
For 25 years, Carl Malamud has been fighting to make public information public - steven
https://backchannel.com/the-internets-own-instigator-cb6347e693b#.k9em4u1a9
======
Declanomous
I didn't know who Carl Malamud was an hour ago, but he is close to being one
of my heroes now. I moved in to a 160 year old house with a TON of problems
recently. I could tell by looking at a lot of the recent work that it wasn't
done up to code, but I had no idea what the correct way to do the work
actually was. Homeowners are allowed to do their own work in Chicago, even
without a license, but obviously you still have to follow code.

Now Chicago has it's entire building code online, but a lot of the code for
things like electrical and plumbing are incorporated by reference. Most of the
work I've done has been based on what the guys at the supply houses have told
me code is. Most people probably wouldn't consider this a problem, because
they hire licensed contractors, but I've also had work done by licensed
contractors that doesn't meet code, and the only way I would have known is
because I called somebody who had access to the actual code. Giving people
access to the code allows people to know when they are being fleeced.

On a similar note, access to the building code gave me the ability to back
myself up with facts in an argument with a building super who didn't want to
provide any place to lock my bike. Building code in Chicago requires a certain
number of places for bikes to be parked, and the only way you can avoid having
a bike rack outside is if you provide an indoor space for bikes. I initially
asked the building manger nicely for a place to lock or store my bike, and he
basically sent out a mass email to all tenants that belittled anyone who
thought that the city bike racks two blocks away were unsuitable for locking
bikes. Without access to the city code, I wouldn't have been able to call him
out on his bullshit. I've since used the city code several more times in
arguments with him, and I've brought my fellow tenants on board. It's a really
powerful tool. Before we started using the city code, the building manger
would just bully anyone who dared to bring concerns to him.

After my experiences with the building super, I can really only see positive
effects from open laws. There are a lot of people in positions of power who
avoid following the law by bullying others into doubting whether they are in
the right. Being able to use the law to back yourself up is very rewarding.

~~~
tmptmp
>>I didn't know who Carl Malamud was an hour ago, but he is close to being one
of my heroes now.

This. Real heroes seldom get the publicity they deserve. Truly amazing and (a
heart rending story for me).

>>That’s something the ABA people don’t necessarily get. A couple of
standards, what’s the big deal? No, no, no… this is a fundamental rock-bottom
issue on democracy.”

This is what I like so much about the modern western societies (e.g. USA) with
free market economy based democracies.

Would you even imagine such a free access to information in any religious
based society (e.g. Islamic countries) or in any communist country?

I know, these modern western democracies are not perfect and need to be
improved. It's getting improved (in this case regarding public access to
public information) thanks to the heroes like Malamud, who are at work.

After reading this, I again realized to a much greater depth that "the issue
of public access to public information" is an extremely important aspect of
democracy.

~~~
cup
Why do you think a religious based society, an Islamic society for instance,
would be any less transparent about public information?

~~~
zubat
Although I could not speak for Islam or the communist countries, the era of
the Holy Roman Empire involved a lot of this information control - the church
was economically supported through unchallenged belief in its authorities.
Improved access to holy texts created the foundations of the Protestant
movement.

~~~
spoonie
E.g. recently, scripture and mass was mostly in Latin, so even most of those
who were literate had to rely on priests to interpret it for them.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
See also Marthin Luther; Protestantism.

------
ebcase
Go Carl!

One way to support his work is by donating here:

[https://public.resource.org/](https://public.resource.org/)

And to better understand his passion for this space, see his memorial speech
at Aaron Swartz's memorial at the Internet Archive:

[https://youtu.be/VllJDnMcTzM](https://youtu.be/VllJDnMcTzM)

~~~
cure
Yep. Set up a recurring donation if you can - I just did.

------
cletus
This is an important style but I find this style of journalism infuriating.
It's hard to follow because there'll be a bit of information and then a
transition into some unrelated background before it (hopefully) circles back
to the original point.

It's almost like writing a college paper and having to pad out the word count.

Anyway, I support the straightforward principle that the law isn't the law if
it's not accessible to the public.

The only question left is how do you fund standards development if you abolish
the model (that predates the Internet) of selling copies. I suspect the answer
is going to be different on a case by case basis.

For example, general contractors and tradesmen depending on jurisdiction need
to be licensed. A mix of license fees and government funding could pay for
building or fire codes.

~~~
kevin42
"The only question left is how do you fund standards development if you
abolish the model (that predates the Internet) of selling copies. I suspect
the answer is going to be different on a case by case basis."

