crimes that aren't crimes

[TheCotMan]

This one had potential as peripheral to DefCon, and it was given a chance. It touched on crypto, but seems to have gotten stuck in the mud.

[SlackJaw]

The thing is you two guys are at total opposite ends of the spectrum and the best thing here is to agree to dissagree. I mean Astcell is career military and that's certainly a different mindset than your average civilian, let alone civilian geeks.

There are stats to lend validity to Ridirich's claim that seatbealts can mame, but the lives they save far exceeds this.

It basically comes down to the largest geek motivator - government interference.

Now I know it's a violation here to delve into politics so I won't, I'm just putting in my two cents because I've been in both positions. 8 years military and the rest as a cynical "stick it to the man" type.

The fact is, it's hard to say who will do what in abnormal circumstances. There's a ton of leeches out there on the government dole yet they don't make a dent in the misuse of funds perpetrated by some of our so-called leaders.

I hardly think seatbelts are the fist line of defense for good citizenship and responsible spending.

[Ridirich]

Ast, firstly, thank you for reading my post, I really appreciate it that you paid special attention to the last paragraph. I am sure you noticed I use belt pads, which cover the seatbelt and prevent injury caused by these devices, and am planning on investing in a 4 point harness, which is much safer than the conventional seatbelt.

Oh, and just so you know...I am already disabled, severe asthma(less than 60% lung capacity and the reason I have not come to DC yet, but am still planning to). I have worked since I was 14, and never pulled the disability money out that I am entitled to, plus my father has worked since he was that age and has never pulled out any disability money, even though, currently the US Navy owes him in excess of 300,000 dollars for a medical discharge they never paid him for. I think if I, personally, would get disability, it would not come out of your tax dollars as both my father and I have paid, in both taxes as well as well as the back-money from the USN. I work, I make a life for myself, which is alot more than most people do in my situation and furthermore, more than is expected of me. Then again, you did not have access to my specific situation before this post, did you? I am obviously not the norm.

The sad fact is seatbelts kill, so do airbags. I know. I am an EMT and have seen it for myself. Airbags cause blindness, snap necks, suffocate children/smaller adults and cause major skin problems as well as disfigure faces due to burns caused by the powder used. Seatbelts break ribs, severe necks(the carotid artery is right in the neck, I have seen a 1/2 decapitation caused by a seatbelt with the driver having been in a BMW going roughly 70 mph on a highway and hitting another car) and keep people in burning/flooded/etc. vehicles. These people also claim disability(if they live)...in fact just as many people are injured and get money from either disabilty, welfare or insurance companies that it compareable to if no one used them at all. Furthermore, I have seen people saved by NOT wearing a seatbelt at all. They were shot out the window of their vehicles and only suffered cuts, even though everyone else in the vehicle was injured or dead. These cases are rare, but still bear credence. Furthermore, if these devices were really so wonderful, then how come on buses, specifically school buses, are there no seat belts and air bags behind every seat? Furthermore, are you aware that not many people live to see paralyzation from accidents? That requires a break in the spine. Most accidents cause legs, chest, neck, arms and such to be injured, but not the spine that would need to be broken to give a person paresis.

In the end, I think you missed my point. They are both dumb laws because all mentioned safety devices injure or kill just as much as they save, and niether helmets nor seatbelts save as many lives as we would like to believe. There are many sites on google that mention these facts with actual tests, but I believe it because I have seen it with my own eyes. I think our tax dollars should be better spent on developing a harness of some sort that actually DOES save lives in cars without keeping the driver from escaping the vehicle if need be. Personally, I like the 'jet fighter' 5 point harness, without one going over my nuts. Hence the 4 point harness.

[astcell]

Ridiruch, if you get in a car accident and do not have a seat belt on and you get paralyzed for life, will you accept the disability checks from social security? If so, then that is MY money and I don't want to give it to you, so wear your seat belt. Won't accept the checks? That's fine, thanks. But some government employed caretaker is gonna have to be there to wipe your butt for you, literally, and I don't wanna pay for that either.


I don't know if this is still in effect, but in the early 80s in Germany if you were in an accident and did not have a seat belt on, it was automatically your fault. How's that for motivation?

On a side note, lots of cops don't wear seat belts around town because of the need to haul tail out of a vehicle to go after someone. Seconds count. It is indeed a personal choice but the outcome affects many others.

