By K. Ramanraj
Table of contents:Law and Computing are one and the same at the core. The connection between law and computing is much closer than the connection between any other two different fields of endeavour. It is no coincidence that computing manuals frequently give examples from the field of law to illustrate computing concepts. The world's first software developer, Charles Babbage, himself had started this trend as early as in 1864:
"In 1840 I received from my friend M. Plana a letter pressing me strongly to visit Turin at the then approaching meeting of Italian philosophers. In that letter M. Plana stated that he had inquired anxiously of many of my countrymen about the power and mechanism of the Analytical Engine. He remarked that from all the information he could collect the case seemed to stand thus:--
"Hitherto the legislative department of our analysis has been all powerful--the executive all feeble."Your engine seems to give us the same control over the executive which we have hitherto only possessed over the legislative department."Considering the exceedingly limited information which could have reached my friend respecting the Analytical Engine, I was equally surprised and delighted at his exact prevision of its powers. Even at the present moment I could not express more clearly, and in fewer terms, its real object. I collected together such of my models, drawings, and notations as I conceived to be best adapted to give an insight into the principles and mode of operating of the Analytical Engine.1"
The analogy of Charles Babbage to explain the concepts and principles of an Analytical Engine using the organs of government is not casual but speaks about the extraordinary vision of what is ultimately possible with the Analytical Engine. The real object of the Analytical Engine was control of the executive. It is no coincidence in computing that "source code" is compiled into "executables" or object code. Writing the source code is like legislation or law making itself, and executing the laws in the source code by running the program or object code is execution, very much like the executive department as understood in law. The word "code" itself is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "Systematic collection of statutes, body of laws so arranged as to vaoid inconsistency & overlapping". The use of the word code to refer to instructions written in computing languages is deliberate and well intentioned. The usage of several common words itself indicates the close connection in function and operation between law and computing. If all legislative laws are executed with the aid of computers, it would be another fitting tribute to the vision and foresight of Charles Babbage, particularly in the light of his experience with the British Parliament. The original vision is coming around with names like ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning), e-gov (e-Governance) and many other novel names.
Though Charles Babbage did not have the hardware necessary to build the Analytical Engine, his theories on software are accurate and correct even today. Computing aids law primarily by giving life to the law
We have seen that the real object of the Analytical Engine or computing, as Charles Babbage puts, is control of the executive. At this juncture, while studying law and computing together, we can do well to lay down the primary and real object of law also. Most constitutions of nations proclaim justice and peace to be the objectives of their laws.
As we progress, we tend to take many things for granted. But, let us beware that nothing can be taken for granted. The concept of zero in mathematics can be traced to ancient Hindus who indicated zero by a small circle and called it Sunya in Sanskrit meaning vacant. Even the equal to symbol = was invented in 1557 by Robert Recorde, the mathematician, who reasoned that two equal length parallel lines were as equal as anything available. The life of Charles Babbage should be read in full to appreciate his contribution to computing. Concepts and freedoms enjoyed under law also evolved after long and sustained struggle. Many eminent lawyers argued for judicial review, but ultimately succeeded only in Marbury v. Madison. Law and computing have evolved by the trial and error process. Every science has developed solely by laborious reasoning. However natural an invention or artefact may look like, we should appreciate the original labour that brings into existence devices for advancement, never forgetting for a moment the reasoning and purpose behind it.
A proper porting of law to computers, or wedding between computing and law necessarily will give birth to binary legislation, or legislation written in the language of computing. This offspring will ideally inherit the best of both and leave behind unnecessary junk. But this presents a new problem. We will have one version of the law written in english, and another version of the same in computing language format. To avoid ambiguities, we have to give one version primacy over the other. In the event of an ambiguity, oversight or contradition between the two version, either law in binary legislation is supreme or the law in written form is supreme. Obviously, the interests of law are best served by giving primacy to binary legislation, as computing languages are more accurate, unambitious and understood by both machines and man. The present version of law in english or other human spoken languages should be treated as only guides or manuals for understanding and interpreting binary legislation.
Montesqueue proposed the theory of separation of powers as follows:
Organ of Government | Traditional Role | Modern Role |
---|---|---|
Legislative | Law making | Creating Procedures |
Executive | Executing laws | 1. Conducting Proceedings 2. Creating Sub-Procedures |
Judiciary | Resolving disputes | 1. Conducting Proceedings 2. Debugging Procedures |
____________________
Copyright (C) 2001 K. Ramanraj
Please send your comments on the content of these web pages to ramanraj@vsnl.com