Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!Neon.Stanford.EDU!stanton From: stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Amendments Message-ID: Date: 22 Apr 91 19:53:13 GMT References: <1487@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <1492@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Lines: 46 In-Reply-To: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu's message of 22 Apr 91 01:54:59 GMT In article <1492@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes: 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 are overlooking the simple fact that it is human beings who make these laws, and that the laws are therefore subject to just as much error as their interpretation. Certainly the elimination of errors is a laudable, but unattainable goal. Given that laws are not perfect, I would rather they were applied with an eye to the circumstances. It is the spirit, not the letter, of the law that I want upheld. 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." There are plenty of precedents before WW2 for tools that don't modify materials. The abacus and the sliderule come to mind most readily. 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." This is probably because the wrench would not provide any information relevant to the prosecution of the case. If the wrench were used to kill someone, it probably would be seized. In the case of fraud committed with the computer, there is certainly reason for the law enforcement officers to suspect that the contents of the computer might be useful in the prosecution of the case. What we need to do is define what constitutes valid evidence in such cases. Is a copy of the relevant data sufficient? If so, then taking the entire computer would certainly constitute an over broad seizure. -- --Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)