[Ridirich]

You know...I have been thinking about these 'laws' that don't make sense.

I think helmet/seatbelt laws are up there on that list as well. Speed limits? I can see having them in specific areas to calm traffic down for the residents. Stop signs and such? Needed. Strict laws governing the building of vehicles? Needed. But, is it really needed to arrest and/or ticket one for not wearing a seatbelt? I mean, the seatbelt is meant to 'save' your life in the event of a wreck, right? Isn't it someone's choice if they wish to use this apparatus for that effect? What about bikers? Right now they have to wear helmets in many states. Helmets in a high speed accident 70% of the time or higher do not save a life, and the biker is going to die anyway. What was the point to begin with? Why not make bikers wear seat belts too, just so we can kill more of them? Having no seatbelts on a motercycle saves lives because you need to get off the damn thing when it wrecks so you don't get caught under it.

Getting back to the cars and seatbelts though. I have seen people with neck lacerations from seatbelts as well as severe bruising anywhere from their pelvis all the way up across their bodies to their necks. People who have died due to blood loss CAUSED by the seat belts.

Me personally? I think the law should not exist. It is someone's right to choose if they buckle up or not, not some fat idiot in an office signing laws. I plan on investing in a 4 point harness and never wearing a seatbelt again...until that time, I am stuck using those seat belt pads till I modify my car enough to house the correct seats.

[astcell]

sweet fucking hell, that would definitely make my list of things that should be legalized.

I think they outlawed doing our own alcohol for the same reason we can't do out own abortions. Some people may get others killed based on ignorance or lack of priorities.

But is IS illegal to take photographs of large pieces of art!

Actually there are a few skylines, buildings and even baseball teams which they say canot be photographed for the same reason. However, photographing a copyrighted object is not illegal, but selling the photo will have implications. Let's take this lack of logic one step further:
1. You get a tattoo on your face. Now no one can take your picture with the permission of the tattoo artist.
2. You do your own facial tattoo. You get arrested. The police take your mug shot. You escape. They send pictures of you to all post offices. You sue for copyright infringement.
3. You don't get a facial tattoo. Same scenario as above. Your parents sue for copyright infringement.
4. You draw sidewalk art with a piece of chalk. It gets walked on. You sue for destruction of property and mental anguish.
5. You are the first person wh came up with the word 1337. You need a lawyer.
6. You live in Chicago. Check with the authorities to see if you can write the word "Chicago" on return addresses.

As far as I care, public art is PUBLIC. If it is not public and someone else wants to retain all the rights, they can keep it in their basement or pay the citizens of the city a fee for storing their crap on piblic property. Otherwise I may be tempted to dump by trash on public property too and tell people they canot touch it because of copyrights and trademarks.

What the hell happened to my country.

[theCount]

The "criminalisation" of photography comes grows at the same rate as public paranoia, and the loss of society's innocence. The problems do not only exist when photographing "objects of strategic value", but say, photographing children at play.

In Glasgow's Kelvin Park, I was pulled up by a concerned citizen whilst I was photographing my friend's son (whose parents were present at the time), who started quizzing me about my intentions. In some cases now, it seems that grown man with camera equals pedophile.

On prostitution, a good example would be the localisastion zone in Kramat Tunggak, Jakarta. Before it got closed down, they were running extremely good programmes for the prostitutes: During the day, it was compulsory for them to attend classes, be it literacy and numeracy skills, sewing, or home economics, all geared towards giving them the opportunity to move away from the trade, and there were quite a few success stories.

To ensure attendance, pimps were penalised by having their licence revoked for a week if any of their charges cut class.

Other benefits for the prostitutes include handouts of free condoms, weekly medical checkups, and most importantly (for the prostitutes I interviewed), security. It was a proper community, accepted by a lot of the surrounding community, including even mosque officials.

These benefits were lost along with the closure of Kramat Tunggak, no security, no classes, no checkups, and despite moving into the neighbourhood nearby, no community.

[theprez98]

The other dumb laws are ones that usually are'nt even laws to begin with, but quickly become the defacto order of things. i.e. photography of public places is not illegal, however since 9/11, etc, everyone is suspicious of anyone taking photographs, it is treated as if it were illegal and probobly will become illegal.

