But some states have laws that invalidate such restrictions. I'm not sure if it applies to this situation or not, since I don't know the laws involved.
Actually, most of the stuff they play on the radio is crap. Maybe it's just because we don't have any good stations in the city I live in, or maybe it's just that radio stations in general play mostly crappy music. I'm not sure which it is. Anyway, I've bought several cds lately after downloading some mp3s from mp3.com and from listening to some illegal mp3s (which are now legal for me to have since I own the cds now). A few of the bands I probably would never have heard of if they weren't distributing their music as mp3s. The record industry is the real leech here. Their services will soon not be required and they're not happy about it. They want to cut off all other forms of distribution to keep their business model intact. I, for one, don't want to see that happen. I hope that we can soon come up with a good way of giving our money directly to the artists rather than 95% of it going to middlemen that are needed less every day.
From what I've read lately, Dickinson seems to be focused on streamlining the patent process so that more people can receive patents more quickly. A bad thing IMO. He wants to give patents on anything and everything possible and give out as many patents as possible. After all, the PTO is a business now and is supposed to support itself. That's the biggest problem I think. The PTO shouldn't be required to support itself. That just begs for corruption and a shift in focus from the original goal of promoting innovation to their new goal of promoting patents as a method of generating revenue.
You certainly have come up with a way to exploit the law, but no argument to refute the previous poster's claim that the judge was correct and that it's a bad law that tries to implement a wrongheaded method of solving the spam problem.
After reading the article and ruling, I have a few issues and comments about it.
First, I thought the semantic games over what to call the messages were stupid. "Spam" is obviously derogatory, and "direct marketing" is a spinmeister's word for what the messages really are, "unsolicited advertisements." Might as well call them what they really are.
Second, I agree that asking businesses to check every email address on their list against a database for each and every jurisdiction that has its own laws regarding email would create an undue burden on businesses.
Third, isn't there already a law that states that people should be allowed to have themselves removed from mailing lists at their request? If so, then shouldn't advertisers have to provide some straightforward means of doing so?
Fourth, I don't have enough knowledge of interstate commerce laws to even begin to comment on whether the law violates them or not, and the article didn't say much of anything about it either.
Finally, I don't know of a fair way to allow people to opt-out of receiving unsolicited advertisements. Every possible solution I've come up with has also had a high possibility of adverse side-effects. They would also be subject to various courts' interpretations of the words "advertisement", "unsolicited", etc. Anyone have any good ideas?
...so I should think that the/. anti-censorship cabal would be all opposed to any law that regulates it.
I think it depends on what the regulation entails. In this case, the law requires that unsolicited advertisements be labeled as such and that they contain a reply-able address so that someone may ask to be removed from the mailing list if they do not wish to receive any further mail from that source. Doesn't sound all that restrictive to me. Basically it tells companies that they aren't allowed to try to deceive people with their subject lines and that they must provide a means for consumers to opt-out of the mailing list. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
To the consumer that is. What difference does it make to me whether a site is TrustE certified or not? With all the loopholes and the fact that there is no standard for privacy, only internal policies for each company, it makes absolutely no difference at all to me. The certification is meaningless.
I don't want to have to read lengthy privacy statements on every site that I visit. Let alone having to reread the same info every time to make sure it hasn't changed. Who has time for that? TrustE is well aware of this and has covered its collective ass, but doesn't do anything to help me or anyone else besides the corporations who buy the certification.
Chinese government steals technology for products that can't be legally imported anyway, and competes with american companies in other areas.
The fact is, not all countries play by the same set of rules. This pretty much makes for a free-for-all kind of environment in which each side seeks an advantage over the other through any means available to them. In some countries this means that they exploit people, especially children, as dirt-cheap labor. In others, a lot of bribery and blackmail takes place. In the US, we have some pretty good intelligence agencies that turn over the fruits of their spy-games and that's how some American companies compete with their foreign counterparts. I don't like it, but I don't currently see any way around it either.
Exactly, and you wouldn't ever catch Billy-boy doing anything like what Tim is doing. I think that somebody with some degree of prominence needed to get the ball rolling. Tim is a good one to get things started. Jeff Bezos would be great to have as a supporter simply because he's so well-known now.
