Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!pacbell.com!lll-winken!grover.llnl.gov!howell
From: howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Lotus Marketplace
Message-ID: <86565@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 21 Nov 90 18:38:13 GMT
References: <5010@rsiatl.UUCP> <1990Nov20.181212.28545@looking.on.ca> <5020@rsiatl.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 28
Nntp-Posting-Host: grover.llnl.gov

In article <5020@rsiatl.UUCP>, jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
|> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
|> 
|> >I dunno but the phrases "have to prove you *didn't* violate privacy" (guilty
|> >until proven innocent) and "not a police state" don't mix together well in
|> >my book.
|> 
|> 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.

This is not a case of guilty until proven innocent, it's just that the
state has very good evidence against you.  You are required to blow the
box, and if it says you're drunk, you'd better have excellent evidence
to the contrary in order to prove your case.  DUI is precisely defined
by law as a certain blood alcohol level.  If you are drunker than that,
you're a criminal, otherwise, you aren't.  Your proposed law is nothing
like that---it's purposefully vague and therefore open to all kinds of
misinterpretations.

-- 
Louis Howell

  "A few sums!" retorted Martens, with a trace of his old spirit.  "A major
navigational change, like the one needed to break us away from the comet
and put us on an orbit to Earth, involves about a hundred thousand separate
calculations.  Even the computer needs several minutes for the job."