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: <5041@rsiatl.UUCP> Date: 22 Nov 90 06:47:28 GMT References: <5010@rsiatl.UUCP> <86447@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <5022@rsiatl.UUCP> <86567@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> Organization: Rapid Deployment Systems, Inc. (making go fast things and things go fast) Lines: 102 howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) writes: >Be serious. Some company having a little information about you is >not comparable to risking a nuclear accident. At least until you have it used against you and you have NO recourse. Even though it was based on mindless ignorance, I can somewhat understand the emotion some people experienced during TMI. Of course, you COULD just stick your head in the sand until you get burnt. >I'm >not even sure such fines are appropriate for the nuclear plant worker. I agree but that was not the point. The point is that we've permitted and in some cases, encouraged the use of large fines to prohibit certain activities. >Is someone really going to be that much more careful for risking >$100000 than for $10000? Damn right they are. >Once you've bankrupted a person and screwed >up his life for years, perhaps permanently, does it help society in >any way to keep punishing him? We're not talking about a violent >offender who could be a danger on the streets, we're talking about >some poor goofball who may have just made a mistake. Just like the argument for the death penalty, if nothing else, the penalty would keep that individual/company from doing it again. >>I<< consider it a violent act to accumulate the most personal facts about my life, sell them to whomever had the bucks, use it to falsely deny me credit in a credit-driven society, falsely deny me medical and/or life insurance and deluge me with junk with me having absolutely no recourse other than to sue at my expense. >You might as well argue that if most inner city gun owners are rotten, >we should ban all guns in the inner city. The fact that a right is >listed in the constitution doesn't make it morally or ethically better, >it just makes it legally more defensible. Say what? What idiotic notion are you trying to promote? That constitutional rights are nothing special? You'd fit in well with a lot of people. Or are you promoting the notion that any "right" you can dream up should have the same protection as the basic human rights protected by the constitution. If that's the case then I'll just postulate the inate right to shoot anyone who collects personal data on me. No laws needed. Maybe not so idiotic after all. >|> No, it would just make you play by the same rules as everybody else or >|> else be financially destroyed. >There is obviously a lot of disagreement about this issue. Does it make >sense to destroy someone for an offense that many people would not even >consider a crime? There are a lot of things in life that people don't consider a crime that should be. They simply don't know about it. Does that mean that they should not have recourse or be protected under the law? I don't think so. >I've noticed that activities that are generally regarded as crimes, e.g. >assault, tend to have fairly rational penalties associated with them. Oh, you mean like for instance, if I want to kill you all I have to do is get drunk and run you down with my car and I'll get away with it? At most a couple of years for manslauter. Is that the kind of reasonable penalties you speak of? Or that I'll probably get more time for tax evasion than for shooting someone? is that the kind of rational penalties you speak. Or is it really the kind of irrationality under the law that makes me feel the need to go armed in most inner cities because I know that I'm the only one who can protect myself? >When something is a political issue, however, emotions flare and >penalties can be stretched all out of proportion to the offense. Abortion >and gun control are marvelous examples of this---something may be perfectly >legal in one state and worth a ten year jail term in the state next door. >I don't know what you call this, but I don't think it's justice. Is it >not more reasonable to make a controversial offense at worst a rather >mild crime, or should we just go crazy and punish people for the sake of >exacting revenge? Let's look at that supposition. Consider odometer rollback, for instance. Widely done. Widely used to rip people off. Disproportionally hits people of lower income. Nominally a felony. And pervasive in our society. The risk of a couple of years in Club Fed is just not a deterrent. People, especially people predisposed to violate your rights for a profit, understand only force. Wrist slaps won't affect them. You gotta slam-dunk 'em. Something similiar to my proposal would do just that. 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"