Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!emory!rsiatl!jgd
From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: DUI and Privacy Laws - was Re: Lotus Marketplace
Message-ID: <5080@rsiatl.UUCP>
Date: 25 Nov 90 04:37:56 GMT
References: <5010@rsiatl.UUCP> <1990Nov20.181212.28545@looking.on.ca> <5039@rsiatl.UUCP> <1990Nov23.220901.19700@cbnewsh.att.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: Rapid Deployment Systems, Inc. (making go fast things and things go fast)
Lines: 64

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"