Why shouldn't congress pay for the development of the law if they are going to
enact the law? I've often thought that is part of the problem. It is too easy
for congress to pass laws quickly and without restriction. That is why we have
so many laws, it is so easy to pass laws in a reactionary way, and to respond
to private interests instead of public interests.

I do think it's important to have laws like building codes, but why shouldn't
the development be publicly funded?

~~~
rayiner
> I do think it's important to have laws like building codes, but why
> shouldn't the development be publicly funded?

Because building codes are a local issue and local governments have no money?

~~~
kevin42
That's a valid point. But why couldn't all of these local governments get
together and collectively come up with the standards. If they can't figure a
way to come up with the standards without outsourcing it to a for profit
organization, it must not be a very important law.

Think of how corrupt the system could be if a bunch of building material
suppliers could write the law. "Buildings must be constructed from brand X
materials" Then brand X has a monopoly for the materials. This is similar,
only brand X is the only company that can provide you with a copy of the law,
a law that you are required to comply with.

~~~
rayiner
> That's a valid point. But why couldn't all of these local governments get
> together and collectively come up with the standards.

Because these standards are highly technical and local governments lack the
expertise.

> If they can't figure a way to come up with the standards without outsourcing
> it to a for profit organization, it must not be a very important law.

These are non-profit organizations. And the part after the comma does not
follow from the part before the comma. It's often very important for things to
be done according to accept standards, but the government can recognize that
without having the expertise to develop the standards itself.

~~~
kevin42
> Because these standards are highly technical and local governments lack the
> expertise.

Ok, but why can't the government pay them to develop the standards. Why must
the business model be for them do fund the development of the standards after
the fact.

I believe it is because the lawmakers do not have to pay for the laws with
unpopular taxes, so they defer the fundraising to pay for the laws until after
they have enacted the laws. That way they skirt the issue of taxes.

> And the part after the comma does not follow from the part before the comma.

I guess it's just my opinion then. If the lawmakers can't stand by and realize
the cost of forming the law while they are passing it, I don't think it is
important enough to impose a cost to the citizens to read what the law is.

~~~
rayiner
As a practical matter, its not "citizens" in general who need to reference the
building codes, it's builders. They're the ones charged with compliance, and
they have to buy copies of the codes as part of their business. Thus, the
industry profiting from construction is the one burdened with financing the
development of the codes.

It's not the model that maximizes transparency, but it has a sensible logic of
its own.

~~~
kevin42
>As a practical matter, its not "citizens" in general who need to reference
the building codes, it's builders. They're the ones charged with compliance,
and they have to buy copies of the codes as part of their business. Thus, the
industry profiting from construction is the one burdened with financing the
development of the codes.

That's exactly the model I have a problem with. In my area, it is perfectly
legal for me to remodel my house without hiring a 'builder'. But I have to
comply with the building codes due to the law. But in order to know what those
codes are, I have to pay a third party to access the law. And access isn't
cheap. If access to the 'law' is more expensive than the remodel I want to do
then I have a problem with the system.

I for one believe that I should have the right to embark on things like
building a house without the need to pay a third party for access to access to
what amounts to the law.

> It's not the model that maximizes transparency, but it has a sensible logic
> of its own.

I suppose it comes down to the matter of what you value. I value liberty and
government transparency above all special interests. The system as it stands
may have some logic, but I believe it is wrong.

------
mgrennan
Keep it up Carl. Your not the only one. I help fight Westlaw and put the
Oklahoma State Constitution and Statutes online. www.oklegislature.gov /
tsrs_os_oc.aspx

~~~
dredmorbius
As links: [http://www.oklegislature.gov](http://www.oklegislature.gov) /
[http://tsrs_os_oc.aspx](http://tsrs_os_oc.aspx)

------
h4nkoslo
There is a simple solution. When a state incorporates a work by reference into
the law, there's a pretty cogent case that that constitutes a "taking" \- ie,
they've essentially seized the work for public use. Whichever legislature is
doing the taking should cut a check to whomever they took the code from.

It would be a similar situation if, for instance, the Nevada legislature
decided they were going to put on showings of Star Wars each night in front of
the capitol, or erect a copy of a copyrighted sculpture.

------
alex_hitchins
A rubbish question, but if you build your house in accordance to the published
codes but don't purchase a copy, are you infringing their copyright by
adhering to the standards?

