Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pcserver2!ddsw1!karl From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Getting molested by the S.S. Summary: Yes, there is a lot of marketing going on -- and little action Message-ID: <1991Mar10.073726.25320@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Date: 10 Mar 91 07:37:26 GMT References: <1991Feb26.103206.806@ulkyvx.bitnet> <1333@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Wheeling, IL Lines: 126 In article <1333@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes: >In article <103206.806@ulkyvx.bitnet> kpjone01@ulkyvx.bitnet (Kevin) writes: > >>3.) Since all the documents were sealed, they don't have a clue as to what >> they can do anyways. > >>One of the best was when I spoke with Dr. Ripco and he noted that it would >>cost more to take legal action to get his stuff back than if he just went out >>and purchased everything brand new. This is the worst problem around. Unless there is a house (or similar real property) involved, it simply isn't worth fighting over. If the law was enforced as written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that is, that you could not have punitive action taken against you until AFTER you were adjudicated guilty, then this would not be a problem. That is the first and foremost area where pressure needs to be applied to the government by groups such as the EFF. And it needs to be applied for ALL "alleged crimes", not just the ones that some special-interest group thinks need attention. This very problem is of concern to everyone. Do you know that I could call up the local police in your town today and report you as a drug dealer? If they judged my report as credible (and they >might< do just that in this jihad that is being fought) they could come and seize everything you own, never arrest you (since you were, of course, clean!) and yet you'd have to go fight to get your property returned! This is exactly what happened in several cases on the electronic frontier. The alleged crime is not the issue - the idea that you can be fined enormous amounts of money and property prior to trial is! >>I guess that's justice fer ya. Yeah. Some justice. The Soviets do a better job these days. >It was misuse (for fun & profit) which was illegal. Not >only that, but one actually had to be caught in the act. Today, the mere >accusation by law enforcement officials of having information with a >potential for misuse have become reasonable cause to trigger seizure of your >property. Or the mere accusation of dealing or using substances that the Government doesn't like this week. Or the mere accusation of posessing some kinds of pornagraphy. Or any one of a number of other "victimless crimes". >This reverses the intention of the framers of our Constitution >to require the Government to prove beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt >that a crime was committed before punishment takes place. Now the citizen >can be punished first, be required to prove that he shouldn't be punished >at all, and then perhaps his property will be restored (see the Steve Jackson >Games case for the condition of the restored property.) Of course, even if you do fight, you'll spend more doing the fighting than the property is worth in most cases. Only in the unusual case of extreme value is it worth your time to go after the scums in the Government to force them to return what is yours. The Government, of course, knows this. Thus they can, if they choose to harass you, simply seize property that isn't worth enough to fight over. They can do this DAILY. Since you have to fight individually for each seizure, they can effectively strip you of every piece of material wealth you have with no chance of your ever getting it back -- or justice in the form of punishment for those who abused the power given them. >We have seen claims by some folks they intend field constitutional challenges >on the electronic frontier by pursuing legal remedy. Given the amount of >information easily available to them, the number of possible cases to undertake >challenging government activities, and their lack of obvious activity in such >regards, one wonders whether or not Karl Denninger might have been right after >all in his assessment. Indeed, I am within a fraction of an inch of eating >crow (not my usual fare) in this regard. > >I could be wrong, but I have seen nothing noteworthy of a progress report. I >have seen a lot of high profile marketing activity. But the only possible >results from such efforts will be an eventual trickle-down reminiscent of >Reaganistic promises; too little and too late. Actually, that's about the size of it, and it's damn scary. The "too little too late" problem here is of course that by the time they manage to get off their tails and DO SOMETHING enough of a precedent will be set that there will be no way that the trend will be reversed -- short of armed violence. Yet is there really any difference between an armed mugger taking my computer and the government doing so without due process? According to the Bill of Rights, there is not. They are both thieves. In some states I have the right to kill a thief if I catch him in the act. >I note that the claims were made by folks quite successful in business. These >are folks who are well organized and are achievers......they know what they >are doing, and they are doing just what it is they wish to do. There's no >space for criticizing their activities, nor the lack of apparent results. >But there is some room for criticizing the fact that they seem to have >changed lanes without bothering to tell anyone else on the frontier to stop >looking for their help. These folks are also well aware that it is the publicity which is valuable here. To actually >do< something is another matter entirely -- the potential risk (of failing to pull it off) may not balance well with the reward if they do manage to change things. In short, there's lots of political mileage for them in talking big and doing nothing. There's significant risk in actually DOING something. >There's a lot of meat in the Ripco case. It most likely will be cheaper for >Bruce to buy new equipment than to challenge the seizure. But in the long >run, not presenting the legal challenge can cost us all even more. And it >might already have begun happening. It already has begun happening. It started with a war on drugs, which was just the excuse the government needed to get people to voluntarially give up their rights in this country. It won't stop until the people put their foot down and say "enough!" -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Copyright 1991 Karl Denninger. Distribution by site(s) which restrict redistribution of Usenet news PROHIBITED.