HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [talk.politics.drugs] Aviators vs. the WoD
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:19:10 GMT

A repost from talk.politics.drugs:

From: b1zcxzw@kato.BELL-ATL.COM (Ruhl)
Subject: Aviators vs. the WoD
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:50:17 GMT
Organization: Bell Atlantic

I have copied the following
There is a thread that is currently being discussed in rec.aviation that is of
interest to this newsgroup.  Certain pilots seem to fit DEA profiles due to
their flying patterns (see below).  


In article <1992Sep8.224119.1564@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org 
(Robert Dorsett) writes:
>
>Among other things the DEA's been doing: 
>
>1. It (with the cooperation of Customs) has introduced the concept of 
>*targeting* international travellers, based upon their travel profiles (e.g., 
>go to Columbia 5 times a year, expect to be strip-searched and have things 
>shoved up your ass next time you arrive at JFK).  They don't need to display 
>any *evidence* that you are explicitly suspected of any crime: only that your 
>travel/lifestyle profile matches those of smugglers or other "undesirables."  
>And the Supreme Court has upheld this!

Hard to believe that this sort of behaviour goes on in the USA.  A friend
of mine flew his canadian-registered C-310 down to the dominican republic 
for the 500 anniversary in the spring - while the a/c was parked overnight 
in florida, the DEA broke into his a/c, tore up his floorboards, and wired
an extra transponder into his electrical system, in the process screwing
up his turn co-ordinator.  High quality work, obviously.  Needless to say,
a new weight & balance was not calculated.

Guilty until proven innocent.  Incredible.  I am never going to fly my a/c 
south of tennessee.

I don't use drugs (don't even use anti-histamines) but didn't anybody
learn anything from prohibition in the 30's?  When you try to legislate
morality, criminals get rich.  Increasing the enforcement pressure simply
causes a darwinian effect to take place - the nastiest and smartest criminals
prosper.  Is this the intent of the US govt?

Treating ths symptoms (the drug runners) is useless.  It doesn't make the
the demand for drugs go away - the economic force still remains.

Perhaps, though, the DEA doesn't really want to so-called "drug problem"
solved - they'd be out of a job.

Anyways, nuff said.

----

#include <std.disclaimer>



-- 

================================================================================
 Bill Ruhl              | The preceding statements do not represent the opinions
 AOPA Sundowner N2248L  | of me or my employer.  They are just what I think.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5738 alt.politics.usa.constitution:39 soc.culture.usa:7225
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 14 Sep 1992 23:59:39 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Sep13.225955.4627@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.055611.22600@qiclab.scn.rain.com> 70465.203@compuserve.com writes:
>>What's worse is the frequency with which "that's not what the founding
>>fathers intended" argument can be shown to be false
>
>Honestly, I prefer such abuses to judicial activism: It puts the
>debate into a factual (and somewhat objective) context. Biased use
>of original intent can be countered, by presenting more accurate
>historical interpertations of the framer's intent. This is much
>better than arguments based on activist principles: Since such
>arguments usually boil down to, "I think the Constituion _should_ say...",
>they are very hard to contradict. Even if historic arguments can
>be abused, this at least provides a framework with _some_ claim to
>objectivity and political impartiality.
>
>                                           Frank Crary
>                                           CU Boulder
>

It seems to me that we have come to an era where judicial activism is
the ongoing approach to the constituion. The only question is wether the
activism will be towards the left or right. We are currently moving 
rapidly to the right.

Richard Foy  
Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal]  Drug dogs used in public schools
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,misc.legal
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:55:30 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: O1EVERT@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU (Tom Evert)
Subject:  Drug dogs used in public schools
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:37:32 GMT

My 15 year old son came home from school and said school officials had drug
sniffing dogs in during the summer looking for drugs/drug residue in lockers.
He also said the high school would be visited a few more times during the
year during Christmas break, etc.  Can anything be done about this (other
than expressing outrage to the school and board of education)?
 
This is yet another example of GUILTY until proven innocent which
unfortunatly seems to becoming more common place every day!
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kandt@ai-titania.JPL.NASA.GOV (kirk kandt)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: NASA/JPL
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:25:40 GMT

In article <DLB.92Sep9094205@fanny.wash.inmet.com>, dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep9.032310.18048@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki
|> Kuoppala) writes:
|> 
|> 		   AMENDMENT II:
|> 	   A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
|>    State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
|>    infringed.
|> 
|> 		   REALITY II:
|> 	   This right exists.
|> 
|> Say, what?  This right is one of the most abused on the list.

Not only is it one of the most abused but a NY senator has proposed
legislation to repeal the 2nd amendment.

On another note, I've read several comments about the Republicans willingness
to limit some of our constitutional rights but don't be fooled into thinking
that things would be much different if we had a democratic administration the
last 12 years.

-----
	 |^^^^^^|  The Official Dirt Riders Motto...
	 |      |  (According to Bart, that is)
	 |      |
	 | (o)(o)     _____________________________
	 @      _) _ /  Pain is temporary,         |  Kirk Kandt
	  | ,___| /__   Bones heal,                |  M/S 525-3660
	  |   /      \  Chicks dig scars &         |  Jet Propulsion Laboratory
	  /___\       \ Glory is forever!!!        |  4800 Oak Grove Drive
	 /     \       \___________________________|  Pasadena, CA 91109

"To disarm the people - that was the best and most effective way
 to enslave them ...."
  - George Mason ( Framer of the Declaration of Rights, Virginia,
    1776, which became the basis for the U.S. Bill of Rights )
    3 Elliot, Debate at 380.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason
 for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
 resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
 - Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
   1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker)
Subject: Re: US Freedom of Religion today (was: U.S. Bill of Rights today)
Originator: rfb@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<f7DY02f921jg01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
	<1992Sep15.064322.5692@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:25:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.064322.5692@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
   The man's job was connected with a state drug rehabilitation program, and
   he was fired, not because of government objections to his religious
   practices, but because of job qualifiactions: The state felt that
   anyone who used drugs (legally or not) was not qualified to work in
   that field. 

Doubtful.  I find it difficult to believe that the state felt that
legal use of drugs such as antibiotics, caffiene, nicotine, alcohol,
asprin, ibuprofin, acetominophin, etc, etc. would disqualify the
workers.  Because the drug which they were legally using was peyote, a
part of their religious exercise, they were treated differently.
-- 
Rick Busdiecker <rfb+@cs.cmu.edu>
``Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers''
				- Unknown
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today 
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:50:40 GMT

In the future, please put your comments *after* the relevant statements,
to ease reading.  I have reversed the relevant notes in this article.

In article <1992Sep9.185933.10418@gtech.com> smp@gtech.com (Sergio M. Pedro) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.032310.18048@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>[followups directed to alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution]
>>		AMENDMENT I:
>>	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>>speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
>>and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>>
>>		REALITY I:
>>
>>	Peyote use among the Native Americans: Banned.
>	*note* drugs are illegal.

The point is that the law making Peyote use in conjunction with
religious ceremonies illegal is unconstitutional, because it prohibits
free exercise of a religion.

>>	Free Speech: Censorship of adult materials.
>     * note *  Crimes against children, including child porn are not
>	covered under freedom of speech.

Crimes against children are certainly not included in freedom of speech.
Arguably, taking nude pictures of children could be a crime.  I think
that publication of such pictures falls under freedom of the press.  
Perhaps the government could prosecute the publisher for taking the
pictures.  If they provide evidence that convicts the photographer, the
publisher might only face conspiracy charges.  If the publisher can
prove that no conspiracy existed, only then would they be able to
publish the pictures.  

Sorry to ramble, but I didn't want anyone to think I condone child
pornography. 8)  My basic point is that justice can be done without
violating the Constitution.

I have just one other general statement.  If you don't like some part of
the US Constitution, there is a mechanism to change it.  I shiver when I
hear people say "The founding fathers didn't anticipate this" or "that's
not really relevant today."  (I've heard congressman say these things)  
If you don't agree with a portion of the Constitution, lobby hard to get
it changed.  In the meantime, don't sidestep around it to violate MY
rights!

/Roger
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rbp@netcom.com (Bob Pasker)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today 
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 22:04:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <+rtnx0l.rbp@netcom.com> rbp@netcom.com (Bob Pasker) writes:


>>you miss the point then.  under the enlightenment ideal of government,
>>the people give up certain rights to the gov't as a means of bringing
>>order to society.  [i'm not saying i agree with this, i'm just pointing
>>out the historical basis for what "people's" motivation might be in 
>>accepting these infringements.]

