Re:Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising
by alisonkisk on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @05:10PM
(#27765764)
This is fundamental to the rule of law. Judges and juries apply the law to the facts. Civilians can ask the government to review their plans in advance and make a ruling.
We don't say murder laws are bad because there's no way to know in advance if "bashing someone's head in with a pipe who dies a month later" counts as murder.
Re:Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising
by insulanus on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @05:39PM
(#27766023)
Every important criminal law includes the idea of intent. Killing someone with a car because you sneezed is very different from intentionally running them over in the eyes of the law.
Re:Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising
by JumpCrisscross on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @05:47PM
(#27766087)
> criminal law includes the idea of intent
Yes, but intent alone isn't sufficient. We need a precise, side-effect light definition of the kinds of activities we want to ban and by whom. To date, I haven't seen that.
Passing a law which bans "surveillance-based advertising" with little more specificity is a recipe for disaster.
This is a terrible philosophy for legislating. It undermines the rule of law, i.e. that you should ex ante be able to determine if what you're doing is legal or not.
What you're describing is rule making. Congress regularly does this, in passing a law that requires such and such agency propose (or even implement) rules that achieve this or that within so many days.