Ha! Who are you trying to kid? Corporations are the biggest welfare recipients in the country! They're always looking for a handout. Unfair taxation? What the hell are you talking about? We're all subject to arbitrary and irresponsible taxation. What makes them so special that they should be above it? They aren't hoping for a small return. They wouldn't be in the internet business if they were hoping for a small return. They want to achieve monopoly status and consumer lock-in. That's where the big bucks are. That's what corporations shoot for. They don't like competition. They don't make astronomical profits when competition exists. The system wasn't set up to give corporations full reign to do as they please in this country. It was set up to benefit the people as a whole. Where the interests of the general population conflict with that of corporations, the interests of the general population should prevail.
As a trademark (or other intellectual property) owner, you are required by US and International law to protect your TM/IP, or lose it. The law clearly and firmly places the burden of policing possible infringements on the TM owner.
If they would just start using the TLDs properly, they wouldn't have to do nearly the policing that they do now. If only commercial interests could use.com domains, then Microsoft.org could not possibly be related to the Microsoft Corporation, and would therefore not be infringing on Microsoft's trademark.
As for them passing the burden of guarding trademarks on to the registrars, I have to agree with you that it should be stopped. I think it would (and already does, really) make the current (flawed) registration system quite unfair to the little guys. But again, if they would start using the TLDs correctly, we wouldn't have this problem.
Umm... tons of sites store profiles in a database and use cookies client side to simplify things. All Amazon did was include credit and shipping info so that you only had to click once to make a purchase.
Or more drastically: What if the majority doesn't care about the rights about a minority?
Happens all the time. The only thing that prevents them from doing too much damage is the Constitution, and even that doesn't always help.
I'm just so tired of all people who seem to think that you can apply a quick fix to a law and solve the problem.
I agree with this, but it's not just/. people who try to do this. It's special interest groups. It's politicians. It's corporations.
Laws get passed all the time for stupid reasons. Either a politician is trying to get himself reelected, or a corporation lobbies to get a law passed that will save them money or make them money. Special interest groups often lobby for laws that don't even pass basic tests of constitutionality.
I'm not saying that just because I or someone else thinks a law should be made, changed, or killed, that it should be done. What I would like is to have a discussion about it. Maybe my ideas get shot down by better arguments. Maybe they can stand against the arguments. Either way, I'd like to have the discussion.
That is why I sometimes wish for a/. lawyer. Somebody qualified (and honest) enough to say "Yes, this law leads to some unwanted results. However, the proposed change would be worse" or "No, that act will not grant Gates the right to monitor your disk, because of this law" and so on.
I couldn't agree more with this. I would love to have a lawyer here to help translate some of the articles on legal issues, as well as to help out in the discussion of the article. Actually, several lawyers would be nice. The problem is finding some that would have the time to do these things. Lawyers are quite busy these days...
I think that Bob's Auto should have to obtain my permission before selling information about me to others. I hope that this ruling helps further this goal.
Plus, the judge assigned to the case had to approve of the decree (if the judge believes that the firm is getting off too easy they can reject it)
Judge Sporkin did reject the decree. Microsoft and the DOJ together appealed the rejection and got the decree accepted. It wasn't until later that the DOJ realized they'd been had.
"Well IANACE (I'm not a computer expert), but I read the specifications and since I think that since they limit our freedom to write however we like, I suggest we disobey them."
There's a big difference between disagreeing with computer specs and disagreeing with the law. We're all qualified to give our opinions of the law, since we are "the people" whose beliefs and standards the law is supposed to represent. We may not fully understand why some laws exist or why things are done a certain way, but we have every right to seek an understanding and to be critical of things that don't make sense.
