December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Black DaveMail: I Promised My Grandfather
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 08:53:06 -0800 To: haeberli(a)apple.com (Martin Haeberli -- Apple), rmiller(a)telematica.com (Richard Miller), davenetworld(a)wired.com, mquinn(a)netcom.com, idig(a)nbn.com (David Biedny), rick_lepage(a)macweek.ziff.com, jlg(a)be.com (Jean-Louis Gassee), alecs(a)microsoft.com (Alec Saunders), combee(a)techwood.org (Benjamin L. Combee), pmcq(a)utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Pam McQuesten), ivan.myrvold(a)grimstad.nett.telenor.no From: dwiner(a)well.com (DaveNet email) Subject: I Promised My Grandfather Sender: owner-davenetworld(a)wired.com Precedence: bulk --------------------------------------- Amusing Rants from Dave Winer's Desktop Released on 2/9/96; 8:46:03 AM PST --------------------------------------- I said: "I'm voting against Clinton in November." Kyle D. Skrinak, kylesk(a)nando.net, said: "Perhaps I missed it, but may I suggest you declare who you intend to support. Outside of a libertarian candidate, I am unfamiliar with which presidential candidate would be against this censorship. Fair enough. A lot of people asked that question. And Mr. Skrinak asked it with respect. My answer: I don't know! I can say I'm going to vote against Clinton without saying who I'm going to vote for. That's my right as a US citizen. It's only February. The US presidential election is in November. There's lots of time. Between now and November the web will grow by an order of magnitude. Try to remember what it looked like in June 1995. It was a sleepy backwater then, even though it looked like a boom. We still have spring, summer and fall before we have to make a choice. Perhaps even Clinton can get my vote. But he's got a bunch of digging (and explaining!) to do. People have also questioned my use of the term "crime against humanity" to describe the attempted censorship of the Internet. People say I'm off here, not in direction, but in scale. They ask how can you compare this act with the other acts that have been called crimes against humanity? I have two answers. First, it's a felony to leave the scene of an accident, and it's a felony to blow up a Federal courthouse in Oklahoma City. Scale has nothing to do with it. If this isn't a crime against humanity, who is it a crime against? Do we hold our politicians accountable for their actions, especially if they're on a global scale? Are just US citizens offended by their attempt to shut down free speech on the Internet? No. The mail has been coming in from all over the planet. And rightly so. This act has global implications. Second, I made a promise to my grandfather to oppose this kind of shit. I'm a first-generation US citizen. Both sides of my family left Europe, fleeing Hitler, for their lives! I listened to my parents and grandparents. I've read about this stuff. How did Hitler start? How many people said "It can't happen here!" And how sorry were they later, when they couldn't do anything about it but run for their lives. Well, it's still early, we *can* do something about it. These ideas must meet our resistance. I think it's our obligation, if not to humanity, to evolution and peace. ***It Can Happen Saying it's unconstitutional is like saying it can't happen here. You're trusting something that might not be trustworthy. A year ago, when the Exon amendment was first discussed, did you think that Congress could pass such a bill? It can happen. Did you think that Clinton would sign it? It happened. Could the courts go along with it? Hmmm. Could people go to jail? What do *you* think? The opposition is incredibly well financed and organized. According to the EFF they're distributing kits to federal prosecutors all over the country, teaching them how to prosecute under the new censorship law. They're going to make hay while the sun shines. Maybe the law is unconstitutional. Maybe the courts will say so. But for now, it's on the books, it's the law of the land. Can you go to jail for your opinions in the USA? According to the law -- yes. Some of us will go to jail. I think we know that now. Hey -- I'm pissed when I get a jury duty notice. Imagine how it would feel to get arrested for speaking my mind, for writing DaveNet? How would it feel to get convicted and sent to jail? I don't want to find out! I like my life. I want to be free. I don't want to be a prisoner! I made a promise to my grandfather, but I also made a promise to myself. I thought we had cleansed this kind of crap from our society after Vietnam. We lost a whole generation on that one. Let's not lose another one. Yes, it can happen here. It can happen anywhere, anytime. All it takes is your silence. Wake up! ***What a day! Yesterday was a day of great growth for me. It started at 4AM, writing my ode to Rick Smolan, entitled "Holding Hands in Cyberspace". Then it turns out I was wildly and unrealistically optimistic. I look at Rick's website, there's Al Gore, talking about the fucking environment! I want to believe Rick is a good guy, but the evidence indicates otherwise. I leave him a voicemail, explaining that our thirteen year friendship is in jeopardy. No answer. I feel I've misled my readers. So I retract my support for his project. A few hours later a blue ribbon shows up on his site. Click on it. Nothing happens. Is this good enough? No. I think Rick truly has a good heart. He wants to do the right thing, deep inside. But he didn't do the right thing. I can't support him. Can you have a friend who you can't support? No. I said in an email that this is the first time in my life that I didn't sell out for friendship. That's where the growth came from. In the early evening, I spoke with Howard Rheingold, hlr(a)well.com. He encouraged me to work something out with Rick. His magic words were -- "eventually Rick will thank you for doing this." That gets inside of me, it resonates. Howard is a great writer! I asked him to write something for DaveNet. I asked him to write about his day, yesterday -- his 24 Hours -- something for Rick and others to think about. Here's what Howard said. ***Howard Rheingold speaks I got up this morning and headed for Planet Hollywood, a place I never would have stepped foot in otherwise, to do a panel with Paul Saffo and Esther Dyson. Illustra got this big to-do together weeks ago, as self-promotion leveraged on Rick Smolan's self-promotion. I thought Rick was doing a pretty cool thing, bringing people's attention to some of the pleasant and beneficial things happening in cyberspace. God knows we need as much of that as possible to counter the hysteria whipped up by Ralph Reed and buddies. Illustra seems like a cool product. Empowers people to publish. And they paid me. This morning turned out, through one of those weird accidents that history hands you, the day of the Web blackout. I blacked out my main page before I headed out this morning. The Illustra thing, frankly, was one of the biggest wasted opportunities I've ever seen. They did a great job getting a couple hundred interesting people together and then put on a boring blah-blah for hours. Then came the panel. I always take the opportunity to seize the subject and wrench it over to how the fuck are we going to look our children in the eyes ten years from now when they ask us what we were doing while a bunch of tiny-minded puritan fascists shat on liberties that Americans have died for. I think some people woke up. At least they said so. I hope I gave them something to talk about. I feel fine about the bux I took from Illustra to do the gig. And I felt fine about helping Illustra promote 24 Hours promote Illustra. Until I read my Davemail tonight. Rick. Be a journalist. You are the last hope on an ugly day. American journalists, with a few exceptions should hang their heads in shame. I'm one of the guys who gets the calls for the quotes and soundbites. For years. Ever since this Internet stuff started heating up. I've done ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, NHK. I've done German, French, Austrian, Italian, Australian TV. I've given the quotes to the reporters from the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, and a hundred podunk papers. And every goddamn sound bite about democracy hits the cutting room floor and is replaced by the same idiotic shtick about cyberporn or sexual predators in chat rooms. Over and over again. For years. I have asked reporters whether they care about the kind of country their children grow up in. I literally got down on my knees and begged the last CBS crew that came out here. The reporters and field producers are sincere. There is some asshole sitting in LA or New York whose job it is to kill the stuff that isn't as shallow as a tin pan full of cold dogpiss, and substitute some off-the-rack sleaze. There is a code of ethics for journalists, and right up there at the top is a reminder that the press in a free society has an obligation to inform citizens about events that affect our freedom. Well, journalism is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of entertainment, and these journalists have loaded the shotgun, handed it to their enemies, dropped their trousers, bent over, and put the muzzles in their own asses. I believe most of the editors and producers who failed us so miserably have done it out of cluelessness more than malice or conspiracy or craven sucking-up-to-the-owners. The most important piece of legislation in the past fifty years took a year to work its way through Congress and is now law. A multi-trillion dollar industry has been divvied up. Do any of us know who really won and who really lost? Does anybody know about any of it except the cyberporn stuff? It was a sideshow, a juicy piece of meat to distract the watchdogs of our minds, while the real action took place elsewhere. I've been writing columns about this since 1994. So has Brock. Wired has been on the case. And very few others. It isn't just the politicians who deserve our wrath, the craven cowards. It's the journalists and their bosses. But history handed us this delicious opportunity. After a year of failure to get the attention of the New York Times and CNNs of the world, Rick Smolan, media lubricator extraordinaire, managed to get a lot of attention focused on something happening on the Net that *isn't* sinister. And now Dave Winer tells us that Rick isn't going to acknowledge the Web blackout. Rick, it's this simple. You are a journalist. You chose February 8 as your day to cover. To ignore the anti-CDA protest that is one of the biggest stories on the day you chose to cover months ago is to abrogate the right to ever call yourself a journalist again. It isn't too late. I know this is a headache you didn't ask for. Sometimes history asks people to make a judgement call at a bad time. Sometimes people regret the decisions they failed to make. We have an opportunity here to use all the attention you have masterfully focused on this event to shed some light. You gotta do it. Acknowledge the protest. ***One more screed The following story has been floating around the net, attributed to Charles Phillip Whitedog. I don't have an email address for Mr. Whitedog. His signature reads "Charles Phillip Whitedog, Ojibway and Network Man; Multimission Ground Systems Office (Mission Control); Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA "About 1966 or so, a NASA team doing work for the Apollo moon mission took the astronauts near Tuba City where the terrain of the Navajo Reservation looks very much like the lunar surface. With all the trucks and large vehicles were two large figures that were dressed in full Lunar spacesuits. "Nearby, a Navajo sheep herder and his son were watching the strange creatures walk about, occasionally being tended by personnel. The two Navajo people were noticed and approached by the NASA personnel. Since the man did not know English, his son asked for him what the strange creatures were and the NASA people told them that they are just men that are getting ready to go to the moon. The man became very excited and asked if he could send a message to the moon with the astronauts. "The NASA personnel thought this was a great idea so they rustled up a tape recorder. After the man gave them his message they asked his son to translate. His son would not. "Later, they tried a few more people on the reservation to translate and every person they asked would chuckle and then refuse to translate. "Finally, with cash in hand, someone translated the message: 'Watch out for these guys, they come to take your land.'" ***I felt sorry for him! I did eventually talk with Rick, and at 10:30PM I drove to San Francisco to get my picture taken by him, and to chat with some of the people doing the "24 Hours in Cyberspace" project. Rick had been up for 36 hours. You could tell. Look in his eyes. He's barely standing up. I felt sorry for him! We don't understand each other. Yes, there is a blue ribbon on the 24 Hours website, <http://www.cyber24.com/>. Cooool -- kind of. But it doesn't go anywhere, it's not a link. It's just a picture. And in that I think we have the perfect metaphor for Rick's project. Smolan could be an online journalist if he wants to be one. By an accident of history, he could have been a *great* online journalist. In a real sense, the first one. Welcome Rick! I said in "Holding Hands in Cyberspace". ***But... Imagine running CNN on the day of a big plane crash. And not covering it. (That sounds like an Alanis Morissette song!) You have the co-pilot of the plane on camera. And he talks drivel about the global environment. Ouch! Rick was asleep during his 24 Hours. But, as Howard says, there's still time. For me, I've had to take a stand against a man I admire. And I hate that! So what? Dave Winer PS: The most eloquent rant I've seen on this stuff so far. Read it all the way thru. Be patient. Now you understand what's really going on. <http://www.hotwired.com/userland/steverussell_495.html>. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Webmasters: <http://www.hotwired.com/userland/theblueribbon_489.html> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

1 0

Re: Tell me whats wrong with this
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:37 PM 2/8/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >First, most televisions and VCRs are currently equipped with the >"O-Switch," which parents have long been using to turn content on and off. I agree strongly with Tim on this one. The one time the OFF switch didn't work for me with my sons, (the disagreement was about quantity, not content), I used wire cutters on the cable. Very effective. Bill ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Encryption and Backups
by mch＠squirrel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 4, 14:13, Alan Olsen wrote: } Subject: Encryption and Backups } Something that I have not seen addressed is the need for strong encryption } in backup software. } } Most backup software has an "encryption" option, but I have seen few that } have anything resembling strong encryption. Furthermore, I have seen no } real push for strong encryption for backups at all. GNU tar is not the commercial backup solution many folks will be looking for, but it works, and has nice built-in hooks which are intended to call a compression program. One can also use these options to call an encryption program, as long as the encryption program takes stdin as input, stdout as output, encrypts by default, and decrypts when given the -d option. e.g. if the encryption program happens to be called /usr/local/bin/mg, something like gtar --use-compress-program /usr/local/bin/mg --block-compress -b 96 -cvf /dev/rst0 directory will backup "directory" to tape in encrypted form under Sun OS 4.1.3 It also has support for incrementals, etc. -- Mark Henderson -- markh(a)wimsey.bc.ca, henderso(a)netcom.com, mch(a)squirrel.com PGP 1024/C58015E3 fingerprint=21 F6 AF 2B 6A 8A 0B E1 A1 2A 2A 06 4A D5 92 46 cryptography archive maintainer -- ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto/sun-stuff/change-sun-hostid-1.6.2.tar.gz

1 0

Re: Fair Credit Reporting Act and Privacy Act
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:25 AM 2/5/96 -0500, you wrote: >Probably the easiest way of ensuring that personal information isn't >wantonly distributed by credit agencies or (anyone else) is to update >our Privacy Act - which is ridiculously out-of-date and badly in need of >being re-written. It is also hampered by its apparent lack of teeth. The parts of the Privacy Act that I remember are all restrictions on _government_ actions, not private actions. It's an important distinction; even though TRW may know way too much about you, it's all information that you voluntarily released to somebody, unlike data that the government requires you to give them. And, yes, it's out-of-date and toothless. ... >If the Privacy Act were rewritten to be as strict as the BDSG, businesses >would have a (mandatory) legal requirement to: ... >o Ensure that databases are *not* being maintained which describe the > characteristics of individuals (buying habits, income, property > ownership, etc) wantonly propagated by marketing (direct mail, > telemarketing, etc) companies. If you're going to propose laws, you should not only think about whether they'll do what you want, but also about what else they'll do, how they'll be enforced, what are the side effects of that enforcement, etc. How is the government going to ensure _non_existence of databases? If I'm a prosecutor, and claim that you _might_ have personal data about somebody on your machines beyond the Politically Correct Data Elements, can I get a search warrant for _all_ your databases? What about that encrypted file on your PC at work? Such things have been used to hold personal data before (even by police like the LAPD or Stasi.) No thanks. If you want to require that a database exists, then a business can demonstrate that they have it by producing it (though proving whether or not in really includes all transactions is still difficult.) On the other hand, if you don't make the law adequately enforceable, you're encouraging violation and selective enforcement. >o the promotion of the use & implementation of encryption - including > the possibility of ITAR being reduced or eliminated for the export > of encryption products Yes! GAKed encryption, to be sure - once there's a requirement that you be able to produce your data for the government, they'll discover that they need guaranteed access to data that would otherwise be guaranteed inaccessible by strong encryption. >o reduced propagation of personal information A much stronger way to increase privacy is to eliminate one of the most popular unique keys used by these databases - the Social Security Number which the government requires you to give almost anybody who gives you money. Give each taxpayer a pile of taxid numbers (either cryptographically related, or just randomly generated and stored in a big tax-department database) so you can use a different taxid for everyone who needs one, making it impossible for anybody but the government to correlate them. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:11 AM 2/9/96 -0500, olbon(a)dynetics.com (Clay Olbon II) wrote: >There is one potential side-benefit to the V-chip -- The inverse-V-chip .. >I am looking forward to a time when I will never, even accidentally, have >my TV tuned to "Full House" ;-) Just as many people program their televisions using VCR-Plus codes to record the shows they want (using TV Guide as a rating service) it would be easy for any rating service to publish a list of the codes for Approved Shows, Banned Shows, Rated-by-interestingness shows, etc. without putting any government-mandated rating chip in the TVs or forcing the TV producers to rate them (which also has a chilling effect on the shows produced.) #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Sorry to post this question here, but I know of no other group with >folks who would know. Have any of the "spiders" such as Alta Vista >been sent to see just how many US sites have been blackened in the >protest? The approximate number and percentage of US sites blackened >might be interesting. In my limited surfing, I have been gratified >to see the _widespread_ response -- but I am not the typical user. I don't think it's updated enough things recently (or else it only indexes the contents of a page and not the header details in the <BODY> statement.) For instance, BGCOLOR="#000000" had 197 hits, but most of them were old, and on topics like "How to set the background colors on your web page", and NO documents matched both BGCOLOR="#000000" and vtw. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:28 AM 2/9/96 -0500, Duncan wrote, regarding the appallingly invasive British Privacy Act: >Computer bureaux which process personal data for others or allow data users >to process personal data on their computers must also register. Their >register entries will contain only their name and address. > >Data users and computer bureaux who should register but do not, are >committing a criminal offence, as are those operating outside the >descriptions contained in their register entries. In these cases the >Registrar regularly prosecutes. The penalty for non-registration can be a >fine of up to =A35,000 plus costs in the Magistrates Courts, or an= unlimited >fine in the Higher Courts." Ouch - does this mean that if you offer shell accounts, you either have to contractually limit the processing your users may do, or be fined as a criminal for not registering? #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com= +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:39 AM 2/9/96 -0800, jamesd wrote: >If you have one law for men who run businesses and one law [for] other folks, >then we have selective enforcement and application of the laws, >that enables governments to act selectively and capriciously. >For example here in California private citizens who attempt to organize >recall elections are often subject to extraordinary and confiscatory fines. On the other hand, of course, there are laws that are ostensibly for the purposes of regulating businesses whose primary effect is to limit the privacy or actions of individuals. For instance, California's law requiring that mailbox renters provide two forms of ID and make their mailbox companies agents for service of process is ostensibly to "protect" consumers by regulating businesses that operate out of mailboxes (which the law claims there are 7 million of here); it furthermore lets the Post Office specify what kind of ID to use (which some local postmasters are far more extreme about than others), and requires revealing True Addresses. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

1 0

Re: Why am I wrong?
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>(Was referring to the govs ability to control communications *with them*) >>Perhaps I do not understand your point. They can perhaps >>control the communication between them and me, but not between me and >>everyone else. > >Ok please view my three points fromn the standpoint that so much of the >total traffic would be affected by at least one, that "uncontrolled" >communications would be minimal. Do you mean readable by "controlled"? I thought I knew what you meant by that :-) If you do mean readable, I don't see how that would make a difference since so many people would still be encrypting their mail. If you mean controled as in being able to encrypt messages would be controlled, that the govt. would have final say over whether one could encrypt or not, then unless they pass legislation specifically outlawing encryption, or encryption not readable by them, they could have no such control. Even if they did legislate, they could not enforce reliably because to many would be breaking that law anyway. Plus, the law would (should, he says kneeling and praying) be struck down as unconstitutional by the fourth. > >>>2) communications using someone else's equipment/network (university, >>> employer, etc) > >>Employers nor universities have any jurisdiction over whether you use >>encryption in your transmissions while using their networks unless it >>specifically does not allow it when you first agree to have an account with >>them. > >I think you had better review the concept of "property rights". Unless you >have a contract that says you can, or can establish "expectation", the >property owner who allows you to use their equipment may control how it is >used. Perhaps I had better. I do know that if employers do have jurisdiction, then my point about employers encouraging encryption should still hold (barring legislative prohibition). If it does not, then I conceed that you are correct in saying that it would *affect* traffic, but it would not totally control it. As for universities, the traffic here would be affected as well, as you say. There would still have to be some justification for imposing such a restriction and it would be demanded by the students and the parents of the students, but it still could be sucessful (how frightening this is!) >>>3) communications with anyone (Internet merchant, etc) who says "this >>> is not what <MasterCard|Visa|AmEx> approves..." > >>I don't quite understand your meaning. I am a merchant and I encourage my >>customers to use PGP when they send information over the internet, whether >>to me or to anyone else. > >That is fine but what if MasterCard refuses to accept this method ? (Not >saying they will, just "what if" ? You are free to use digicash if you >want but is not "legal tender for all debts public and private". I think that the comming standards announced by credit companies will take care of secure transactions, and I still don't see where the govt. would have to do with controlling traffic here. Just as we have many credit cards, we will have many online accounts, each with their methods of secure, verifiable trasactions. Methods for payment and security will become increasingly easy to use and software will be written to accomidate these features. >>Comments? Bring 'em on! :-) > >I dood it. The debates roll on... lunaslide On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQBvAzD3EHEAAAEDAMVwZzXozPjX18mCenA5fJsdWZXcrhJCxPR+SoVCmR7d4ZVU mwITzPTHo/GyLvJrWyk5YdhheczyY2VSawaMrCN/nWA7K9lwAylbKyPxqBhRYJ3C 2wi2uD5LY2wypNOQyQARAQABtB5KZWZmIENvbm4gPGx1bmFzbGlkZUBsb29wLmNv bT6JAHUDBRAw+1bqS2NsMqTTkMkBAQkTAwCersFbCyk8O0MbGlNcZDAe24CLEWQ0 0C5EHni33W76UsG1bybcLsuMH6HVwLF7IqZivnzc7wkujYPQvCqn8HEYYTld8V9V Cou4dOvA8kV7rHvAn/LuLx7DRruLFrRoPSk= =OIT9 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:21 AM 2/9/96 -0500, Tim Philp wrote: > Private individuals are not what I was refering to. I am more >concerned about corporations who hold information about me and release it >to the highest bidder. When it comes to individual versus corporate >rights, I am clearly on the side of the individual. Remember that there's a major difference between "corporations" and "business"; you seem to be mixing them up. A corporation is a legal fiction that treats a cooperative effort by one or more people as if it were a person in itself, and normally involves limiting the liability of the corporation's investors by putting it all on the fictional person. A business is what one or more people do to make money. Most corporations are businesses, though not all. Governments can legitimately tell corporations what to do because that's part of the price of the legal fiction; a government can't abuse a corporation because you can't beat up a legal fiction, though it can say "Poof! You're not a legal fiction any more", and conversely, if the people who own the legal fiction don't like what the government's telling it to do, they can dissolve it. (Governments also enjoy regulating non-corporate businesses, but they're no longer on solid moral ground.) > I have also not suggested some form of prior restraint that would >require government access to computers. I simply suggest that should a >violation occur, that I have the right of civil and criminal law as a >recourse to both compensate me for my loss of privacy as well as deter >future damage. A company knowing that civil and criminal penalties could >result from a violation would take extra care to ensure the security of >my data. How are you going to _know_ that a "violation" occurred, if company A tells company B your address or favorite liquor? Only by having access to the records of both companies. Getting that through the courts, for only the parts of their information relevant to you, is better than blanket permission for the government to rummage through their files, but after the first lawsuit lets investigators in, everything they've got is clam bait anyway. It's still major privacy violation - for the company whose machines are being violated, and for the non-suing individuals whose data is also on those machines. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

1 0