Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!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: <1492@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> Date: 22 Apr 91 01:54:59 GMT References: <1487@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization Lines: 62 In article Scott Stanton writes: >In article <1487@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> William Vajk writes: >I am definitely according computers the same status as any other tool. >And no, the use of those tools is *not* a right. It should be interesting to hear just what you think human rights actually are. I find it extremely difficult to envision a series of rights which exclude the right to use tools. We can begin with a knife. I would prefer it to be a knapped stone knife. We can progress from there as you wish. >First of all, I find "Rule of Law" to be a red herring. When I look >around me, I don't see that our legal system holds to this concept in >any real situations. Justices use their discretion constantly in >deciding cases. The law often conflicts or is unclear in specific >instances. I personally don't want to live in a society where law is >applied without discretion. That's the sort of nightmare about which >Orwell was warning us. Once again my copy of Hayek's _The Road To Serfdom_ comes off the shelf. (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1944.) "Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all its technicalities, this means the government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand--rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge." "Within the known rules of the game the individual is free to pursue his personal ends and desires, certain that the powers of government will not be used to deliberately frustrate his efforts." In the ideal circumstance, the Rule of Law allows no discretion. Hayek also discusses the fallibility of the men administering, and thus not only is discretion, but also errors, become part and parcel of the package. I suggest that whatever it takes, in the least expensive and least obnoxious mode, to reduce the "errors" is an appropriate response. You and I have both used the term "tool" as regards computers. Yet the original definitions, including definitions most appropriate through WW2, limited the term to implements which modified MATERIALS. And we're talking tangible here. The legal definition seems to be a tad broader as in, "Any instrument or apparatus necessary to the efficient prosecution of one's trade or profession." In applying the term "tool" to a modern computer, whether it is a PC or a mainframe, is a rather broad extension of the concepts and is relatively recent enough to have lots of holes in the concepts and context. As I've written before, one of the mose widely used tools for committing fraud is a wrench. I have yet to hear of the US Government seizing a mechanic's toolchest as "implements of crime." How would you propose getting these concepts properly aligned in a lot of minds in a hurry ? Bill Vajk