Over time, the law has grown more and more complex. It's damn difficult for the average person to have even an inkling of how things work until they've actually had to deal with the legal system. Most people who do have to deal with it don't come away with a favorable impression, even if they win their case. Justice is expensive these days. Due to overly complicated laws and procedures, you have to get a professional attorney to tell you what the heck any of it means. That's fine if I'm dealing with my car or my computer, I chose to buy those and accepted the complexity when I did. The legal system shouldn't be innaccessible to the people who must live with its judgements and work within its constraints.
ay a cop or a security guard finds AC wandering around in a closed store. They charge him for theft or breaking in. Now AC claims "Oh but I thought the store was open. You see the door was open so I just figured I'd do some late night shopping"
This is where it is nice to be able to build a case upon those lockpicks in AC's back pocket. If the real charge wont stick, bring out the lesser charge which you can *prove*.
That might make some bit of sense, but as I understand it, possession of burglary tools isn't a crime unless you are also charged with burglary or attempted burglary. Now, if they couldn't charge him with burglary or attempted burglary, then they wouldn't be able to charge him with possession of burglary tools either. (or if they did charge him with burglary and couldn't make the charge stick, then carrying the lockpicks isn't a crime by itself)
Either way, if you can't charge someone with a real crime, then you shouldn't be able to charge them with these pseudo-crimes either. As someone else pointed out, it's a kluge that is intended to patch up the screwed up legal system. It didn't work very well.
Those are the kinds of wackos that will be deciding what kids get to see on the net?! Methinks we're quite screwed if this stuff becomes too widespread.
These aren't "pseudo-crimes". They are very real offenses. They are documented in the state's criminal statutes. You can be charged and convicted if you commit them.
You can't be charged and convicted for a "pseudo-crime" alone. That's my point. It's only a crime when you can prove that someone committed another crime, so there's no real point in making the method of committing a crime a separate charge from the crime itself. Now do you get it?
Breaking into a car" and "stealing a car" may actually be two different offenses.
They are two different crimes, and you can be convicted of one independently of the other, they are very real crimes and not what I was talking about.
If I'm charged with stealing a car, my lawyer will first say, "Well how did AC steal it?" If the prosecutor says, "He broke in with a crowbar", my lawyer may well say, "Well, you didn't CHARGE him with breaking into the car. You clearly can't PROVE he broke into the car. Therefore, you can't prove he stole it."
Actually, the fact that the cops pulled him over while he was driving it without the driver's permission is enough to convict him of the theft. The rest, in the abscence of anything more than circumstantial evidence, would be up to the judge and/or jury.
obody except CmdrTaco and you is talking about "possession of a crowbar". We ARE talking about using a crowbar to commit a crime. There is a difference.
Yep, there's a difference. Possession of a crowbar is not a crime. "Using a crowbar to commit a crime" is not actually a crime (or shouldn't be, which is why this argument started), the crime that was committed using the crowbar is the actual crime, regardless of the method used to commit the crime.
I think we're arguing from two different perspectives. You're looking at how things should be. I'm looking at how things really are.
I thought this was understood from the start. I'll concede that people are convicted of "pseudo-crimes" all the time, the article is a perfect example. What I'm saying is that it's a stupid practice and it should be stopped.
Finally, I don't ask my lawyer what programming language is best, but for some reason slashdotters seem to think they know more than the people who do law for a living. How arrogant is that?
Are you a lawyer?
Assuming that everyone who reads/. is a programmer isn't so bright either.
If a cop catches you in my house, and the lock on the front door has been picked, and you have lock picks, he has a strong case to prove that not only have you broken into my house, but that you have those lock picks FOR THAT ILLEGAL PURPOSE, which is also a crime.
I don't believe that I'm the only one who sees this. You're saying that someone should be charged, not only with the crime they committed, but also for the method by which they committed the crime. That's just stupid, and if that's how our legal system works, then it's definitely in need of an overhaul.
if the cop catches you using those picks on my front door without my permission, the prosecutor could still charge you with possessing burglary tools, even though you weren't yet a burglar.
Seems to me that I should be charged with attempted breaking and entering, not possession of burglary tools which shouldn't be a crime at all. The act of burglary is a crime. Attempted burglary is a crime. Who cares what tools they use to commit these crimes?
it merely means that the crime of information theft probably entails the crime of possession of cracking tools.
Again, since possession is not a crime unless you are found to be committing, or to have already committed a crime, what's the point of making possession a crime? You have to get the person for another crime before you can make possession stick, so it doesn't make sense that it's a separate crime.
so that he has the best chance of convicting him. That's his job, even if you don't like it.
