Xref: utzoo misc.legal:5826 comp.sys.apple:7393
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ucsd!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw
From: ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.sys.apple
Subject: How to not write narrow, bad legislation? (Re: To someone in Brooklyn...)
Message-ID: <2946@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 11 Sep 88 02:23:07 GMT
References: <8809021457.AA12146@mitre.arpa> <8809021901.AA16733@hub.ucsb.edu> <8426@smoke.ARPA>
Sender: netnews@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 19
Followup-to:misc.legal

[discussion about anti-virus bill, which will probably be another
misguided technical attack]
>As usual the politicians focus on narrow specific issues rather
>than upholding general principles.  The reasons for this are
>historical and I don't want to get into that now, but I will
>say that attacking symptoms is no way to really solve a problem.
I agree that the key is violation of right (property and otherwise).
Most of 'Computer law' can be derived from general principles and
precedents already existing.  Treating properly authenticated bits just
like paper (expect for legal documents like contracts) might be a good start.

The worst example of such a law recently is the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act of '87, which a BBS operator was recently charged with violation.

How would you propose to advise Congress on things like this?
-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu    Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK}
Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA