Previous message: "FCC wants to yank Kevin Mitnick's radio license" http://www.politechbot.com/p-02963.html Text of order: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-359A1.pdf --- From: Mqrhoadsat_private Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:07:51 EST Subject: Kevin Mitnick's radio license To: declanat_private Declan: These observations are my own and do not represent any organization that I have done work for. The Kevin Mitnick case raises some interesting questions. 1. Is the FCC policy consistent or selective? That is to say, does the FCC routinely review all license renewals for all ham radio operators to find out if they have been convicted of a crime and then deny licence renewals based on that fact? Or do they just selectively look for high profile violators of other laws to make an example of certain people? There are principles of due process and equal protection even for people who have been found guilty of something. 2. Is the FCC trying to generate a new principle of law that anyone who has been found guilty of anything shall therefore pay a price in any arena of law or policy, whether or not that area is directly related to the area of the violation? 3. Former President Bill Clinton agrees to forfeit his ability to practice law in Arkansas for a few years as part of a plea bargan concerning his admitted misrepresentations in Federal Court. Does that mean the Department of Motor Vehicles in Arkansas should deny him the renewal of an Arkansas drivers license? How about New York where he now lives? How are the two issues related? No more so that Mitnick's hacking crimes are directly related to his ability to safely operate a ham radio. 4. It seems as if the FCC is saying, we do not like X because X broke the laws concerning computer hacking. Because X did that, X is a danger to us because his criminal history indicates he MIGHT use his ham operator licence in the future to commit some fraud on the public even though we have no evidence that he has done that in the past. Courts do not usually admit into evidence prior bad acts that are not directly related to a current charge nor do they usually allow agencies to deprive someone of rights because an agency prospectively speculates that someone might commit a crime in the future. 5. When any government agency uses the enforcement hammer to punish people they don't approve of, even if those people are guilty of some crime, or to further policy preferences not directly related to their jurisdiction, they only wind up undermining their own moral authority in the end. Mark Rhoads ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Dec 24 2001 - 07:30:47 PST