I don't have a problem with him doing his job. I do have a problem if legislators have to think up b/s laws like this to increase sentences or show that they're tough on crime or whatever other lame-ass reason they come up with. We have enough out-dated and/or idiotic laws on the books without adding more complexity for people to deal with.
If you are a prosecutor, the point is to put a real a**hole behind bars for the longest possible length of time so he/she doesn't screw up other people's lives. "Stupid extra charges" help. That's a valid purpose.
I was about to really lay into you for this, but I read on before I started writing this reply, so I will refrain from tearing out your pancreas and feeding it to you, figuratively speaking.:)
Just because you want to put someone away for a longer length of time doesn't mean we should have a bunch of psuedo-crimes that we can tack onto actual crimes for the purpose of increasing someone's sentence. Either the actual crime warrants a longer sentence, in which case you work to get the maximum sentence legally increased, or you simply can't get someone sentenced for more than the maximum sentence.
And yes, the instant he pulled out that crowbar with the intent of smashing the window of a Lexus, he was in possession of a tool to assist with a burglary or theft.
I'm not sure what they call breaking into someone's car these days, but it's not "possession of a tool to assist with a burglary or theft." We normally call it "stealing a car," and maybe "destruction of property" for breaking the window of the car. We don't usually give a damn what tool you used to do it, so I can't see how using a crowbar or any tool warrants a separate charge from committing the actual crime. All the other things you listed as crimes seem to be valid, including all the traffic violations, since they are crimes in and of themselves and you can be ticketed for committing any one of them alone.
If a cop had been fortunate enough to walk up on Bill in the middle of his backswing on the Lexus, none of the above would have happened. However, if the officer could prove that Bill intended to smash the car window, the charge of possession of a tool for committing a theft would be completely valid.
If the cop saw him doing this, I would certainly like to see him question the man, perhaps to determine whether he's drunk or not, this alone would give him reason to haul him in. Possession of a crowbar is not a valid charge. Perhaps the officer should have let him break the window and then arrested him in for that.
Sometimes, the best proof of intent comes when a larger offense is actually committed. That doesn't negate the lesser charge.
I'm not saying that a larger crime should negate the smaller one. I'm saying that if something (like possession of burglary tools) is not a crime by itself, then it shouldn't even be a lesser charge. It should be implicit in the actual charge. There shouldn't be any additional time served for using a crowbar to break into a car rather than your elbow or some other part of your body. If you break into a car, you've committed a crime, regardless of the tools you use, if any. Trying to separate possession of the tools from the crime itself is stupid and causes needless confusion and complexity in the law.
I would agree completely that this is a issue in the American system which should be addressed, but it's a seperate issue.
I agree that there are many problems with the law, and I think I just pointed out one of them, but it is far from being the only problem. The increasing complexity of the law and the tendency of the government to seek laws that allow selective enforcement are some of the larger problems. But, you're right, that's another discussion.
I don't know exactly who it would benefit or in what ways. I'm not even sure how these kinds of charges came into being in the first place. I'm just stating what seems to be the obvious effect, which is longer sentences. Perhaps it looks good for attornies to get people put away for a longer time. Maybe it helps the politicians look like they're tough on crime. I'm not sure. Whatever the reason for it is, it doesn't seem justifiable.
Since "possession of burglary tools" is not a crime in and of itself, how can a charge of "possession of burglary tools" stick if you can't make the break-in charge stick? It seems that that charge can't legitimately be made independently of a "breaking into a computer system" charge, and therefore should not be a separate charge.
If breaking into a computer system is a crime, and possession of tools capable of being used to break into a computer system is not a crime, why should you be charged with possession of those tools in addition to the actual crime you commit? That seems rather pointless and needlessly complicated (which is something that the American legal system seems to pride itself on). If the crime is breaking into a computer system, then charge him with that, regardless of what he used to do it. Adding in meaningless extra charges is just a way to get a longer sentence than the maximum penalty for the actual crime allows. They should toss the legislators who allow this to happen in jail for a while.
Slashdot Mirror
But some states have laws that invalidate such restrictions. I'm not sure if it applies to this situation or not, since I don't know the laws involved.