>At the same time, the purpose of a written Constitution is to specify
>(in writing) which rights the people waive and which they retain. The
>same ideas of government require that the people consent to their 
>government and its powers. The Consitution specifies which governmental
>powers the people have consented to, and which they have not. 
>If the people really want the government to have additional powers, then
>the Constitution can be amended to satisfy them. If the amendment 
>isn't ratified, then the people (as a whole) do not consent

>If you accept the government's assumption of addititonal powers, because
>a majority of the people don't seem to object, you are fundamentally
>giving up on the idea of a rule of law.

i don't know where in my post you infer that i support "additional 
powers," but you're mistaken and you shoould read more closely.

-- 
--- bob pasker
---- rbp@netcom.com
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5851 alt.politics.usa.constitution:179
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: US Freedom of Religion today (was: U.S. Bill of Rights today)
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:16:31 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Sep11.011505.22445@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, 
KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu writes:
> >
> >		AMENDMENT I:
> >	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> >or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> >speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
> >and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> >
> >		REALITY I:
> >	Peyote use among the Native Americans: Banned.
> 
>      The ban was overturned by the Supreme Court (and this was probably
> overturned by the WoD, sadly enough)

The "ban" (the issue was whether an employee fired for religious use of 
peyote may be denied unemployment benefits) was overturned by the Oregon 
Supreme Court, and reinstated by the US Supreme Court, in Employment Division 
of Oregon Department of Human Resources v. Smith, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (1990).

Based on that decision, the current state of the law is that a government may 
deny unemployment benefits to an employee terminated for the religious use of 
peyote.  Extrapolating that to a ban is not a large stretch.

Side note: I encourage folow-uppers to the "U.S. Bill of Rights today" thread 
to change the subject header to indicate the specific topic to which their 
posting is applicable.  Makes it easier to follow the threads.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.elections
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [comp.patents] Patent Secrecy Orders
Keywords: patent secrecy, Cold War, patents, PTO
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:15:25 GMT

A repost from comp.patents:

From: pcassidy@world.std.com (Peter F Cassidy)
Subject: Patent Secrecy Orders
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:18:43 GMT
Summary: [REQUEST] Looking for stories of patent applications denied becuase
Keywords: patent secrecy, Cold War, patents, PTO


-	Friends,

-	I'm a writer on assignment with Technology Review working on 
a piece about Patent Secrecy Orders, a Cold War invention that allows 
the DOD to block grants of patents to inventors whose inventions are 
deemed inimicable to the national security for military rivals to know 
about or aquire.
-	I've got tons of figures on it from the PTO yet the one company 
that I've heard about that has recently fought a patent secrecy 
order - and won - doesn't want to appear in print.
-	Does anyone know an inventor - individual or corporate - who has 
had one of these things slapped on them? I'd appreciate any response. 
I'm stumped because all of this is . . . secret and unpublished so 
finding a victim of secrecy order will have to come from 
word of mouth, or word of net.

-	Thanks.
-				Peter Cassidy

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 19:52:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>>  First they have to show that it IS encoded.

>However, in the USA it is _illegal_ to send encrypted messages to destinations
>outside the USA, ...

      Do you have a cite for this?  There's a big problem with exporting
encryption technology, which is defined as a "munition", but the US
doesn't, as far as I know, restrict the sending of encrypted messages
at all.  Some countries do prohibit transborder encrypted messages in
unknown codes, but the US isn't one of them.  Many businesses do in fact
use encryption for international transmission.  Hardware for data and
FAX encryption is commercially available in and out of the US.  NSA
has, amusingly, ongoing efforts to both encourage and discourage private
sector encryption.  They push it for Government contractors (they used to
want to provide the keys, even), but discourage its being built into
large communications systems generally.  This is generating enough
political flak that they've moderated their positions somewhat.
NSA is finally having to grow up and accept its role as an ordinary
government agency subject to public and congressional scrutiny.

>For example, if the federal government invokes a suspected
>thread to national security you can be held without trial for an essentially
>arbitrary period of time, and when something does come to trial the burden
>of proof is _not_ necessarily with the prosecution.

