Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Lotus Marketplace
Message-ID: <61182@bbn.BBN.COM>
Date: 29 Nov 90 13:40:01 GMT
References: <5010@rsiatl.UUCP> <1990Nov20.181212.28545@looking.on.ca> <5020@rsiatl.UUCP>
Sender: news@bbn.com
Lines: 30

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.

Huh?  Either I'm missing something subtle, or else you're not making sense
here.  Replace "drinking and driving" with some other crime and see if it
still feels like it is not a problem.  Say:
   Possession of pornography is illegal.  Therefore, it is OK to pass a law
   that unless you "voluntarily" allow the police to search your house and
   conduct a book-audit to verify that you do not possess any such stuff.
   Paraphrasing, "You set the stage by having pornography around the house,
   an act condemned by law.  Once set, it's then up to you to prove you don't
   have any around the house".

I look at the breathalyzer stuff far more simply than you do: the gov't
accuses me of a crime, and *compels* me to provide evidence against
myself.  [and presumes me guilty of the crime if I refuse to assist in
gather this self-incriminating evidence].  How do you phrase this so it
doesn't sound like "police state"-like activities?

  /Bernie\