brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (04/12/91)
With talk of amendments to protect privacy in the computer age, let me pose the opposite question. What do people feel would be the consequences of: Congress shall make no law abriding the right of the people to use any tool of computation or communication. (It would have to be clear that this would apply to activities that were otherwise legal. Would not want an amendment that forbade them from banning the use of computers for planning crimes, etc.)
stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) (04/13/91)
In article <S25b.3258@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
With talk of amendments to protect privacy in the computer age, let me
pose the opposite question. What do people feel would be the consequences
of:
Congress shall make no law abriding the right of the people to use any
tool of computation or communication.
(It would have to be clear that this would apply to activities that were
otherwise legal. Would not want an amendment that forbade them from
banning the use of computers for planning crimes, etc.)
I don't think we should try to make using computers a 'right' any more
than we should make the use of a car a 'right'. There are situations
where it is both Constitutional and proper to deny someone the
privilege of driving. I can imagine similar cases for the use of
computer equipment. We should not lose sight of the fact that the use
of computers is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. What
we want to protect is the end.
Given that we wish to protect the activities which the use of
computers enables, we must next stop and consider why we would want to
amend the Constitution at all. Why can't we legislate the necessary
protections of our rights? I would contend that the Constitution
already guarantees the rights we are interested in protecting. We
just need to implement a mechanism for doing so. As it is written,
the Constitution protects free speech, assembly, and free press
explicitly, and it provides an additional catch-all category
protecting rights that aren't explicitly mentioned (e.g. privacy).
So it seems to me that what we should be pushing for is not additional
enumeration of rights in the Constitution but legislative
implementations of the protections already given by the Constitution.
To this end, perhaps we should try to figure out what "implicit"
rights we want to protect (and how to apply the explicit ones to new
situations).
--
--Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)johne@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) (04/13/91)
<<< < Congress shall make no law abriding the right of the people to use any < tool of computation or communication. ---------- Does this mean that I can take my portable computer in to play Blackjack? How about extending the 5th ammendment protection to your computers as well. If a cop stops you and asks if you were speeding then you can invoke the 5th ammendment. Should he then be able to plug into your cars engine computer and dump out the log for the last 15 minutes of your driving? Within the next decade we are going to see flight recoder technology coming to your family car. Will they be able to use the diagnostic info to convict you of crimes. One car maker had their computer set a bit if the car were driven faster than 85 MPH. They could use that info as a basis to deny a warrenty claim. They could also use it as proof that you were speeding. Imagine if service centers were required to download your cars flight data and send it into the DMV. There massive computer centers crunch the bits and flag every single traffic law that was violated. Fines are assessed and automaticly withdrawn from your bank account. John Eaton !hp-vcd!johne
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (04/13/91)
In article <6750022@hp-vcd.HP.COM> johne@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) writes: >Within the next decade we are going to see flight recoder technology >coming to your family car. Even without "flight recorder technology", I'm surprised they haven't tried to use other available mechanisms yet. In particular, on the Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90), when you enter the main section of the turnpike you get a toll ticket that says what exit you entered from and the toll to all the other exits. It also has a mag stripe, which I assume has the entrance number recorded on it. I wonder why it doesn't also have the entrance time recorded, so that when the toll taker sticks it into his machine it would ring bells and call a cop if the average speed had to have been greater than 55. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (04/13/91)
In article <STANTON.91Apr12120958@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Scott Stanton writes: >I don't think we should try to make using computers a 'right' any more >than we should make the use of a car a 'right'. A car, on the public highway (which is the only place where its use is in any way restricted,) utilizes a limited resource, roads. When someone explains to my satisfaction how using a computer utlizes a similarly limited resource, I'll begin to consider the validity of your statement. But in the meantime, all I know is that the Ceaucesceau regime in Romania restricted the use of typewriters (and my 'computer' is more a typewriter than a computing tool) to surpress freedom of expression, primarily by ethnic minorities who were previously circulating "underground newsletters" carboned as many at a clip as possible. Typeface samples from individual machines were submitted to the police with the registration. It was also illegal to modify or repair any typewriter without subsequently providing a new sample of the type to the police. All typewriter laws mandated severe penalties with long imprisonment a minimal requirement. >There are situations where it is both Constitutional and proper to deny >someone the privilege of driving. While I agree it is a good idea to regulate those who are able to move heavy machines at high speeds on socialistically produced highways, I am not in agreement that driving is a "privilege" in spite of this oft repeated theory. >I can imagine similar cases for the use of computer equipment. We should >not lose sight of the fact that the use of computers is a means to an end >rather than an end in itself. What we want to protect is the end. In a free society you never protect an "end." With the minimum of infringement on people, you protect people against what other citizens actually do to them by outlawing certain behaviors. And here is an idea which subtly parallels a computer with a car, although it really is comparing a computer to a weapon more like a gun. This is a very very dangerous exercise. My words are being equated with the use of a dangerous weapon. It is the free dissemination of your words, and mine, and everyone elses, which is the only assurance we have of continuing those freedoms we presently enjoy. Please understand that it requires a conspiracy of a significant portion of our society to assure maintenance of the constitution. And it seems that in the ranks of that segment of society which concerns itself professionally with law enforcement, there is a fear of the new empowerment to communicate which we call computers and networks. >As it is written, the Constitution protects free speech, assembly, and free >press explicitly, and it provides an additional catch-all category protecting >rights that aren't explicitly mentioned (e.g. privacy). It took much to achieve those rights, which are constantly in the process of being whittled away by new understandings and new laws, till it takes a public uproar to quell some particular abridgement or another. A computer isn't a printing press, no matter that we wish it so and no matter that the possiblity of distribution far exceeds the capabilities of the presses which existed in the days when this protection was wrought. The entire reason for this newsgroup is quite simply that the government has already abridged a goodly number of our rights in an organized fashion, and we're exploring all the legal ways to prevent future recurrence. The very constitutional protections you mention were violated, in my opinion. And many people share this view. >So it seems to me that what we should be pushing for is not additional >enumeration of rights in the Constitution but legislative implementations of >the protections already given by the Constitution. To this end, perhaps we >should try to figure out what "implicit" rights we want to protect (and how >to apply the explicit ones to new situations). You've raised some excellent points here, unfortunately not to my liking, but quite valid nonetheless. I don't like the idea of mucking about with the constitution any more than absolutely necessary. But my only problems with the way law enforcement activities have been carried out in the past several years has to do with the government's violation of our constitutional rights. And I am afraid that somehow the only appropriate response will be to modify at the root. We tend as a nation to regulate those things which are perceived as threatening. So we have lots of laws about cars, and knives, and guns. And while we haven't been watching very closely, the states have been passing about computers. An agrarian has a shovel. It can be used as a dangerous weapon. Shovels and their use are not regulated directly. A mechanic uses wrenches. Wrenches can be used as dangerous weapons (and are also instruments of fraud, perhaps more often than any other impliment, BTW. But you don't read of forefeiture proceedings in which government agents rush in and seize a mechanic's toolchest.) The use of wrenches is not regulated directly. A computer is my tool these days. Is it any more threatening to you than a shovel or a wrench ? Why would you wish to regulate it. Since it is already being regulated, perhaps the only way to remove direct regulation already emplaced is by attaching the new understandings to the constitution. Bill Vajk
learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (04/13/91)
In article <1991Apr13.030350.17798@Think.COM> Barry Margolin writes: >I wonder why it doesn't also have the entrance time recorded, so that when >the toll taker sticks it into his machine it would ring bells and call a cop >if the average speed had to have been greater than 55. New Jersey tried using the time stamps on their toll tickets as a basis for issuing speeding tickets many years ago. I never did find out the details of the case law which brought the previously successful convictions to a sudden stop. It is possible that the basis for the "violations" was dependent on distinctly individual and spacially separated timekeeping devices with no assurance of synchronization. If that was the basis then it might be possible for a new rash of prosecutions because a single timekeeper is now in use, a networked directly connected computer. There is still a problem in that quite often there is more than one individual in the car, and other than by admission, it would be impossible to ascertain who was driving, who was speeding, and at what speed. And is it conspiracy if the passenger says "faster, faster" ??? Bill Vajk
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/13/91)
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > (It would have to be clear that this would apply to activities that were > otherwise legal. Would not want an amendment that forbade them from > banning the use of computers for planning crimes, etc.) Why? The crime is already illegal. If they don't go through with it what's the rationale for banning it? -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rogue Winter) (04/14/91)
stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) writes: [Argument about protecting access rights to tools deleted.] > So it seems to me that what we should be pushing for is not additional > enumeration of rights in the Constitution but legislative > implementations of the protections already given by the Constitution. > To this end, perhaps we should try to figure out what "implicit" > rights we want to protect (and how to apply the explicit ones to new > situations). > > -- > --Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu) The trouble with "pure" legislation not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution is the current Supreme Court's (ahem) non-activist propensity to overturn any legislation that can (not does) appear to be Constitutionally shaky and does not follow the Great Conservative Tradition. Anything that guaranteed the rights of individuals would be percieved as infringing on the rights of legal entities (e.g. corporations). Human beings, despite the registration of Social Security numbers, et.al. are not established by the court as independent entities. Rogue Winter : "How can you say I only protected people in South rogue@cellar.uucp : Philadelphia? I protected people all over this city; it uunet!cellar!rogue: didn't matter if they were in South Philadelphia or Cellar 215/3369503: Northeast Philadelphia." -- Frank Rizzo, 4/12/91
consp04@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Dan Boyd) (04/14/91)
In article <1991Apr13.030350.17798@Think.COM>, barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: |> I wonder why it doesn't also have the entrance time recorded, so |> that when the toll taker sticks it into his machine it would ring |> bells and call a cop if the average speed had to have been greater |> than 55. To make this work: 1. You'd have to convince a court of the validity of Roll's Theorem, which might be hard. 2. You'd have to print the "do not exit before this time" time on the ticket. Also, speed limits aren't like that; usually the limits are set at the 75th percentile or so of speed, so the police have a reason to stop anybody driving unsafely fast. Most of the time, a 55 posted limit means traffic flows between 60 and 65. A 65 limit means it flows between 65 and 75. If they went around busting people for driving 60, they'd run out of goodwill real quick. Daniel F. Boyd consp04@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu CONTACT ALIENS BOTH BENEVOLENT AND EVIL! DON'T STIR OR DISTURB THE RICE! 210526315789473684
bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ( ) (04/15/91)
In article <S25b.3258@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >With talk of amendments to protect privacy in the computer age, let me >pose the opposite question. What do people feel would be the consequences >of: > >Congress shall make no law abriding the right of the people to use any >tool of computation or communication. It would likely follow the same path as the Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution. Computers (not people) would be deemed an unacceptable danger to society and we would be hobbled with all sorts of laws, which although doubtlessly passed with the best intentions, would only serve to inhibit and restrict otherwise law-abiding Americans. -- Bill Berbenich School of EE DSP Lab Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu
johne@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) (04/15/91)
<<< < a sudden stop. It is possible that the basis for the "violations" was < dependent on distinctly individual and spacially separated timekeeping < devices with no assurance of synchronization. If that was the basis then ---------- Thats what I heard, they could not guarantee the clocks were close enough to prove a conviction for short trips. For long trips speeders could simply "Lose" the ticket out the window and sinply pay the longest possible distance fare. That is far cheaper than a speeding tickect. John Eaton !hp-vcd!johne
stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) (04/15/91)
In article <1455@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes:
A car, on the public highway (which is the only place where its use is
in any way restricted,) utilizes a limited resource, roads. When someone
explains to my satisfaction how using a computer utlizes a similarly
limited resource, I'll begin to consider the validity of your statement.
