|
June 12, 2007
Adjusting my tinfoil sensitivity
A bill pending in the California legislature would criminalize the mere possession something I'd never heard of before -- bags lined with aluminum foil. While I'd heard about various cities banning stores from distributing plastic bags and styrofoam cups, this is the first time I'd heard of criminalizing the possession of any type of bag. To shoplifters and merchants, these foil-lined bags are known as "booster bags" -- because they defeat RFID technology by blocking radio transmission signals. As blogger tadhg.com sees it, laws against them criminalize intent: the real effect of the law would be to lower the burden of proof on prosecutors, and to criminalize intent. I'm not a fan of criminalizing intent; intent is primarily a mental state, and it should be clear that criminalizing mental states is totalitarian and grotesque. This law would criminalize intent because it criminalizes possession of the "booster bag" itself, and not what someone does with it.Well put, although with a possessory law, intent is irrelevant. (No one cares, for example whether a man who possesses heroin is an actual user, or whether someone whose computer contains kiddie porn images has the slightest interest in them.) Laws against things, and possessory laws generally, invite the worst sort of abuse, because the possession is the crime. Thus, when 88-year-old Kathryn Johnson lay bleeding to death on the floor, the cops who had illegally broken into her house and shot her devoted their time to planting marijuana in her basement. (That's because marijuana requires no intent.) In the hands of a creative prosecutor, these laws are wonderful, because the possession of the evil thing is thought of as inherently a byproduct of evil intent. Few sympathize with someone who possesses instrumentalities of crime, as the evil intent is just assumed. I worried earlier about my legal culpability for possessing sudafed within ten feet of my lithium batteries -- and sure enough I learned that the DEA could treat this as a crime if it wanted to (and possibly invoke the "Patriot Act"). Were I taller, larger, covered with tattoos, and a member of the right motorcycle gang, I don't doubt that they would too. This is of course all paranoia. The law hasn't passed yet, and if I don't like the little RFIDs I can still wear my tinfoil hat to protect myself from them. Hell, I can even wrap my fried chicken lunch in tinfoil and blatantly carry it in my pocket! As long as the store isn't using one of these, I'll be safe! MORE: Speaking of "creative" prosecutors, did you know that a camera can be considered a wiretapping device? I didn't either, but I share Glenn Reynolds's reaction to the prosecution of Brian Kelly for filming a police stop. It's an outrage. Wiretapping? Yes. As Brendan Loy explains, the law in question prohibits "intercepting" oral communications. I share his assessment of the situation: Remind me, what country do we live in again?The camera becomes a wiretapping device of course, which means that anyone with a video camera is now a potential wiretapper. I think there should be a right to film and record the police. All the more so considering that the police have the right to film and record you!. Considering that the police are more and more doing things like entering onto property and shooting dogs, what other recourse do citizens have? posted by Eric on 06.12.07 at 08:01 AM
Comments
I have at least two such foil lined bags in my house. They are my kids' lunch bags. The foil helps keep the lunch cool. It never occured to me to use them as a booster bag. I am glad I don't live in California, though I would not put it past Ontario's legislature to pass such a ridiculous law. Then again, how much publicity will this proposed law add to the usefulness of such bags as booster bags? John M Reynolds jmrSudbury · June 12, 2007 09:46 AM Gotta love laws like this. Here it's illegal to have a metal-detector in a city park. Why? Because a few yahoos start digging like maniacs when they detect something. So we don't prosecute the vandals, we make it illegal to walk through a park with a metal detector. tkdkerry · June 12, 2007 12:43 PM What strikes me about this proposed law is that it seeks to punish someone who may be trying to circumvent RFID tags. I can see the time when computer technology and memory will allow the tracing by government of a major purchase by someone who uses cash, exceeds his yearly income with that purchase, and is therefore suspect of having an underground income. For example: suppose I quietly sell a gift left to me by my Aunt Mary - her silver service, and use the cash to buy a new lap top. So, enter this new law in support to RFID technology. Big Brother wants to watch us. That's all. Frank · June 13, 2007 12:58 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
June 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2007
May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Vital issue of national importance
putting an alliance where a war ought to be is cultural treason! Winning by shutting up the loudest? Fusion News: Chris Wants Some Help "Can you play something to make me feel happy?" Preventive Health care, John Edwards style Praying For Fusion war on dogs? Adjusting my tinfoil sensitivity If you don't like it, move to flyover country!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I've seen aluminized plastic bags before. They are for carrying home frozen food without it defrosting on the way home. I guess Californians will have to rearrange their shopping trips so the grocery is their last stop even if that means burning more fuel.