-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mr. Godwin - -> I note that the ruling against INS would probably not occur today in the post-Feist world. <- Conceeded. Mr. Godwin - -> I don't see how this reads as Brandeis's having a reservation about privacy. Perhaps the premier legal theorist about privacy issues in the last 100 years, Brandeis is simply noting that privacy isn't a given--one must actively work if one is to preserve it. This is perfectly consistent with cypherpunk philosophy, IMHO. <- I concur, and add that this is a long cry from reading any "Right to Privacy" into the law. If indeed Brandeis is asserting that privacy isn't just "given" (Your assessment with which I agree) then isn't this a reservation about a existing "right to privacy"? It's possible, Mr. Godwin that the only level we differ on is semantics and definitional? I like the cypherpunk approach, very much. Self empowerment is a rewarding and self regulating regime. I would like to see broader remedies available for privacy enforcement. You can't sit on your porch with a shotgun all day and keep trespassers off. It's a well accepted premise that a determined attacker will always prevail, given enough resource. Or at least cause lots of problems trying. It would be nice if this were an option, but not the ONLY manner of protection. No? Cypherpunks is about change of attitude as well not so? - -uni- (Dark) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLOPi4RibHbaiMfO5AQG5cwP9HbYSlZuJlRVcyScCFVIjMui8m1MxoAfj G9pzvCqZN5PTSaZfMVFxSHcgqRSDiEpILdPZs7mI1+1vdZCNkNPcwHbBvVxuxIf+ IY0tavhtXBAll14c4RA1zq/82OlDqkBcBC+P8FtE1Juf+6MfRZwmrXjmpiWhsCNu Cg/l8xpdfVM= =h4K+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----