7 ms·

No One Is Innocent

119 points by mathattack 13y ago

ttrreeww 13y ago
The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government. - Publius Tacitus ca. 56 – ca. 117 Roman orator, lawyer, and senator. He is considered one of antiquity's greatest historians.
tptacek 13y ago
Without commenting on the article's fundamental point, which is valid and urgent: I don't think it's actually a felony to throw away junk mail that isn't addressed to you after it arrives at your house. The statute is written to address cases where mail is taken from the custody of the US Postal Service; it refers to "authorized depository of mail matter" where other language in the US Code specifically calls out letterboxes and the like. I do not believe your home mailslot qualifies as "an authorized depository". I did some searching and found some support for that belief, but nothing very authoritative (a MetaFilter thread and an eHow article). Let me just acknowledge right away that this is trivia; the proliferation of strict-liability crimes (and the fact that strict-liability is actually a kind of default in federal law) is a real problem, as is the problem of open-ended legislation where the details are filled in by unelected regulators.
- NovemberWest 13y ago
  Anecdata: I know someone who, as a kid, picked up a package from the street addressed to someone else and ended up with a (criminal) record that created problems for them in early adulthood. I did not know them at the time of the incident, so details are sparse. Messing with the mail is a serious offense and charges related to it do apparently sometimes get out of hand.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    That's true, but has little to do with the legality of throwing out junk mail.
simonsarris 13y ago
This is a concept I've heard a lot growing up by all sorts of people. Usually they suggest something tangential or paranoid as a result. I'd say its normal and to be expected, and this kind of whining is equivalent to someone writing an article on car crashes and titling it "No One Is Safe". Civilization and governments are emergent, more or less, and hobbled together by all manner of parts and precedents. We live in a democracy, or an approximation of one. That means we aren't ruled by an evil cabal, we aren't ruled by some landed elite. We aren't governed by some educated class (you should see some town hall meetings). We've chosen a democratic process, which means that we've chosen in aggregate to be governed by whoever shows up. That's horrifying in its own right, but its more-or-less what we asked for. And what, you were expecting a perfectly oiled, benevolent government from top to bottom with seven nines up-time and great fault tolerance? Shitty things like this are a cost of civilization. By all means we should try to fix them, but we shouldn't act appalled when we find them, and we certainly shouldn't advocate throwing out the cradle of civilization with the bathwater. (Not that this site necessarily does, but "revolution" is in the URL, and many who point out things like an imperfect justice system do, and civilization smash-and-grab tends to be the M.O. of certain political parties that point to things like this in an attempt to tear down other portions of civilization). I upvoted the article because I'd like the discussion, but I don't like the sentiment of this article, which is essentially "Civilizations and governments that evolve over hundreds of years get very complex, and you should be afraid, be very afraid." Enough with the boogeymanning. It's not a good way to open discussion or fix things.
- jsnk 13y ago
  You are right that we live in an approximation of democracy, but that doesn't entail that "we aren't ruled by an evil cabal, we aren't ruled by some landed elite. We aren't governed by some educated class (you should see some town hall meetings)" Democracy permits all of the above without destorying its own meaning. Also the statement that "We've chosen a democratic process" is a lie. It simply has been repeated endlessly that people believe it to be true. Tell me when was the time you decided to have democracy. People never had a choice. It was simply imposed and enforced. Lastly, democracy is not the only means of having a civilization. Whether people like to admit it or not, as much as democracy can be good, it can also be bad.
veguss2 13y ago
The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government. - Publius Tacitus ca. 56 – ca. 117 Roman orator, lawyer, and senator. He is considered one of antiquity's greatest historians.
- mathattack 13y ago
  They certainly give more weapons to a corrupt government!
will_brown 13y ago
This article makes me think about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Especially the attempt to use the same law to charge defendants with a Felony for violating a website terms of service/use, in one instance creating fake social network profiles. Yet, simultaneously the very same DoJ has a known policy of creating fake web profiles to locate and interact with suspects. Luckily in the case I am aware of the Judge ruled such an application of the law was overly broad.
pjungwir 13y ago
Ever had a garage sale without telling your town? Ever bought something out of state? Ever copied a CD to give to a friend? Ever added a shed out back without getting approval? Ever lied when a doctor or teacher asks if you own guns? Ever told your kid what the teacher said was wrong? Ever complained about the President? There is a lot we do that aren't felonies and may not even make us guilty, but I still don't want the government poring over every word and deed to see if they appear suspicious enough to investigate. I'm even more afraid of the day local governments get access to these databases, and they can enforce all the regulations people only tolerate because they can ignore them.
- dopkew 13y ago
  When local governments didn't have such capabilities, most people ignored these regulations because those had a practically insignificant effect on their lives. But when the local governments get this capability, all those ignored regulations will suddenly become significant. And also, all new subsequent regulations will have strong public focus. While people ignore regulations which have very little practical harm in being ignored, they also ignore some which later turn out to be very harmful. See near the end of: http://dohanews.co/post/53425474389/five-villaggio-trial-defendants-jailed-for-involuntary http://dohanews.co/post/53425474389/five-villaggio-trial-def...
glesica 13y ago
The real problem here isn't that the government is going to haul away random people, though that can certainly happen. The problem is that the situation described in the article, combined with prosecutorial discretion and plea-bargaining, creates a situation in which no one actually has constitutional rights. If the prosecutor or someone powerful doesn't like your speech, they don't censor you, they just find one of the laws you've no doubt broken and threaten to charge you. Either you stop saying the things they don't want said, or they throw the book at you. Or, it can be even more mundane, maybe they just lock you up or ruin your life and let the speech issue go unsaid, but nonetheless communicated. In a world where everyone is, in fact, a criminal, and criminals have no (or limited) rights, no one has any rights.
- pjungwir 13y ago
  That could happen, but the scary thing to me is that you don't even have to be making disapproved speeches. You could be just living your life, and the wrong bureaucrat notices you doing the wrong thing, and your life is ruined. So I'm not really disagreeing, I'm saying that any one of us, speeches or not, could be hit by a legal lightning bolt.
sultezdukes 13y ago
So the problem is that we have way too many laws and also not enough checks and repercussions for prosecutorial misconduct. But the bigger problem is that not enough people care. They buy the bullshit that all these laws and spying are for our own good and safety and security.

