Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucla-cs!ucla-seas!PRICE@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu
From: price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Lotus Marketplace
Message-ID: <00940787.614EA320@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu>
Date: 30 Nov 90 12:50:58 GMT
Sender: news@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price)
Organization: UCLA Particle Physics Research Group
Lines: 26

In article <5020@rsiatl.UUCP>, 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.

	Um, no.  You don't, at least not in California, *have* to "blow the 
box."  Then, they have no evidence against you.  Of course, if you don't, 
you lose your license for some amount of time, I think.  But, since driving 
is a privilege, and not a right (again - this is in California - I won't 
speak for other states), I don't see that this is any invasion of privacy.

	I would imagine that the 5th Amendment would allow you to refuse to 
"blow the box" in other states as well, but I don't know for sure...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  John Price                   | Internet: price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu
  5-145 Knudsen Hall           | BITNET:   price@uclaph
  UCLA Dept. of Physics        | SPAN:     uclapp::price
  Los Angeles, CA  90024-1547  | YellNet:  213-825-2259
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Where there is no solution, there is no problem.