(Side note: If people should'nt take photo's of the outside of public buildings, why do they still usually put large pieces of publically funded art outside the entrance? Don't they want us to photograph it and appreciate it?)

But is IS illegal to take photographs of large pieces of art!

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/07...photos_of.html

(This one is a classic. The public isn't allowed to photograph a particular sculpture
because the city says that the artist retains the copyright. Seriously.)

[bascule]

Killing people is illegal, so who cares if I have a bolt action Mauser made in the late 1800s or a supressed MP5? If I'm commiting crimes with it, then nail me for it.

Bingo!

I think all libertarians realize two things:
1) Making something illegal doesn't make it go away
2) Making something illegal has its own deleterious side effects which are often worse than the ones which were used to justify making it illegal in the first place

Case in point: prohibition. Sure, alcohol leads to murder, rape, violence, and all sorts of actions which result from impared decision making. However, prohibition lead to the highest homicide rate in American history. Furthermore, none of the problems associated with alcohol went away because people didn't stop drinking. Prohibition removed all government regulation of alcohol, funded a lucrative black market, and criminalized ordinary citizens who just wanted to drink.

It all comes back to one group wanting to impose their morality upon another group in issues that don't affect the first group directly at all. In doing so, they make things worse for everyone.

[Deviant Ollam]

Resale of said homemade booze is illegal.

how about simply giving away one's alcohol as gifts? is the transport/distribution illegal if no profit is made?

Distilation of alcohol is also illegal in the US.

sweet fucking hell, that would definitely make my list of things that should be legalized.

[noid]

Actually, on the brewing front you are only allowed to brew 200 gallons of beer or wine a year for personal consumption. Resale of said homemade booze is illegal. Distilation of alcohol is also illegal in the US. That one falls under the 'its illegal because you arent giving the government their cut' ideology. They make claims about public safety, but in reality the government gets big money from the licensed distilleries in the US and the backyard hooch makers arent paying up.

[Deviant Ollam]

wow! so many outstanding comments from everyone on this thread. i'll re-read them again and add my replies after dinner. one thing i wanted to respond to, however, is a point renderman made that sometimes raises a flag with me

In Canada ... marijuana ... Consider if the Gov't legalized it ... and most importantly, tax it! The benifits outweigh the problems.

i agree that tax revenues would be a significant (if unwelcome) "benefit" to the legalization of many things that are currently part of the world's underground economy.

however, i do not feel that pot should be thought of as something that could become a cash crop or a source of tax revenue. in my opinion, if weed were legal, it wouldn't be a retail item... it would be free. (at least for personal consumption)

alcohol, tobacco, etc... these are all consumer goods bought and sold at retail stores for the simple reason that the production of these substances is often long, requires investment in material and machinery, and requires painstaking effort and significant skill to do well. in short, one has to be a particular breed of expert to make a hobby out of, say, beer production. (just ask che)

most citizens are unwilling to setup a backyard still or hopper, complete with tanks and casks and a bottling operation. they'll just spend $20 at a local mart for a case of lager. same with tobacco... most people aren't moving to virginia and setting up long rows of plants and drying racks when marlboros are $5 a pack (or whatever the heck cigs cost nowadays) at the 7-11.

weed, however, requires almost no skill and effort to grow and can flourish almost anywhere. just ask the local potheads who grow their own... they'll tell you that 90% of the "effort" involved is keeping your garden concealed, etc. if anyone who wanted to could have a plant or two in their backyard, people would be giving away ounce bags in work like they currently do with tomatos and lemons. of course i could be wrong... and even with hobbiest gardeners giving away fruit and vegetables there are still many people who buy these items in stores, so who knows what would actually happen.

i know that i, personally, would never have a need to buy a pack of "marlboro greens" or whatever joints wind up being marketed as when the shackles are finally removed.

