Whilst I'm not a laywer, I have been on jury duty on a few occasions. There's a couple of subtile differences between the American and Australian legal system.
In Australia it is perjory to discuss a case in the media which has not gone to trial. There is a difference in the way "jury fairness" is obtained. In the US, there is the interogation of potential jurers prior to them being selected. In Australia your name is just selected out of a box and the defense and prosecution can say "no" but just by looking at you - not by questioning. And I seem to think that each side is only allowed three rejections.
In Australia, the fairness is acheived by not allowing the case to be discussed before hand in the media.
It's a separate discussion as to which is the best method. However, this difference is why the trial was aborted - it was on the grounds that we now have a fairly easy method for a case to be discussed before the trial.
Further, with regards to only people on electral roles being selected for jury duty. In Australia voting is compulsory - everyone is on the roles and everyone must attend a polling booth when there is an election. If you choose to put a blank ballot paper in the box that's up to you. It might be better to say it is compulsory to attend a polling booth. Anyway it blows away the argument about only those on electrol rolls will take their jury role seriously.
If there was any conspiracy WRT to shutting down this site it would be due to the criticism which as already been leveled against it (before this incident). There is no gaurentee the information is accurate and there is no way to have yourself taken off the list.
So this comes down to a privacy debate. Something which has been discussed at length on/. Yes, sure all the information is out there, but it's not all togther in one place and would a false impression of a person be gained if they were listed on this site. If you don't like what doubleclick are doing then equally you should be against this website. This poses an even harder and more emotive case as to why we should not allow privacy invasion. Whilst these people may me criminals, they still have the same rights to privacy as the rest of us.
Slashdot Mirror
Whilst I'm not a laywer, I have been on jury duty on a few occasions. There's a couple of subtile differences between the American and Australian legal system.
In Australia it is perjory to discuss a case in the media which has not gone to trial. There is a difference in the way "jury fairness" is obtained. In the US, there is the interogation of potential jurers prior to them being selected. In Australia your name is just selected out of a box and the defense and prosecution can say "no" but just by looking at you - not by questioning. And I seem to think that each side is only allowed three rejections.
In Australia, the fairness is acheived by not allowing the case to be discussed before hand in the media.
It's a separate discussion as to which is the best method. However, this difference is why the trial was aborted - it was on the grounds that we now have a fairly easy method for a case to be discussed before the trial.
Further, with regards to only people on electral roles being selected for jury duty. In Australia voting is compulsory - everyone is on the roles and everyone must attend a polling booth when there is an election. If you choose to put a blank ballot paper in the box that's up to you. It might be better to say it is compulsory to attend a polling booth. Anyway it blows away the argument about only those on electrol rolls will take their jury role seriously.
If there was any conspiracy WRT to shutting down this site it would be due to the criticism which as already been leveled against it (before this incident). There is no gaurentee the information is accurate and there is no way to have yourself taken off the list.
So this comes down to a privacy debate. Something which has been discussed at length on /. Yes, sure all the information is out there, but it's not all togther in one place and would a false impression of a person be gained if they were listed on this site. If you don't like what doubleclick are doing then equally you should be against this website. This poses an even harder and more emotive case as to why we should not allow privacy invasion. Whilst these people may me criminals, they still have the same rights to privacy as the rest of us.
Just my 2c worth, and IANAL.
Fozzy