At 09:54 AM 7/30/96 -0700, Marshall Clow wrote:
Today, Monday, July 29, Dorothy Denning begins her debate vs. John Gilmore over The Absolute Right to Privacy on Wired Online's Brain Tennis site. Do citizens of the world have an "unalienable right" to privacy - or are there reasons why governments ought to have access to our communications? This debate will run daily through August 7. Follow along at http://www.wired.com/braintennis/
I noticed that she said "allows", not "would allow". That contradicts <<I'm not ready to accept "the cat is out of the bag.">>, doesn't it?
Quite! I wish somebody would ask her why such a tiny fraction of the population (government functionaries, and a small fraction of them to boot!) should get their way and force (with varying degrees of the word, force) their idea of heaven on the rest of us. Despite their claims of an "emerging consensus", only an extraordinarily small group thought up GAK and has been promoting it. Whatever benefits are claimed for that system, I've always contended that we (as citizens; or, as individuals) should have the right to reject it. Are they unwilling to take NO for an answer? Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com