-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199710241400.JAA23475@einstein.ssz.com>, on 10/24/97 at 09:00 AM, Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> said:
Forwarded message:
From: lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Subject: Re: CMR versus GAK? Date: 24 Oct 1997 13:01:12 GMT
* William H. Geiger III wrote:
documents. This is the distinction between corporate access to plain text and GAK. The company *owns* the documents. They have a right to read them any time they want. If you don't want your *private* corrospondance to be
The company *owns* all telephon calls mad from an to there office. So they have a right to wiretrap and record all phone calls you does from the company. If you don't want your *private* corrospondance be wiretraped and recorded, prevent every phone call in private issues from the company. Forbit your insurance agency to call you in the company, deny the school attended by your children to phone you at work, if your childen is ill, ...
It occurs to me that this entire question is really of much larger social import:
- do babysitters in your home have an inherent right to not be monitored in case they harm the child?
So long as they are in someone elses home they do not. This is not an issue of harm to the child this is a issue of it's my house and if you don't like it get out.
- do operators of vehicles on public roads have an inherent right to privacy about the vehicle?
The very nature of acting in public removes any expectation of privacy.
- do businesses have the right to monitor the uses that their systems are put to?
Of course.
- do public officials have an inherent right to privacy about their actions related to their office?
Nope, public officials are employees of the citizens. As such the citizens have a right to monitor what they do.
etc. ad nausium...
These various issues can be broken down into two simple questions that once answered genericaly can be applied to the specific cases.
The bottem line is:
Does the owner of a resource have an inherent right to control that resource and if so what are the boundaries?
Yes, and the boundaries should be very few. Things like just because you own a hammer doesn't give you the right to hit people over the head. But as far as setting policies on how a resource can be used and what conditions must be met before using them it should be without limit. If you don't like it the don't use it and go get your own.
Does the user of a resource have rights outside the purvue of the owner of that resource and if so what are the boundaries?
No they do not. If the user of a resource does not like the conditions set by the owner for the use of that resource then they should not use it.
The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
-Alan Greenspan-
Never truer words were spoken. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNFCsZY9Co1n+aLhhAQFNbwP/R5gydKcbVEX9nOciUO1vox/+ESTJXspT eTGknDxzC7fBiDHQYuK5fKayDjGvms8w/6eO32XyH2ZI7260yM/RtyTNGSlRlI16 a26v5LZrwqHfa1cLNQQIMl8tOrITQ0mrVoiFEztbTcYQmyHDp1YHm7JFLaOW1EwS gnCpUuzaFoY= =G5sB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----