Ok, I'll grant you that the analogy was not accurate. (Although we do
have non-highway restrictions (e.g. handicap parking spaces)). A
better analogy would have been the "right to use a garbage disposal".
The point I was trying to make was that the rights our Constitution
tries to protect are more general than "the right to use a computer".
We must be *very* careful when modifying the Constitution because
those changes are much harder to reverse than normal legislation.
This is a very very dangerous exercise. My words are being equated with the
use of a dangerous weapon. It is the free dissemination of your words, and
mine, and everyone elses, which is the only assurance we have of continuing
those freedoms we presently enjoy. Please understand that it requires a
conspiracy of a significant portion of our society to assure maintenance
of the constitution. And it seems that in the ranks of that segment of
society which concerns itself professionally with law enforcement, there
is a fear of the new empowerment to communicate which we call computers
and networks.
I agree completely that what we want is free dissemination of words.
I do not agree that it is appropriate to put specific mechanisms of
protection into the Constitution. If you want an example of how not
to deal with problems, look at the Texas state constitution. That
document has so much cruft tacked onto it that it is basically
meaningless as anything other than a laundry list of past laws, good
or bad. So far we have managed to keep the national Constitution
relatively clean (with a few notable exceptions like prohibition). If
we add too much to the Constitution, it loses some of its power
because it becomes harder to understand and interpret.
The real problem is that the Constitution is being ignored by the law
enforcement agencies. This is not a result of a defect in the
Constitution, rather it is a result of overzealous application of
outdated or bad laws. We should change the laws, not the Constitution.
It took much to achieve those rights, which are constantly in the process
of being whittled away by new understandings and new laws, till it takes
a public uproar to quell some particular abridgement or another. A computer
isn't a printing press, no matter that we wish it so and no matter that
the possiblity of distribution far exceeds the capabilities of the presses
which existed in the days when this protection was wrought.
This is a somewhat different debate, and I pretty much agree that
computers do not fit in the existing molds. I actually think
computers are more akin to speech than press in many cases.
Nevertheless, I think the combination of free speech and free press
ought to be broad enough to cover computer assisted communication.
The entire reason for this newsgroup is quite simply that the government has
already abridged a goodly number of our rights in an organized fashion, and
we're exploring all the legal ways to prevent future recurrence. The very
constitutional protections you mention were violated, in my opinion. And
many people share this view.
I agree completely. But what we need is the correct application of
the existing constitutional protections. Simply adding a new list of
specific cases is not going to solve anything. The Constitution
defines our rights perfectly adequately as is. The problem lies in
the implementation (or lack thereof) of the protection of those rights.
You've raised some excellent points here, unfortunately not to my liking,
but quite valid nonetheless. I don't like the idea of mucking about with
the constitution any more than absolutely necessary. But my only problems
with the way law enforcement activities have been carried out in the past
several years has to do with the government's violation of our constitutional
rights. And I am afraid that somehow the only appropriate response will
be to modify at the root.
I don't see how changing the Constitution is going to solve anything
here. The problem is that the Constitution is being ignored or
mis-interpreted. The correct response is not to tack junk onto the
end of the document. We should be removing the people from power who
are not performing to our liking. We should be enacting laws that
protect the freedoms we hold dear. The Constitution is not a panacea
for our troubles, it merely provides a baseline from which to measure
our governmental actions. My main point is that there is nothing
wrong with the baseline. We just haven't been paying close enough
attention to it.
Why would you wish to regulate it. Since it is already being regulated,
perhaps the only way to remove direct regulation already emplaced is by
attaching the new understandings to the constitution.
No, the right way to do this is to remove the bad laws and enact
better ones. If we can muster enough support to warrant a
Constitutional Convention, then we can certainly rewrite the laws we
don't like.
--
--Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) (04/15/91)
In article <FX7c11w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rogue Winter) writes:
The trouble with "pure" legislation not explicitly guaranteed by the
Constitution is the current Supreme Court's (ahem) non-activist propensity to
overturn any legislation that can (not does) appear to be Constitutionally
shaky and does not follow the Great Conservative Tradition.
Anything that guaranteed the rights of individuals would be percieved as
infringing on the rights of legal entities (e.g. corporations). Human
beings, despite the registration of Social Security numbers, et.al. are not
established by the court as independent entities.
I don't think you are giving the Supreme Court justices enough credit.
While I may not agree with a good many of them on some fundamental
issues, I don't think they take quite as cavalier an attitude toward
the freedoms (implicit or explicit) guaranteed by the Constitution as
you would seem to imply.
Nevertheless, even if we do have a worthless bunch of governmental
stoolies on the bench, a Constitutional amendment isn't going to help
the problem. What we need to do is stop electing people who don't
respect individual liberties to office.
--
--Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)bei@dogface (Bob Izenberg) (04/16/91)
learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes: > A computer > isn't a printing press, no matter that we wish it so and no matter that > the possiblity of distribution far exceeds the capabilities of the presses > which existed in the days when this protection was wrought. My Dad is computer-literate like I'm a blue giraffe, so when he has to know something about his XT clone, the metaphors fly like frisbees. Anybody who's ever had to explain something technical person to person discusses the new concept in terms of things already known. So, functionally, Bill's box may not be a printing press but mine sure works like one. At least eleven hours of every day are spent retrieving and distributing information just like you are reading now. I use it to save information on my daily affairs, so it's part notebook. It's also part post office, because the electronic mail of at least five people regularly shoots through here. It contains the mailing list for a dance company in town, and distributes via email a quarterly meditation newsletter. I've named five functions that one computer performs right here in the apartment. Let's try the black box analogy here. Hand me a piece of paper with a message that you want sent to someone. I will walk into another room and send it, somehow. I'll come back later with a reply for you. Whatever I did in that room was similar to what the U.S. Postal Service does. If you want your message sent to 5000 people, back in the room I go. I may come out with 5000 fax receipts, or desktop-published paper copies, or just the usual vain hope that email sent here will get there without undue delay or disaster. Once again, courtesy of that room, most of your recipients had your newsletter in hand after a day or so. You gave me a single original, and five thousand copies went out. Just like a print shop. Each of the activities that my computer performs would have Constitutional protection if not done on a computer. It delivers the mail, composes and distributes both national and local commentary, and is used by several people and organizations to keep records and correspondence. This computer, or this "other room" if you prefer, should be no different than its non-electronic counterpart to a legislator or member of the judiciary. Is it? -- Bob Bob Izenberg cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei [ ] "So young, so bad... So what!" 512 346 7019 Wendy O. Williams
learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (04/18/91)
In article <STANTON.91Apr15114817@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Scott Stanton writes: >In article <1455@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> William Vajk writes: > A car, on the public highway (which is the only place where its use is > in any way restricted,) utilizes a limited resource, roads. >Ok, I'll grant you that the analogy was not accurate. (Although we do >have non-highway restrictions (e.g. handicap parking spaces)). A >better analogy would have been the "right to use a garbage disposal". >The point I was trying to make was that the rights our Constitution >tries to protect are more general than "the right to use a computer". >We must be *very* careful when modifying the Constitution because >those changes are much harder to reverse than normal legislation. I don't dispute the extra care that should be taken with constitutional ammendments, but also recall the mission impossible undertaken in the last attempt at such an ammendment. But you still haven't addressed the issue of computer use limitations by drawing what I consider to be a viable analogy. I would liken computer use more to that of a sliderule, or perhaps a paperless typewriter, in the sense of requiring as a minimum only a small 'space' than I would to a garbage disposal which must, by its nature, utilize resources outside the immediate sphere of the user. I can envision absolutely no logic to licensing, or making use of, a privilege, where is where this discussion opened. > Please understand that it requires a conspiracy of a significant portion > of our society to assure maintenance of the constitution. >I agree completely that what we want is free dissemination of words. >I do not agree that it is appropriate to put specific mechanisms of >protection into the Constitution. If you want an example of how not >to deal with problems, look at the Texas state constitution. Could you please be a bit more specific in this regard ? I don't have a copy of the Texas Constitution readily available to determine how anything there might apply directly to the difficulties under discussion. >That document has so much cruft tacked onto it that it is basically >meaningless as anything other than a laundry list of past laws, good >or bad. I'll take your word for the content. On the other hand, I am not so certain that the usefulness is quite so limited as you understand. >So far we have managed to keep the national Constitution >relatively clean (with a few notable exceptions like prohibition). If >we add too much to the Constitution, it loses some of its power >because it becomes harder to understand and interpret. Indeed, it has actually been, to some extent, the simple elegance of the US Constitution which has made it so difficult to understand and to interpret. Remember too that as long as the constitution remains deviod of detail, successive Supreme Courts have rendered opposite verdicts for identical reasons. Bill Vajk
learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (04/18/91)
In article <m90H12w164w@dogface> bei@dogface (Bob Izenberg) writes: >I've named five functions that one computer performs right here in the >apartment. That's part of the problem, dont you know. We can only define it in terms of the growing number of functions, different strokes for different folks. Bill Vajk
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (04/19/91)
In article <STANTON.91Apr12120958@Neon.Stanford.EDU> stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) writes: > >I don't think we should try to make using computers a 'right' any more >than we should make the use of a car a 'right'. There are situations >where it is both Constitutional and proper to deny someone the >privilege of driving. I can imagine similar cases for the use of >computer equipment. We should not lose sight of the fact that the use >of computers is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. What >we want to protect is the end. WHAT?! It is Constitutional to deny someone the right to drive on public roads because he/she may hurt someone by lack of ability or responsibilty. They can even own the car. The government has no right to tell someone that he can't drive his car on his own personal road. (Suppose the guy is rich.) So if I have a computer in my home, the govt. can't say, "Don't use it because I saw that you were not using it responsibly, you may have damaged your sister's term paper." (Althought your SISTER may not let you use the computer after that. :-) -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) (04/20/91)
In article <1475@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes: I don't dispute the extra care that should be taken with constitutional ammendments, but also recall the mission impossible undertaken in the last attempt at such an ammendment. Could you clarify this? I'm afraid I missed the reference. But you still haven't addressed the issue of computer use limitations by drawing what I consider to be a viable analogy. I would liken computer use more to that of a sliderule, or perhaps a paperless typewriter, in the sense of requiring as a minimum only a small 'space' than I would to a garbage disposal which must, by its nature, utilize resources outside the immediate sphere of the user. I can envision absolutely no logic to licensing, or making use of, a privilege, where is where this discussion opened. I don't think licensing computing devices makes any sense, either. But there is a difference between stating that it makes no sense to license and stating that the use is a right. I would contend that a lot of computing does use public resources. Electricity is an obvious example. In many cases, the phone lines are another. You might argue that the phone lines aren't part of the computer and therefore shouldn't be considered, but I consider the ability to use my modem an integral part of the free use of my machine. Where do you draw the line? Do I have a right to use the computer as long as I can supply my own phone lines and/or power, or do I have some claim on those resources as well? My main point is that details like this don't belong in the Constitution. >So far we have managed to keep the national Constitution >relatively clean (with a few notable exceptions like prohibition). If >we add too much to the Constitution, it loses some of its power >because it becomes harder to understand and interpret. Indeed, it has actually been, to some extent, the simple elegance of the US Constitution which has made it so difficult to understand and to interpret. Remember too that as long as the constitution remains deviod of detail, successive Supreme Courts have rendered opposite verdicts for identical reasons. This is what makes the Constitution such a powerful document. The principles are invariant over time even when the details are not. It is impossible to apply the Constitution without some context. The Supreme Court is there to provide that context. The changing interpretations of the Constitution reflect the changing contexts in which it must be interpreted. If we put too much context into the Constitution, it will become brittle and break. By this I mean that we will lose sight of the principles and become bogged down in details that may no longer be relevant. This is what I was referring to when I pointed out the Texas constitution. Bill Vajk -- --Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (04/20/91)
