RIPA Part III

[Ian G Batten]

On 16 Jun 2006, at 11:08, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>
> It is inherently dangerous to other people to drive, especially  
> while drunk.
> That's why we have driver licensing, and do not permit people to  
> drive at
> all when they are drunk. We have decided that it is a crime to  
> drive when
> drunk - and I think most people, including drivers, would agree.


So your argument is that because a risk society is comfortable with  
(people using cars) is rendered unacceptable by drivers drinking,  
it's OK to check drivers are not drunk as a condition of their using  
cars?

Computers are a risk society is comfortable with, but it's rendered  
unacceptable with people storing child pornography.  If you're in  
favour of random tests of drivers (which are de jure illegal, but de  
facto conducted), why would you object to random sampling of  
computers to see if they contain child pornography?

ian