dirish@solitude.math.utah.edu (Dudley Irish) (03/26/91)
In Federal Government Information Technology: Electronic Surveillance and Civil Liberties (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-CIT-293, October 1985) there is the following comment on a Supreme Court Ruling (Page 25): United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) -- Court ruled that a bank customer's financial record is the property of the bank, and thus he or she has no legitimate "expectation of privacy" in these records. I believe that this ruling is mainly concerned with expectation of privacy as related to search and seizure by the government, but for those of you who thought that your financial record was your property it is food for thought. -- Dudley Irish / dirish@math.utah.edu Manager Computer Operations Center for Scientific Computing Department of Mathematics University of Utah
new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) (03/27/91)
In article <DIRISH.91Mar26095728@solitude.math.utah.edu> dirish@solitude.math.utah.edu (Dudley Irish) writes: >I believe that this ruling is mainly concerned with expectation of >privacy as related to search and seizure by the government, but for >those of you who thought that your financial record was your property >it is food for thought. This exemplifies one of the things I see as a problem in our legal system. Precident becomes law, and bad precident set for expediency or pragamatism of the moment is very difficult to overturn. The example of the farmer who fed his own family with his own wheat grown outside the door being in violation of federal interstate commerce-based laws is another example. Income tax (originally started to support a war) is another example. Paper money (also to support a war) and thus arbitrary inflation is another example. At least the war-on-non-commercial-drugs has a built in time-limit; I wonder if it will do any good. -- Darren -- --- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware --- ----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas ----- +=+=+ My time is very valuable, but unfortunately only to me +=+=+
ian@airs.UUCP (Ian Lance Taylor) (03/27/91)
In article <48916@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: > >This exemplifies one of the things I see as a problem in our legal >system. Precident becomes law, and bad precident set for expediency or >pragamatism of the moment is very difficult to overturn. > [...] >Income tax (originally started to support a war) is >another example. Income tax in the U.S. was started by the sixteenth amendment in 1913. I don't *think* it was started to support a war, inasmuch as the U.S. was not in a war at the time, but I could be wrong. In any case, it is not an example of legal precedent becoming law. I don't know enough about your other examples, but this seems to be an instance of ``tough cases make bad law'' (that was probably a misquote). It is possible to overturn precedent. What is very difficult to overturn is laws created by congress. How would you propose changing the current system? -- Ian Taylor airs!ian@uunet.uu.net uunet!airs!ian First person to identify this quote wins a free e-mail message: ``Consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but inconsistency does tend to bring one to the attention of the police computers.''
karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu (03/27/91)
ian@airs.uucp writes:
It is possible to overturn precedent. What is very difficult to
overturn is laws created by congress. How would you propose changing
the current system?
Revolution comes to mind.
--
This transition of the basis of law from principle to will has the effect
of analytically separating law from morality; there is the dissolution of
any guarantee that fidelity to law necessarily will mean equal fidelity
to principles of moral conduct. --Sanford Levinson, UTexas School of Lawnew@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) (03/28/91)
In article <1234@airs.UUCP> airs!ian@uunet.uu.net (Ian Lance Taylor) writes: >In article <48916@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >>Income tax (originally started to support a war) is >>another example. >Income tax in the U.S. was started by the sixteenth amendment in 1913. I'm fairly sure that state income tax was started during the civil war. Federal income tax was created, the SC declared it unconstitutional, and then the ammendment was passed. I guess this was really is an instance of >``tough cases make bad law'' (that was probably a misquote). >It is possible to overturn precedent. What is very difficult to >overturn is laws created by congress. That too. >How would you propose changing >the current system? Unfortunately, I can't think of anything better. At least, not for human beings. -- Darren -- --- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware --- ----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, FDTs ----- +=+=+ My time is very valuable, but unfortunately only to me +=+=+ + When you drive screws with a hammer, screwdrivers are unnecessary +
learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (03/28/91)
In article <5744@oar.net> karl kleinpaste writes: >ian@airs.uucp writes: > It is possible to overturn precedent. What is very difficult to > overturn is laws created by congress. How would you propose changing > the current system? >Revolution comes to mind. What most often doesn't come to mind is bloodless revolution. Several highly successful ones dot history with lessons too soon forgotten. >This transition of the basis of law from principle to will has the effect >of analytically separating law from morality; there is the dissolution of >any guarantee that fidelity to law necessarily will mean equal fidelity >to principles of moral conduct. --Sanford Levinson, UTexas School of Law I am not so sure this Levinsonianism is applicable to the subject circumstances if one attaches a time forward sequence to events present and future. Many of the discussions one presently reads cannot determine whether the present basis of some laws (the laws of particular concern to the electronis frontier) lies in sentient principles, or in the will of several special interests. There is one concensus. Ultimately the basis for the laws we're discussing will be principle. It is the common will :-) Bill Vajk