In article <STANTON.91Apr15115904@Neon.Stanford.EDU> stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) writes: >I don't think you are giving the Supreme Court justices enough credit. >While I may not agree with a good many of them on some fundamental >issues, I don't think they take quite as cavalier an attitude toward >the freedoms (implicit or explicit) guaranteed by the Constitution as >you would seem to imply. No, the current Supreme Court deserves NO credit at all for any actions. They ruled 5-4 for the flag-burning. This SHOULD have been a simple 9-0 ruling. It is obvious what the 1st amendment says. The current ruling about forced confessions is not as obvious, but this one FAILED to represent the constitution. (Another 5-4 vote.) -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (04/20/91)
BTW I will point out that I seriously doubt a computer freedom amendment along the lines of my proposal could ever be passed. Not in today's modern society. The USA's best admendments were done in the less media-saturated, special interest controlled world of the 18th century. Today you can't even get a simple and largely supported amendment like the ERA passed. What I fear -- and indeed what I think was one of the motivations for the start of the EFF -- is the notion that many people have that there are things that it should be illegal to do with a computer, even if it was never illegal to do them without one. A thing is either bad or good, and I am wary of suggestions that the tool you use should make the difference on whether an activity is illegal. The right to use a computer to conduct your affairs is going to become more important than the right to walk down the street, or phone somebody, or print a newspaper. If we allow the government to regulate it willy-nilly, we allow them the power to regulate almost every aspect of what life might be in the future. We must not. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (04/20/91)
In article <1991Apr20.015506.11577@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >What I fear -- and indeed what I think was one of the motivations for the >start of the EFF -- is the notion that many people have that there are >things that it should be illegal to do with a computer, even if it was >never illegal to do them without one. Well, something may have been wrong to do, but infeasible without computer assistance. Therefore, there wasn't much point in drafting a law against it before computers became popular. Computers aren't unique in this regard. How many treaties regarding the use of outer space were there in the 40's? In general, the legislature is reactive when making laws, not proactive. There has to be a problem before they bother working on a solution. >A thing is either bad or good, and I am wary of suggestions that the tool >you use should make the difference on whether an activity is illegal. If something is only feasible with a computer, then a law against doing it with a computer is equivalent to a law against doing it at all. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
tom.jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (tom jennings) (04/21/91)
You are correct. The law is broken constantly by those who claim to uphold it -- more laws -- or Constitutional amendments -- is not the solution. Maybe this will sound boring, but we need to simply make them live by what we already have.
It is just more examples of avoiding the issue.
--
tom jennings - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!111!tom.jennings
INTERNET: tom.jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORGlearn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (04/21/91)
In article <STANTON.91Apr19151248@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Scott Stanton writes: >Could you clarify this? I'm afraid I missed the reference. My reference was to what became mission impossible, the ERA. >I don't think licensing computing devices makes any sense, either. >But there is a difference between stating that it makes no sense to >license and stating that the use is a right. I would contend that a >lot of computing does use public resources. Electricity is an obvious >example. In many cases, the phone lines are another. These aren't public resources. They are (1) energy for sale by proucers and (2) Lease of telecommunications facilities, rental by the minute as in my case at this particular moment. The telephone is not a requirement to computer use, though that is in many instances an enhancement. But you're still sidestepping the crucial element in all this. So far, you've admitted that "it doesn't make sense" to license computer use. It doesn't indeed. And yet you're not willing to accord use of a computer the same status as creating light for oneself after dark, or any other of a million things we do and take for granted. A computer happens to be the latest gadget. Do you believe you have a right to create light after dark ? Do you believe you can use other technological gadgets as a "right" ? Maybe like a blender, or a microwave, or a gas range ? Or is there something inherent in "devices" and "gadgets" that subjects them to potential for license ? As a practical matter, we sort of "know" what is allowed in modern society, and what isn't. One of the issues raised in the Neidorf proceedings had to do with the understanding and interpretation, in legal terms, of the bits and bytes going down a wire. One of the real difficulties I have with the Judge's finding on a motion is that for all practical purposes, he made the computer (extended as it is via modems, phone lines, and coax) invisible and concerned himself only with cause and effect. In this example, someone sent illegally obtained text at one end, and Neidorf received it at the other. The critical aspect had to do with sending taking place in one state, and the receipt in another. This made it interstate transport, and the medium of transport was not to be considered part of the equation. One might callously assign the same value to the computer system as a pumpkin (one must know a little history to have this statement make any sense.) Yet specific criminality is associated, by the government, with the use of this invisible device caalled a computer, extended variety called a computer network. And they've been running around the countryside seizing these 'invisible pumpkins.' (And as sort of a humorous aside, how much trouble would today's law enforcement take to create a strong enough relationship to seize that entire farm as a 'vehicle' of criminality.) > My main point is that details like this don't belong in the Constitution. The things that end up in the Constitution are those issues with widely scattered and widely based ramifications. I haven't yet suggested what form of an ammendment I might propose. I think it a bit presumptious of anyone to arbitrarily decide against something so undefined as 'an ammendment which would include computers.' >The principles are invariant over time even when the details are not. It >is impossible to apply the Constitution without some context. The >Supreme Court is there to provide that context. The changing >interpretations of the Constitution reflect the changing contexts in >which it must be interpreted. If we put too much context into the >Constitution, it will become brittle and break. By this I mean that >we will lose sight of the principles and become bogged down in details >that may no longer be relevant. This is what I was referring to when >I pointed out the Texas constitution. I am not picking on you personally Scott, with what I am about to say. But this is unadulterated BS. The Supreme Court, it has jokingly been said, first renders a decision, and then digs through the Constitution as well as anything else it can muster to support the verdict. It probably is more true than funny. If the Constitution were quite the tool you claim it is, then we really wouldn't have to concern ourselves with who is being named a Justice, what their background is, or anything else about them. They should only have to be well trained in the law, and have a sense of staying with the program. What we always get down to near the end of discussions such as this one is that the Constitution is a guide. Every time we are forced to resort to the Supreme Court to resolve an issue, it implys that there has been a failure in the concept known as "the Rule of Law." And please don't assume you know what the term means unless you REALLY do know what it means. If you look at the history of the SC, you'll see a decision that "equal but separate is acceptable." A few years later, they reversed that verdict. There were no changes to any societal contexts between the two verdicts. The "Rule of Law" itself isn't quite as stable as I would like. I don't believe the Constitution is quite so sacred as to be above filling the needs of the times, by modification if necessary. We've experienced a reversal of an ammendment before. We've experienced reversals of the Supreme Court's understandings regarding the Constitution. And if a change will result in an improved understanding, I have no objections to changing the highest laws of the land. Finally, just because the present Articles and Ammendments are so broadly written doesn't necessitate that all future additions must follow the same form/format/style. I find absolutely no value in elegance for its own sake. Bill Vajk
learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (04/21/91)
In article <8.7_#!+@smurf.sub.org> Matthias Urlichs writes: >In article <1476@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> William Vajk writes: >< That's part of the problem, dont you know. We can only define it in terms of >< the growing number of functions, different strokes for different folks. >But it shouldn't be. If there's no functional difference, I see no reason not >to extend the protection of the law / constitution / whatever. A printing press, based mostly in case law, has certain protections. It cannot and will not be seized for stating opinions. A different issue though if it is used for printing counterfeit currency. And if an employee in a small print shop sneaks back in after hours and prints some counterfeit money, it is unlikely that the printing press will be seized. As you can see, the 'protections' are quite variable for the same crime on the same machine. >On the other hand, if something is illegal, such an extension on functional >grounds is debatable at best; I don't know about the US, but in Germany it's >expressly forbidden after certain bad experiences half a century ago... Agreed, though that's not quite the problem. What we're seeing here is the misapplication of some legal theory. I understand that in Germany the law mandates that computer crime be established in flagro delecto. Such is not the case here. We're experiencing circumstantial evidence being used to seize computer equipment under search warrants, and the content used to build stronger circumstantial cases against the owners of the equipment, sometimes others. In the Len Rose case(s), for example, this tactic coupled with some lies and coercion, and lengthy proceedings, have led to a one year negotiated sentence. It is highly doubtful that any justice is thus being served. All this is actually the result of some laws passed a number of years ago to fight racketeering and organized crime. The public was, generally, pleased to permit stronger tools to the law enforcement agencies in this battle. Now, the same laws are being applied universally, and the acceptability of such proceedings has come into question. Ultimately, if these tactics aren't acceptable for one use against one citizen, they shouldn't be acceptable for use against any other in a democracy. The discussions here are, generally speaking, about computers. What we're really discussing, alas, it really some small part of the tip of a very large iceberg. In that extended context, your assessment of the circumstances is right on. And it is to address that extended context that I believe we are badly in need of a constitutional ammendment. Bill Vajk | Say NO to Forfeiture !
learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (04/21/91)
In article <1991Apr20.015506.11577@looking.on.ca> Brad Templeton writes: >The right to use a computer to conduct your affairs is going to become >more important than the right to walk down the street, or phone somebody, >or print a newspaper. Interesting you should mention this. The right to have a telephone has become the subject of case law, and was upheld. It isn't sacrosanct. >If we allow the government to regulate it willy-nilly, we allow them the >power to regulate almost every aspect of what life might be in the future. Or worse yet, license use, such as they have for radio and television in some countries...... Bill Vajk | Say NO to Forfeiture !
stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) (04/22/91)
In article <1487@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes:
But you're still sidestepping the crucial element in all this. So far,
you've admitted that "it doesn't make sense" to license computer use. It
doesn't indeed. And yet you're not willing to accord use of a computer the
same status as creating light for oneself after dark, or any other of a
million things we do and take for granted. A computer happens to be the
latest gadget. Do you believe you have a right to create light after dark ?
Do you believe you can use other technological gadgets as a "right" ? Maybe
like a blender, or a microwave, or a gas range ? Or is there something inherent
in "devices" and "gadgets" that subjects them to potential for license ?
