Tag: rules

Rules and Customs

The vehicle ahead of me was nothing special. An SUV with Texas plates adorned with Bernie for President and Beto for Senate stickers.

OK, maybe that was a bit unusual. It’s rare to see support for Democratic political candidates in Texas, although that’s been changing a bit recently.

I had plenty of time to think about all this because the SUV was moving slower than molasses.

As I crawled along behind it, my blood boiling, I started to consider the motivations of the driver. For someone seeking to break the political mold in my state, they seemed eager to stick to the rules of the road — particularly when it came to the speed limit.

This prudence might have seemed noble to some. But not me.

I had things to do and places to be. And staying below the posted speed wasn’t helping matters at all.

Did this driver not have the same obligations? Was there no urgency built into their day?

It was hard to tell.

After a few frustrating moments, the road widened. I veered my SUV into the open lane and hit the gas, leaving the liberal-loving driver in the dust.

Adios, I thought. May our paths not cross again.

I should have let this moment go. And yet, I dwelled on it for days.

What was it that so agitated me?

It wasn’t the driver’s politics. As a centrist, I tend not to let that sway me.

It wasn’t even the driver’s behavior. They weren’t swerving or brake-checking me.

No, it was the implication of what the driver was doing that got my goose. It was the notion of the rules reigning supreme that seemed so off-putting.

For while this driver was out there earning their imaginary gold star, I was at risk of getting to my destination late.

And that outcome seemed costlier than a speeding ticket would have been.

Follow the rules.

From our earliest days, we absorb this mantra.

We hear stories about the bad guys who broke the law and ended up in jail. We adhere to warnings not to cheat on board games. We discover that disobeying our parents can send us straight to timeout.

Rule adherence is a central tenet of our society. It stabilizes us. It protects us. It galvanizes us.

The rules have meaning. But they’re not all-encompassing.

Indeed, much of what we adhere to can’t be found in a rule book. Much of what we believe in isn’t within a formal code of law.

Punctuality, respect, and integrity are paramount in our culture. We might not get put in handcuffs for breaking with them. But they still matter.

These concepts are deemed customs. They’re behavioral constructs that we agree to abide by.

Customs and rules generally live in their own bubbles. But occasionally those bubbles overlap.

What happens then? And how do we choose what to follow?

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man.

And yet, he was also a criminal. Or at least, that’s what the record says.

In 1960, Dr. King was convicted of driving without a license in Georgia. A judge then gave him a four-year prison sentence, to be served maximum-security prison.

Dr. King only served a few days of that sentence. And yet, he would find himself behind bars 28 more times in his abbreviated life.

Dr. King clearly wasn’t proficient at following the rules. And yet, he’s still celebrated for that fact.

You see, the rules Dr. King broke were impractical. They were laws designed to insulate the few, rather than protect the many.

Following those rules might have given Dr. King a clean rap sheet. It might have kept the FBI from ever tailing him. It might have even kept him from getting assassinated.

But adhering to the rules would have denied Black people of their dignity. It would have deprived them of opportunity. It would have barred them from their fair share.

These rights are the markers of common decency and the cornerstones of our democracy. They’ve long been customary among those with a paler skin complexion. And yet, they were systematically kept from Black people for centuries.

So, when it came time for Dr. King to choose between rules and customs, he didn’t flinch. He disobeyed with purpose, in hopes of giving his community the future it deserved.

Fellow Civil Rights activist — and eventual U.S. Congressman — John Lewis called this willful disobedience Good trouble. And Dr. King was a master at it.

Lewis’ description hits on a key point. When rules come into conflict with customs, the customs often win.

This isn’t always the case. We don’t adhere to the Mayan rituals of human sacrifice, for instance.

But when the code of law and the code of society enter the ring, it’s our customs that generally land the knockout blow.

First-world problems.

That’s the derisive term for minor issues we raise a big fuss about.

Dr. King wasn’t dealing with first-world problems when he engaged in the civil rights movement. He was combatting something far more substantial.