Actually, most of the stuff they play on the radio is crap. Maybe it's just because we don't have any good stations in the city I live in, or maybe it's just that radio stations in general play mostly crappy music. I'm not sure which it is. Anyway, I've bought several cds lately after downloading some mp3s from mp3.com and from listening to some illegal mp3s (which are now legal for me to have since I own the cds now). A few of the bands I probably would never have heard of if they weren't distributing their music as mp3s. The record industry is the real leech here. Their services will soon not be required and they're not happy about it. They want to cut off all other forms of distribution to keep their business model intact. I, for one, don't want to see that happen. I hope that we can soon come up with a good way of giving our money directly to the artists rather than 95% of it going to middlemen that are needed less every day.
From what I've read lately, Dickinson seems to be focused on streamlining the patent process so that more people can receive patents more quickly. A bad thing IMO. He wants to give patents on anything and everything possible and give out as many patents as possible. After all, the PTO is a business now and is supposed to support itself. That's the biggest problem I think. The PTO shouldn't be required to support itself. That just begs for corruption and a shift in focus from the original goal of promoting innovation to their new goal of promoting patents as a method of generating revenue.
You certainly have come up with a way to exploit the law, but no argument to refute the previous poster's claim that the judge was correct and that it's a bad law that tries to implement a wrongheaded method of solving the spam problem.
After reading the article and ruling, I have a few issues and comments about it.
First, I thought the semantic games over what to call the messages were stupid. "Spam" is obviously derogatory, and "direct marketing" is a spinmeister's word for what the messages really are, "unsolicited advertisements." Might as well call them what they really are.
Second, I agree that asking businesses to check every email address on their list against a database for each and every jurisdiction that has its own laws regarding email would create an undue burden on businesses.
Third, isn't there already a law that states that people should be allowed to have themselves removed from mailing lists at their request? If so, then shouldn't advertisers have to provide some straightforward means of doing so?
Fourth, I don't have enough knowledge of interstate commerce laws to even begin to comment on whether the law violates them or not, and the article didn't say much of anything about it either.
Finally, I don't know of a fair way to allow people to opt-out of receiving unsolicited advertisements. Every possible solution I've come up with has also had a high possibility of adverse side-effects. They would also be subject to various courts' interpretations of the words "advertisement", "unsolicited", etc. Anyone have any good ideas?
I think it depends on what the regulation entails. In this case, the law requires that unsolicited advertisements be labeled as such and that they contain a reply-able address so that someone may ask to be removed from the mailing list if they do not wish to receive any further mail from that source. Doesn't sound all that restrictive to me. Basically it tells companies that they aren't allowed to try to deceive people with their subject lines and that they must provide a means for consumers to opt-out of the mailing list. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
To the consumer that is. What difference does it make to me whether a site is TrustE certified or not? With all the loopholes and the fact that there is no standard for privacy, only internal policies for each company, it makes absolutely no difference at all to me. The certification is meaningless.
I don't want to have to read lengthy privacy statements on every site that I visit. Let alone having to reread the same info every time to make sure it hasn't changed. Who has time for that? TrustE is well aware of this and has covered its collective ass, but doesn't do anything to help me or anyone else besides the corporations who buy the certification.
Chinese government steals technology for products that can't be legally imported anyway, and competes with american companies in other areas.
The fact is, not all countries play by the same set of rules. This pretty much makes for a free-for-all kind of environment in which each side seeks an advantage over the other through any means available to them. In some countries this means that they exploit people, especially children, as dirt-cheap labor. In others, a lot of bribery and blackmail takes place. In the US, we have some pretty good intelligence agencies that turn over the fruits of their spy-games and that's how some American companies compete with their foreign counterparts. I don't like it, but I don't currently see any way around it either.
Sure he is influential but he's not "Bill Gates".
Exactly, and you wouldn't ever catch Billy-boy doing anything like what Tim is doing. I think that somebody with some degree of prominence needed to get the ball rolling. Tim is a good one to get things started. Jeff Bezos would be great to have as a supporter simply because he's so well-known now.
