Grassley's latest nonsense has got me thinking again about the rapidly rising demonization of computers/networks/the net/etc. Remarks like...
the wire fraud statute which has been successfully used by prosecutors for many use[r]s, will be amended to make fraudulent schemes which use computers a crime.
...boggle the mind, since it'd be all but impossible to commit wire fraud _without_ involving a "computer." The obvious effect of legislation crafted according this kind of pseudo-thought would/will be to ensure that there's a very firm line between, bluntly, haves and have-nots--"haves" being those who are exempted by various legal machinations from this ever-expanding universe of recriminalizations of the same old actions. If Arthur commits wire fraud, he's making use of telcos' "computers" and wires to commit fraud; is his action qualitatively different if he uses NetPhone or Maven to accomplish exactly the same deed? If he uses a 12-yr-old answering machine in the process, he probably isn't using a "computer" to commit wire fraud; but if he uses a brand-new digital machine, or his kids got him a Compaq Presario, and he uses it for voice mail--he probably _is_ using a "computer." It can't reasonably be argued that the use of newer technology has any effect whatsoever--but it can of course be legislated. We're seeing more and more of this addle-headed legislation coming down the pike, and more and more of it will eventually become law: the effect, above all, will be to make just about any use of a computer potentially quite dangerous. For example, lying about your income on a credit card application is, I'm told, potential bank fraud; if things continue as they are, soon enough Mary could get slapped with yet another charge for printing answers on her dishonest application rather than writing them by hand. That isn't in any legislation I've seen, but how far off can it be? I know, I know, I'm preaching to the choir... Why? I'm going to start working on an essay (and if the wind blows right, it'll be an op-ed) about this hazy question--not that op-eds have much effect. :( Anyway, if any of y'all have archived remarks by various Kongress types, pointers, dim memories about spectacularly stupid statements, please send them my way off list: the essay's going to focus not on legislation per so but, rather, on the remarks that'll show how little these guys understand and how dangerous their incomprehension is. Much obliged, Ted