But my frustrating journey behind the SUV with the Bernie and Beto stickers? That was first-world problems to the max.

There is no real comparison between Dr. King’s tribulations and my moment of inconvenience. Dr. King was changing the world. I was just trying to get to a destination on time.

But in both cases, customs superseded rules. Following the letter of the law was less important than adhering to broader principles.

In my case, that meant upholding the promise of punctuality. Going a few miles over the speed limit would be a calculated gamble — one that might burn me. But showing up late was a less forgivable outcome.

So, once the road widened and my vehicle accelerated, I became an outlaw of sorts. I defied one edict to uphold another.

My experience is not unique. Many of us have made similar tradeoffs from time to time.

We tend not to speak of these exploits. For it shatters our preferred narrative — the one where we always do the right thing.

But perhaps it’s time to lift the veil. Perhaps it’s time we make peace with our momentary naughtiness.

For ultimately, rules and customs are hollow shells. They hold the shape of ideals. But they lack the ballast.

It’s on us to fill them with weight. It’s on us to determine what matters and when.

It’s our obligation to decide all this. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Dueling Interpretations

Not long after I started working in television news, I encountered a strange term.

HIPAA.

This acronym might sound like something you’d see at the zoo. But it actually stands for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

HIPAA protects personally identifiable health information. And as a news producer, HIPAA meant that health records were a no-fly zone for me.

If someone was injured in an accident or crime that made my newscast, I couldn’t give any updates on their status.

I couldn’t do this because I didn’t have access to the victim’s health records. Those were protected from journalists like me by the regulation.

I accepted this.

For I recognized there was a good reason for HIPAA. And I figured that the regulation would fend off other entities looking to access sensitive information as well.

So, imagine my surprise when I learned recently that Google has access to these classified records.

It’s true. Google has been partnering with a healthcare network called Ascension to gather the personal health information of millions of people.

The partnership has been dubbed Project Nightengale. And unlike other health data sharing agreements, the information Google has been receiving from Ascension has not been anonymized. That means patients’ names and dates of birth are present in the data set.

While I left the news industry long before this story broke, I was still rankled by it.

That’s illegal, I thought. That arrangement violates HIPAA.

But I was wrong.

Since Google is considered a business associate of Ascension, the tech giant is in the clear. HIPAA specifically allows health providers to pass data to third parties in order to improve patient care. And, lo and behold, that was the stated objective of Project Nightengale.

Of course, the cynics among us — myself included — see right through this façade. We can point to Google’s traditional intentions — profit through advertising revenue — and start musing about how the company might cash in off our most sensitive data.

It’s an upsetting thought. But not one without merit.

And there’s not much we can do about it.

There is no chance that lawmakers had an arrangement like Google’s in mind when they drafted HIPAA in 1996.

After all, Google hadn’t even been founded yet. And the Internet consisted mostly of America Online CDs and those iconic dial-up connection tones.

But even if legislators could have seen this nascent issue brewing, they likely couldn’t have done much to prevent it.

For Google has taken a deft approach to entering the healthcare market. The Silicon Valley behemoth has leveraged its advantages in data management to secure the Project Nightengale partnership. And it has done all this in the name of improving the healthcare process.

These types of opportunities are within the bounds of HIPAA. This is a main reason why Project Nightengale was allowed to proceed.

But Google’s true intentions as a company — growth in advertising opportunities, revenue and profit — run counter to the entire act.

HIPAA was specifically designed to keep marketers, advertisers and salespeople from exploiting our sensitive health information. But Google now has open access to just that.

In other words, Project Nightengale is a Trojan Horse. It’s allowed the fox into the henhouse.

The Project Nightengale loophole is a prime example of a broad interpretation of a regulation.

Broad interpretations encourage free enterprise. They provide ample opportunities for people and companies explore and create. But that’s not always a good thing.

Indeed, many use a broad interpretation of a law to meet prioritize their own needs and objectives. They sidestep the spirit of a rule for their own selfish gain.

This might sound excessively sinister. But it proves itself true, time and again.