Ha! Who are you trying to kid? Corporations are the biggest welfare recipients in the country! They're always looking for a handout. Unfair taxation? What the hell are you talking about? We're all subject to arbitrary and irresponsible taxation. What makes them so special that they should be above it? They aren't hoping for a small return. They wouldn't be in the internet business if they were hoping for a small return. They want to achieve monopoly status and consumer lock-in. That's where the big bucks are. That's what corporations shoot for. They don't like competition. They don't make astronomical profits when competition exists. The system wasn't set up to give corporations full reign to do as they please in this country. It was set up to benefit the people as a whole. Where the interests of the general population conflict with that of corporations, the interests of the general population should prevail.
As a trademark (or other intellectual property) owner, you are required by US and International law to protect your TM/IP, or lose it. The law clearly and firmly places the burden of policing possible infringements on the TM owner.
If they would just start using the TLDs properly, they wouldn't have to do nearly the policing that they do now. If only commercial interests could use .com domains, then Microsoft.org could not possibly be related to the Microsoft Corporation, and would therefore not be infringing on Microsoft's trademark.
As for them passing the burden of guarding trademarks on to the registrars, I have to agree with you that it should be stopped. I think it would (and already does, really) make the current (flawed) registration system quite unfair to the little guys. But again, if they would start using the TLDs correctly, we wouldn't have this problem.
Umm... tons of sites store profiles in a database and use cookies client side to simplify things. All Amazon did was include credit and shipping info so that you only had to click once to make a purchase.
Or more drastically: What if the majority doesn't care about the rights about a minority?
Happens all the time. The only thing that prevents them from doing too much damage is the Constitution, and even that doesn't always help.
I'm just so tired of all people who seem to think that you can apply a quick fix to a law and solve the problem.
I agree with this, but it's not just /. people who try to do this. It's special interest groups. It's politicians. It's corporations.
Laws get passed all the time for stupid reasons. Either a politician is trying to get himself reelected, or a corporation lobbies to get a law passed that will save them money or make them money. Special interest groups often lobby for laws that don't even pass basic tests of constitutionality.
I'm not saying that just because I or someone else thinks a law should be made, changed, or killed, that it should be done. What I would like is to have a discussion about it. Maybe my ideas get shot down by better arguments. Maybe they can stand against the arguments. Either way, I'd like to have the discussion.
That is why I sometimes wish for a /. lawyer. Somebody qualified (and honest) enough to say "Yes, this law leads to some unwanted results. However, the proposed change would be worse" or "No, that act will not grant Gates the right to monitor your disk, because of this law" and so on.
I couldn't agree more with this. I would love to have a lawyer here to help translate some of the articles on legal issues, as well as to help out in the discussion of the article. Actually, several lawyers would be nice. The problem is finding some that would have the time to do these things. Lawyers are quite busy these days...
I think that Bob's Auto should have to obtain my permission before selling information about me to others. I hope that this ruling helps further this goal.
Plus, the judge assigned to the case had to approve of the decree (if the judge believes that the firm is getting off too easy they can reject it)
Judge Sporkin did reject the decree. Microsoft and the DOJ together appealed the rejection and got the decree accepted. It wasn't until later that the DOJ realized they'd been had.
Consider someone on /. arguing along the lines of:
"Well IANACE (I'm not a computer expert), but I read the specifications and since I think that since they limit our freedom to write however we like, I suggest we disobey them."
There's a big difference between disagreeing with computer specs and disagreeing with the law. We're all qualified to give our opinions of the law, since we are "the people" whose beliefs and standards the law is supposed to represent. We may not fully understand why some laws exist or why things are done a certain way, but we have every right to seek an understanding and to be critical of things that don't make sense.
Over time, the law has grown more and more complex. It's damn difficult for the average person to have even an inkling of how things work until they've actually had to deal with the legal system. Most people who do have to deal with it don't come away with a favorable impression, even if they win their case. Justice is expensive these days. Due to overly complicated laws and procedures, you have to get a professional attorney to tell you what the heck any of it means. That's fine if I'm dealing with my car or my computer, I chose to buy those and accepted the complexity when I did. The legal system shouldn't be innaccessible to the people who must live with its judgements and work within its constraints.
ay a cop or a security guard finds AC wandering around in a closed store. They charge him for theft or breaking in. Now AC claims "Oh but I thought the store was open. You see the door was open so I just figured I'd do some late night shopping"
This is where it is nice to be able to build a case upon those lockpicks in AC's back pocket. If the real charge wont stick, bring out the lesser charge which you can *prove*.
