Mike McNally wrote:
"LYLE, DAVID R." writes:
Don't get me wrong. I am all for private communications. I'm very much against restricting the public's access to encryption technology. What gets me is when everyone runs around saying "this is a right".
Well, I'd say that the right to use whatever means available to shield communication from eavedropping is as natural as any other. It's not a "right" to be free from attempts to eavesdrop, however.
If the FBI tries to tap my phone, then laws may (or may not) be violated but no natural rights have. If, however, I am prosecuted for attempting to encase my information in a cryptographic strongbox without providing the FBI the key, then I indeed see that as a transgression against my natural rights as a person.
Personally, these days I stay away from calling some things "natural rights" and other things _not_ natural rights. Why, for example, would the FBI tapping my phone be any less a violation of my natural rights than if they entered my house and bugged it? Would placing video cameras in my bedroom (proposed by Dorothy Denning in her "Video Escrow Act of 1996") violate my "rights"? By Mike's arguments, I fear, it would be acceptable for the government to ring our houses with microphones, to place telephoto lenses on cameras and aim them through our windows, to intercept all of our phone and modem calls, and to compile extensive dossiers on our purchases and habits. Big Brother with a vengeance. (I'm not saying Mike supports these ideas. But by saying these things do not violate any of his "natural rights," as he appears to be saying above, then this opens the door for a complete surveillance state.) If we concede that the government is _not_ violating our "rights" by wiretapping and monitoring us, then how can we object when the surveillance state arrives? I prefer the more radical step of attempting to defang the government by taking aways its economic and political power. Undermine the surveillance state in all ways. (And sometimes that may involve arguing for "rights" to not be wiretapped, surveilled by the government, and whatnot.) However, I partly agree with Mike if by "no natural rights" he means, for example, that I am not "violating" someone else's natural rights, by compiling a dossier on them, or by writing down what I overheard in a coffee house. People have to protect their own security, by being discreet when discretion is needed, by paying with cash when they fear records are being kept of their purchases, and by using encryption in communications that may be intercepted. They cannot just scream that their "rights" are being violated when their names are entered into my e-mail database (a crime in the U.K., under the Data Protection Act!). Rights are a slippery slope. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."