I am definitely according computers the same status as any other tool.
And no, the use of those tools is *not* a right.
The things that end up in the Constitution are those issues with widely
scattered and widely based ramifications. I haven't yet suggested what form
of an ammendment I might propose. I think it a bit presumptious of anyone to
arbitrarily decide against something so undefined as 'an ammendment which
would include computers.'
First of all, this thread started with a specific proposal, so I
wasn't deciding against an unspecified ammendment. "An ammendment
which would include computers" is a very different beast from one
which simply denies Congress the ability to regulate computers. My
original comment was that something like the latter belongs in a law,
not the Constitution. And I maintain that we already have several
ammendments which include the uses of computers that we wish to
protect (e.g. free speech, free press, free assembly). I think we
need to have a much better understanding of the ramifications before
we go mucking about in the Constitution.
What we always get down to near the end of discussions such as this one is
that the Constitution is a guide. Every time we are forced to resort to the
Supreme Court to resolve an issue, it implys that there has been a failure in
the concept known as "the Rule of Law." And please don't assume you know what
the term means unless you REALLY do know what it means. If you look at the
history of the SC, you'll see a decision that "equal but separate is
acceptable." A few years later, they reversed that verdict. There were no
changes to any societal contexts between the two verdicts. The "Rule of Law"
itself isn't quite as stable as I would like.
First of all, I find "Rule of Law" to be a red herring. When I look
around me, I don't see that our legal system holds to this concept in
any real situations. Justices use their discretion constantly in
deciding cases. The law often conflicts or is unclear in specific
instances. I personally don't want to live in a society where law is
applied without discretion. That's the sort of nightmare about which
Orwell was warning us.
The whole point of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution
in a context. If you don't think the social context changed in the
'50s and '60s, then I'm afraid you weren't paying close enough
attention. Of course we have to be careful whom we appoint to the SC,
justices are only human, you know. This doesn't mean that we should
keep rewriting the Constitution to keep them from making mistakes or
interpreting the Constitution in ways we don't like.
I don't believe the Constitution is quite so sacred as to be above filling
the needs of the times, by modification if necessary. We've experienced a
reversal of an ammendment before. We've experienced reversals of the
Supreme Court's understandings regarding the Constitution. And if a change
will result in an improved understanding, I have no objections to changing
the highest laws of the land.
I would have to hear some very convincing arguments before I believe
that any ammendment is going to improve understanding. I won't rule
it out, but I'll have to hear some pretty good reasons before I
believe it in any particular case. I haven't seen any good
explanations for why the existing Bill of Rights can't handle our
current problems.
--
--Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (04/22/91)
In article <STANTON.91Apr21152636@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Scott Stanton writes: >In article <1487@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> William Vajk writes: >I am definitely according computers the same status as any other tool. >And no, the use of those tools is *not* a right. It should be interesting to hear just what you think human rights actually are. I find it extremely difficult to envision a series of rights which exclude the right to use tools. We can begin with a knife. I would prefer it to be a knapped stone knife. We can progress from there as you wish. >First of all, I find "Rule of Law" to be a red herring. When I look >around me, I don't see that our legal system holds to this concept in >any real situations. Justices use their discretion constantly in >deciding cases. The law often conflicts or is unclear in specific >instances. I personally don't want to live in a society where law is >applied without discretion. That's the sort of nightmare about which >Orwell was warning us. Once again my copy of Hayek's _The Road To Serfdom_ comes off the shelf. (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1944.) "Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all its technicalities, this means the government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand--rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge." "Within the known rules of the game the individual is free to pursue his personal ends and desires, certain that the powers of government will not be used to deliberately frustrate his efforts." In the ideal circumstance, the Rule of Law allows no discretion. Hayek also discusses the fallibility of the men administering, and thus not only is discretion, but also errors, become part and parcel of the package. I suggest that whatever it takes, in the least expensive and least obnoxious mode, to reduce the "errors" is an appropriate response. You and I have both used the term "tool" as regards computers. Yet the original definitions, including definitions most appropriate through WW2, limited the term to implements which modified MATERIALS. And we're talking tangible here. The legal definition seems to be a tad broader as in, "Any instrument or apparatus necessary to the efficient prosecution of one's trade or profession." In applying the term "tool" to a modern computer, whether it is a PC or a mainframe, is a rather broad extension of the concepts and is relatively recent enough to have lots of holes in the concepts and context. As I've written before, one of the mose widely used tools for committing fraud is a wrench. I have yet to hear of the US Government seizing a mechanic's toolchest as "implements of crime." How would you propose getting these concepts properly aligned in a lot of minds in a hurry ? Bill Vajk
stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) (04/23/91)
In article <1492@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes:
In the ideal circumstance, the Rule of Law allows no discretion. Hayek
also discusses the fallibility of the men administering, and thus not
only is discretion, but also errors, become part and parcel of the package.
I suggest that whatever it takes, in the least expensive and least obnoxious
mode, to reduce the "errors" is an appropriate response.
You are overlooking the simple fact that it is human beings who make
these laws, and that the laws are therefore subject to just as much
error as their interpretation. Certainly the elimination of errors is a
laudable, but unattainable goal. Given that laws are not perfect, I
would rather they were applied with an eye to the circumstances. It
is the spirit, not the letter, of the law that I want upheld.
You and I have both used the term "tool" as regards computers. Yet the
original definitions, including definitions most appropriate through WW2,
limited the term to implements which modified MATERIALS. And we're talking
tangible here. The legal definition seems to be a tad broader as in, "Any
instrument or apparatus necessary to the efficient prosecution of one's
trade or profession."
There are plenty of precedents before WW2 for tools that don't modify
materials. The abacus and the sliderule come to mind most readily.
In applying the term "tool" to a modern computer, whether it is a
PC or a mainframe, is a rather broad extension of the concepts and is
relatively recent enough to have lots of holes in the concepts and context.
As I've written before, one of the mose widely used tools for committing
fraud is a wrench. I have yet to hear of the US Government seizing
a mechanic's toolchest as "implements of crime."
This is probably because the wrench would not provide any information
relevant to the prosecution of the case. If the wrench were used to
kill someone, it probably would be seized. In the case of fraud
committed with the computer, there is certainly reason for the law
enforcement officers to suspect that the contents of the computer
might be useful in the prosecution of the case. What we need to do is
define what constitutes valid evidence in such cases. Is a copy of
the relevant data sufficient? If so, then taking the entire computer
would certainly constitute an over broad seizure.
--
--Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (04/23/91)
In article <STANTON.91Apr22125313@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Scott Stanton writes: >In article <1492@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> William Vajk writes: >You are overlooking the simple fact that it is human beings who make >these laws, and that the laws are therefore subject to just as much >error as their interpretation. Certainly the elimination of errors is a >laudable, but unattainable goal. Given that laws are not perfect, I >would rather they were applied with an eye to the circumstances. It >is the spirit, not the letter, of the law that I want upheld. It is the letter which is prosecuted (in most instances) and we hope by the time we have reached the end, the spirit will have been used as a sieve. Nonetheless, Hayek's description is apt, even when the government is in error. It easily costs a small fortune to defend against almost any charges brought to bear. > You and I have both used the term "tool" as regards computers. >There are plenty of precedents before WW2 for tools that don't modify >materials. The abacus and the sliderule come to mind most readily. Actually, they have both been classed as "devices", both historically as well as now. And I note that in documents, the U. S. Government also tends to term a computer a "device." I expect our carelessness in nomenclature clouds some issues. > As I've written before, one of the mose widely used tools for committing > fraud is a wrench. I have yet to hear of the US Government seizing > a mechanic's toolchest as "implements of crime." >This is probably because the wrench would not provide any information >relevant to the prosecution of the case. Seizure of a mechanic's wrenches just isn't good enough press. Cars, money, unknown contents of safety deposit boxes, apartment buildings, and computers all seem to be good press. >If the wrench were used to kill someone, it probably would be seized. In the case of Dr. Ripco, one computer was the offender. They determined to take all computing equipment in any way connected. It was enough they were in the same part of the room, and connected to the same power strip, although not interconnected in any other way. Could that have been overzealous agents who made an "honest mistake" ???? No. They took along Sgt. Abigail Abrahams of the Illinois State Police as well as court authorized "experts" Jerry Dalton and John Hickey from AT&T's corporate security division. >In the case of fraud committed with the computer, there is certainly >reason for the law enforcement officers to suspect that the contents >of the computer might be useful in the prosecution of the case. What >we need to do is define what constitutes valid evidence in such cases. >Is a copy of the relevant data sufficient? If so, then taking the entire >computer would certainly constitute an over broad seizure. In the case of Craig Neidorf, the University of Mo. computers were examined, not seized. In the same series of cases, jolnet was seized as well as equipment from Len Rose. Given the ability of Law Enforcement to secure information from machines such as those at the Univ. of Mo. it should be equally as possible to gather information from other machines; the smaller the quicker. Overly broad searches are standard operating proceedure these days. More will be forthcoming on this issue over time. Bill Vajk
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (04/26/91)
In article <STANTON.91Apr19151248@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) writes: > In article <1475@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes: > > I don't dispute the extra care that should be taken with constitutional > ammendments, but also recall the mission impossible undertaken in the > last attempt at such an ammendment. > > Could you clarify this? I'm afraid I missed the reference. > He's probably not talking about the effort underway to put a balanced budget amendment into the Constitution. For non-US readers, there are two mechanisms provided to amend the US Constitution. One is to get Congress to propose and three-quarters of the state legislatures to ratify an amendment. The other is to get three-quarters of the state legislatures to petition Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, at which time Congress has no option but to call the convention. (Either or both of those "three-quarters" may be "two-thirds". I can't find the copy of the Constitution that is supposed to be in my attache case.) The balanced budget amendment process has had all but one of the required of state calls for a convention for several years now. But can't seem to manage to get one more. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (04/26/91)
Could you please summarize your pumpkin reference for us ignorami? Thanks. -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (04/26/91)
In article <4364.2816d635@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: >The other is to get three-quarters of the state legislatures to >petition Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, at which >time Congress has no option but to call the convention. It should be noted that this option is avoided like the plague, since once a CC is convened it's open season on the Consitution and *anything* can be changed. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
tom.jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (tom jennings) (04/27/91)
also -- we're constantly told that Western law is based upon the concept
of "precedence", such that (in a dozen words here) the Constitution is
interpreted in light of precedences.
The problem isn't the specific interpretations per se I don't believe. I
truly belive the law'n'order world has an agenda, to specifically
undermine the process for their own ends. Not necessarily a conscious one
always, but the end result nonetheless.
They have the RIGHT virus. What they do/say is "RIGHT" and everyone else
be damned.
(Whenever the "ends" justify the "means" in processes like this it's
always a bad sign ...)
