R v (1) GRAHAM WESTGARTH SMITH (2) MIKE JAYSON (2002)

[Roger Hayter]

In message <20020424234144.B8066@snowy.squish.net>, Jon Ribbens 
<jon+ukcrypto@unequivocal.co.uk> writes
>David Hansen <davidh@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24 Apr 2002 at 17:07, Donald ramsbottom wrote:
>>
>> > Once a judge has decided what is what, it will be difficult to change
>> > the minds of subsequent judiciary, when considering other or similar
>> > technical points.
>>
>> Yes. The sheep like nature of judges has been noted by many.
>
>Yes, it's called "precedent", it's deliberate and it's a good thing.
>
>
I know its off topic but:  the decision to twist rational thought to 
treat downloading an image file as the same thing as making a photograph 
(whether by cameral or photoshop) was a response to moral panic by the 
judges at a time when the penalties for *possession* were perceived by 
the tabloids to be too low.  Irrational response to public opinion (now 
preserved by precedent!) is just what judicial precedent is designed to 
avoid!  We may well see the same phenomenon in relation to cryptography 
soon, if using/breaking codes is the only thing an individual subject to 
public opprobrium  can be charged with! Maybe the precedent on "making" 
images will act as a meta-precedent for changing the rules (of law and 
language) arbitrarily in IT related crimes. There is a tendency for 
judges and tabloids to treat anyone with mysterious skills as a 
potential witch.

-- 
Roger Hayter