119 points by mathattack 13y ago

The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government. - Publius Tacitus ca. 56 – ca. 117 Roman orator, lawyer, and senator. He is considered one of antiquity's greatest historians.

tptacek 13y ago

Without commenting on the article's fundamental point, which is valid and urgent: I don't think it's actually a felony to throw away junk mail that isn't addressed to you after it arrives at your house. The statute is written to address cases where mail is taken from the custody of the US Postal Service; it refers to "authorized depository of mail matter" where other language in the US Code specifically calls out letterboxes and the like. I do not believe your home mailslot qualifies as "an authorized depository". I did some searching and found some support for that belief, but nothing very authoritative (a MetaFilter thread and an eHow article). Let me just acknowledge right away that this is trivia; the proliferation of strict-liability crimes (and the fact that strict-liability is actually a kind of default in federal law) is a real problem, as is the problem of open-ended legislation where the details are filled in by unelected regulators.

NovemberWest 13y ago
Anecdata: I know someone who, as a kid, picked up a package from the street addressed to someone else and ended up with a (criminal) record that created problems for them in early adulthood. I did not know them at the time of the incident, so details are sparse. Messing with the mail is a serious offense and charges related to it do apparently sometimes get out of hand.
- tptacek 13y ago
  That's true, but has little to do with the legality of throwing out junk mail.