--
tom jennings - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!111!tom.jennings
INTERNET: tom.jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORGcosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (04/27/91)
johne@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) writes: }<<< }< a sudden stop. It is possible that the basis for the "violations" was }< dependent on distinctly individual and spacially separated timekeeping }< devices with no assurance of synchronization. If that was the basis then }---------- }Thats what I heard, they could not guarantee the clocks were close enough }to prove a conviction for short trips. }For long trips speeders could simply "Lose" the ticket out the window and }sinply pay the longest possible distance fare. That is far cheaper than }a speeding tickect. Ah, but look how wonderful things will be when computers enter the scene. If you get one of those "who I am" readouts [that they're pushing for use at least in NYC to replace the tollbooths on the GW Bridge], then you wouldn't need to take a ticket at all: you roll through the entrance booth and they can read out not only who you are and which entrance you came through, but *when*. Then when you exit, they can automatically tote up your toll, and even include the fine for the speeding violation, as appropriate [and 'synchronization' wouldn't be an issue, since all of the timings would have been done relative to the system clock on the machine coordinating all of this]. Won't that be nice? :-) [NB. They can do that anyway, just by using your car ID # [which is right where the toll-taker can see it, although that is a LOT of crap to copy down as you go through], but entering your plate number as you drive away is probably workable.] /Bernie\
guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) (04/28/91)
In article <63910@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes:
Ah, but look how wonderful things will be when computers enter the
scene. If you get one of those "who I am" readouts [that they're
pushing for use at least in NYC to replace the tollbooths on the GW
Bridge], then you wouldn't need to take a ticket at all: you roll
through the entrance booth and they can read out not only who you are
and which entrance you came through, but *when*. Then when you exit,
they can automatically tote up your toll, and even include the fine for
the speeding violation, as appropriate [and 'synchronization' wouldn't
be an issue, since all of the timings would have been done relative to
the system clock on the machine coordinating all of this]. Won't that
be nice? :-)
They might try this for a while someday but they will quickly end it.
Human nature being what it is, people will not stop speeding they will
simply speed and then stop at the last possible rest area and wait it
out. The traffic problems this would create would be enormous. You'd
also find the breakdown lane would fill up quite often and the general
public would be outraged when people start getting killed by cars
pulling over to avoid a speeding ticket. One thing the government
will never overcome is human nature.
P.S. Let's face it, the more laws there are to break the less aversion
we have to breaking them.ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) (04/28/91)
In article <1991Apr26.141044.7544@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: > In article <4364.2816d635@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc. > decnet.ab.com writes: >> The other is to get three-quarters of the state legislatures to >> petition Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, at which >> time Congress has no option but to call the convention. > It should be noted that this option is avoided like the plague, since > once a CC is convened it's open season on the Constitution and *anything* > can be changed. No, it should *really* be noted that this option is only avoided like the plague by lawyers, ACLU-types, and other stupid liberals who want to save us from ourselves ... Good heavens! The idea of the unwashed masses of the American public having any actual say-so in how they are governed? I think a CC would be a great idea, with real people -- not politicians, not lawyers, not Alan Dershowitz, not ACLU'ers -- actually deciding their fate for a change. Understandably, a couple of law school professors might grow nauseous and faint if it happened ... Just listen to some of the lame excuses you will hear everytime someone suggests a CC ... 'it would be a run-away convention' ... it would be a 'single issue convention' ... 'some people would try to impose their own standards of morality into it' ... I wish you would recall that it is supposed to be 'we the people' who do the governing, make the laws and decide how things are done ... why aren't we allowed to do it any longer?
crew@CS.Stanford.EDU (Roger Crew) (04/28/91)
In article <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >> It should be noted that this option is avoided like the plague, since >> once a CC is convened it's open season on the Constitution and *anything* >> can be changed. > > No, it should *really* be noted that this option is only avoided like > the plague by lawyers, ACLU-types, and other stupid liberals who want > to save us from ourselves ... > > Good heavens! The idea of the unwashed masses of the American public > having any actual say-so in how they are governed? I think a CC would > be a great idea, with real people -- not politicians, not lawyers, not what makes you think that if a CC is called that they're going to let "real people" into it? Who decides who goes to this convention anyway? Somehow I won't be surprised if it turns out to be a bunch of lawyers... > ... ACLU'ers hmmm... if it were just to be the ACLU'ers, I don't think I'd mind the carte blanche aspect of this... But that seems unlikely in today's political climate... -- Roger Crew ``I kill Optimax...'' Usenet: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!crew Internet: crew@CS.Stanford.EDU
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (04/28/91)
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: }In article <4364.2816d635@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: }>The other is to get three-quarters of the state legislatures to }>petition Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, at which }>time Congress has no option but to call the convention. }It should be noted that this option is avoided like the plague, since }once a CC is convened it's open season on the Consitution and *anything* }can be changed. NONONONO. The Constitutional Convention **ONLY** replaces the "Congress" part of the amendment process. You _still_ need to get 3/4ths of the states to approve. There is a real myth floating around that a CC really can just rewrite the Constitution, but that is *not* the case. /Bernie\
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (04/29/91)
It's a little idiotic to expect that "the people" will be the ones represented at a Constitutional Convention, don't you think? When fewer than half even turn out to vote at a presidential election, what makes you think more would attend a CC (particularly if it meant missing work and getting paid)? And why would the elites permit this participation, if the stakes were so high? Pollyanna, my friend. Bob --
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >I wish you would recall that it is supposed to be 'we the people' who >do the governing, make the laws and decide how things are done ... why >aren't we allowed to do it any longer? Well actually, "we" never were. But my main fear is simply that the majority of us are far too uneducated and short-sighted. That's an incredibly elitist view of course, and I'm torn. I'd like to see a real democracy, but I don't think that democracy without education can work. But maybe I'm wrong. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) (04/29/91)
ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: | (Kee Hinckley) writes: | > herrickd@iccgcc. writes | >> The other is to get three-quarters of the state legislatures to | >> petition Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, at which | >> time Congress has no option but to call the convention. | > It should be noted that this option is avoided like the plague, since | > once a CC is convened it's open season on the Constitution and *anything* | > can be changed. | No, it should *really* be noted that this option is only avoided like | the plague by lawyers, ACLU-types, and other stupid liberals who want | to save us from ourselves ... ...and by those Conservatives who don't want new liberties (ERA, Privacy) added... | Good heavens! The idea of the unwashed masses of the American public | having any actual say-so in how they are governed? I think a CC would | | I wish you would recall that it is supposed to be 'we the people' who | do the governing, make the laws and decide how things are done ... why | aren't we allowed to do it any longer? It seems Pat would have us forget the Founding Fathers' well-documented fears on this very subject....something about a "tyranny of the majority"... XREF: Electoral College, Bicameral Legislature. Mark Brown IBM PSP Austin, TX. (512) 823-3741 VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com OR uunet!testsys.austin.ibm.com!mbrown Which came first: The Chicken or the Legba? DISCLAIMER: Any personal opinions stated here are just that.
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (04/29/91)
ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >I wish you would recall that it is supposed to be 'we the people' who >do the governing, make the laws and decide how things are done ... why >aren't we allowed to do it any longer? We, the people, might end up with a flag burning amendment, because most of us believe it should be a crime, but that silly first amendment gets in the way. If you think the individual would get anything out of a consitutional convention/amendment right now, I believe you are sadly mistaken. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr28.225438.16387@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >It's a little idiotic to expect that "the people" will be the ones >represented at a Constitutional Convention, don't you think? When >fewer than half even turn out to vote at a presidential election, >what makes you think more would attend a CC (particularly if it >meant missing work and getting paid)? And why would the elites >permit this participation, if the stakes were so high? The reason so few people bother to vote these days is because they realize full well that their vote doesn't mean anything. Being allowed to vote in this country is purely a way to appease and humor the masses. Do you really think that there is any difference between one Demopublican and some other Republicrat? Demopublicans and Republicrats get on the ballot each time no questions asked. But let a Libertarian try to get on ... or a Socialist ... or any independent third party. *They* have to go through all sorts of gyrations just to get on the ballot, inclding a huge number of petitions to be signed which the 'regulars' always fuss over, trying to get them disqualified. The reason folks don't bother to vote is because their vote never has anything to do with how their lives turn out afterward. If they were to vote the full ticket in every election, they'd still wind up voting for less than 1% of the oppressive SOB's who regulate their lives everywhere they go. Millions of bureaucrats, accountable to no one ... it is rare when the people you *can* vote for have the authority to get the bureaucrats tamed, or better still, fired. The reason folks don't bother to vote is because on the whim of a judge somewhere, the election might not be held at all ... or if it is, the results voided and someone else appointed more suitable to the lawyers. Please don't say this cannot happen ... it has happened at least twice here in Chicago: Election time is approaching, and Candidate A is opposing Candidate B. The ACLU looks at both, dislikes both, and convinces a federal judge that if the political boundaries, or voting districts could be gerrymandered around a little, the results could be tipped in a different way, but the gerrymandering itself takes time and can't get done before the election ... viola! the judge kills the election. People get tired of that sort of thing. They get tired of working hard in their neighborhood canvassing the voters, getting the required signatures to put their person on the ballot and then having the 'regulars' get scared of potential defeat and get the new guy off the ballot. They don't address his/her ability. They don't address his/her beliefs or actions. What they *do* address -- and are bold enough to admit -- is that the presence of the third person will 'split the vote' and make it harder for their crony to win ... How do you think about half the black population in Chicago felt last year when a black independent candidate for mayor was summarily tossed off the ballot by a black 'machine' (i.e. part of the white Democratic party here) judge who ruled his credentials were out of order? The Democrats would never have dared to get a white judge to rule in that way, so they found a black judge who was beholden to the white guys for having given him his job. And this year, when only 40 percent of the *registered* voters (in effect about ten percent of the total population) in Chicago bothered to vote, Lois Wille, the lilly-white liberal lady who runs the editorial page at the {Chicago Tribune} couldn't understand why no one voted ... I haven't voted in an election -- federal, state, municipal, school board, whatever -- for almost 30 years. I voted in one election; being the one primarily held for President Johnson in 1964, but it included a bunch of local politicos as I recall ... I've never bothered since. *If* there were a CC, provided the hotshots would let it happen without a lot of harassment of the attendees, you are damn right I would attend, as would large numbers of people who really care, but refuse to play along with the establishment. A CC would create some major changes in this country; the kind of changes we've needed for about a century now. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
jah@margo.ots.utexas.edu (Jeff Hayward) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > [...] >No, it should *really* be noted that this option is only avoided like >the plague by lawyers, ACLU-types, and other stupid liberals who want >to save us from ourselves ... No, it's opposed only by those who impose the requirement that the delegates be of the same high quality as those in the last convention, a condition that can be qualitatively judged not likely to be met in today's (and possibly no future day's) climate. Tell me, Patrick, where you would find such statesmen as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin today. There seems to be no one among the politically powerful today who is interested in liberty as a social goal. The original convention met under circumstances and conditions that were unique. That we obtained the constitution we did, and the body of statute and common law that has flowed from it, was the result of a series of monumentally serendipitous events. Many of us would not like to roll the dice and see what we would get another time. -- Jeff Hayward The University of Texas System +1 512 471 2444 Office of Telecommunication Services jeff@nic.the.net
cwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr29.001738.1233@alphalpha.com>, nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: > In article <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > >I wish you would recall that it is supposed to be 'we the people' who > >do the governing, make the laws and decide how things are done ... why > >aren't we allowed to do it any longer? > > Well actually, "we" never were. But my main fear is simply that the > majority of us are far too uneducated and short-sighted. That's an > incredibly elitist view of course, and I'm torn. I'd like to see > a real democracy, but I don't think that democracy without education > can work. But maybe I'm wrong. > > -- > Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix > nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere > 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com > > I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept > responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate > everyone else's. I agree with all I see written here but still detect somthing like a defeatist or creative funk... I'd like to see a true "Electoral College" where every pol running for office would have to prepare for 2-4 years a curricula that would be designed to model their complete "agenda". The competeing curicula would be made available for study and debate at all levels of society, from GED style presentations to advanced computer modeling studies bid out to competitive universities, with PD modeleing algorithms and PC demos for "the rest of us" to fool around with to get some ideas.. The curricula would have to be standardized only to the degree that percentages of effort were forced to be applied to social. political, security, economic, environment, international relations, resource issues, and forward looking studies. This would effectively cause bussiness to deal with 10 year planning because they'd have to get their fingers into the deal. ( At least 2-4 year planning vs 2-4 month ) After the "electoral college" term is over it would be up to the participating educated citizenry to "graduate" the paradigm/model/agenda that they truly understood the best and felt most comfortable with by casting their vote. What could be simpler? What we have that don't work! Why do we live with ad-hoc policy and pinnochio politicians? Because we have devised little to hold the accountable. Is this understandable or do I need to write a book? I asked that about the above, cause what I'll end with isn't that well presented for sure! I see our institutions as like the zoo trams, with the exception that there is no "govenor" on the engine of the government tram to prevent the tram driver ( pol ) from drag racing with the tram. And killing, maiming and terrifying all the people at the zoo... Clyde
ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr29.001738.1233@alphalpha.com>, nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: > In article <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu. edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > >I wish you would recall that it is supposed to be 'we the people' who > >do the governing, make the laws and decide how things are done ... why > >aren't we allowed to do it any longer? > But my main fear is simply that the majority of us are far too > uneducated and short-sighted. Screw you. > That's an incredibly elitist view of course, You're damn right it is. > and I'm torn. Very interesting that you have some conflicts on this. > I'd like to see a real democracy, but I don't think that democracy > without education can work. But maybe I'm wrong. Well, then I guess we'll just have to keep on having lawyers and politicians around to save us from our incredibly ignorant, uneducated and short-sighted selves. I don't think democracy and education have anything to do with each other at all ... although admittedly I prefer being around educated people, preferably people a lot smarter than myself. The great comedian of much earlier in the twentieth century, (perhaps you have heard of him?) W. C. Fields once commented on this very thing. He was talking about the kind of girl friends he liked, and his response was, 'the dumber they are, the better I like them' :) ... ... and I suspect most charlatans would feel the same way about society in general. But whatever -- not everyone can be as well-educated as yourself, sorry.
rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rogue Winter) (05/01/91)
ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > >> The other is to get three-quarters of the state legislatures to > >> petition Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, at which > >> time Congress has no option but to call the convention. > > > It should be noted that this option is avoided like the plague, since > > once a CC is convened it's open season on the Constitution and *anything* > > can be changed. > > No, it should *really* be noted that this option is only avoided like > the plague by lawyers, ACLU-types, and other stupid liberals who want > to save us from ourselves ... > > Good heavens! The idea of the unwashed masses of the American public > having any actual say-so in how they are governed? I think a CC would > be a great idea, with real people -- not politicians, not lawyers, not > Alan Dershowitz, not ACLU'ers -- actually deciding their fate for a > change. Understandably, a couple of law school professors might grow > nauseous and faint if it happened ... This option is avoided for damn good reason. Your second paragraph alludes that you must have some knowledge of who would run a Constitutional Convention - the Congress, with no other members. The first Constitution was barely any different - written by the Revolutionary era Congress - except that there were few huge concentrations of extragovernmental power in 1789, and there were enough people who realised the needs to guarantee civil rights (for white men only at the time) from succeeeding elected governments. The prospect of a Constitutional Congress without the current House and Senate is indeed a tempting one, but isn't likely to happen without a civil war first. Rogue Winter | "The truth knocks on the door and you say, rogue@cellar.uucp | "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so uunet!cellar!rogue | it goes away. Puzzling." Cellar 215/3369503 | -Robert Pirsig (quoted in Zen_To_Go, Jon Winokur)
rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rogue Winter) (05/01/91)
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: > > }In article <4364.2816d635@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.co > }>The other is to get three-quarters of the state legislatures to > }>petition Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, at which > }>time Congress has no option but to call the convention. > }It should be noted that this option is avoided like the plague, since > }once a CC is convened it's open season on the Consitution and *anything* > }can be changed. > > NONONONO. The Constitutional Convention **ONLY** replaces the "Congress" > part of the amendment process. You _still_ need to get 3/4ths of the states > to approve. There is a real myth floating around that a CC really can just > rewrite the Constitution, but that is *not* the case. > > /Bernie\ But ratification is not done on state-by-state polling of the voters, it's done by the state legislatures. And coming from Pennsylvania, I know how state legislatures can be even more dangerous, incompetent, and corrupt, if not more all-out-stupid-and-don't-give-half-a-fuck, than the federal Congress. Could be worse though, I might work for WordPerfect, and have to live in Utah. Rogue Winter | "The truth knocks on the door and you say, rogue@cellar.uucp | "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so uunet!cellar!rogue | it goes away. Puzzling." Cellar 215/3369503 | -Robert Pirsig (quoted in Zen_To_Go, Jon Winokur)
arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) (05/01/91)
In article <GUEST.91Apr27141103@geech.ai.mit.edu> guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) writes: >Human nature being what it is, people will not stop speeding they will >simply speed and then stop at the last possible rest area and wait it >out. ... Not to mention, what happens when the police chief or the mayor gets caught at breaking the speed laws? It's a bit harder to let them slip by on a computerized speed system than on a policemen-giving-tickets system, unless the computer system is specifically programmed to not count them, which if the public ever finds out, would cause quite a stink.... -- "If God can do anything, can he float a loan even he can't repay?" --Blair Houghton, cross-posting Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm; INTERNET: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu)
learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr26.014049.7403@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Sameer Parekh writes: > Could you please summarize your pumpkin reference for us ignorami? > Thanks. Stated quite briefly there was a sensational spy case in the early 1950's involving a gentleman by name of Alger Hiss. Documents were left in a pumpkin in a field which was used as a mailbox between supplier of info and the paying agency. Given the similarity in the repositorial use of the pumpkin in question and ripco (as example instant) I think the translation into modern understandings regarding criminal misuse rather appropriate. This theme could be very nicely expanded into parallel set of circumstances depicting the criminality of the ripco bbs just as surely as the pumpkin. How far are we from a true zero tolerance ? They don't seize an offending glove compartment or trunk, they seize an entire automobile, boat, or airplane. When will they stop simply seizing the computer(s) and begin to take the house it is in ? If a link could have been made, even by stretching the known truth (presumptions are, according to some published statements by prosecutors, on the side of Law Enforcement) would the FBI today have sought a seizure warrant against the entire farm in the earlier case ? Thanks for the question. It isn't a question of 'ignorami' but more likely one of longevity. I don't know how many are active in this forum who can actually recall the case of the 'pumpkin papers' while it was receiving serious attention daily in the press. For those of us who can, it is a compelling parallel, given the importance the case had in its own timeframe. If there's an interest, I'll research the N. Y. Times Index and post appropriate reference dates and pages here. Bill Vajk
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (05/01/91)
So what are you going to do about it? Bob J. --
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (05/02/91)
In article <1991Apr29.234221.15210@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >asked. But let a Libertarian try to get on ... or a Socialist ... or any >independent third party. *They* have to go through all sorts of gyrations >just to get on the ballot, inclding a huge number of petitions to be >signed which the 'regulars' always fuss over, trying to get them >disqualified. I'm still waiting for the Boston newspapers to tell me how many votes my candidates got in the last election. D/R candidates were published within days. The rest they release 4 or 5 months later, by which time noone bothers to publish them. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) (05/03/91)
In article <63910@bbn.BBN.COM>, cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes... > >Ah, but look how wonderful things will be when computers enter the >scene. If you get one of those "who I am" readouts [that they're >pushing for use at least in NYC to replace the tollbooths on the GW >Bridge], then you wouldn't need to take a ticket at all: you roll >through the entrance booth and they can read out not only who you are >and which entrance you came through, but *when*. Then when you exit, >they can automatically tote up your toll, and even include the fine for >the speeding violation, as appropriate [and 'synchronization' wouldn't >be an issue, since all of the timings would have been done relative to >the system clock on the machine coordinating all of this]. Won't that >be nice? :-) > >[NB. They can do that anyway, just by using your car ID # [which is >right where the toll-taker can see it, although that is a LOT of crap >to copy down as you go through], but entering your plate number as you >drive away is probably workable.] > > /Bernie\ Ah, but with Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) they don't have to hire as many toll booth workers and you don't have to stop. It's also possible to base billing on vehicle weight and pollution (e.g. CO emission) levels, as well. It's convenient, too. You get a road bill at the end of the month, like a phone bill now. But I really hate the privacy invasion involved in both. John G.Otto jgo@fsu.bitnet jgo@rai.cc.fsu.edu fsu1::otto
otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) (05/03/91)
In article <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu>, ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes... > >I wish you would recall that it is supposed to be 'we the people' who >do the governing, make the laws and decide how things are done ... why >aren't we allowed to do it any longer? There's one place left. In the jury box, you can acquit no matter what the judge may desire...John G. Otto jgo@fsu.bitnet jgo@rai.cc.fsu.edu
otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) (05/03/91)
In article <1991Apr29.001738.1233@alphalpha.com>, nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes... >In article <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >>I wish you would recall that it is supposed to be 'we the people' who >>do the governing, make the laws and decide how things are done ... why >>aren't we allowed to do it any longer? > >Well actually, "we" never were. But my main fear is simply that the >majority of us are far too uneducated and short-sighted. That's an >incredibly elitist view of course, and I'm torn. I'd like to see >a real democracy, but I don't think that democracy without education >can work. But maybe I'm wrong. So, let's start educating. I'm game. >-- >Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix >nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere >617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com > >I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept >responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate >everyone else's. I would like the sig quote better if I hadn't started running into more and more people with imagined responsibilities and implicit agreements which never were... John G. Otto jgo@fsu.bitnet jgo@rai.cc.fsu.edu
ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May2.202641.3154@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes: >In article <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu>, ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes... >>I wish you would recall that it is supposed to be 'we the people' who >>do the governing, make the laws and decide how things are done ... why >>aren't we allowed to do it any longer? > >There's one place left. In the jury box, you can acquit no matter what >the judge may desire...John G. Otto jgo@fsu.bitnet jgo@rai.cc.fsu.edu Not true. The judge can overrule the jury, and/or dismiss the jury and declare a mis-trial, etc. Not long ag here, a jury was hung, 8-4 on the guilt or innocence of a defendant. The judge told the 4 who were holding out for a verdict of innocene to 'reconsider' their opinion. He did not tell the 8 who were hold out for a verdict of guilty that that they had to reconsider anything.
learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) (05/03/91)
In article <15210@chinet.chi.il.us> Patrick A. Townson writes: >I haven't voted in an election -- federal, state, municipal, school board, >whatever -- for almost 30 years. >*If* there were a CC, provided the hotshots would let it happen without a >lot of harassment of the attendees, you are damn right I would attend, as >would large numbers of people who really care, but refuse to play along >with the establishment. A CC would create some major changes in this ^^^^^ s/would/could/-----------------||||| >country; the kind of changes we've needed for about a century now. In idle anti-establishment supports, feeds, and nurtures the establishment through silence. What is the difference between a silent contented citizen and a silent discontent citizen ? Outwardly, and from the political viewpoint, nothing at all. By default, all non-votes are counted as votes for the status quo. It was pointed out to me a number of years ago that folks have the right to not care about politics and the political process. But at the same time, folks who don't participate don't have carry much validity with me when it comes time to complain. The political process in this country isn't limited to election times even for the 'average citizen' (whatever that means.) Every time each of us remains inactive when we KNOW we should participate, we have once more failed to have our vote counted. And in this I include all those times folks don't make a phone call to the mayor's office, or to their representative at whatever level of government happens to demand our attention at the moment. I include all those times each one didn't send a letter to the editor of your fave-rave publication in response to some issue they just wrote about. The political process is broad based enough that all the opinion forming/gathering media are included. Usenet has not yet achieved such status, though based on the increasing recognition in the mainstream media (see NOVA, _ConFusion In A Jar_) we are going to rapidly achieve that importance. If I sent a copy of your article to Washington, do you think the government is going to send out a team to beg you for your opinions ? Hardly. Seems they only concern themselves with two classes of folks. The ones who can and will do something about matters of concern to them, and those who through disability are unable to. The rest ? Seems they actively disenfranchise themselves. After all, the politician's aim is to please, no ? :-) Bill Vajk
eck@panix.uucp (Mark Eckenwiler) (05/04/91)
In article <1991May3.043935.25738@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > >In article <1991May2.202641.3154@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> >otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes: >> >>There's one place left. In the jury box, you can acquit no matter what >>the judge may desire...John G. Otto jgo@fsu.bitnet jgo@rai.cc.fsu.edu > > >Not true. The judge can overrule the jury, and/or dismiss the jury and >declare a mis-trial, etc. Not long ag here, a jury was hung, 8-4 on >the guilt or innocence of a defendant. The judge told the 4 who were >holding out for a verdict of innocene to 'reconsider' their opinion. >He did not tell the 8 who were hold out for a verdict of guilty that >that they had to reconsider anything. The judge CANNOT overrule a jury verdict of acquittal. Period. She CAN overrule a guilty verdict based on insufficient evidence. In addition, a judge may not urge only part of a hung jury to reconsider. In administering the so-called "Allen charge," the judge must not urge the adoption of one side or the other; anything else is automatic grounds for reversal in the event of conviction. -- Sold by weight, not by volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during shipment and handling. Mark Eckenwiler eck@panix.uucp ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) (05/05/91)
In article <1991May03.144614.13531@ddsw1.MCS.COM> learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) writes: > In idle anti-establishment supports, feeds, and nurtures the establishment > through silence. If anything is 'nurturing the establishment' I sure don't know what it is. Everywhere I look the establishment is falling apart at the seams. A totally rotted-out infrastructure; the highest rate of violent crime we have ever experienced, etc ... where is the nurturing being done? > By default, all non-votes are counted as votes for the status quo. This is not so, at least not any longer. If if were, the newspaper headlines the day after the election would have read "record high number of citizens contented with the status-quo". Instead the papers talked about the record-low turnout. There was only one thing wrong. They thought it was apathy ... but I suggest a large part of it was not apathy at all, but rather a refusal to go along. > It was pointed out to me a number of years ago that folks have the right > to not care about politics and the political process. But at the same > time, folks who don't participate don't have carry much validity with > me when it comes time to complain. You'll have to pardon me, but who are YOU that I should be concerned with validating what I say or think? Are you a government authority of some sort? Can you make things change? If so, tell me how to go about validating my complaints before you ... otherwise, I won't bother. > The political process in this country isn't limited to election times > even for the 'average citizen' (whatever that means.) Every time each > of us remains inactive when we KNOW we should participate, we have once > more failed to have our vote counted. And in this I include all those times > folks don't make a phone call to the mayor's office, Isn't this precious! You mean a call to 312-744-5000, the Office of the Mayor of the City of Chicago, where one gets to speak with a handful of admittedly highly-placed flunkies authorized to respond in the name of the Mayor? They (sometimes) listen politely for a minute or two, then hurry along to take other calls backed up waiting. Their main purpose is to act as a buffer for the calls coming in. They don't really do anything; they rarely make notes on the things people call to tell them on the phone. Or were you referring to 312-744-4000, the main switchboard number for the City of Chicago / City Hall / County Building? If you call there, the operators often times refuse to connect you with the person or department you requested; deciding instead to bounce you over to the 744-5000 number where someone listens to you, attempts to placate and humor you, then later ignores you. Lucky me: I have a copy of the internal phone directory for City Hall which I picked up on a visit there a few weeks ago. Yes, I go there frequently, to use the municipal reference library among other things. I had to threaten suit to be allowed to use that facility. Their first question used to be when you walked in the door was 'are you employed by the city or the county; if not, are you an attorney?' If not in one of those three categories, then you could not use the facility. Once I could point out to them in the municipal ordinances where the municipal reference library had been established and was open for use by the PUBLIC they decided to let me in. Now when I go in I get a look of pure hatred from the woman there; that suits me fine, I give her the same. So on one visit I copied the entire City Hall phone directory on the copy machine. I pretty much limit my calls to emergency matters with various departments. I call direct to the supervisor involved when I encounter certain problems in my daily walks around our fair city: open hydrant, pouring a thousand gallons of water an hour out into the street; street/sewer cave-ins, so they can at least set up a barricade if they don't intend to fix it right away; stop and go lights out of order affecting traffic through the intersection; and dead animal removal. ("What kind of animal is it, sir?" "It *appears* to be a squirrel.") When I witness a traffic accident of a serious nature in which one or more ambulances may be required, I use my handy-dandy Radio Shack handheld cellular phone to call the Fire Department paramedics on their direct number ... never through 911, or goddess forbid, the city hall switchboard number. > or to their > representative at whatever level of government happens to demand our > attention at the moment. har har har... > I include all those times each one didn't send a > letter to the editor of your fave-rave publication in response to some issue > they just wrote about. The political process is broad based enough that all > the opinion forming/gathering media are included. Usenet has not yet achieved > such status, though based on the increasing recognition in the mainstream > media (see NOVA, _ConFusion In A Jar_) we are going to rapidly achieve that > importance. I frequently write to publications of my choice and as often as not my essays are printed. I do not write 'letters to the editor'. I do send longer essay items in from time to time. Usually I write to the Lerner newspaper chain here in our neighborhood; also to the Sun-Times and occassionally to the Tribune. In the late sixties and early seventies, the Christian Science Monitor used to pay me for my articles, which they used on the Home Forum page a lot. They never paid me *much*, but it always kept me in beer and cigarette money. For a few years, I pretty much limited myself to talk-radio. The former host at KOA in Denver would always call me when certain 'key topics' were going to be discussed. As you may know, KOA is a powerhouse station; it comes in like gangbusters clear over here in Chicago most nights. And Larry King calls me now and then for the same reason: to stir up hate and discontent on the air when he knows I can do the job right. So I guess I make my voice heard, and express my displeasure from time to time -- I just don't play in the establishment game called 'First Tuesday after the First Monday in November'. In fact, I make a point of calling several talk-shows the night before the election to encourage people to not vote the next day. > If I sent a copy of your article to Washington, do you think the government > is going to send out a team to beg you for your opinions ? > Hardly. So what else is old? Do you think they plan to have a team of interviewers at *your* door anytime soon? The government seldom responds to the public until/unless there is so much hell-raising they have no choice in the matter; i.e. the jails won't hold everyone. Of course, we are getting to that point again. > Seems they only concern themselves with two classes of folks. The > ones who can and will do something about matters of concern to them, > and those who through disability are unable to. The rest ? Seems they > actively disenfranchise themselves. Voting in an election is *hardly* the way to 'do something about matters of concern' ... as stated earlier, the people who concern me are effectively insulated, either behind bullet proof glass or in the inner sanctums of the city hall. And to be disenfranchised by the government in this country is nothing to worry about. By ignoring them as much as possible, they ignore me. After all, if you don't register to vote (a privilege, we are told) then you don't have to worry about having your name on the jury-duty roster either. Since your vote doesn't matter, and depending on the judge your opinion as a juror doesn't either, I save lots of time and energy both ways. > After all, the politician's > aim is to please, no ? :-) No, the politician's aim is to fill up as much as possible at the pork barrel, getting as wealthy as possible before the voters put him out to pasture. I mean really -- is an alderperson in the city of Chicago worth forty or fifty thousand dollars a year? I work 40 + hours per week for honest employers. My feet and my eyes hurt when I come home. I still sit down and write essays for the papers and I still call up talk shows. I still do my volunteer work for the Chicago Public Library, where I have labored weekly reading to people who are unable to read for themselves for uh, eleven years now. I still produce my thrice-weekly half-hour radio program on Chicago history for the closed circuit radio service (Chicagoland Radio Information Service; i.e. CRIS) the library operates for visually handicapped people. My total income annually is about half what an alderman gets for slovering at the pork barrel for a couple hours every other week. Ah yes, but I should go and vote also -- do a little slovering myself for the Demopublicans of my choice, right? If its all the same to you, I'll just wait, and try to wait patiently, while the rest of the infrastructure falls apart here; until the publc schools finally close for good and crime has overtaken our city to the point that war exists in the streets (it almost is that way now on the west side, you know). Until that point, if someone wants to know why I don't vote in the elections I'll just point out it makes better sense to let a judge somewhere decide what to do. Once things really quit running totally and they want my help or the help of others like me who do give a damn but refuse to be treated like ignoramuses in need of good humor, I'll know about it and start pitching in.
peterc@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter Creath) (05/06/91)
Here's one that I think should be passed. Now, I think the current policy of
finding criminals not guilty due to violations of their privacy or some such
is just a matter of precedence, but if not, here's what I propose (in general,
non-lawyer terms):
Criminal Trial: Is the defendant innocent or guilty? If guilty, go on to
sentencing. Were the defendant's rights violated? If so,
the state files suit against the violator, with no impact
on the defendant's sentence.
Unfortunately, the side-effect of this is that police forces *MIGHT* just
break into people's houses and search without a warrant, but that could be
deterred by extremely harsh penalties for repeat offenders. That way, if
there was an honest mistake, they might get a slap on the wrist, but if it
was an intentional violation of rights, the person should be dismissed
immediately (if in police, SS, FBI, whatever) or some such penalty. Maybe
a $10,000 fine. Then dismissal. But you get the picture. I'd like to hear
feedback on this idea. Also, how about putting only people who have committed
VIOLENT crimes in jail. The rest get either fines or civil service or both...
