Thursday, August 24, 2006

Software Laws

They say that when the one tool that a man carries is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I'm a software engineer, so everything looks like a software problem to me. When I look at our legal system, I see a system of contracts that bind our society together. It just so happens that software is viewed in the same light - contracts. Not legal contracts of software companies, but rather contracts of behavior for the various bits and pieces of software and how they interact.

When Congress votes on tax law changes, what if they were actually voting on changes to standard tax software? This would mean that everyone could run their finances through the proposed tax software to find out what it ends up meaning to them. Collectively, the nation could understand what the change means to the entire country. More importantly, it would result in changes to the law that were very specific and very concrete. That's because the law has to be implemented by a computer. Computers don't interpret the law, they apply the instructions that they have been given. If Congress voted on those instructions instead of words that can be interpreted, then the law remains very precise.

This sort of pattern could be applied to a number of areas in the legal profession. Instead of having wording that nobody but a lawyer understands, the law would be captured by software programs that people could run to find out what they needed to do in certain situations, and to find out about their obligations.

In this world of software laws, our personal information as well as our day-to-day activities would be made available to be used with the software to learn what waits for us down the road. We could also play with the future assumptions to see what we can and cannot do. What will my social security monthly payout be if I retire on a particular date? If I get that raise next week, how will my taxes be changed?

So far, I've been focusing on money concerns: taxes, corporate law, social security and such. That's because those are very concrete processes that should be rigorously codified. Tax law is codified by companies today, and why the federal government doesn't do all that automatically is beyond my powers of comprehension.

When we get to the level of offenses that involve a trial by jury, software and computers are far less of value. That's because applying the law becomes very much a matter of interpreting perceptions. Did the man actually see what he thought he saw? Was the car moving? Is their friendship as strong as is being claimed? The law can be very precise in defining the limits of proper action, but determining if the actions performed in a specific set of circumstances is something that only people will be suited to for a long time to come.

There is much that computers and software can do for us today in the legal world. They would help us to make our laws precise, so that anyone can find out what the impact is on their life. The laws may remain obscure, exception-laden and convoluted, but they would be precise, and Americans could toy with the software to find out the consequences of various actions.

Let's keep law experts around for the places where there remains wiggle room of interpretation, but let's use the computer for the parts where we don't want any legal wiggling at all.

No comments: