
Ask HN: Laws that should exist but don't - idleworx
I'm curious if there are any obvious laws that enforce common sense (which sadly is not that common) which you think should exist in the US but currently don't. It would be even better to find out if they are already in the works.<p>Here's two off the top of my head:<p>1) Make it illegal for TV commercials to display 10 lines of size 1 font at the bottom of a TV ad for 2 seconds. Nobody can see it. Nobody can read it even if they could see it.  The law should be something like this:<p>"Any textual information displayed on a tv commercial should be of big enough size to be easily read in its entirety in the time displayed!"<p>2) Make it illegal for companies' customer service to play an automated message about recording your conversation (eg. "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance purposes") without giving you the option to opt out. Not only can you not opt out, but if you let them know that you are recording the conversation (as required by law in most states) most of them will either hang up on you or refuse to continue the conversation. The law should be something like this:<p>"No company should be allowed to record a conversation without your consent. No company should be allowed to deny you customer service if you refuse to be recorded. "
======
seasoup
There are already far too many laws in the US. We should probably focus on
making less things illegal rather then more.

When making things illegal, there is a lot of overhead involved. Take your
examples for instance.

1) Make it illegal for TV commercials to display 10 lines of size 1 font at
the bottom of a TV ad for 2 seconds. Nobody can see it. Nobody can read it
even if they could see it. The law should be something like this:

"Any textual information displayed on a tv commercial should be of big enough
size to be easily read in its entirety in the time displayed!"

Say this law is passed. Now who determines what size is big enough and how
long is long enough. Suppose I'm a nearly blind, slow reader. Maybe 30 seconds
at a size of 2 inches high is not a long enough time or large enough size for
me? You could say that you mean an "average" person, but then it must be
established what an "average" person is. Who does that? Then aren't you
discriminating against people who don't fit the average? Should it be set to
the lowest common denominator? In that case, you are boring to death people
who can read exceptionally fast. I'm not going to stay tuned to text that
stays around for 30 seconds when it only takes me 1 second to read it!

Now suppose we come up with an acceptable definition of "big enough" and "long
enough", which will be a compromise definition. How do we enforce this
definition? Punishment. What is an appropriate punishment for people that do
not make the text big enough? For those that miss the size by a fraction of an
inch, what is the punishment? Oh, and what about for people that the size is
big enough for a 55" tv but not for a 25" tv? Yikes.

So, suppose we come up with a suitable punishment for these law breakers. Who
will enforce this punishment? What if they do not pay the fine? Do we throw
them in our already crowded prisons or build new prisons? Where does this
money come from to enforce this law? Do we have monitors who scan the tv
specifically for this rule, or add it to someone's position who already
monitors things? Or make it reporting based, so only when it is reported it is
punished.

There are lots more questions as well, this is just the tip of the iceburg.

~~~
idleworx
"Now suppose we come up with an acceptable definition of "big enough" and
"long enough", which will be a compromise definition. How do we enforce this
definition? Punishment. "

You enforce it with fees against cable TV service providers, or whoever is
responsible for publishing the advertisement.

"So, suppose we come up with a suitable punishment for these law breakers. Who
will enforce this punishment? What if they do not pay the fine? Do we throw
them in our already crowded prisons or build new prisons? "

The idea is not to punish people, but to bring more fairness to the consumer
in terms of the information they are given and not to be mislead. If a cable
company can get a way with displaying a novel worth of information for one
second (in order to comply with disclosure requirements) and in the process
duping a customer into signing up, I think there should be some rules against
that.

As for enforcement, the FCC can easily enforce something like this.

~~~
seasoup
"As for enforcement, the FCC can easily enforce something like this."

They're too busy looking for nipples and swear words.

~~~
stusmith1977
As a curious european, I always wondered: who decided female nipples are
shocking, but male nipples are acceptable? It's rather like saying, "you can
show milk bottles, but only if they're empty".

~~~
seasoup
To quote Robin Williams:

"Then the Puritans broke away from the Calvinists, our ancestors, people so
uptight, the English kicked them out."

------
Travis
Ugh, more laws. NO Thank You!