~~~
sfrailsdev
If I believed copyright covered them, building a house based on them would
definitely be considered a transformative work.

~~~
x1798DE
I don't think it would be considered any sort of derivative work. Consider
recipes (and other published algorithms). Cooked dishes are not considered a
derivative of the recipe, and those are step by step instructions for creating
the thing in question. Codes are one step further removed in that they give
tolerances and the like, so they don't even describe an object. If I write,
"You should not use md5 to store passwords." it's not like all programs
storing passwords with bcrypt written by people who have read that sentence
are derivatives of my copyrighted work.

~~~
dublinben
Recipes are not protected by copyright, so your example isn't very helpful.

~~~
dsp1234
In the US, recipes that are not just a list of ingredients, which would be
most recipes, are covered by copyright.[0]

"Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary
expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that
accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a
cookbook."

Note that 'substantial' here doesn't mean it needs to be novella length. A
simple description of the steps involved would be enough.

[0] -
[http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html](http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html)

~~~
nebopolis
My understanding was that in Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp
[0] the ruling came down fairly heavily on the side of recipes (including
directions) being outside the domain of copyright. In that case a substantial
number of recipes were copied out of a book and published elsewhere, but the
court ruling stated:

“[The] recipes’ directions for preparing the assorted dishes fall squarely
within the class of subject matter specifically excluded from copyright
protection by 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).”

IANAL etc. Just curious if you have heard otherwise?

[0] -
[http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/publications_v_meredith.htm](http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/publications_v_meredith.htm)

------
anilgulecha
I'm impressed with his writ petition to a India High Court, something most
Indians would consider very daunting.

Salute!

------
hood_syntax
Sad that this is necessary. I hope he succeeds in the end; democracy lives and
breathes transparency, and it's sorely lacking it at the moment.

~~~
rayiner
It's not "sad." If you place a very high value on transparency, you may wish
to see a different model. But the current model isn't unreasonable. The
standards incorporated into codes are industry consensus standards developed
by non-profit expert organizations. It's reasonable for governments to rely on
them. And under the current model, it's the entities (builders) that directly
profit from construction that pay for the development of building codes.

It's a very different situation form the public availability of laws and
judicial opinions generally, which are within the core expertise of public
bodies and are entirely publicly funded to begin with.

~~~
mindslight
It _is_ sad. The current model has always been a contradiction, and thus _is_
unreasonable.

A law must be public. To do otherwise is to erode the very concept of the rule
of law.

If a state adopting a code puts it in the public domain, then the code bodies
should be suing the state for copyright infringement (unauthorized derivative
work), and demanding that states pay to license the code for such use.

If a state adopting a code does not put the code into the public domain, then
it should lack all legal force. This isn't a fantastic outcome with regards to
building codes, so the state will need to fix the situation.

But instead of forcing a decision one way or another, both the code bodies and
slimeballs in government have been content to just let it slide. They both
benefit in their own way by corrupting the rule of law, while only the
citizens suffer.

~~~
rayiner
That's a very ideological take on the issue. The law regularly references
standards that often aren't even reducible to writing. E.g. a doctor may be
liable to a patient for not conforming to accepted standards of medical
practice. But no writing exists that completely defines what those standards
are!

As a practical matter, the folks charged with following the laws in question
are builders. Builders are also members of the standards bodies that create
these standards. And they're the ones who pay for the standardization process
by purchasing copies of the standards.

I actually agree with you that these standards should be publicly available,
by the way.

~~~
mindslight
The justification for the rule of law _is_ inherently ideological. If the law
is just another pragmatic tool for the powerful to oppress the weak, then why
should the masses respect the concept?

> _a doctor may be liable to a patient for not conforming to accepted
> standards of medical practice. But no writing exists that completely defines
> what those standards are!_

It seems like an "accepted standard of medical practice" is therefore a matter
of _opinion_ , meaning you could find two professional witnesses who
reasonably disagreed.

But much of the building codes are hard requirements - you're never going to
be able to find a professional opinion that running a 20A residential circuit
on 14AWG Romex is acceptable, even if say it's only in an uninsulated wall and
is therefore likely safe.

So the two are completely different. Likely in the medical field, ambiguously
policing those who stray too far from the herd is the _best_ that can be done.
But in disciplines with hard engineering rules, we can do better.

> _As a practical matter, the folks charged with following the laws in
> question are builders_

Erm, what? That's somewhat like saying the only people tasked with following
traffic laws are drivers. Well sure, but in that sense we're basically all
drivers.

