[DannyBee]

Sorry, I should have been clear: I meant fine legally, in the context of the fifth amendment. It is not a statement of what I believe the social view/norm/etc should be, or whether it should be allowed. Only an objective assessment of whether it would fall within the context of what was currently protected and the intent of protecting that.

Personally, I would find it abhorrent, but that is not particularly relevant to the law.

[tptacek]

I read something recently --- can't remember what --- that suggested that the expensive ceremony around obtaining phone wiretaps at the state level were in part motivated by the concern that wiretaps came close to reading the thoughts of the accused.

[DannyBee]

I imagine this is more along the lines of 4th amendment or thoughtcrime.

I actually believe we are likely to need another amendment to protect us in the future, because I don't think the fifth does or would do a good job of this.

[TsiCClawOfLight]

But will that amendment be passed in a country like this... ?

[nitrogen]

I think this is one of the sources of abrasion between lawyers and hackers on HN -- the distinction between "legal" and "ethical" is not always made clear. Sometimes you'll see a hacker post that things must be one way, while a lawyer replies that, no, in fact, they are completely the opposite (the hacker invariably reads "you imbecile" after this, even though it's not actually typed ;-) ).

In reality, the hacker may have a perfect understanding of the current law, but disagree with it vehemently, while the lawyer's personal philosophy is actually in agreement with the hacker's statement.

[DannyBee]

"In reality, the hacker may have a perfect understanding of the current law"

Maybe? I find engineers, like a lot of intelligent people, read a lot and think this means they understand things. If they spend their time starting by reading and learning fundamentals, i'd agree with you. Instead, a lot of the time, IMHO, they read and understand particular cases in particular jurisdictions, and then take that as a truth that applies elsewhere, when it doesn't. Maybe someday i'll make a law for hackers course as a MOOC.

They also want the law to be logical, and present logical extensions of arguments (IE they want the law to be an entirely rule based system, where if all rules are memorized, all outcomes are clear) . It's certainly a necessity to be able to reason logically, but the problem is, at its core, the law is about people and situations, and not logic. Logic is just a method that is used to come up with some possible solutions to these problems, and to determine possible outcomes. It is not a god that must be followed at all costs.

IE Judges are not going to do things just because they are logical, because they are people, and not logical reasoning automatons. The law's goal is to serve a societal need, not to be theoretically sound in all cases.

This often grates on most engineers, who want bright lines and definite answers.

Anyway, this is my experience having been a "real" engineer for 15 years before/during/after becoming a lawyer, and talking to an ungodly number of engineers over the years about things.

It could be my view is skewed because of the career path i've taken :)

I do agree that there is tension between lawyers and engineers on HN, but IMHO, this is due in large part to most lawyers being able to objectively detach their feelings from their legal analysis of a situation (something one is trained to do in law school), and forgetting to mention they are doing this.

[Amadou]

This often grates on most engineers, who want bright lines and definite answers.

FWIW, the thing that bugs me the most is that sometimes the bright lines are more important than the soft stuff like intent and sometimes they are not and there is little rhyme or reason for why. I'm not just talking things like strict liability versus mens rea either, its just that I don't have a good example off the top of my head. Maybe AT&T vs Weev?

[yardie]

Most engineers are human :-) and just use logic as a means to support their argument. They just do it better than the typical TV pundit.