Ever see that youtube video of a law professor discussing why you NEVER EVER
talk to police? His point is basically, "we have so many laws that you never
know which ones you're breaking, so you could be confessing without realizing
it."

We have plenty of laws. Our legal codes are so complex and absurd that no one
person can know a fraction of them. Even in their specific niches.

What we need (from the comments below) is a way to get rid of laws. Maybe some
sort of a battle royale between laws that are already on the books, where the
winner stays in the code.

Or maybe we should make a law that you cannot add a law to US codes without
first deleting an equal portion of text. Want to make a new law? Fine, you've
got to edit down the existing laws to make room.

------
lionhearted
Referendum to remove any federal law from the books by popular vote. 51%
removes the law. It should be hard to make laws and easy to get rid of them,
not the other way around.

~~~
gte910h
Hell with 51%, try something like 40%.

~~~
billswift
Or even 20%. Think about it, if 1 out of every 5 people really dislikes a law,
do you actually think it is likely to be a _good_ law?

~~~
MoreMoschops
So what happens when 20% of the population want, for example, anti-
discrimination laws repealed? You will always be able to find enough idiots to
reach 20% - hell, polls that say "Are you alive?" always manage a few percent
in the "don't know" box. Look at dirt poor people voting against inheritance
taxes. Some shiny media personality will always be able to garner 20%.

------
cygnet
I think we should have a law that everyone who votes on legislation should
actually be required to read the final version of the legislation and take a
reading comprehension test about it before voting on it.

------
keithmo
One could argue that the phrase "this conversation may be recorded for quality
assurance purposes" is both a warning (WE may record the conversation) and
granting permission (YOU may record the conversation).

Whenever I hear that phrase, I always think "Thank you, don't mind if I do!"
:)

------
throw_away
I always choose to interpret "This conversation may be recorded for quality
assurance purposes" as meaning that _I_ may record this conversation for
quality assurance purposes. Of course, this strategy would survive exactly one
lawsuit before everyone changes the wording.

------
dgulledge
Congress shall make no law abridging the laws of physics.

------
towndrunk
How about a law that prevents unrelated laws and pork hidden within another
law.

------
mindcrime
1) There should be a law banning the passing of any new laws. We have quite
enough laws as it is, and our efforts should be spent towards hacking off some
of the parts of this behemoth we have created, not adding to it.

~~~
idleworx
Less laws is great, but how do you prevent companies from taking advantage of
consumers without laws?

~~~
maxharris
By not giving them the false sense of security that "consumer protection" laws
provide.

There is no substitute for individual judgement, and there never will be. The
reason for this is that what is good for one person is not necessarily good
for another.

~~~
Travis
This this this this.

Caveat emptor.

Now, there are some cases (health standards, for example) where the laws
prevent a lot of bad things _that we wouldn't otherwise be aware of until
something damaging happened_.

But, really? Limiting the size of fine print text on a TV advert? If you can't
figure out that the latest wunderpill from Merck has side effects that include
death, perhaps you should start taking responsibility for yourself. (BTW, this
wasn't aimed at you, maxharris... just the general "you" that I should when I
rant)

------
HeyLaughingBoy
Heading in the wrong direction: we need fewer laws, not more.

------
yanw
How about a law that make it illegal to make unnecessary niche laws that only
serve parasitic lawyers.

Here's a relevant Phillip Howard TED talk:
<http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/771>

~~~
gte910h
I find his proposed changes somewhat naive.

Of _course_ laws can be simplified, however removing the idea of due process
is a horrible idea.

------
bhiggins
For every new law, get rid two old laws.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Final result is either complete anarchy/lawlessness or one single very long
law.

Depending on the exact implementation rules you might get stuck on zero or 1
and not be able to make any more laws (except the one that states "+1 -2").

~~~
wlievens
Before you'd reach that problem, you have tens of thousands of laws to remove,
so you can scrap the +1-2 rule in due time.

------
ddemchuk
not a new law, but I don't think you should be allowed to kick field goals in
overtime in NFL football. Such an easy way out the majority of the time,
getting within the 30 is basically death.