Consider the Rooney Rule, for instance.

This regulation states that whenever there’s a head coach opening in the National Football League, the team must interview a minority candidate as part of the hiring process.

The Rooney Rule was designed with the best of intentions — to get more African-American and Hispanic coaches a chance to get a head coaching gig. But in practice, it rarely works as intended.

These days, many NFL teams simply go through token interviews with minority candidates. They have little intention on following through with a job offer, as they already have their sights set on a different coach. One who’s older, more experienced — and whiter.

So, they do the interview with the minority candidate, and quickly move on.

This practice technically complies with the Rooney Rule. But it pierces a dagger through the spirit of it.

Minority candidates are still not given a fair shake. If anything, they’re being further exploited.

On the other side of the spectrum lies the narrow interpretation.

This is the literal expression of the rule. The letter of the law. The words on the page without any added context.

If the broad interpretation is easy to exploit, the narrow interpretation is quite the opposite. For the words on the page are as restrictive as they are unambiguous.

Think of the Ten Commandments. And all the Thou Shalt Nots.

Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Whether we’re secular or not, we take the narrow interpretation on these edicts as a society.

There is no wiggle room. We can’t keep in the spirit of the rule while we flaunt it. Murder, theft and lying are all forbidden acts. We must avoid them or face harsh consequences.

Over the years, many have embraced the narrow interpretation. Religious zealots have pounded the Bible. Conservative politicians have wrapped themselves in the Constitution. And exacting supervisors have demanded adherence to the employee handbook.

It’s easy to see why this view has such a draw. It provides authoritative clarity in a world that’s all too often murky and gray.

But don’t be fooled. The narrow interpretation is no panacea.

 

Some of the great Supreme Court justices have relied on the narrow interpretation. But so have some of the most legendary mobsters.

Indeed, our obsession with by-the-book justice helped gangsters like Al Capone and Whitey Bulger become notorious.

Sure, under the narrow interpretation, Capone and Bulger would be considered rule breakers. In theory, they would be castigated as murderers, thieves and liars.

But Capone and Bulger did much of their bidding through associates. Through coded instructions and well-defined syndicates.

And under United States law, that made them nearly impossible to catch.

Yes, federal law enforcement officials went after them. But their hands were tied by the narrow interpretation of two words from the Constitution: Probable cause.

These two words made it difficult for the feds to get search warrants or arrest warrants. These two words effectively prolonged the reigns of terror of Capone and Bulger.

This is the problem with the narrow interpretation. It doesn’t adapt with the times. And because of that, it can be easily short-circuited.

It can keep us from killing each other. Unless our name is Al Capone.

So, which path should we allow to guide us? The narrow one or the broad one?

It’s hard to say.

Each has its benefits. But each has its drawbacks.

When I think of my sensitive health information in Google’s hands, I wish that the interpretation of HIPAA was narrower. I wish that I still had the final sign-off for sharing information about my own body.

But when I think of all the criminals who evade justice on a technicality, I wish the interpretation of the law was broader. I wish there wasn’t free license for mobsters and corruption to run unchecked.

With this in mind, it’s probably best to follow a hybrid interpretation. To go narrow when enforcing specific guidelines designed to protect us. And to go broad when enforcing the more general ones.

Going hybrid would require us to completely overhaul our approach.

Instead of focusing on the regulation itself, we would need to focus on the effect. On what activity the rule is prohibiting. And who would be harmed by that activity if it was allowed to remain unchecked.

This would take more due diligence. And it would open the door to more ambiguity.

But these inconveniences would be worth it.

For rules and regulations are more than text on a page. When drafted well, they serve as signals of intent to protect us.

It’s about time we honor that spirit. And govern ourselves accordingly.

Within The Lines

Color within the lines.

It’s one of the earliest things we’re taught. Right around the time we’re first handed a crayon and a coloring book.

The objective: Follow the rules and good results will follow.

This mantra follows us into adulthood. We’re continue to be told that staying above board will lead to a positive outcome.

