From: tim werner <werner@mc.ab.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 06:28:48 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Clipper Comparisons for non-geeks
Message-ID: <199404181328.JAA12317@sparcserver.mc.ab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
>Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 21:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
>Speaking of landlords, when I was renting I certainly had no
>expectation that the landlord had any "rights" to invite the police in
>to inspect my place for guns, drugs, or other such "contraband." Was I
>mistaken? (I'm not saying a landlord can't enter the premises...it
>depends on the rental agreement. Most landlords give warning. Some may
>snoop. But I think letting in the cops, without a warrant, is still an
>illegal act. I could be wrong.)

In Ohio, they have to give 24 hrs notice before coming in, unless they
smell smoke or gas, or there is some other clear evidence of an emergency
situation.  Not sure about what they can do if they come in because of an
emergency and find you practicing unsafe sex, or something.


>With so much of our world increasingly being owned by the State (the
>consequence of a dollar being taxed many times in its life is that the
>State ends up controlling lots of land, lots of highways, facilities,
>military bases, courthouses, schools, etc. Eventually they may get it
>all.), this "we can frisk you because now you're on our turf" approach
>may put a de facto ending to the Bill of Rights.

I'm not too worried about protection from the state in this case.  That's
what the Bill of Rights is about, and I'm certain these warrantless
searches will fail any Constitutionality test precisely because the
property is government owned.

The scary thing has been our general erosion of a right to privacy from
private enterprise.  For instance, most big companies now routinely make
urinating in a jar a requirement for employment.  It's much easier for a
private entity to get away with something like that than for the government.

tw