At 6:39 PM -0800 on 1/30/97, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
those laws are effective or not. cpunks seem to think that a govt can only have *effective* laws. but there is obviously no such constraint.
No such constraint in the _making_ of laws, of course. We have laws on the books forbidding the utterance of "Oh boy", the carrying of an ice cream cone in one's pocket, and the act of driving without insurance, all functioning to varying degrees of effectiveness, 'on the books' in various states. The question Sandy seems to me to be raising is not whether a group of people can issue a decree, but rather whether the interaction of the law books, the interested parties on either side of the debate, and the mostly disinterested real world will intersect such that the laws passed can be used to effectively hamper the activities of the parties who wish to go about the business proscribed. This is not an either/or question, as you so aptly note (I hope Kirkegaard doesn't mind). Of course, methods of this nature specifically regarding the uses of privacy is what this list is all about. Not an argument; just a clarification. -j -- "This analogy is like lifting yourself by your own bootstraps." -Douglas R. Hofstadter _______________________________________________________________ Jamie Lawrence foodie@netcom.com