1998-09-24 - Re: Jury duty considered harmful, or at least rare

Header Data

From: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Message Hash: 936ae2242025aa7617a5ae5f16ecd3cd796ddf04b17629d38802fa27372fa782
Message ID: <v04011700b2300baeca3f@[]>
Reply To: <v0313030fb22e4de0bcd6@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1998-09-24 01:59:11 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:59:11 +0800

Raw message

From: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:59:11 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Jury duty considered harmful, or at least rare
In-Reply-To: <v0313030fb22e4de0bcd6@[]>
Message-ID: <v04011700b2300baeca3f@[]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

At 9:12 PM -0500 9/23/98, James A. Donald wrote:
>To rig a jury by excluding undesirables such as Tim May would
>be far too laborious.  To rig a jury it would be necessary to

	No, no, On the contrary, far too easy.

	There are certain people who are NEVER called to jury duty, people
convicted of felonies & etc. simply put the name of an undesirable on this
list, don't release it as a _list_ of "criminals", and no one will
complain. After all, who complains about _not_ being called?

	Then, as you screen jurors who have recieved summons, you simply
add the most extreme to the list. Others aren't a problem because they show
up, and are dismissed.

	It's hard to do all at once, but they have all the time in the world.

>include only desirables, thus the pool from which the jury is
>selected would be vastly smaller than the official pool, and
>simple statistics would show this up.

	If anyone were to look.

	Security thru obscurity works until someone looks at it. If no one
thinks to look tho...
petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy.
petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else.      They wouldn't like that.
                                              They REALLY
Economic speech IS political speech.          wouldn't like that.