Source Control For Bills In Congress? 300
grepya writes "An article in Slate talks about the sneaky way a major change in the Patriot Act reauthorization bill was made by (possibly) a Congressional staffer without even his boss knowing about it. (The change increased the power of the Executive at the expense of the other two branches of government.) Now, I write software for a large and complex system containing millions of lines of code and I know that nobody could slip a single line of code into my project without my knowledge. This is because everything that goes into the build goes into a source control system, and email notification is generated to interested parties. This is for a body of work that affects perhaps a few hundred thousand people at most (our company and the combined population of all our customer organizations). Shouldn't the same process be applied to bills being debated in national legislatures that affect potentially hundreds of millions of people?"
alternatively... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Fat chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't the same process be applied to bills being debated in national legislatures that affect potentially hundreds of millions of people?
You mentioned getting email notifications about changes to the repository. You work with the code every day (or nearly every day). You see, these representatives in congress often times vote on bills which they have not even themselves read. They get the executive summary.
That is like the difference between you reading the code for a newly modified parser class and getting one of your underlings to brief you about the changes. You might spend an hour or more reading source code for a whole new class, and only two minutes getting briefed on it. You have to get them actually read the bills first.
Maybe we should require that all bills be read aloud in their entirety in an open session of congress?
Paperless Congress (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe if some of the politicians passing laws about technology were a bit more tech savvy we wouldn't see any of this. Corruption by camouflage. I bet that even though the changes weren't supposed to be in there. They won't be amended. That would just be silly.
Read the Bills Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be silly ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah or maybe... (Score:2, Insightful)
Throw in a garbage collector as well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:alternatively... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:alternatively... (Score:1, Insightful)
Because I'm going to be paying fierce attention to every word read, when I've already read the bill and "know" it hasn't changed since then... Some sort of version control system seems better.
Re:Fat chance (Score:5, Insightful)
You add version control... The first thing they'll do is hire aides to add literally thousands of minute ammendments to every bill for the simple reason that it now becomes impossible to read every minor change log. They may well not sneak anything nefarious in to this bill, the next one or the next ten. Then, one day, fifty bills later, after people have long since given up reading change logs, one of the thousand minor edits will do just what they're currently doing.
With source control for code, you can monitor what goes in because people are rarely actively trying to sneak anything in. If you do have someone who wants that chance and so starts spamming change logs, you can identify their malicious intent, go to your boss and get them fired. In congress, sadly, they've long since turned a blind eye to such pork barrel [wikipedia.org] behavior and, if they turn a blind eye to it in this form, there's no reason not to expect them to turn a blind eye to it in a future form.
The original poster's mistake is thinking that congress somehow wants to not be corrupt. Yes, we can force a fix on one form... not that they actually want that fix... but, as the old saying goes, "Where there's a will, there's a way." and a lot of politicians have a very strong will for sneaking in self serving measures.
Simply, NO. (Score:2, Insightful)
As if we can expect people who think global warming and evolution are "completely lacking any evidence" and who believe the internet is a series of tubes to actually understand what version tracking is, anyway!
Re:Throw in a garbage collector as well. (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, as long as there's somebody to implement an OnSunset() function that notifies the legislature. Otherwise, you could end up with situations where, for example, the meat industry suddenly no longer has to control rodents, and nobody realizes it until they walk into their local KFC and find that all the chicken has been replaced by.... oh... nevermind.
Re:Fat chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sarbanes Oxley (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act [wikipedia.org]
Re:Fat chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the watchdog groups don't catch the shenanigans before the bill passes, there will at least be a transparent record of who did what.
Public accountability has a way of leading to public pressure. A Senator/Congressman will only be able to fire so many aides for sneaking in legislation before the public will say "maybe the problem isn't with the aides."
Re:I don't think you understand (Score:1, Insightful)
This is what the PATRIOT act is supposed to do:
UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY
PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS REQUIRED
TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM
(USA PATRIOT ACT) ACT OF 2001
I don't see how removing congressional oversight over US attorneys has anything to do with terrorism.
Been there... Done that (Score:5, Insightful)
Elegant (Score:2, Insightful)
That's one of the most brilliant ideas I've heard in years.
However, to be successful, it requires that legislators actually *care* what they are voting on. Realistically, they must have something like source control already. Voters have to send them the message that ignorance is no excuse. It's not technology that's holding them back.
Voting on a bill without reading it, if it can be proved, should result in expulsion. If you sign a contract on behalf of your employer without reading it, you would almost certainly be fired on the spot. If you work at a bank but "didn't read" the part about the amount of money, chances are you would go to jail.
Re:alternatively... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:alternatively... (Score:3, Insightful)
So just blindly voting on a bill you haven't read is somehow better? I'd rather they didn't do anything rather than pass shitty laws. Look at the freakin DMCA mess.
Re:Not needed. (Score:4, Insightful)
and another thing, as many are alluding to, a document control system won't prevent the compiling of assinine code. but what it will do is give you a forensics system. it makes people accountable in a way which is easily monitored. if bad legislation is enacted, you can always make amendments, and the dcs will make it easy to highlight exactly what was changed so that you may check it with a minimum of labor at the last minute before voting again. both legislators and congressional aides would have little excuse for their improper actions and inactions.
now for the bad news. the system relies on computers, and most of your legislators (senators at least, and probably most representatives) are still computer illiterate. their aides aren't, of course, but most of these people just want you to show them the piece of paper to sign, or the yes/no button to push, so that they can get back to their golfing/schmoozing.
and also, who controls the document control system? it would be necessary to have complete openness so that the googles of the world could record every change as it occured in real time. and for matters of national security, much of the publicly-accessible law would have to be redacted. perhaps something like a checksum for redacted material could be provided to at least ensure that unviewable text hasn't been tampered with.
Really need both: change control & full review (Score:5, Insightful)
Just think: if you were working on a big software or documentation project, would you want your QA process to involve nothing but some guy standing up and reading the source code out loud? No way -- everyone would be asleep or bored to tears (well, unless it was Perl, then they'd probably be waiting for his face to just fall off).
There's a reason that change management is a big issue, in addition to peer review and transparency. In fact, they compliment each other. When you can produce a list of what each person has changed, you have a basis for what you want to concentrate your reviewing efforts on.
Now, change-management isn't a cureall -- anyone in software knows that just because something hasn't changed, doesn't mean it's not buggy. You could change something that causes something that hasn't been changed to break, or you could just discover a bug later; either of those things are possible with laws as well as software. Unless you also have some way of tracking dependencies within the bills (cross references, etc.), it might be possible to "break" the law (make it internally inconsistent) with a minor change somewhere else. So that would still require full readings.
Still, it's ridiculous that there isn't something in place right now, to prevent some staffer from just sneaking language into a bill that's a surefire pass, without anyone noticing until it gets printed up in the Congressional Record.
On the whole, maybe Congress needs to hire some QA people? I mean, it's obvious they have a "client satisfaction" (voters) issue, and that the "deliverables" (laws) really suck
Re:Read The Bills Act (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but you didn't really back up your statement with any facts. It sounded like you're saying congress and the senate shouldn't have to do their job because it's too hard to read? Was reading easier 200 years ago?
Senators and congressmen get paid $165000 a year to read, debate and pass new laws. It's their fucking job. At the very least, they should know what the fuck they're voting for. If they don't want to do the job, they shouldn't run for office.
Re:Would PARALYZE governmento (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:alternatively... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and stop passing so many damned bills...
Re:Really need both: change control & full rev (Score:2, Insightful)
Reading source code out loud is a whole different beast, and, in my opinion, not a good analogy. In source code, you have variables, case-sensitivity, quotes matter, etc. Reading the English language aloud is quite different.