That might make some bit of sense, but as I understand it, possession of burglary tools isn't a crime unless you are also charged with burglary or attempted burglary. Now, if they couldn't charge him with burglary or attempted burglary, then they wouldn't be able to charge him with possession of burglary tools either. (or if they did charge him with burglary and couldn't make the charge stick, then carrying the lockpicks isn't a crime by itself)
Either way, if you can't charge someone with a real crime, then you shouldn't be able to charge them with these pseudo-crimes either. As someone else pointed out, it's a kluge that is intended to patch up the screwed up legal system. It didn't work very well.
Those are the kinds of wackos that will be deciding what kids get to see on the net?! Methinks we're quite screwed if this stuff becomes too widespread.
These aren't "pseudo-crimes". They are very real offenses. They are documented in the state's criminal statutes. You can be charged and convicted if you commit them.
You can't be charged and convicted for a "pseudo-crime" alone. That's my point. It's only a crime when you can prove that someone committed another crime, so there's no real point in making the method of committing a crime a separate charge from the crime itself. Now do you get it?
Breaking into a car" and "stealing a car" may actually be two different offenses.
They are two different crimes, and you can be convicted of one independently of the other, they are very real crimes and not what I was talking about.
If I'm charged with stealing a car, my lawyer will first say, "Well how did AC steal it?" If the prosecutor says, "He broke in with a crowbar", my lawyer may well say, "Well, you didn't CHARGE him with breaking into the car. You clearly can't PROVE he broke into the car. Therefore, you can't prove he stole it."
Actually, the fact that the cops pulled him over while he was driving it without the driver's permission is enough to convict him of the theft. The rest, in the abscence of anything more than circumstantial evidence, would be up to the judge and/or jury.
obody except CmdrTaco and you is talking about "possession of a crowbar". We ARE talking about using a crowbar to commit a crime. There is a difference.
Yep, there's a difference. Possession of a crowbar is not a crime. "Using a crowbar to commit a crime" is not actually a crime (or shouldn't be, which is why this argument started), the crime that was committed using the crowbar is the actual crime, regardless of the method used to commit the crime.
I think we're arguing from two different perspectives. You're looking at how things should be. I'm looking at how things really are.
I thought this was understood from the start. I'll concede that people are convicted of "pseudo-crimes" all the time, the article is a perfect example. What I'm saying is that it's a stupid practice and it should be stopped.
Finally, I don't ask my lawyer what programming language is best, but for some reason slashdotters seem to think they know more than the people who do law for a living. How arrogant is that?
Are you a lawyer?
Assuming that everyone who reads /. is a programmer isn't so bright either.
If a cop catches you in my house, and the lock on the front door has been picked, and you have lock picks, he has a strong case to prove that not only have you broken into my house, but that you have those lock picks FOR THAT ILLEGAL PURPOSE, which is also a crime.
I don't believe that I'm the only one who sees this. You're saying that someone should be charged, not only with the crime they committed, but also for the method by which they committed the crime. That's just stupid, and if that's how our legal system works, then it's definitely in need of an overhaul.
if the cop catches you using those picks on my front door without my permission, the prosecutor could still charge you with possessing burglary tools, even though you weren't yet a burglar.
Seems to me that I should be charged with attempted breaking and entering, not possession of burglary tools which shouldn't be a crime at all. The act of burglary is a crime. Attempted burglary is a crime. Who cares what tools they use to commit these crimes?
it merely means that the crime of information theft probably entails the crime of possession of cracking tools.
Again, since possession is not a crime unless you are found to be committing, or to have already committed a crime, what's the point of making possession a crime? You have to get the person for another crime before you can make possession stick, so it doesn't make sense that it's a separate crime.
so that he has the best chance of convicting him. That's his job, even if you don't like it.