      The Bush adminstration tried to get something like this into the 
1991 crime bill, but it only applied to non-US citizens in the US, and
was more of a deportation rights issue.  And there's the whole seizure
issue, which really is punishment without trial and with an assumption
of guilt.  But jailing without trial for US citizens in the US is still
illegal.  Is there anybody we should be trying to get out?

					John Nagle
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today 
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:52:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.191834.14992@tamsun.tamu.edu>, rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu
(Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:

> Perhaps you can press charges on "conspiracy to commit child abuse"?
> The idea is to protect children.  I think this is a good idea, and is a
> legitimate function of government.  (I doubt it is in the powers of the
> Federal government though...any comments on that?)

That would *NOT* be the federal government's domain, the powers
of the federal government are enumerated in the Constitution:

	Amendment X

	"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
	 Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
	 reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Quite clearly, that "duty" would fall to the individual States,
or "the people", provided it does not violate the Constitution.

> >Why do you then propose several alternatives which violate the
> >Constitution?
> 
> Because I didn't think my proposals all the way through. 8)  Would you
> like to help improve them?

I assume, to some extent, that's why this group exists....  :-)

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,misc.legal,comp.org.eff.talk
From: merlin@lerami.lerctr.org (David Hayes)
Subject: Re: Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:16:02 GMT
Organization: Not Bloody Likely!

Annectodal, but true.

A few years ago, a friend of mine worked for an electronics equipment 
manufacturer. They were engaged in sales discussions with the USSR (nothing
that high-tech, no export problems). Things went well, until the foreign
negotiating team came in one day and announced what they were now willing
to pay for the equipment. It was almost exactly at cost of manufacturer.

It happens that those costs had recently been sent to this company's 
overseas offices. It also happens that the USSR consular offices in California
are perched on a hill, overlooking a suspiciously large number of telephone
company microwave links. It didn't take long to figure out what happened.

My friend came up with the obvious cure. They began encrypting their 
overseas links, using DES double-block encryption. (Encrypt the message,
then encrypt the encrypted message, using two different keys. Makes total
garbage.)

He got a very unpleasant visit from NSA a few days later.

    David Hayes    merlin@lerami.lerctr.org
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jscsp@acad3.alaska.edu (PARKER CHRIS S)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,misc.legal
Subject: Re: [misc.legal] Drug dogs used in public schools
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:38:00 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC

In article <1992Sep12.184911.5162@bradley.bradley.edu>, death@buhub.bradley.edu (Dustin Slater) writes...
>Well, this isn't entirely uncommon. I am a sophomore in college now, but
>for 3 years of my highschool career they would have drug dogs running the
>hall. They would make us close the classroom doors, and no one could go in
>or out for anything. The police would then plant a few unused lockers with
>drugs and then work the halls. I don't believe they ever found anything
>except a couple of jackets that smelled like pot. 

I just dropped out of a school like this 2 days ago, (I'm not dropping out,
I is now a college student ;-). Anyway, police roam the halls and drive 
around in those jet black DARE drug forfiture cars, I've never heard of them 
catching anything but innocent children. Example 1, my friend has become a
drug guru through no conniving of his own, it appears the freshmen were
spreading rumours about him, when one kid told his mother, she freaked and
called the cops on him. In the middle of class, two pigs walked into his math
class, and 'escorted' him into the interrogation room of the school. They were
asking about a 'vial' he was 'telling' everyone about that was going to be
slipping all the teachers drugs in their coffee. After wasting 3 hours of his
time, and rummaging through the book bindings, everything else he owned
(which included sifting his yogurt for hidden drugs), and trying to give him
an illegal UV test, they gave up. It seems that all the 'drug busts' around
here are formed by children spreading rumours. How typical.

Example 2? I was letting a friend of mine smell this incense (The powdered
kind) that he wanted. Our friendly Herr Principle walked by, and 'detained'
me for it (he though I was selling heroin) until someone who had a clue told 
him it wasn't.  

>One might think this was a city school, but we weren't. my town was about 
>8,000, and 2 neighboring towns also used our school of about 1600 students.

Our town is about 35,000 (I think), and we have 1800 students, but now its
1799.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,rec.nude