Re: More on digital postage

At 11:40 AM 2/15/97 -0600, snow wrote:
>Mr. Bell wrote:
>> At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote:
>> >Tim may says:
>> >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut
>> >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these
>> >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to
>> >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it
>> >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned.
>> >I have to disagree here.  The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised
>> >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. 
>> However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full 
>> well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the 
>> phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information 
>> provided.  It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing 
>> junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody.
>
>	That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected
>to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone 
>to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my 
>home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to 
>a beer out of my fridge?

No, you're taking the issue to ridiculous extremes.    That's why we have 
doors, and locks, etc.  And, for that matter, "No trespassing" signs.  


But having an address, and a walkway, and a doorbell is generally considered 
if not explicit permission, but at least toleration of the idea that 
somebody can walk up and knock on the door, etc.  Having a telephone with a 
number that anyone can dial is going to result in some level of intrusion.  
Having a fax machine is a similar issue, unless technology provides a way to 
block unwanted faxes.

I certainly don't claim that we shouldn't try to do anything about these 
limitations!  Quite the opposite, technology should be employed to protect 
privacy.  But faxes are not fundamentally different than telephones, 
doorbells, and walkways:  They facilitate interaction, even potentially 
undesirable interaction.


>	Nope. Sure I realize that they _can_, but that doesn't make it right,
>and it doesn't make it legal. 

"Legal" is an arbirary concept; the opposite, "illegal," is merely what some 
bunch of brainless legislators get together and disapprove.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

jim bell allegedly said:
> 
> 
> No, you're taking the issue to ridiculous extremes.    That's why we have 
> doors, and locks, etc.  And, for that matter, "No trespassing" signs.  
> 
> But having an address, and a walkway, and a doorbell is generally considered 
> if not explicit permission, but at least toleration of the idea that 
> somebody can walk up and knock on the door, etc. 

But if someone leans on my doorbell for 4 hours solid, I can call the 
police and have them carted away.  Carried to extremes, it's criminal 
trespass. 

> Having a telephone with a 
> number that anyone can dial is going to result in some level of intrusion.  
> Having a fax machine is a similar issue, unless technology provides a way to 
> block unwanted faxes.
> 
> I certainly don't claim that we shouldn't try to do anything about these 
> limitations!  Quite the opposite, technology should be employed to protect 
> privacy.  But faxes are not fundamentally different than telephones, 
> doorbells, and walkways:  They facilitate interaction, even potentially 
> undesirable interaction.

And, just as in the case with my doorbell, when the undesirable 
interaction gets past some reasonable limit, legal action can be taken.

> >	Nope. Sure I realize that they _can_, but that doesn't make it right,
> >and it doesn't make it legal. 
> 
> "Legal" is an arbirary concept; the opposite, "illegal," is merely what some 
> bunch of brainless legislators get together and disapprove.

Arbitrary or not, it has real world consequences.  But then most 
things with real world consequences are arbitrary, unlike libertarian 
fantasies, which enjoy the luxury of unreality.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F