Judge Presiding Over Online Terrorism Case Confused By The Term 'Web Site'
from the probably-not-the-ideal-judge dept
Government officials not understanding technology is nothing new, and unfortunately it often results in bad laws and bad legal rulings. Usually, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that the people in question don't recognize their own ignorance. So it's refreshing to see that a judge in Britain presiding over a case involving terror planning over the internet has admitted the he doesn't understand terms like "web site". Following this admission, the prosecuting attorney took a moment to try explaining the concept to the judge, but the quick explanation didn't do much for the judge's understanding, which is not surprising. Seriously, it's good that the judge has admitted his ignorance, but you'd think that the logical thing to do would be to recuse himself from the case, if that's possible. Instead he's staying on, and he's asked the prosecutor to keep the forthcoming questioning of a computer expert simple. You have to wonder, though, what the point is in questioning an expert if his testimony has to be kept simple enough for this judge to understand.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For some reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holy !@$^%ing God!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You would think though, that the government could put on some kind of "basic IT" course for their staff that are supposed to make judgements on thse things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newsworthy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't simplification the point of an expert witnes
I could easily be mistaken, but isn�t the point of having an expert witness that unlike an ordinary witness, within his or her field of expertise he or she may be asked for conclusions, and those conclusions are to be given weight in reaching a decision? We wouldn�t expect an expert medical witness in a murder case to lead a jury to a full understanding of why various toxicological data imply that the victim could not have died of a particular sort of poisoning... merely to attest that such is the case. I think the purpose of an expert witness must be precisely to convert esoteric knowledge to conclusions ordinary folk can understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some judges...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digerati Idiots.
Chances are , not much.
But all these things go into court , and judges make their decisions based on what is explained to them.You don't have specialized judges for every industry.
A judge shouldn't understand what a website is - it's not trivial knowledge, and twelve years ago nobody knew what a website was, unlike the subjects I mentioned above.
Judge is doing the right thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Digerati Idiots.
To use your examples - I don't know the full inner workings of a car, but I know what a spark plug and a fan belt are. I don't know furniture construction, but I've at least heard of screws, nails and joints. I don't know farming, but I know what a plough is. I don't care about any of these subjects, but if somebody were to explain something about those subjects to me, I could at least follow thanks to the general terminology I've picked up over the years by living in our society.
The point here is that whatever decision the judge makes could have repercussions for how these cases are tried in the future, as it could be referred to in future decisions. If the judge can't even understand the basic everyday terminology, how is he supposed to make the correct decision? If the judge can't comprehend a web site, how can he be expected to rule correctly on how the alleged terrorists used the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Digerati Idiots.
"To use your examples - I don't know the full inner workings of a car, but I know what a spark plug and a fan belt are."
True...but remember that a judge's job/duty is to determine guilt or innocence. Put yourself in the position of a judge in a case involving somethign related to auto-mechanics...would you feel OK about potentially denying somebody their freedom - or, potentially, their life - on the strength of something that you know a bit about?
I say fair play to the judge - he recognised he was out of his depth and had the guts to admit it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Architecture? Not a lot - I know a lot of it is ugly to me ;)
Inner workings of a car? I could give you the basics of internal combustion and a little more.
Furniture construction? A bit - One of my uncles is a carpenter, another is an upholsterer.
Farming? I used to work in the Dept of Agriculture so I know a little. Never got up at 5am to tend anything but I'm aware of some of the challenges.
I'm not particularly stunned that there are people out there who don't know what a website is. My next door neighbour would be one (at a guess). My grandmother thinks my computer is some sort of television. I'm a little surprised that a judge isn't aware of the basics - seemingly has never been online. I would have thought a finger on the zeitgeist would be essential for someone deciding (or rather, enforcing) what's acceptable behaviour in a society.
So, who knows a judge who isn't completely out of touch? Or is it a prerequisite for the job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hang on a minute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whiskey tango foxtrox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, what is the definition of 'web site' anyway?
My dictionary says: "a location connected to the Internet that maintains one or more pages on the World Wide Web."
What's a location? What's a page? What's the difference between the internet and the world wide web?
What's the difference between a webserver and a website? Can a single server serve more than one website? Can a single website be served by more than one webserver?
Can you distinguish between two locations? how? Does a website have one, or more than one domain name? IP addresses? locations?
Can you distinguish between two pages? How? If two pages have different CSS, say, so they look different, are they different?
Can a single page belong to two websites?
Can a website be a subset of another.
If a page points to another website, how do you know? What if the other location has two domains pointing at it and both domains appear in some page as links?
What if a website is changed? Does that make a new website?
I can go on.
I think a definition of a web page is possible, I don't know about website.
Now, what if these questions are relevant to the court case? What does the judge do? Admit he doesn't know what a website is? or pretend?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]