How about some feedback on that idea...
--
peterc@taronga.hackercorp.com
peterc@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com (same thing...)herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (05/07/91)
In article <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu>, ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > In article <1991Apr26.141044.7544@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com > (Kee Hinckley) writes: > >> In article <4364.2816d635@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc. >> decnet.ab.com writes: > >>> The other is to get three-quarters of the state legislatures to >>> petition Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, at which >>> time Congress has no option but to call the convention. > >> It should be noted that this option is avoided like the plague, since >> once a CC is convened it's open season on the Constitution and *anything* >> can be changed. > > No, it should *really* be noted that this option is only avoided like > the plague by lawyers, ACLU-types, and other stupid liberals who want > to save us from ourselves ... > > Good heavens! The idea of the unwashed masses of the American public > having any actual say-so in how they are governed? I think a CC would > be a great idea, with real people -- not politicians, not lawyers, not > Alan Dershowitz, not ACLU'ers -- actually deciding their fate for a > change. Understandably, a couple of law school professors might grow > nauseous and faint if it happened ... > I am frightened by the prospect of such a convention. (Notice I started this discussion.) I really expect to see a sudden call by the last required state followed by an attempt to get the action through Congress fast followed by an attempt to fill the convention with friends (not my friends). My only protection in this action will be to get some people who are not easily bamboozled appointed as delegates to the convention and to persuade enough states to not ratify the output of the convention. It may be possible to keep the climate perceived as unfavorable. The largest indicator that there is an attempt afoot to replace our constitution with something very different comes in an event back about 1987. Why did a man with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, sitting as Chief Justice, resign when the sitting president could be counted on to appoint his ideological opposite. He said it was to chair an obscure committee meeting behind closed doors to plan a suitable way to commemorate the second centennial of the Constitution. His ideology was important to him. It is very likely that he believed when he resigned that he could promote this ideology more effectively in the new post than as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If there is any truth in this line of deduction, I want him thwarted. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (05/07/91)
In article <1991May2.202641.3154@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) writes: > In article <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu>, ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes... >> >>I wish you would recall that it is supposed to be 'we the people' who >>do the governing, make the laws and decide how things are done ... why >>aren't we allowed to do it any longer? > > There's one place left. In the jury box, you can acquit no matter what > the judge may desire...John G. Otto jgo@fsu.bitnet jgo@rai.cc.fsu.edu Even better, if you can get appointed to a grand jury, you can subpoena some of those civil servants and make them explain their malfeasance under oath. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
lee@wang.com (Lee Story) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May1.020435.21456@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: In article <1991Apr29.001738.1233@alphalpha.com>, nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: > In article <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu. edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > >I wish you would recall that it is supposed to be 'we the people' who > >do the governing, make the laws and decide how things are done ... why > >aren't we allowed to do it any longer? > But my main fear is simply that the majority of us are far too > uneducated and short-sighted. Screw you. Although I applaud the freedom (long lost in other "broadcast media") to use good ol' Anglo Saxon when appropriate without some bureaucrat crawling up our asses waving regulations, I would think that Patrick Townson, who has considerable experience at presenting his opinions to a wide audience, would have the sense to know that peremptory rudeness will not advance his arguments. Gadflies are always valuable, but recently there seem to be weak Morton Downey imitations springing up everywhere. Why is it, Patrick, that you deride the "Republicrats" who offer little substantive political choice, and then jump on the ACLU, who (despite undeniable errors of judgment, though not as crass as yours) do as much as anyone to encourage democratic choice, including making it easier for those Socialists and Libertarians you mention to get on the ballot? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc. (Boston and New Hampshire AMC, and Merrimack Valley Paddlers) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) (05/07/91)
In article <LEE.91May6151818@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes: > >In article <1991May1.020435.21456@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > > But my main fear is simply that the majority of us are far too > > uneducated and short-sighted. > > Screw you. > Although I applaud the freedom (long lost in other "broadcast media") to > use good ol' Anglo Saxon when appropriate without some bureaucrat crawling > up our asses waving regulations, I would think that Patrick Townson, who has > considerable experience at presenting his opinions to a wide audience, would > have the sense to know that peremptory rudeness will not advance his > arguments. Hey, personally I thought that comment about us all being too ignorant and uneducated to attend to our own needs and look out for our own welfare to be pretty rude myself. > Why is it, Patrick, > that you deride the "Republicrats" who offer little substantive > political choice, and then jump on the ACLU, who (despite undeniable > errors of judgment, though not as crass as yours) do as much as anyone > to encourage democratic choice, including making it easier for those > Socialists and Libertarians you mention to get on the ballot? The ACLU does *not* encourage democratic choice. If they did, why would they be running to the courts all the time instead of to the legislature when they wanted something changed or corrected? They encourage rule by judicial fiat, preferably by the judges they like. In fact, if the judges they like were not available, then they probably would in some cases go try the legislature instead. But why bother with working to get people to vote your way when all you need is a judge to rule? And the ACLU is *not* a friend of most libertarians or Libertarians! Please note the lower case /l/ and the upper case /L/, the distinction being people who subscribe in general to the philosophy (like me) versus members of the Libertarian Party (I am not a member). They have done little or nothing to help Party members get on the ballot in various states, except maybe go 'tsk, tsk' on demand and spout off about freedom of choice. Patrick
les@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) (05/07/91)
Patrick A. Townson writes: . . . >The ACLU does *not* encourage democratic choice. If they did, why >would they be running to the courts all the time instead of to the >legislature when they wanted something changed or corrected? Mr. Townson obviously does not know much about ACLU programs -- they expend a major portion of their effort on legislative liason and lobbying. . . . >And the ACLU is *not* a friend of most libertarians or Libertarians! >Please note the lower case /l/ and the upper case /L/, the distinction >being people who subscribe in general to the philosophy (like me) >versus members of the Libertarian Party (I am not a member). They have >done little or nothing to help Party members get on the ballot in >various states, except maybe go 'tsk, tsk' on demand and spout off >about freedom of choice. Poor baby! Did you think that ACLU, which is not a political organization, was obligated to support the upstart Libertarian party just because they chose to name themselves similary? -- Les Earnest Phone: 415 941-3984 Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu USMail: 12769 Dianne Dr. UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
jimbo@tandem.com (Jim Lyon) (05/08/91)
In article <G0X3UUL@taronga.hackercorp.com> peterc@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter Creath)
proposes changing the law relating to misconduct on the part of the police or
prosecution so that a defendent can be convicted in spite of misconduct, and
that the misconduct be treated as an entirely separate case.
This, generally, was the law in the country prior to about 1960. Somehow,
prosecutors were always too busy with other cases to bother prosecuting
the police for misconduct [not to mention bringing cases against other
prosecutors]. Essentially, the system did not work.
The present rule, in which the fruits of illegal searches or coerced
confessions are disallowed, was formulated exactly to stop those illegal
searches from happening in the first place. It seems to have been
moderately successful [at least prior to the current supreme court].
-- Jim Lyon, jimbo@Tandem.Com "... where the work is NonStop,
and we do everything twice."learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May5.021202.19465@eecs.nwu.edu> Patrick A. Townson writes: >In article <1991May03.144614.13531@ddsw1.MCS.COM> William Vajk writes: >> It was pointed out to me a number of years ago that folks have the right >> to not care about politics and the political process. But at the same >> time, folks who don't participate don't have carry much validity with >> me when it comes time to complain. >You'll have to pardon me, but who are YOU that I should be concerned >with validating what I say or think? Are you a government authority of >some sort? Can you make things change? If so, tell me how to go about >validating my complaints before you ... otherwise, I won't bother. Then why have you bothered, Patrick ? And so many lines of it too..... In doing so, you have validated either a position of superiority for me (not true) or a groveling posture seeking attention from the readers in this forum (true and successfully.) >Ah yes, but I should go and vote also -- do a little slovering myself >for the Demopublicans of my choice, right? Slovering ? Seems to me that's what many politicians do close to election time. But more importantly, whether you like them or not, they are in your employ. Someone(s) needs to supervise. And in that rather large population of elected public servants are some pretty wonderful folks. It is a popular view with some part of the public to paint them all with a wide black brush. On of my friends, a 1956 immigrant, more recently said he thinks that this country, with all its faults, ranks as number 1 of the best places to live. We both come from the same place. I beat his arrival by some 11 years. For him, and for me, accident of birth is not the determining factor in our choice to live here. I went to grammar school in a time and place where even the straight A report cards had a handwritten notation at the bottom, "There's always room for improvement." Bill Vajk
david.turrell@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (david turrell) (05/11/91)
> Original Message Date: 08 May 91 17:05:02 > From: Les Earnest > To: All >[...] > Poor baby! Did you think that ACLU, which is not a political > organization, was obligated to support the upstart >[...] EFF.Talk will need to move to the "alt" hierarchy if this keeps up. -David -- david turrell - via FidoNet node 1:125/777 UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!111!david.turrell INTERNET: david.turrell@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG
jfraser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jane Fraser) (05/24/91)
Tom Jennings writes: >Quoting John Otto's message of 03 May: > >There's one place left. In the jury box, you can acquit no matter what >True, but the trend is to avoid it. I think there is one state in the US that >requires the court to inform the jury of this. Some actively discourage it. >There is a group called "Fully Informed Jury Assoc." pushing this very fact, From the May 1991 issue of The Buckeye Libertarian: ``FIJA means Fully Informed Jury Amendment, Act, or Association. ``FIJA would require by state law that judges resume telling jurors about their right to vote their consciences when deciding on a verdict. Jurors would have to be told they have the right to acquit someone because they believe that the law itself is wrong, or is being wrongly applied, even when the facts of the case would support a conviction. ``For more information write to: FIJA National PO Box 59 Helmville, MT 59843-9989" Jane Fraser
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (05/30/91)
In article <14357.2829E99B@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG>, Tom.Jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Jennings) writes: > Quoting John Otto's message of 03 May: > > re: "we the people ..." thread > > >There's one place left. In the jury box, you can acquit no matter what > >the judge may desire...John G. Otto jgo@fsu.bitnet jgo@rai.cc.fsu.edu > > True, but the trend is to avoid it. I think there is one state in the US that > requires the court to inform the jury of this. Some actively discourage it. > > There is a group called "Fully Informed Jury Assoc." pushing this very fact, > that it is one of the, if not the most, important check/balance in the Western > legal system. No matter what the evil monsters write for law, if it's unfair, > a jury can override it. > > I don't have contact info on them -- someone here must? (I can if I have to, > lemme know). > Red Benson, the guy who wrote The Law That Never Was about the 16th amendment, has been working to inform people about the responsibilities of jurors, especially with respect to IRS cases. He points out that the Grand Jury is an even more important check than the Petit Jury because, after it is empanelled, the Grand Jury can subpoena public officials and call them to account with respect to their oath of office. He declares that it is the duty of a concerned citizen to lie during the jury empanelling process so that you don't get challenged and kicked out before the jury decides something. The filters are designed to eliminate people who understand the sovereignty of the jury so that the jury can be manipulated by the members of the legal establishment. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com