This carrot and stick routine is a powerful way of maintaining order within society.

It’s also completely bogus.

For as much as we’d like to believe it, life is not a meritocracy. Bad things happen to good people all the time, and the most deserving person doesn’t always reap the reward.

Those with connections or money can cut the line. Conversely, years of good deeds paired with chronic misfortune can leave us with nothing but heartbreak.

Why then, do we insist on coloring within the lines? On not taking the shortcuts and liberties others have gotten away with?

It has everything to do with balance.

You see, if we all decided the rules were not worth our attention, we’d leave ourselves in a very vulnerable state. While we’d have much to gain by putting our own interests first, we’d also lose the blanket of protection that the aura of order implies.

This is a prime reason why bouts of anarchy have been more of a pop-up thunderstorm than a Category 5 hurricane throughout history. We can only accept vulnerability for so long; once the initial jubilation of rebellion subsides, the risk outweighs the reward.

Continually fending off those trying to take advantage of us is stressful and exhausting. It’s far more comfortable to insulate ourselves in a structure that protects us against harm while rewarding us for our compliance.

This is not to say that we’re oblivious to the absurdity of our idealism. By and large, we understand that the world is not, in fact, fair. And we know that a steadfast belief in karma — good or bad — as an equalizer is more wishful thinking than reality.

But it gives us piece of mind to know where the lines are, and what it should mean if we stay on the right side of them.

It also makes us better members of society. After all, if we share a common understanding of the rules, we can commiserate freely without worrying about being stabbed in the back.

Indeed, the ideal of playing by the rules is no fallacy. It’s a necessary construct to provide us with the attributes key to our survival — comfort, protection and social connection.

These are attributes worth fighting for. So, let’s keep striving to color within the lines, even as others leave their crayon marks astray.

The Regulate Debate

Life doesn’t come with a map. But sometimes, there’s a guide.

Whether at the ballgame, the beach or the courtroom — chances are, you’ve come across someone assigned to regulate.

The name might change — umpire, referee, lifeguard, judge — but the motive remains the same. Namely, to view the event in an unbiased manner and ensure the rules are followed.

Step away from these venues, and the story changes drastically. Not only is formal regulation uncommon, it’s also deemed to be anything from a nuisance to a grave danger.

Indeed, throughout history, large-scale overregulation has led to everything from bureaucratic inefficiencies to the perils of authoritarianism. It’s a threat to our freedom, a death knell to individualism.

Quite simply, it’s something we want no part of — apart from a few finite situations. And it’s mostly accepted in those situations to keep things moving at an acceptable pace or to help us avoid deadly dangers.

The culture of self-regulation we’ve demanded is ripe with opportunities, yet fraught with challenges. Whether we’re on the golf course, in the board room or merging onto the highway, we must make the right calls to ensure everything progresses in an orderly fashion. We have the double responsibility of getting ahead while ensuring the playing field is not disturbed. One misstep, one blown call, and mayhem can ensue.

But therein lies the problem. Errors do happen. And it’s only natural that they do. After all, we are imperfect beings attempting the impossible. Although the rules of the road, baseball or a court of law were forged by other people, they were still intended to be followed to perfection — an expectation that belies our human condition.

Even computer regulation has proven to be less than flawless. For all the near-perfect capabilities of technology, there remains one fatal flaw — it was created by humans.

So given these constraints, these challenges — what should we do?

Well, we certainly shouldn’t throw in the towel.

It’s our responsibility — both collectively and individually — to make our system of self-regulation work. That means adhering to the rules to the best of our abilities, and — just as importantly — ensuring that we stay true to the spirit of those rules.

It’s all too easy to be immoral and selfish when given the keys to self-regulation, but all this behavior does is start a vicious downward cycle. And — as proven in our recent Recession — irresponsible regulatory behavior can make everyone suffer.

We must be better. We have the tools — a solid understanding of right and wrong, combined along with the power of influence. Now, it’s our obligation to use these abilities to keep everything moving forward.

This is the way to power and prosperity. This is the way to regulate.