be ignored. Humans process complexity, they can take all sorts of things into consideration at the same time, at many levels, consciously as well as sub-consciously. If the law says one can't spit on the sidewalk, any reasonable person would grant an exception to somebody who's choking on a piece of food. The law assumes a situation where there's no real reason to spit, and somebody does so for some kind of malicious or careless reason, but the law isn't likely to say so. It says that you will be punished if you spit on the sidewalk. Most laws are much too specific in the wrong way.

Most bodies of law are a mishmash of missing context, self-contradictions and exceptions. The practice of law is a mishmash of argumentation and reasoning and decisions that might go in one direction or another. If asked to actually look at it, most anybody would recognize that the words of the law itself aren't enough. At least anybody but the guys who get the clever idea of automatically enforcing laws.

Most people are now familiar with automated speed radars that measure your car's speed, take a picture of your license plate, and send you a ticket in the mail. No humans are involved. If you were measured as driving 91 and the sign said 90, you'll have to pay. Even if you weren't in your car at all, even if there was a reason for doing so, even if the speed limit isn't reasonable. In the town where I live, the 90km/h limit on the Periphérique circling town was chosen not for safety or traffic flow reasons, but because somebody calculated that gas would be saved if everybody had to drive max 90.

The current examples you see are fairly harmless. But that's only while technology is catching up, and while simple-minded politicians catch up to the idea of what one can do with technology.

Automated drones are increasingly being used in warfare. Actually, most of them are still mostly remote controlled unmanned aircraft. But that will change as the technology becomes better. Imagine high definition cameras with face recognition, reading of license plates, interpretation of body language, combined with offensive weapons, mounted on small flying drones. The military will use the first. But police forces will very happily use stuff like that as soon as they're allowed to. Just imagine how much easier their work would be in, say, policing the current Occupy protests. Automatic tear gassing of people who walk on the street when they've been told not to. It isn't particularly far fetched.

Again, the problem is that most rules are much, much too over-simplified and specific for a complex world. If somebody makes a law that says you're not allowed to talk on a telephone in your car, they'll probably be quite self-satisfied with the reasonableness of such a law. Lots of people will agree and think it is a great law, as they think of lots of people who're distracted, while driving, and therefore not driving as well. But the law says nothing about that. It doesn't define what is considered a phone, and it doesn't define the actual target, driving as safely as possible. Imagine that it was enforced automatically, that some device in the car automatically would kill any cell phone signal, if a call is attempted. Because, again, the law maker thought about how much better it would be if drivers weren't distracted. But it would also kill potentially live saving calls. It might also stop somebody from inventing a service that you could talk to that would help you drive better. It would stop a lot of things that the law maker just failed to imagine. If he were presented with the potential exception, he'll of course admit that, yes, of course it isn't meant to stop that. But his law didn't say so. And if we take the humans out of the equation, nobody else will be there to say so.

Overall, it is one of the prime insanities of humankind. The idea that you can take some words, put together into some sentences, and somehow they'll remain true and appropriate in all possible situations, forever. Forgetting that those words were in the first place merely abstractions of something more real. Maybe the author of the words clearly could see the picture of what he felt that those words applied to. But those words don't mean exactly the same thing to everybody else. And if we go ahead and apply those words to all sorts of other situations, very different from what their author was thinking of, they might not fit very well. Which is not such a big deal if we can notice and talk about it. But if the words have been put on automatic, crazy things can happen. There's a consciousness of abstraction that's largely unknown to the ruling class in most areas.

One of the most central ways that humanity is likely to shoot itself in the foot, or even collectively commit suicide is by ignoring, denying, or removing complexity. You see it in many fields of human activity: government, religion, even science. One size fits all solutions tend to kill life. One moral code for everybody. One crop to grow for miles and miles. Volumes and volumes of laws that tell everybody how they always must do under all circumstances. While totally overlooking what it is that makes the world work. Life is a continuum, multi-dimensional, multi-level. There is somebody home. Something is aware, something evolves, changes based on circumstances. Humans have found themselves able to create stuff that doesn't change based on the circumstances. There are some advantages to that, and a whole bunch of potentially world-killing dangers.


[< Back] [Ming the Mechanic]

Category:  

10 comments

24 Nov 2011 @ 12:41 by celestial : Hammurabi's Law
Ming, what of Hammurabi's laws? After much study, I've found some of his laws wouldn't be appropiate in today's society, but a lot of his work is still the main foundation of today's law. It seems to me that he was a very just man, but if living, would be appalled at how things have "evolved" in modern society.

I totally agree with your view on "automated enforcement." I believe seven (7) solid years of "absolute automated enforcement" could easily decimate the human race. It used to be that the creator of any law was the ultimate enforcer of it (until he died), then it was left to the following rising leaders to interpret and enforce it (that which he wrote).  



