Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!cs.uoregon.edu!ogicse!intelhf!ichips!iwarp.intel.com!gargoyle!learn From: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Amendments Message-ID: <1455@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> Date: 13 Apr 91 14:24:07 GMT References: Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization Lines: 96 In article Scott Stanton writes: >I don't think we should try to make using computers a 'right' any more >than we should make the use of a car a 'right'. A car, on the public highway (which is the only place where its use is in any way restricted,) utilizes a limited resource, roads. When someone explains to my satisfaction how using a computer utlizes a similarly limited resource, I'll begin to consider the validity of your statement. But in the meantime, all I know is that the Ceaucesceau regime in Romania restricted the use of typewriters (and my 'computer' is more a typewriter than a computing tool) to surpress freedom of expression, primarily by ethnic minorities who were previously circulating "underground newsletters" carboned as many at a clip as possible. Typeface samples from individual machines were submitted to the police with the registration. It was also illegal to modify or repair any typewriter without subsequently providing a new sample of the type to the police. All typewriter laws mandated severe penalties with long imprisonment a minimal requirement. >There are situations where it is both Constitutional and proper to deny >someone the privilege of driving. While I agree it is a good idea to regulate those who are able to move heavy machines at high speeds on socialistically produced highways, I am not in agreement that driving is a "privilege" in spite of this oft repeated theory. >I can imagine similar cases for the use of computer equipment. We should >not lose sight of the fact that the use of computers is a means to an end >rather than an end in itself. What we want to protect is the end. In a free society you never protect an "end." With the minimum of infringement on people, you protect people against what other citizens actually do to them by outlawing certain behaviors. And here is an idea which subtly parallels a computer with a car, although it really is comparing a computer to a weapon more like a gun. This is a very very dangerous exercise. My words are being equated with the use of a dangerous weapon. It is the free dissemination of your words, and mine, and everyone elses, which is the only assurance we have of continuing those freedoms we presently enjoy. Please understand that it requires a conspiracy of a significant portion of our society to assure maintenance of the constitution. And it seems that in the ranks of that segment of society which concerns itself professionally with law enforcement, there is a fear of the new empowerment to communicate which we call computers and networks. >As it is written, the Constitution protects free speech, assembly, and free >press explicitly, and it provides an additional catch-all category protecting >rights that aren't explicitly mentioned (e.g. privacy). It took much to achieve those rights, which are constantly in the process of being whittled away by new understandings and new laws, till it takes a public uproar to quell some particular abridgement or another. A computer isn't a printing press, no matter that we wish it so and no matter that the possiblity of distribution far exceeds the capabilities of the presses which existed in the days when this protection was wrought. The entire reason for this newsgroup is quite simply that the government has already abridged a goodly number of our rights in an organized fashion, and we're exploring all the legal ways to prevent future recurrence. The very constitutional protections you mention were violated, in my opinion. And many people share this view. >So it seems to me that what we should be pushing for is not additional >enumeration of rights in the Constitution but legislative implementations of >the protections already given by the Constitution. To this end, perhaps we >should try to figure out what "implicit" rights we want to protect (and how >to apply the explicit ones to new situations). You've raised some excellent points here, unfortunately not to my liking, but quite valid nonetheless. I don't like the idea of mucking about with the constitution any more than absolutely necessary. But my only problems with the way law enforcement activities have been carried out in the past several years has to do with the government's violation of our constitutional rights. And I am afraid that somehow the only appropriate response will be to modify at the root. We tend as a nation to regulate those things which are perceived as threatening. So we have lots of laws about cars, and knives, and guns. And while we haven't been watching very closely, the states have been passing about computers. An agrarian has a shovel. It can be used as a dangerous weapon. Shovels and their use are not regulated directly. A mechanic uses wrenches. Wrenches can be used as dangerous weapons (and are also instruments of fraud, perhaps more often than any other impliment, BTW. But you don't read of forefeiture proceedings in which government agents rush in and seize a mechanic's toolchest.) The use of wrenches is not regulated directly. A computer is my tool these days. Is it any more threatening to you than a shovel or a wrench ? Why would you wish to regulate it. Since it is already being regulated, perhaps the only way to remove direct regulation already emplaced is by attaching the new understandings to the constitution. Bill Vajk