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: <1488@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> Date: 20 Apr 91 21:10:09 GMT References: <1476@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <8.7_#!+@smurf.sub.org> Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization Lines: 48 In article <8.7_#!+@smurf.sub.org> Matthias Urlichs writes: >In article <1476@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> William Vajk writes: >< That's part of the problem, dont you know. We can only define it in terms of >< the growing number of functions, different strokes for different folks. >But it shouldn't be. If there's no functional difference, I see no reason not >to extend the protection of the law / constitution / whatever. A printing press, based mostly in case law, has certain protections. It cannot and will not be seized for stating opinions. A different issue though if it is used for printing counterfeit currency. And if an employee in a small print shop sneaks back in after hours and prints some counterfeit money, it is unlikely that the printing press will be seized. As you can see, the 'protections' are quite variable for the same crime on the same machine. >On the other hand, if something is illegal, such an extension on functional >grounds is debatable at best; I don't know about the US, but in Germany it's >expressly forbidden after certain bad experiences half a century ago... Agreed, though that's not quite the problem. What we're seeing here is the misapplication of some legal theory. I understand that in Germany the law mandates that computer crime be established in flagro delecto. Such is not the case here. We're experiencing circumstantial evidence being used to seize computer equipment under search warrants, and the content used to build stronger circumstantial cases against the owners of the equipment, sometimes others. In the Len Rose case(s), for example, this tactic coupled with some lies and coercion, and lengthy proceedings, have led to a one year negotiated sentence. It is highly doubtful that any justice is thus being served. All this is actually the result of some laws passed a number of years ago to fight racketeering and organized crime. The public was, generally, pleased to permit stronger tools to the law enforcement agencies in this battle. Now, the same laws are being applied universally, and the acceptability of such proceedings has come into question. Ultimately, if these tactics aren't acceptable for one use against one citizen, they shouldn't be acceptable for use against any other in a democracy. The discussions here are, generally speaking, about computers. What we're really discussing, alas, it really some small part of the tip of a very large iceberg. In that extended context, your assessment of the circumstances is right on. And it is to address that extended context that I believe we are badly in need of a constitutional ammendment. Bill Vajk | Say NO to Forfeiture !