From: Jamie Lawrence <foodie@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 22:26:30 -0800 (PST)
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Cats Out of Bags
In-Reply-To: <199701310506.VAA04697@toad.com>
Message-ID: <v03010d08af173ece9529@[10.0.2.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 6:39 PM -0800 on 1/30/97, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> those laws are effective or not. cpunks seem to think that a govt
> can only have *effective* laws. but there is obviously no such
> constraint.

No such constraint in the _making_ of laws, of course. We have
laws on the books forbidding the utterance of "Oh boy", the carrying
of an ice cream cone in one's pocket, and the act of driving without
insurance, all functioning to varying degrees of effectiveness, 'on
the books' in various states.

The question Sandy seems to me to be raising is not whether a group
of people can issue a decree, but rather whether the interaction of the law
books, the interested parties on either side of the debate, and the mostly
disinterested real world will intersect such that the laws passed can
be used to effectively hamper the activities of the parties who wish
to go about the business proscribed. This is not an either/or question,
as you so aptly note (I hope Kirkegaard doesn't mind).

Of course, methods of this nature specifically regarding the uses of
privacy is what this list is all about.

Not an argument; just a clarification.

-j

--
"This analogy is like lifting yourself by your own bootstraps."
                                         -Douglas R. Hofstadter
_______________________________________________________________
Jamie Lawrence                                foodie@netcom.com