I don't have a problem with him doing his job. I do have a problem if legislators have to think up b/s laws like this to increase sentences or show that they're tough on crime or whatever other lame-ass reason they come up with. We have enough out-dated and/or idiotic laws on the books without adding more complexity for people to deal with.
If you are a prosecutor, the point is to put a real a**hole behind bars for the longest possible length of time so he/she doesn't screw up other people's lives. "Stupid extra charges" help. That's a valid purpose.
I was about to really lay into you for this, but I read on before I started writing this reply, so I will refrain from tearing out your pancreas and feeding it to you, figuratively speaking. :)
Just because you want to put someone away for a longer length of time doesn't mean we should have a bunch of psuedo-crimes that we can tack onto actual crimes for the purpose of increasing someone's sentence. Either the actual crime warrants a longer sentence, in which case you work to get the maximum sentence legally increased, or you simply can't get someone sentenced for more than the maximum sentence.
And yes, the instant he pulled out that crowbar with the intent of smashing the window of a Lexus, he was in possession of a tool to assist with a burglary or theft.
I'm not sure what they call breaking into someone's car these days, but it's not "possession of a tool to assist with a burglary or theft." We normally call it "stealing a car," and maybe "destruction of property" for breaking the window of the car. We don't usually give a damn what tool you used to do it, so I can't see how using a crowbar or any tool warrants a separate charge from committing the actual crime. All the other things you listed as crimes seem to be valid, including all the traffic violations, since they are crimes in and of themselves and you can be ticketed for committing any one of them alone.
If a cop had been fortunate enough to walk up on Bill in the middle of his backswing on the Lexus, none of the above would have happened. However, if the officer could prove that Bill intended to smash the car window, the charge of possession of a tool for committing a theft would be completely valid.
If the cop saw him doing this, I would certainly like to see him question the man, perhaps to determine whether he's drunk or not, this alone would give him reason to haul him in. Possession of a crowbar is not a valid charge. Perhaps the officer should have let him break the window and then arrested him in for that.
Sometimes, the best proof of intent comes when a larger offense is actually committed. That doesn't negate the lesser charge.
I'm not saying that a larger crime should negate the smaller one. I'm saying that if something (like possession of burglary tools) is not a crime by itself, then it shouldn't even be a lesser charge. It should be implicit in the actual charge. There shouldn't be any additional time served for using a crowbar to break into a car rather than your elbow or some other part of your body. If you break into a car, you've committed a crime, regardless of the tools you use, if any. Trying to separate possession of the tools from the crime itself is stupid and causes needless confusion and complexity in the law.
I would agree completely that this is a issue in the American system which should be addressed, but it's a seperate issue.
I agree that there are many problems with the law, and I think I just pointed out one of them, but it is far from being the only problem. The increasing complexity of the law and the tendency of the government to seek laws that allow selective enforcement are some of the larger problems. But, you're right, that's another discussion.
I don't know exactly who it would benefit or in what ways. I'm not even sure how these kinds of charges came into being in the first place. I'm just stating what seems to be the obvious effect, which is longer sentences. Perhaps it looks good for attornies to get people put away for a longer time. Maybe it helps the politicians look like they're tough on crime. I'm not sure. Whatever the reason for it is, it doesn't seem justifiable.
Since "possession of burglary tools" is not a crime in and of itself, how can a charge of "possession of burglary tools" stick if you can't make the break-in charge stick? It seems that that charge can't legitimately be made independently of a "breaking into a computer system" charge, and therefore should not be a separate charge.
If breaking into a computer system is a crime, and possession of tools capable of being used to break into a computer system is not a crime, why should you be charged with possession of those tools in addition to the actual crime you commit? That seems rather pointless and needlessly complicated (which is something that the American legal system seems to pride itself on). If the crime is breaking into a computer system, then charge him with that, regardless of what he used to do it. Adding in meaningless extra charges is just a way to get a longer sentence than the maximum penalty for the actual crime allows. They should toss the legislators who allow this to happen in jail for a while.
Thanks for correcting my terminology. I wasn't aware of the exact legal meanings of those words. My point is the same though, regardless.