Back to Gaffer's Philosophy
Archives.
The Gaffer's Philosophy:
Part 92 Other Needed Laws:
March 1, 2004:
In my last essay, I took a look at some internet problems and suggested some solutions in law. Now, those internet crimes are what first came to mind for me. That is because I am currently being victimized by these criminals. In addition I have a list of new laws that I think are needed. I do not claim my list is exhaustive. These are simply things that occur to me as I notice the daily passage of events. Call them some of my pet peeves if you like. Almost all of these come down to a matter of correcting or punishing the unethical behavior that I consider to be criminal in nature. Many of these may seem trivial, but it is precisely these little things that continue to erode the quality of life in America.
Before I go on, I think I should be specific on what I mean by crime and criminal activity. In my mind, a crime can be defined as any deliberate act with intent and with the knowledge that it will do damage to the community or to one or more members of the community. Deliberate intent is key because we must allow for accidents and errors. Now we could get into a snorting contest about whether accidents and errors really are unintentional. We can also get into debates about misfeasance and carelessness, but I think those problems are best resolved on a case by case basis. That is the only proper way to fix guilt.
In determining guilt I think intent alone should be sufficient. Even if no crime is committed, demonstrable intent to commit a crime should be sufficient cause for punishment. If we are lucky enough to nip it in the bud, so much the better. As to punishments, I still believe any punishment should be proportional to the cost of recovery up to and including life incarceration. In the case where there was intent but the action was circumvented, we must estimate what the cost would have been had the crime gone forward. I believe it is that simple. beyond that, I will not support a death penalty. It makes us too much like them.
Now for my partial list. While I am still thinking of computers, the reality of dysfunctional software springs quickly to mind. Since I have a business that depends of software, I am an ongoing victim of dysfunctional software. Now, I am of the strong opinion that selling products you know do not work is unethical. I think it should be defined as criminal behavior. I have never had a program that actually worked the way it was advertised to work. In most cases, the people who sell this stuff know it does not work when they sell it. This recently produced a rather bizarre instance when a computer magazine article revealed that a major operating system group was working on a repair before the initial product had even shipped. In short, the knew it was dysfunctional and they sold it anyway.
Now it would not hurt to have laws that punished people who do that with penalties proportional to the time lost by the victims of their misrepresentation. It does not matter if the product is software or automobiles. As to that, I think with the influence of the Nadar mentality we have sometimes been a bit too hard on the automakers and too easy on many others. I think there has been something of a vendetta mentality concerning automakers. The intent should be the reform of industry, not its destruction.
Laws might help, but much of this dishonesty could be dealt with just by creating real competitive situations. It has had a profound effect on the auto industry. I think it would be equally effective elsewhere. For example, in computer software it might be very effective for someone with adequate courage to develop a full line of products that actually work and go into direct competition with Microsoft and the others. There are currently at least two companies which are in a position to do this. Unfortunately, they both have the classic Western style managers. They both have cowardly, selfish, short term, bottom line management.
In another area we have an entire category of criminal acts that I will call Betrayal of Trust (BOT). I feel strongly that we need to offer special penalties for any lawbreaking that includes BOT. That is a situation wherein persons who are charged with some position of advising or caretaking use the power and cover of that position for criminal activity. Police, bankers, corporate executives, and Wall Street traders come to mind. Betrayal of trust is probably the most prevalent and most debilitating crime in our culture. Sadly enough, it is also the least severely punished. It should be the most severely punished.
We can make charges against most criminals just as always.
For example breaking and entering is B&E. However, if a cop
does a B&E the charge becomes B&E with BOT. In this case,
the penalty would be automatically tripled upon conviction.
We have many examples of this situation. As I implied, any crime
by a police officer is by definition a BOT.
For BOT concerning corporate executives and the like we don't need new laws so much as we need to enforce old laws uniformly. There should be very sever penalties for these people. For example, the former head of TYCO, Mr. Kozlwoski should get the maximum hard time penalty. We got another good example of BOT when our government gave a no-bid contract to our Vice President's old employer. There should also be a sever penalty for that kind of thing.
As to the church, BOT should be treated no differently when a Priest does it. Betrayal of the trust of children is particularly repugnant. It is even more disgusting for a Cardinal to cover it up. We have other examples that have never been investigated and should be. They occur all around us. They involve governors, HMO executives, and corporate executives. There are a large number of people who should be in prison who are instead living the good life.
In another area identity theft is of particular importance to me, because I believe it was attempted against me. I acted quickly to circumvent it and it did not come off. Now the government is getting interested because there are so many reported cases. As to that, someone should wake up the US Postal Service. When I was attacked I discovered they don't care. They constitute one of the biggest most vulnerable sources of personal information we have, but they don't care about mail tampering. They simply made it my problem, not theirs.
We need to wake up the post office, but we also need to have effective laws and enforcement to deal vigorously with this activity. In my opinion those convicted of identity theft would never get out of prison. They are stealing something so precious that it is a crime equivalent to rape and murder. It is a violation of our very person. Our identity is who and what we are. It is as close to sacred as anything we have. It is the sum of our life.
Along with the laws to handle identity theft, we need some
better control of the credit industry. We need to make the credit
card companies liable for heavy damages when they give credit
cards to any person in someone else's name. We must stop them
from sending partially filled out credit applications containing
personal information through the mail. We should also stop them
from sending blank checks with personal information through the
mail. I personally shred dozens of those things every month to
keep them from getting into the hands of criminals. The facts
are, the credit industry knows what's happening. Identity theft
could not occur without their active participation. It is time
that we made them liable for their actions.
Back to Gaffer's Philosophy
Archives.
|
|
|
|