Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!rsiatl!jgd
From: jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Lotus Marketplace
Message-ID: <5157@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>
Date: 29 Nov 90 20:50:07 GMT
References: <5010@rsiatl.UUCP> <1990Nov20.181212.28545@looking.on.ca> <5020@rsiatl.UUCP> <61182@bbn.BBN.COM>
Organization: Rapid Deployment Systems (making go-fast things and things that-go fast)
Lines: 52

cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes:

>}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".

First off, I didn't say I liked the way the law works, I was simplying
stating that it DOES work that way now.  You DO indeed have to prove
your inncence once you blow the box and fail.  Which really has nothing
to do with the discussion of the use of databases against us.

Your pornography analogy is faulty.  You are not licensed to buy 
porn as you are to drive a car.  Porn is a victimless crime in stark 
contrast to improperly operating a motor vehicle. (Please, no drivel
about the actor "victims")  Porn puts no one at risk.  And lastly,
it is, as a manifestation of the First Amendment rights, a protected
activity - even if some prudes on the supreme court have occasionally
thought otherwise.  So your spurrious analogy using porn was just that,
spurrious.

Improper personal data use DOES involve a victim.   Real people are 
harmed by mostly large companies.  (not to be interpreted as a bias
against large companies.)  And since corporations are an enitity 
created by the government, the government has an obligation to take
special measures to protect us from its creation.

John


>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\
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade"  (tm)
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |  Home of the Nidgets (tm)
Marietta, Ga                  | 
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd      | "Vote early, Vote often"