

No One Is Innocent - mathattack
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/no-one-is-innocent.html

======
simonsarris
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
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.

~~~
comicjk
> Tell me when was the time you decided to have democracy. People never had a
> choice.

Actually, the fact of democracy is itself up for a vote. We could ammend the
Constitution so as to abolish elections, if there were a consensus to do so.
We have a choice.

~~~
baddox
Because of the extreme difficulty in amending the Constitution like that, you
might as well say that oppressed people in a totalitarian dictatorship could
simply overthrow the dictator, and that therefore their government is also a
choice. There are a lot more violent regime changes than there are amendments
to the US Constitution.

------
tptacek
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
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
That's true, but has little to do with the legality of throwing out junk mail.

------
glesica
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
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.

------
pjungwir
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
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-
def...](http://dohanews.co/post/53425474389/five-villaggio-trial-defendants-
jailed-for-involuntary)

------
veguss2
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
They certainly give more weapons to a corrupt government!

------
will_brown
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.

------
sultezdukes
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.