24 Nov 2011 @ 17:22 by ming : Hammurabi
The Code of Hammurabi is certainly an example of making laws clear and easy to understand. But is also an example of what I'm complaining about here. It specifies fixed punishments for specific misdeeds.

What I'm fishing for is laws that outline the principle, not the exact crime and punishment. So, like, "drive according to the conditions", as opposed to "don't speak on the phone, don't drive over 55". I believe it is possible to word rules so that they don't have a long list of exceptions.  



24 Nov 2011 @ 23:31 by bushman : hmm
I would say most laws are suposed to be an extention of common sence, it's lack of common sence that made them interpet laws how they do today and add more words that have more slack or laditude. My view is laws should be grey the problem is with the people who get the job of law enforcer, they forgot where they are suposed to stand. They take an oath to uphold a constitution and bill of rights, all but forgoten. But those 2 pieces of rules was totaly designed to keep those in power inside the grey, where breaking a law is not a crime if it saved lives and protected property. And they have forgoten that they took the job as a peace officer, not a thug against percived thugs, not a christian/zionist/mercenary who thinks hes doing what his god wants, or some hired corpate security gun. It is said that only satan would have man discard his own humanity as a final slap to gods face. United we stand, devided we fall, simple as that.  


25 Nov 2011 @ 00:20 by ming : Grey
Indeed, laws should be grey. Or, rather, the intent should be very clear, but the interpretation should be done in relation to the circumstances at hand. Even nature works like that. The law of gravity doesn't say that all objects must fall down. Some objects don't, but the real law is never violated.  


26 Nov 2011 @ 21:38 by swanny @207.34.102.11 : Justinian Code
26 nov 2011 ab ca 2:36 pm mst earth
re: law
well first there was the Sumerians perhaps and then Moses and Hammurabi and then the Greeks, Romans, king Alfred and the Justinian code and then I think some Germans stuff...and then parliamentary procedure and congress etc etc

been studying some law and the really good stuff is quite logical and just and as Dr T. Aquinas said should be reasonable and public but i almost think its time to edit and update the laws and return to the idea of justice and add some nature rights like Ecuador did in 2008
Justinian code link = [link]
its gotten almost to complex yet we don't even have a standby alien/ ET space treaty in readiness or foresight except for the Gabriel treaty 2011

ed jonas/swanny  



27 Nov 2011 @ 13:14 by Steven BREWER @71.234.178.224 : Education
I just wrote about the parallel issue in the context of education.  


28 Nov 2011 @ 13:10 by celestial : Common Sense
Ming, good ideas but it seems to be difficult to legislate common sense. I believe it's possible to word rules so that common sense would be followed.

I would like to see some kind of test for common sense which a person would be required to take, and pass, before ever being permitted to run (or hired) for any office (or job) creating, or enforcing, the law.

In particular, I'm incensed that prosecutors hide pertinent evidence in order to obtain a guilty verdict in capital cases where innocent people are executed, but it later comes to light that the person was innocent. In such cases, I'm all for an eye for an eye; they should be held accountable and executed also!



 



1 Dec 2011 @ 15:30 by jmarc : Adsense
Adsense does this too. Someone committed click fraud on your site. You are banned for life. You may protest and then you get a reply 5 minutes later saying, nope, we are right you are wrong. It's fairly obvious that you are talking to a computer when this happens. No explanation of where the click fraud came from, what IP address, etc. Nope. Just a statement that it happened, and you are banned for life. Kind of makes you feel like you've just been ground up in a big meat grinder.  


1 Dec 2011 @ 18:02 by ming : Adwords
Same thing with AdWords. I've been banned for life for something that is outside my control. Essentially, a site I once linked to in an ad does not fulfill their requirements for a landing page, and my account would only be reinstated once that site changes. But it isn't my site at all, so that's of course unlikely to ever happen. And, yes, if one is lucky to get a response, they'll just essentially repeat that the computer is right.  


28 Apr 2013 @ 18:30 by Prudy @94.23.238.222 : mdqxOmlcFoDMKKWACP
Clear, ifnrmoatvie, simple. Could I send you some e-hugs?  


Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
Subject:       
Comment:
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:


Other stories in
2011-11-19 22:50: Corruption
2007-03-16 01:50: Logic and the Autobahn
2007-01-22 21:14: The Century of the Self
2006-12-12 21:43: Le Web 3
2006-12-11 00:14: Software and Community in the Early 21st Century
2006-12-04 21:42: Troubadours and the Singable Earth Charter
2006-10-26 18:11: A message from DHS
2006-02-09 21:41: Mohammed cartoons in Egypt
2006-02-09 20:46: Instigators of the Mohammed controversy
2006-02-07 17:54: Wikipedia on Mohammed cartoons



[< Back] [Ming the Mechanic] [PermaLink]? 


Link to this article as: http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001985.htm
Main Page: ming.tv