Government by data requires collection of observations of actual modern behavior unbiased by traditional interpretations and one of the sources of such bias is the retention of obsolete laws. We have always introduced new laws to address some immediate concern. We now live in an era where we have the option to retire old laws to confirm that that earlier concern is no longer a problem. Restricting the number of laws enforced gives us the best data about what is most important today. Also such restraint on number of effective laws reduces the chances of misinterpreting behaviors of people disobeying an obsolete law in order to address some new problem. In that case, we need to discover that new problem instead of wasting energy on strengthening the enforcement of a law that has outlived its utility.
In the actual case, humans facilitated the fast recovery after the false alarm because even though each person is specialized in terms of what they would have been doing that day, they would also, in large part, recognize the situation by observing people around them going about their own restoration of normal life. The specialization among humans is fundamentally different from the specialization of machines in that despite the specialization in duties or goals, humans share their human identity. They will adjust their expectations and demands in part to accommodate for the difficulties they can see others going through to meet those demands. Also, people will volunteer their services in areas that they normally do not work. In contrast, the various systems within an automated economy are less equipped to cooperate with unrelated systems, either in perceiving the need to cooperate, or having the capacity to help.
These cases are often described as open-secrets. Many people in the community are aware of the information about individual cases and about the pattern of behavior, but there has been some kind of understanding that the past events are resolved in some acceptable terms, and that ongoing behavior is restrained by certain conditions. The oxymoron of open-secrets can be resolved by defining the open-part as being observed data, while the secret-part is restraints on how this data may be used in future decision making.
I am frustrated with the current debate about gun rights to be exclusively about the wording of an amendment written by people living some 12 generations earlier. I would welcome a fresh debate on proposing a new amendment that confirms but updates the rights granted by the second amendment. An amendment such as the above may advance the debate by minimally impacting gun rights for rural areas while allowing for closer regulation of public trust for arms in denser populations.
These examples set a new standard for rapid access to context information to accompany the new information for breaking news. In the case of street maps and aerial/street views, this information required extensive investment long before the event occurred. In the case of the more recent information (street congestion, weather radar imagery, landslide risk assessments) there was a need for prior investment for models and technologies to provide this information on a timely basis. These investments were made on a global scale where the vast majority of this readily available capability may never been needed for matching with a breaking news story. But when a breaking news story does occur, we welcome the ready access to this information specific to the broader context of the story.
Governance involves regulation of some sort, but that regulation would have to be as high frequency as the analytic tools in order to separate the good forms of spoofing from the bad forms. Regulation is not that responsive so the governance is the sluggish and potentially ultimately harmful categorical outlawing of spoofing.
Decisive democratic action is offensive action. Some group or many groups may be insulted by the decision. This was less of an impediment when the everyday culture expected insults and offense. The nature of speech was what we today call offensive. Consequently, there was no barrier to democracy making decisions that we today call offensive.