Or if you mean that imply that only professional commercial builders are bound
by those laws, that is definitively incorrect. People doing their own work are
still bound by the law, even in the ridiculous nanny states that attempt to
criminalize people working on their own home.

~~~
rayiner
> The justification for the rule of law is inherently ideological. If the law
> is just another pragmatic tool for the powerful to oppress the weak, then
> why should the masses respect the concept?

The law is a pragmatic tool to solve problems. Building codes solve a concrete
problem with the market for construction: there is an immense information
asymmetry between the original builder and subsequent buyers. Moreover, there
are externalities because, e.g., inferior construction of one person's
property can cause fire to spread to other peoples' property.

The existing model solves the problem and shoves most of the costs of doing so
on builders--the parties best equipped to deal with the problem. That makes it
a reasonable solution.

Your driving analogy fails because almost nobody builds their own house.
Imagine instead that almost everyone rides in self-driving cars. Under those
circumstances, would it really be unreasonable for the law to incorporate
traffic regulations developed by the industry and optimized for automated
cars?

~~~
mindslight
> _The law is a pragmatic tool to solve problems_

But as I said elsewhere, it only functions if people believe in it
ideologically. If a store relied solely on punishment for shoplifting as
deterrent, they would need to hire many more security guards to watch every
single customer. What they actually rely on is the average person's belief
that stealing is "wrong", because said average person does not want to be
stolen from themselves.

> _Your driving analogy fails because almost nobody builds their own house_

It's not only the initial building of a house, it's about any maintenance,
repair, or upgrades. Knowing how to keep up your dwelling is a basic life
skill. You may find it economically beneficial to pay someone else to do the
actual work, but that doesn't alleviate your ultimate responsibility for
managing it.

If you want an illustration of how many people DIY versus pay a tradesperson,
take a look at the popularity and selection of consumer-facing stores like
Home Depot versus professional-only "counter service". Granted, most of these
people would be happier reading a distilled "code complete" book rather than
the dense NEC. And many more of them will proceed to, for example, swap a lamp
on their own without reading _anything_ at all! But they should still be given
that choice openly and have access to the actual law nonetheless.

------
Old_Thrashbarg
It's only because of the heroic work of Carl Malamud that new services like
up.codes is possible. This service will bring clarity to the insane complexity
exhibited by construction regulation.

(Disclaimer: I have a personal interest in that startup)

------
rayiner
> Trying to determine whether these standards should be as freely distributed
> as are other parts of the law, the ABA is proposing a compromise, known as
> Resolution 112. Malamud opposes it. Because ABA positions are taken often
> taken seriously by Congress, he has come to San Francisco to fight it.

I don't know if the last sentence is true. Here is a list of ABA propositions
from last year:
[http://www.americanbar.org/news/reporter_resources/midyear-m...](http://www.americanbar.org/news/reporter_resources/midyear-
meeting-2015/house-of-delegates-resolutions.html). Lots of feel-good stuff
Congress totally ignores (e.g. urges Congress to adopt laws to protect wild
animals).

------
dandare
You are required to obey laws that are not available to you - in the time
before Snowden I would find such statement extremely bizarre, now I understand
secret law is a thing.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_law)

------
triplesec
I stopped reading this on mobile because backchannel.com has the most
initiative intrusive dropdown-popup nag every 10-20 seconds demanding you log
in.

------
ArtDev
Carl Malamud is my hero.

------
micro_softy
Is "Analyzing Sun Networks" out of print?

I remember this book as being quite good.

So many of those "old" Sun ideas are still around today, in one form or
another.

~~~
smellf
Not sure if it's out of print, but you know how ancient technical books go -
you can get a copy for nothing:

[https://www.amazon.com/Analyzing-Sun-networks-Carl-
Malamud/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Analyzing-Sun-networks-Carl-
Malamud/dp/0442003668/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473746471&sr=8-1&keywords=analyzing+sun+networks)

------
azdle
> (More recently, he tried another company with Rose based on the Internet of
> Things, but that also failed.)

Anyone know where I can find more on this?

~~~
dsr_
I think this is a reference to
[http://thethingsystem.com/](http://thethingsystem.com/)

------
dfsegoat
This is powerful. All I can say.

------
X86BSD
The first time I heard Carl was in the early 90's on his audio program "Geek
of the Week". He had all the top dogs on at the time. Mike O'Dell from UUnet,
etc It was a fantastic show! I think you can find copies on the Internet
Archive now. I go back and listen to them frequently. GREAT little gems packed
here and there in those shows.

Glad to see him getting some press!

