Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

I don't think its true that the supreme court doesn't understand technology. They might not buy into the ideology that technologists do, buy I think they understand the relevant facets of how it works. As I've said before, we depend on judges to arbitrate disputes related to complex insurance contracts. Technology is easy in comparison.

As for the low-tech workflow in chambers, they stick to it because it works. Email is great for dealing with a lot of information you don't read that carefully. Appellate work is the opposite of that: going over the same pair of 50 page briefs over and over or the same draft opinion a dozen times. Nothing beats paper, post its and pencils for that work flow.

View on HN

That's not my opinion, it's that of Justice Kagan.

"The judges who sit on the US Supreme Court have little knowledge of Facebook, Twitter, email, or other modern capabilities, despite society's widespread use of such technology, according to Justice Elena Kagan.

“I think we’re going to have to be doing a lot of thinking about that,” she replied, adding that the judges often seek out younger clerks to assist with questions about technology. “It’s a challenge for us.”"

This is why I think there is a huge role to play for leaders in the tech field in this debate.

Well I disagree with justice Kagan. I think the Court gets the gist of what Facebook, etc, is, and I don't think there is much that is valuable about having really deep understanding of the technology.

I think technologists confuse technology with ideology. Facebook is a technology that lets your friends see messages and photos you post, like a private bulletin board. I think every Justice gets that. All the other stuff, about what sort of social role that technology should play, that's ideology and politics.

As an aside, when younger people say older people don't get technology, I think its usually a proxy for social disagreements. E.g. My mom (62) has a Facebook, and iPhone, iPad, etc. She gets how it all works. She just doesn't approve of people posting pictures of themselves in revealing outfits or airing personal business in public on Facebook, or teenagers sexting pictures on their iPhones. That's not her not understanding technology. That's her having different social views.

I do think a current justice is much more qualified to talk about how the court views and understands technology then we are...

Regardless, in this case, a well-written amicus brief from technology leaders could also shape some of the ideology that would come to play, and I think it would be respected because they would be subject experts.

I agree amicus briefs can be helpful, and for an example of how, read Reno v. ACLU, in which the Court struck down portions of the Communications Decency Act: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427.... Specifically, read the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's Findings of Fact in the case, which the Supreme Court quotes extensively in its opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7999801392201013... (Section II).

It's a very cogent description of the internet as it worked in 1996. I can't read something like that, which even goes to the length of describing how the internet uses packet-switching, and conclude that judges as a group don't have a grasp of how Facebook works.

"As an aside, when younger people say older people don't get technology, I think its usually a proxy for social disagreements"

Could be, but I think to a large extent it is that older people tend to assume things that are just not true. Example: my mom asked if I would be able to communicate with her during my upcoming trip to Europe, because she was concerned that there might be "international rates" for the Internet. This is the same woman who is able to use Fedora for daily tasks and who has been using command-line ffmpeg to transcode personal videos for her various devices.

To "get technology" can mean a lot of things. It could mean knowing how to use a terminal. It could just as easily mean understanding that a desktop computer can do all the things that a TiVO can do, or that the Internet does not have any long distance fees, or that the intended use a computer is irrelevant in a conversation about the possible uses of a computer. I would not discount such poor assumptions -- hackers are repeatedly bitten in the ass by law enforcement agencies and judges who have such misconceptions.

This reminds me of my favorite anecdote in this realm. I had a close friend who, in college studied in the Beltway. He claims he was one of the interns who, at her behest, showed Congressman Clinton how one sleeps with a hooker in the back of cars in the infamous GTA series and then kills her to retake your money. Needless to say, she was not amused. [0]

Whether or not I believe the story, if I had known Congressional internships could be that fun, and I could inspire America's leaders with the great power of video games and laughter, perhaps I would have applied.

[0] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cl...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com