Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!rsiatl!jgd
From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Lotus Marketplace
Message-ID: <5039@rsiatl.UUCP>
Date: 22 Nov 90 06:27:36 GMT
References: <5010@rsiatl.UUCP> <1990Nov20.181212.28545@looking.on.ca> <5020@rsiatl.UUCP> <86565@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Organization: Rapid Deployment Systems, Inc. (making go fast things and things go fast)
Lines: 45

howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) writes:

>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.  

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.
Same with my proposal.  If you consider the penalty for violations
to be too severe, you simply don't use others' personal data.
Simple as that.

Secondly, DUI is NOT precisely defined in law as you would know if you
ever actually audited court proceedings in the matter.  DUI is one of the
largest gray areas around. If you look like a loser, 0.10 will get you
jailed.  If you look respectable, 0.2 can often be pled down to reckless
driving. 

Which has nothing to do with this thread.

>Your proposed law is nothing
>like that---it's purposefully vague and therefore open to all kinds of
>misinterpretations.

Actually, since I have never written, much less posted the text of a
proposed law, your statement is false.  As with any law, refinement from
proposal to final law will occur.  My proposal is not vague.  In fact,
it is very black and white.  If you don't want any risk, don't use 
personal data.  If you do use personal data, get written permission 
first.  If you don't have permission and do it anyway, I'll slap
you down with the help of the government.  Black and white.

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"