jp@tygra.UUCP (John Palmer) (04/09/91)
In article <63600@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: :mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes: : :}In article <63565@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: : :}Yes. The price of privacy is that it makes it harder for the police :}to do their job. We must be aware of this at the outset. It is always :}more convenient and more efficient for the police not to be limited :}in what they can know about you. : :}But that's not the society I want to live in. : :But that just begs the question. To first order, it *is* the society :we are living in, and whereas the laws are all nicely written down, the :bounds of privacy are, for the most part, not. Your statement reduces to :"the police shouldn't be allowed to enforce this law because to do :so requires that they violate <X>s privacy" [or, if you prefer, replace :"shouldn't be allowed to enforce" with "will have an extremely :difficult time enforcing".] : Actually, the problem is that some of the laws are poorly written and allow too much lattitude to the police and prosecutors. RICO is one example: Its being used for things it was not intended to "get" some people with whom the government has a beef. Solution: Look at the law books and lobby for 1> The removal of outdated laws, 2> Fine-tuning laws that we need, but that the police/state have abused. They key is that we the people have our own fate in our hands. If the govt. is abusing us, its because we allow it. Most people couldn't give a care what happens in Lansing or Washington as long as the govt. pretty much leaves them alone, lets them have their 2.4 bedroom house, 2.2 cars and 2.3 children, etc. People in this country are lazy and selfish when it comes to doing their duty to govern themselves. All citizens in a democracy have a DUTY to participate in their government. There are two kinds of democracies: direct and republican. In a direct democracy, the people make every little decision and completly control their government. In a republican form of govt, people elect others to make those day to day, specific decisions about the nuts and bolts of how the govt. works. We have the latter, but can make it a little more like the former, if we get off our ass and do something. The problem is, people are too lazy to do so. As far legislative changes, I'd like to see: 1> A constitutional amendment allowing federal laws to be made or repealed by direct vote, like many states have now. You get enough signatures on a petition and the issue goes on the ballot. 2> A privacy amendment, setting out certain principles and rights in this area, including an order for congress to pass any neccessary laws to protect this level of privacy both from invasions by the govt. and by one person(s) against another person(s) [This includes corporations]. 3> An amendment to enhance property rights and prevent things like the recent "punishment w/o a trial" that the govt. doles out by snatching assets in raids and holding them indefinitly. A set of rights to a "speedy trial" and "free counsel if you cannot afford it" should be extended to people when it comes to the govt. seizing assets. Of course, these probably won't make it into the constitution as people are too lazy to do anything about it. :The question will arise, and it will KEEP intensifying [and so the :constant pressure against privacy I mentioned}, as to exactly what sort :of societal chaos we are willing to pay in exchange for the :preservation of which little bits of privacy. Images of "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither..." - a paraphrase from a founding father, I beleive. WE (the people) will have to make that decision, or it will be made for us in ways that we might not like. Thats what's happening now. The only thing that people seem to react to today is the fear of "criminals" that the govt. constantly beats into our heads. They are trying to get us to hand over our rights by telling us that something bad will happen if we don't. Sounds like extortion to me.... :Well, let's replace taht with 'privacy' instead of a "county line": you :have people experiencing *real* harm. *real* laws [laws we would both :agree are valid, useful and necessary] being pursued at less of a rate :than they could be, just because we require the police to honor some :almost-arbitrary line-in-the-sand, drawn mostly by philosophers and :"privacy sissies". What level of real, tangible, here and now, :societal harm will we tolerate in the name of avoiding "just a little :bending" of some presumed "right" that isn't graven in stone ANYWAY. : : There is always a balance that has to be struck. The real question is: Who is deciding where it is? The people should be, but they (on the average) are derelict in their duty in this matter, so others are deciding this for them. :not the metric: the debate over 'cracking' should make clear that we :share VASTLY different notions of what we, personally, would have be :legal and what not-so-legal if we were made dictator tomorrow. Of :course I have a metric, and it is a real simple one: the laws that I :find a pain in the ass to comply with or think are stupid or worse are :ones I'd just as soon NOT have so that I'm not at risk when I indulge :myself; by contrast, to first order the laws that prevent OTHER People :from doing nasty thing to me [where 'nasty' is relative to my personal :ethic] are laws that I'd make MORE severe. : What I'd do is re-examine the purpose behind every law. Why was it passed? What were the social conditions at the time? Many laws are rushed through as a political manuever during a time of crisis: ie: when some new kind of fraud is being perpetrated, etc and the legislature reacts quickly to quell the public fear. Such laws (and there are many of them), are usually poorly written and are overbroad and ambiguous. Other laws are written to protect powerful people, namely govt. offcials. "Immunity from suit" laws which protect prosecutors, local govt's and even the Feds from lawsuit are some examples. These kinds of laws can really be evil as it puts a class of people above the law and gives them the ability to perpetrate what would, for the ordinary Joe, be heinous crimes. The point is, that we (the people) can change all of this stuff. As Justice Souter was saying in his Senate hearings, people often times turn to the courts to solve all of their problems, when they really ought to be handling things themselves by forcing their reps. to pass the appropriate legislation. The problem is not only an oppressive govt, but a people who don't give a damn. We in this group are a minority. We've decided that "I'd rather die than think" is a serious threat to our well-being. Unfortunatly, most people in this country don't hold this view. John Palmer -- CAT-TALK Conferencing System | "Buster Bunny is an abused | E-MAIL: +1 313 343 0800 (USR HST) | child. Trust me - I'm a | jp@tygra.UUCP +1 313 343 2925 (TELEBIT PEP) | professional..." | ..sharkey!tygra! ********EIGHT NODES*********** | -- Roger Rabbit | ..jp