Re:alternatively... (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a pizza-delivery, its our government. Our Representatives are behaving in a shamefully negligent manner. We need Congress to change its rules to require at LEAST 24-hours for the text being voted on the be processed by the body before a vote is taken. They could, of course, waive this requirement in emergency circumstances, but not by voice-vote. This would cut drastically down on this game... I would wager MOST congressmen don't really know what is in every bill they vote for or against. Their could be a provision to legalize the eating of puppies, or a proposition to give $200 to every guy named Steve in Tuscaloosa, AL... they'd never know until the checks were cut--and then only if the press got wind of it.
Re:Really need both: change control & full rev (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd hardly call it english. Legalise really is its own form of code.
I think the GP's point stands, it'd be useful to have some sort of independent QA organization that would validate a bill against its intent.
Of course, then again, I think Pork should be illegal as well. Putting a $100 million into a defense spending bill for Senator Tube's state to build a bridge to an island of 50 people should get someone hung.
Or maybe... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The vote without even reading/knowing the bills (Score:5, Insightful)
On a sidenote, taxes are in addition to jobs. Laws ARE their job.
Big Government (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:alternatively... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which other countries? (Score:3, Insightful)
Spain? Raped and plundered the new world, lost some wars, was never a big player again.
France? Revolted against its 'Honorable Feudal systems'- because they were stupid. Revolted agaisnt most of its other systems too. "The French are revolting" has been true at almost every point in History.
Britain? Got involved in world conquest, but probably one of the most honorable governments, because they had a system of checks and balances.
Germany? WWII demonstrated the honor of the Germans.
Japan? Japan's war crimes- the mass rapes and slaughter- all occured under a feudal system.
Italy? Not only do they have no honor, they needed the Germans to bail them out.
Russia? Communism is arguably a step up from their feudal system- which should tell you how bad feudal systems are.
You probably read to many fanatasy novels as a kid talking about the glory of knighthood and chivalry. Read some real history and you'll find that the feudal system was typically a nightmare for the average person, and certainly did nothing to discourage warfare or strife.
mod parent up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's look at the change log (Score:2, Insightful)
"Now Sen. Specter (R-PA) says his staff was responsible for inserting that US Attorney provision into the Patriot Act. He didn't know anything about it until Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) told him about it."
linky linky linky [talkingpointsmemo.com]
Re:Fat chance (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not the House, or the Senate, that's really doing either of those. It's the Executive, which apparently has discovered a brand new power which never existed before this point...when signing bills into law, he's decided he can remove parts of them he doesn't like, via 'signing statements'.
Yes, other presidents have had signing statements, but they only were directives to his underlings in the executive branch, for example, if a bill said 'Here's X million dollars to maintain bridges and ferries however needed', he might say 'Spend roughly Y of that on bridges and Z of that on ferries', which is entirely within his rights as the person in charge of the executive branch. He could have just as easily sent them a memo directing them to do that, but if he puts it with the bill it gets to everyone.
Bush, OTOH, thinks it's reasonable for Congress to send him a bill saying 'It's illegal for anyone to do X', and he write 'Unless I decide it's important' and sign that. (Instead of, you know, not signing it, which would be correct way for it to not become law.)
We entered a constitutional crisis the very first time Bush decided that his completely-made-up-power to protect the country trumped actually passed laws. (Seriously. Someone explain to me where the President got the Constitutional 'power' to protect this country from enemies? Obviously, all the government should do that, but I see no specific abilities with the President in that respect.)
Re:Really need both: change control & full rev (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously. Their job is to consider bills and make decisions. We don't just pay them to vote on bills. If all we wanted was 535 people who voted on bills with no clue what's in them, we could take 535 homeless people off the streets of DC and pay them a fraction of the amount to do it. At least that would be putting some unemployed people to work. The idea of a "Congress" that makes those decisions for us in an intelligent way is fabulous. I just don't think we have that at the moment.
Re:Really need both: change control & full rev (Score:3, Insightful)
The way to make a difference is to support people who actually try to change the rules. People who support something along the lines of the Read the Bills Act have my vote. People who fight against those changes don't have my vote. We simply need to make noise to encourage the scrapping of a system that can turn even those with the best intentions into the people we're complaining about.