Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!barmar From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Amendments Message-ID: <1991Apr20.050440.15310@Think.COM> Date: 20 Apr 91 05:04:40 GMT References: <1475@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <1991Apr20.015506.11577@looking.on.ca> Sender: news@Think.COM Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Lines: 26 In article <1991Apr20.015506.11577@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >What I fear -- and indeed what I think was one of the motivations for the >start of the EFF -- is the notion that many people have that there are >things that it should be illegal to do with a computer, even if it was >never illegal to do them without one. Well, something may have been wrong to do, but infeasible without computer assistance. Therefore, there wasn't much point in drafting a law against it before computers became popular. Computers aren't unique in this regard. How many treaties regarding the use of outer space were there in the 40's? In general, the legislature is reactive when making laws, not proactive. There has to be a problem before they bother working on a solution. >A thing is either bad or good, and I am wary of suggestions that the tool >you use should make the difference on whether an activity is illegal. If something is only feasible with a computer, then a law against doing it with a computer is equivalent to a law against doing it at all. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar