FC: More on FCC wants to yank Kevin Mitnick's radio license

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

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: Mqrhoads () aol com
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:07:51 EST
Subject: Kevin Mitnick's radio license
To: declan () well com

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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------