Subject: [IP] more on 1st Circuit rules on Councilman
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Frankston <Bob2email@example.com> Date: September 6, 2005 3:40:40 PM EDT To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Cc: Dave Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: [IP] 1st Circuit rules on Councilman
The legal system is fundamentally about trusting the larger society rather
than taking "the law" into our own hands and using weapons other the words
The problem is that the fictions that allow us to accept the legal system
become stretched during transitions. It's even more problematic when we
have precedent vs science/engineering. I keep referring to the legal system
and its tendency to bifurcate babies and compromise on pi being 3.07. I do
find it strange speech using electronics is different from speech using
sound waves or wood pulp.
This is why I fear a Supreme Court that strictly interprets the US
Constitution -- it is a document in a context. The writers themselves were
struggling to come to terms with the new philosophical concepts of the day
and would have been surprised to see how well it has worked and probably
horrified that people took their words so literally.
Of course, loose interpretations can also be very dangerous ... but then is
the decision to extend Mickey forever loose or strict? I would like to
think there is privacy outside the confines of my house and that electronic
invasions are still invasions. I sense that extending privacy is precisely
the kind of "tampering" that today's administration abhors.
But then why should we expect human systems to change in less than a few
generations simply because our understanding of basic concepts changes
daily. It's been less then two centuries and evolution is still viewed as
-----Original Message----- From: "Dave Crocker"<email@example.com> Sent: 06/09/05 1:03:21 PM To: "firstname.lastname@example.org"<email@example.com> Cc: "firstname.lastname@example.org"<email@example.com> Subject: Re: [IP] 1st Circuit rules on Councilman
It's remarkable, is it not, that the First Circuit en banc held
I, too, found the latest appelate court decision remarkable. I found it remarkable that the lower reviews had bought any of the artificial, lame arguments brought by Councilman.
Are we to believe that it is the slightist bit reasonable for a provider of
a general-purpose communication service to me to inspect the content of
messages -- without my knowledge, of course -- and to use that content to
What is apparently often missed in this debate is that the lower courts were playing around with what the rest of us would call legal technicalities, rather than the meat of the offense.
The latest decision put logic and legal games aside and focused on
reasonable expectations and reasonable interpretations of the law -- and,
by the way, the intentions of those who wrote those laws.
The previous decisions worked in the detached vaccuum that can make the legal process pure but destructive. What is remarkable about the latest decision is that it stayed in the real world.
Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as BobIP@Bobf.Frankston.com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as firstname.lastname@example.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Powered by eList eXpress LLC