This is an important distinction which many people forget (it was
also brought up in an well-written NYTimes article a while back
... forget who the author was):
Police (including the FBI) generally get there too late; they do
not show up until a crime has been committed. Most of us would
rather that the crime NOT be committed in the first place. This
usually means things like locks and other protection mechanism
which could some times get in the way of police trying to perform
investigative work AFTER the fact.
This is why many crimes are not really crimes about damage or
harm, but the "potential" or "imminently likelihood" of damage or
harm. For example, you don't get busted for speeding because you
have harmed some other driver; you get busted because you are
supposedly "more likely" to cause harm when you exceed the speed
limit. You are still busted AFTER you have been speeding, but in
theory, this will happen BEFORE you cause genuine harm.
Whether this sort of preemptive strike is reasonable, rationale or
Constitutional is subject of another debate.
Ern
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 9:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: SF Internet self-defense course
As for the "cops will defend it" point, this is naive. Cops make
busts, they don't "defend" rights.
