Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!topaz!klinzhai!webber
From: webber@klinzhai.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.stargate
Subject: Re: I am not a lawyer, but a lawyer isn't a computer scientist either
Message-ID: <210@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 29-Apr-87 05:18:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: brandx.210
Posted: Wed Apr 29 05:18:18 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 1-May-87 00:47:36 EDT
References: <965@vortex.UUCP> <7946@utzoo.UUCP> <7947@utzoo.UUCP> <1597@munnari.oz>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 50
Summary: Lawyer and users of lawyers, explain thyself.

In article <1597@munnari.oz>, kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz) writes:
> In article <205@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU>, webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
> > Actually, something else protects us.  There is no way you could ever
> > establish a chain of evidence connecting me to the message appearing
> > on your screen now.
> 
> Nonsense.  You get called as a witness (there's no "5th amendment"
> in civil matters) and asked.  If you lie you risk being discovered
> sometime, and that's perjury.  ...

Well I would certainly not advocate perjury.  However, with all the
large companies handling news, one would not thing that lack of a
wealthy target would justify the lack of suits.  While my partly baked
idea may have oversimplified the defense, I still think a lawyer would
make something of the unreliability of anything that is in a computer.
As Jean Giraudoux was want to remark: `No poet ever interpreted nature
as freely as a lawyer interprets truth'.  Of course, they might also
be interested in the classic CMU study showing that people flame more
online than offline.  Perhaps it is just the people smart enough to 
read news are too smart to get involved with pointless litigation.

I would still love to know how a computer system that provides news to
a thousand users is protected by the fact that it got the news off a
phone line.  I think I am not the only one with partly baked ideas.

> > The sooner lawyers realize that computers are
> > part of a world that has nothing to do with their world, the better
> > for all concerned.
>
> If anything was really needed to demonstrate how meaningless your postings
> have all been, this is it.
> 
> There is nothing in the world that has "nothing to do with their [lawyers]
> world".  Nor will there ever be.  Nor should there ever be.  Lawyers
> decide what is part of their world, and its in their own interests to
> expand that as much as possible.

Yes there should be.  It is immoral that the government attempts to
control its citizenry with rules that it is hopeless for most of them
to ever understand.  Currently we have a nation of courts and lawyers,
but not one of laws.  It may take a long time, but eventually this
will change.  Such folly can not be put up with forever.  However,
clearly the net will have to continue to persevere in the midst of
such foolishness.

However, as a step in the right direction, I think we should insist on
a complete explanation of any legal opinion that is used as a basis
for influencing network policy.

---------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!topaz!webber)