simonsarris 13y ago

This is a concept I've heard a lot growing up by all sorts of people. Usually they suggest something tangential or paranoid as a result. I'd say its normal and to be expected, and this kind of whining is equivalent to someone writing an article on car crashes and titling it "No One Is Safe". Civilization and governments are emergent, more or less, and hobbled together by all manner of parts and precedents. We live in a democracy, or an approximation of one. That means we aren't ruled by an evil cabal, we aren't ruled by some landed elite. We aren't governed by some educated class (you should see some town hall meetings). We've chosen a democratic process, which means that we've chosen in aggregate to be governed by whoever shows up. That's horrifying in its own right, but its more-or-less what we asked for. And what, you were expecting a perfectly oiled, benevolent government from top to bottom with seven nines up-time and great fault tolerance? Shitty things like this are a cost of civilization. By all means we should try to fix them, but we shouldn't act appalled when we find them, and we certainly shouldn't advocate throwing out the cradle of civilization with the bathwater. (Not that this site necessarily does, but "revolution" is in the URL, and many who point out things like an imperfect justice system do, and civilization smash-and-grab tends to be the M.O. of certain political parties that point to things like this in an attempt to tear down other portions of civilization). I upvoted the article because I'd like the discussion, but I don't like the sentiment of this article, which is essentially "Civilizations and governments that evolve over hundreds of years get very complex, and you should be afraid, be very afraid." Enough with the boogeymanning. It's not a good way to open discussion or fix things.

jsnk 13y ago
You are right that we live in an approximation of democracy, but that doesn't entail that "we aren't ruled by an evil cabal, we aren't ruled by some landed elite. We aren't governed by some educated class (you should see some town hall meetings)" Democracy permits all of the above without destorying its own meaning. Also the statement that "We've chosen a democratic process" is a lie. It simply has been repeated endlessly that people believe it to be true. Tell me when was the time you decided to have democracy. People never had a choice. It was simply imposed and enforced. Lastly, democracy is not the only means of having a civilization. Whether people like to admit it or not, as much as democracy can be good, it can also be bad.

veguss2 13y ago

The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government. - Publius Tacitus ca. 56 – ca. 117 Roman orator, lawyer, and senator. He is considered one of antiquity's greatest historians.

mathattack 13y ago
They certainly give more weapons to a corrupt government!

will_brown 13y ago

This article makes me think about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Especially the attempt to use the same law to charge defendants with a Felony for violating a website terms of service/use, in one instance creating fake social network profiles. Yet, simultaneously the very same DoJ has a known policy of creating fake web profiles to locate and interact with suspects. Luckily in the case I am aware of the Judge ruled such an application of the law was overly broad.

pjungwir 13y ago

Ever had a garage sale without telling your town? Ever bought something out of state? Ever copied a CD to give to a friend? Ever added a shed out back without getting approval? Ever lied when a doctor or teacher asks if you own guns? Ever told your kid what the teacher said was wrong? Ever complained about the President? There is a lot we do that aren't felonies and may not even make us guilty, but I still don't want the government poring over every word and deed to see if they appear suspicious enough to investigate. I'm even more afraid of the day local governments get access to these databases, and they can enforce all the regulations people only tolerate because they can ignore them.

dopkew 13y ago
When local governments didn't have such capabilities, most people ignored these regulations because those had a practically insignificant effect on their lives. But when the local governments get this capability, all those ignored regulations will suddenly become significant. And also, all new subsequent regulations will have strong public focus. While people ignore regulations which have very little practical harm in being ignored, they also ignore some which later turn out to be very harmful. See near the end of: http://dohanews.co/post/53425474389/five-villaggio-trial-defendants-jailed-for-involuntary http://dohanews.co/post/53425474389/five-villaggio-trial-def...

glesica 13y ago

The real problem here isn't that the government is going to haul away random people, though that can certainly happen. The problem is that the situation described in the article, combined with prosecutorial discretion and plea-bargaining, creates a situation in which no one actually has constitutional rights. If the prosecutor or someone powerful doesn't like your speech, they don't censor you, they just find one of the laws you've no doubt broken and threaten to charge you. Either you stop saying the things they don't want said, or they throw the book at you. Or, it can be even more mundane, maybe they just lock you up or ruin your life and let the speech issue go unsaid, but nonetheless communicated. In a world where everyone is, in fact, a criminal, and criminals have no (or limited) rights, no one has any rights.

pjungwir 13y ago
That could happen, but the scary thing to me is that you don't even have to be making disapproved speeches. You could be just living your life, and the wrong bureaucrat notices you doing the wrong thing, and your life is ruined. So I'm not really disagreeing, I'm saying that any one of us, speeches or not, could be hit by a legal lightning bolt.

sultezdukes 13y ago

So the problem is that we have way too many laws and also not enough checks and repercussions for prosecutorial misconduct. But the bigger problem is that not enough people care. They buy the bullshit that all these laws and spying are for our own good and safety and security.