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 wrote:
> At 11:40 AM 2/15/97 -0600, snow wrote:
> >Mr. Bell wrote:

> 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.

There are some neato methods to deal with the door and the phone,
but I haven't investigated faxes since I don't run one at home.

For the door, you can have a locked gate so they can't knock on the
door,
and an adjustable volume ringer or phone at the gate that's easy to
ignore
when you don't want them to know you're there and you're ignoring them.
If the gate is not practical, at least put a locked screen door in
front of the regular door, and the ringer or whatever outside the
screen.
For more aggressive pests, some signs might be necessary.

For the phone, you can do like I did, and simply remove (or break)
the outgoing message tape, so when they call, all they get is a beep
and they'll have to think fast or they're cut off.  Cuts way back
on pesky calls, but allows your loyals to leave messages or speak
so you'll know who it is.