Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 124 posts

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#71

Post by baroffoos »

supz wrote: post #32

This is great, I would also love to see laws have applicable test cases created. For a practical example, in NJ they recently changed gun laws, and they forgot to include an exemption for police officers, so they ended up being restricted by the new laws the same way civilians are. (I really bit my tongue on this, not going to get political, here). The law should have had a test case created, which would have the equ…

I don't think I can think of any computing problem in the world harder than what you just described.

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#72

Post by 616c »

dgreisen wrote: post #57
eletious wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of out there, but what prevents modification of the law from bad actors? Git history plays a part but is it possible for someone to edit a change and play all the subsequent changes on top of it, with the hope that nobody notices the sha change?

We have internal systems that allow us to audit/authenticate the repository. We will be deploying a cryptographic authentication framework based on TUF in Q1 2019 that will make it possible for _anybody_ to audit/authenticate the repository.

Is this in the context of the DC law repos chronicled here?

If we are DC local how can we get involved?

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#74

Post by rumcajz »

While this is a great development, hosting AUTHORITATIVE text of the law at a private service (GitHub, owned by Microsoft) doesn't sound like a good idea.

Consider what would happen if Microsoft decided to delete the repo. There will still be copies of the law at different places, but there would no authoritative version. Imagine a lawsuit where each party is arguing that their copy of the law is the "correct" one.

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#75

Post by beatgammit »

Is this type of thing something people want?

I have been thinking of running for local office (one seat in particular is always uncontested), and my platform would basically be: I'll set up a method for constituents to voice their opinion in a transparent way. I'm thinking something like change.org, but with some way to verify residency.

I think citizens don't get as involved as they want to because the barrier to entry is too high and the results are too opaque (don't know how many called, emailed, etc). I would love to start a movement for more open government, but I'm just not sure the demand is there.

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#76

Post by lazyasciiart »

bytematic wrote: post #29
gammateam wrote: post #25

I've been wanting this for a long time, I wanted to take it further though: I want draft laws, I want to see all representatives as contributors and be able to see their contributions and changes to draft laws. the House should have a master branch that submits pull requests to another repository, the other chamber having one too The Governor/President gets to approve PR's from that jurisdiction It would become SUPER…

I would love to see a constitution drafted for a fictional country.

You might enjoy reading about constitutions being drafted for real countries - https://www.npr.org/2011/02/10/133657355/The-Nuts-And-Bolts-...

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#77

Post by grey_earthling »

rumcajz wrote: post #74

While this is a great development, hosting AUTHORITATIVE text of the law at a private service (GitHub, owned by Microsoft) doesn't sound like a good idea. Consider what would happen if Microsoft decided to delete the repo. There will still be copies of the law at different places, but there would no authoritative version. Imagine a lawsuit where each party is arguing that their copy of the law is the "correct" one.

Surely there was an open procurement process, where they considered the available options for web-based version control, and came to the conclusion that GitHub was justifiably better than its competitors.

They wouldn't just have picked someone's favourite service without thinking, because fair competition is a fundamental ingredient of a well-functioning capitalist market economy.

Right?

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#78

Post by gregknicholson »

zanny wrote: post #37
misterhtmlcss wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm willing to bet GH is being mirrored internally as you suggest otherwise you'd be exposing the only current digital copy to hackers. That just seems a reasonable expectation to me. So the activity is likely happening on the larger and more exposed GH service, while internally there is a daily copy bring backed up that isn't (as) exposed to hackers. Something life that would be a great way to displace risk.

But thats not how git works. Everyone who uses the repo has a copy of it. Even if you hack GH the worst possible outcome is a hard reset of the repo, which would break pulls anyway. Unless a literal city council thinks its a good idea to not have local copies of their own law source code they are modifying regularly or something.

> Unless a literal city council thinks

Doesn't seem likely.

Seriously, I'd imagine they treat it as “someone else's problem” — like backups.

If GitHub gets hacked, I imagine their plan is “be affronted, and sue”. When GitHub's lawyers point out that the terms of service don't guarantee anything, the plan says “be even more publicly affronted that GitHub refuses to take responsibility, while taking no responsibility”.

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#79

Post by gdfasfklshg4 »

Svexav wrote: post #47
gammateam wrote: post #25

I've been wanting this for a long time, I wanted to take it further though: I want draft laws, I want to see all representatives as contributors and be able to see their contributions and changes to draft laws. the House should have a master branch that submits pull requests to another repository, the other chamber having one too The Governor/President gets to approve PR's from that jurisdiction It would become SUPER…

I agree but politicians shouldn't be the contributors. Representatives don't actually write the laws. I'd like to see the name of the staffer or lobbyist who wrote the text. Also, it should be a federal crime to falsify the name of the author or make changes for someone else.

I would like to see who wrote the text AND who submitted it. As in the lobbyist who wrote the text AND the politician who submitted it...

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#80

Post by azernik »

gammateam wrote: post #61
will_brown wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is an example of a platform like what you describe if not exactly, for the Delaware legislature. I am linking to a particular law I followed from inception to passage, an amendment to the Delaware limited liability company Act allowing company records to be kept on Blockchain. https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail/26554 You get the name of the Sponsor and co sponsors, additional sponsors, sign status, next steps…

Existing platforms have limitations My main problem is that many laws are written as: “Hereby strikes section b of USC1788(1)(iii) and replaced the word or with and” And with this kind of system it would be standardized already on how to see what the modifications look like, or at least jump to that old version of the law easily When the final laws are all merged together after a passed bill makes simple instructions…

The California legislature has this feature - the default landing page gives you that legal diff format, but if you hit the "Today's Law as Amended" tab you get a handy word-oriented diff: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x...
Post reply on HN