[renderman]

As far as the secondary effects of things like prostitution, its because they are illegal that these secondary effects exist. Good example are the legal brothels in Nevada. The girls are there voluntarily, they get tested for STDs regularly, they are required by their health code to use protection for everything from giving a handjob to anal sex, and most of them make more money than me. Yes, there are eastern european gangsters kidnapping girls and forcing them to turn tricks in New Jersey, but thats because when you ban something you create an underground economy that caters to the need. The US government helped put the Mafia on the map in America by banning liquor. We helped create the Pablo Escobars and Felix Ramons of the world by banning drugs. If we remove the prohibition against a lot of these things, we remove the secondary effects. Up in Vancouver BC there are clinics where heroin addicts can come in and shoot up. They cant buy the heroin there, but they can come in, grab clean rigs, shoot up, and stay there till they feel ready to leave. The clinics are well lit, have security guards, and are well protected. The result of this is that non-heroin using folks like myself dont have to deal with junkies hiding in the alleyways. They dont leave their spent rigs laying on the street for kids to pick up. They dont OD and die next to a dumpster where they get to rot for days. They dont get victimized while shooting up. So, by just removing partial prohibition a lot of the secondary effects get mitigated.

Excellent point noid.

Wishing certain things away through law tends to push them underground and make the problem worse. The 'safe injection sites' that noid mentions are a good example of a community realizing the problem won't go away just by wishing and doing the best they can to dea with a serious health problem (addiction). And noid is also right in that prohibition caused more problems than it solved (also created one hell of a boom industry for us in Canada to satisfy the US's thirst. Thanks!)

In Canada we have a major problem with marijuana use (I think weed is currently our #1 export. Guess who the primary customer is...). Consider if the Gov't legalized it, licensed, inspected and regulated producers, and provided rules on distribution (i.e. only sold to persons over 18, proof of age must be shown) and most importantly, tax it! The benifits outweigh the problems.

You suddenly put the mob (or in Canada's case, biker gangs) out of business, you collect tax money that can be put into programs to help addicts, you also make sure the supply is safe and not cut with anything harmful. On top of all of that, you now have probobly saved the taxpayer alot of money by eliminating all the 'posession of small amounts' charges cloggin gup the courts.

Often it's argued that legalization would cause all sorts of secondary problems. Driving while high, public 'intoxication' (public highness does'nt sound right), but we already have laws covering these things (driving under the influence). If you treat it the same way you treat alcohol, you will have similar control and similar results.

Just my $0.02 (CAN)

[astcell]

A lot more things would be legal if the government could just figure out how to tax them.

[Thorn]

Which is why I said I could argue the issues either way. To play devil's advocate.

Prostitution: The criminalization of prostitution necessarily prevents organization of the workers which would lead to more testing, safer environments, and shifting the money away from those that "do what it takes" to those that do "what's best for business".

No question it can be argued this way. Of course, one impact of legalization would most likely mean another bureaucratic organization to regulate licensing, testing, etc.

In fact, I have no problem with the concept for legalizing prostitution. It's just a good example of one type of law that may have more perception pushing it's current implementation than actual fact. While there are a certain number who would argue against legalization on the public health issues, I think far more people would argue about it on religious or quasi-moral grounds than anything else.

Speeding: During the busiest times (which is when an accident is most likeyl to occur) there is a de facto speed limit due to the fact that traffic always slows. When the highways are mostly free people tend to speed and those of us who follow the speed limit rather than the flow of traffic are a significant hazard. (Remember that the chance of an accident increases linearly with speed but exponentially with speed differences.) During inclement weather the speed limit is often too high and should also be ignored. This argument isn't entirely without merit as examined here.


The problem with most of these laws is that they all involve a very grey area of understanding, and we, as a society, prefer to use "instinct" and "common knowledge" rather than fact because it involves less of that thinking business.

Yup, and most officers recognize this. If traffic is moving at a given pace, even above the posted limit, then the people who get stopped are those on either end of the differential. And yes, (in my prior career) I've stopped people and issued tickets for going too slow. It's called "Obstruction of Traffic."

Most place also have laws governing when the weather or other conditions changes the speed limit. Usually said laws are referred to as "Too Fast for Conditions" or something of that ilk.

I firmly believe, though, that most law-enforcement officers use the law simply as an excuse to pull over suspicious vehicles. After all, the police are people just like the rest of us and have little interest in harassing people that are simply getting on with their lives. Perhaps this law is a good thing, then, but (if you haven't figured out) I'm in favor of less regulation and relinquishing of power whenever possible.

Where I live, you cannot be stopped for not using a seatbelt. It is a "secondary violation", meaning that if an officer observes it in the course of another violation (e.g. a speeding stop), then the ticket can be issued.