wcs) (11/24/90)
In article <5039@rsiatl.UUCP>, jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: > Of course, in real life it does not work that way. You are NOT required > to blow the box. You establish a presumption of being drunk by doing > so but you are NOT forced to blow. This could indeed be considered > "guilty until proven innocent." The way you avoid this trap, of course, > is to not drink and drive. Then you have no exposure to this trap. Wrong on both counts! The only way to have no exposure is to have cops not want to harass you - you not only have to drive safely and soberly, you have to avoid towns with gestapo cops or monthly ticket quotas, leave those Grateful Dead stickers off your car, and have short hair and the right color face. As Ed Meese said, "Innocent people aren't usually suspects." In New Jersey, California, Delaware, and probably most other states, you DO have to blow into the box, or you automatically risk losing your driver's license, whether you're drunk or cold sober - and they inform you of that when you get the license. Privacy laws are that way too - if the police decide, for whatever reason, that you might be violating the John DeArmond Memorial Privacy Act, then they can pull a Steve Jackson sting on you and trash your business whether you're guilty or innocent - even if you're presumed innocent, the legal costs of defending yourself can be staggering, especially when they've confiscated all you're records as evidence and your sources of income are gone. Now, if your proposed law applied only to *government* possession and use of data, that would be nice. But don't give them another handle on search and seizure of our papers, possessions, and property. If you trash the 4th Amendment, the pseudo-liberals will trash the 2nd, and you won't be able to defend yourself when they use your law on you. -- Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ Government is like an elephant on drugs: It's very confused, makes lots of noise, can't do anything well, stomps on anyone in its way, and it sure eats a lot.
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (11/25/90)
wcs@cbnewsh.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes: >In article <5039@rsiatl.UUCP>, jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: >> Of course, in real life it does not work that way. You are NOT required >> to blow the box. You establish a presumption of being drunk by doing >> so but you are NOT forced to blow. This could indeed be considered >> "guilty until proven innocent." The way you avoid this trap, of course, >> is to not drink and drive. Then you have no exposure to this trap. >Wrong on both counts! The only way to have no exposure is to have cops >not want to harass you - you not only have to drive safely and soberly, >you have to avoid towns with gestapo cops or monthly ticket quotas, >leave those Grateful Dead stickers off your car, and have short hair >and the right color face. As Ed Meese said, "Innocent people aren't >usually suspects." I'm not sure I understand the context-switch unless it is intended to be a tool of demagogery. Grateful Dead stickers have nothing to do with the issue of drunk driving and blowing the box. In NO state will you be forced to blow the box, give blood or take any other kind of drunk test. If you refuse however, you will probably lose your license. In other words, the process presumes you guilty unless and until you prove yourself innocent. As a side note, I have a "No 55" sticker on my rear window, drive a hotrod and break the speed limit by at least 20 mph on the interstate every chance I get. Yet I've only been stopped a couple of times in the last 10 years and only had one ticket written - which I beat in court. I wonder if my experience vs yours could be a matter of attitude. I play by the system's rules out on the road, refer to the cop with fake "yessirs" and "nosirs" and usually talk my way out of a ticket. And I've never been breathalzyed. I suspect that the only ones who bitch about blowing the box are those who are boarderline drunk and just flat don't like getting caught. >Privacy laws are that way too - if the police decide, for whatever reason, >that you might be violating the John DeArmond Memorial Privacy Act, >then they can pull a Steve Jackson sting on you and trash your business >whether you're guilty or innocent - even if you're presumed innocent, >the legal costs of defending yourself can be staggering, especially >when they've confiscated all you're records as evidence and your >sources of income are gone. Except, of course, the JDMP would not allow the government to initiate action and would instead empower harmed individuals to use the resources of the govenrment against violators. Big difference. Read a bit more carefully next time. >Now, if your proposed law applied only to *government* possession >and use of data, that would be nice. But don't give them another >handle on search and seizure of our papers, possessions, and property. >If you trash the 4th Amendment, the pseudo-liberals will trash the 2nd, >and you won't be able to defend yourself when they use your law on you. Again, reread the proposal. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of Performance Products Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | to the Trade " (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | "Vote early, Vote often"
learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) (11/29/90)
In article <20215@looking.on.ca> Brad Templeton writes: > It is already against the law to lie in the process of a commercial > transaction. Not unless they changed the law again. It is legal in the USA to have credit cards in an alias name (if you could pull it off) so long as your intent is not to defraud the issuing firm of money. There are ways to conceal your business from the average snooper, if you really care to. And most of them are legal. Bill Vajk
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (12/01/90)
>In article <5020@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: >> Why would you say that. This is no different than if you get stopped >> for DUI, blow the box and it comes up tilt. You set the stage >> by drinking and driving, an act that is condemned by law. Once set, >> It's then up to you to prove you were not drunk. An interesting notion I have been considering recently regarding Breathalyzer. I think that some people have decided that Breathalyzer was in violation of the 5th amendment. But the PD wanted it still to be used so a law was passed saying that if you got a driver's license, you are giving the state permission to breathalyze you. However, I had thought that decision under duress would not be very feasible. In my High School (Yes, I am still in High School, I am a little tyke of 15) it is required to take Driver's Ed. So therefore in order to pass you must get one of those permits which state (as on the lisence) the breathalyzer agreement. Yet wouldn't it be called duress if they would fail you for not signing it? (Making one unable to drive in the class, failing you) -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (12/01/90)
In article <C547DJ8@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Get Caller*ID and get the telemarketer's own phone number... and return the Ahhh, caller-ID. What an interesting concept. I know that using it for telemarketers won't be feasible for a few more years (they only work within a small region currently) yet what kind of right trampling is this? I DO like the call-back feature of Caller-ID so that pranking adolescents can be called back. I would also like an ability to call the operator and tell them to keep that phone number of the caller, and wait for a warrant to get it. Phone-number blocking is a good idea too. . . Yet Caller-ID isn't. What would happen to anonymous tips? I know that one could use a pay phone, but would someone who is afraid of certain criminals want to be in PUBLIC when telling the police of them? I think not. -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (12/02/90)
In article <1990Dec01.050052.25160@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: > Yet Caller-ID isn't. What would happen to anonymous tips? Per-call blocking. With per-call and per-line blocking, and anonymous call blocking, everyone's rights are protected. In fact even without anonymous call blocking (where you can say "I don't want to recieve calls for which CID has been blocked") I'd rather allow CID blocking... it actually makes CID more useful. As it is you can't tell if the CID is not displayed because the person is blocking (by calling via the operator, for example) or out of range. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (12/07/90)
In article <LCY7GW2@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1990Dec01.050052.25160@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: >> Yet Caller-ID isn't. What would happen to anonymous tips? > >Per-call blocking. > >With per-call and per-line blocking, and anonymous call blocking, everyone's >rights are protected. In fact even without anonymous call blocking (where you >can say "I don't want to recieve calls for which CID has been blocked") I'd >rather allow CID blocking... it actually makes CID more useful. As it is you >can't tell if the CID is not displayed because the person is blocking (by >calling via the operator, for example) or out of range. In Illinois CID Blocking is not available. -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM