RE: Clipper Death Threat
--> -->On Fri, 25 Feb 1994, LYLE, DAVID R. COMPEX wrote: --> -->>. . . -->> -->> -->3. Why we have a right to strong encryption. -->> -->> Actually, our constitution does not say we have the right to private -->> communication. It would be nice, but it's not a right. -->> --> -->Try the 9th Amendment on for size: --> -->"The enumeration in the Costitution, of certain rights, shall not be -->construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." --> -->Privacy was a long recognized right in Anglo-American juris prudence. It -->goes all the way back to the very English idea that "a man's home is his -->castle." --> Sandy, please re-read what I said... "private communication". If this were a right, then wiretapping AT ALL would be illegal, and it is not. 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". lyled@pentagon-emh9.army.mil --> --> S a n d y --> --> --> -->
"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. -- | GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com> | | TAKE TWA TO CAIRO. ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX: | | (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |
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."
Timothy C. May writes:
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?
Because in the "bugging your house" scenario, we have an implication of property crime (breaking and entering). Would you claim a right to privacy when talking to a friend over a beer at Seabright? I don't think so.
Would placing video cameras in my bedroom (proposed by Dorothy Denning in her "Video Escrow Act of 1996") violate my "rights"?
Indeed (poor Ms. Denning; I nominate her for Most Outstanding Ad-Hominem Target of the 90's :-) it would be a violation. However, what would you think about someone who, from their own property nearby, could hear various interesting and suggestive noises that happen to penetrate the walls of your bedroom and radiate out into the atmosphere? Are your rights violated simply because the person pays attention to the stimulation of his eardrums?
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.
While I wouldn't be at all fond of such a scenario, I find myself on a slope if I claim that somewhere in there between completely non-intrusive police and police as described above there's a cross-over to a violation of my rights. If, however, the police force also declared that I must have large curtainless windows all over my house, and I must not add insulation to walls to the point that interior conversations could not be heard outside the house, then I would say clearly that my right to affect my privacy by any means available would be violated.
(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.)
I just differentiate between "what I want the government to do/not do" and "what are my rights as a person".
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?
It's not the case that the only argument against the government doing something is that it violates a basic human right (though sometimes it seems that way...)
I prefer the more radical step of attempting to defang the government by taking aways its economic and political power.
That's fine. I wholeheartedly support this.
(And sometimes that may involve arguing for "rights" to not be wiretapped, surveilled by the government, and whatnot.)
I guess I worry that such arguments may weaken (cheapen?) the concept of "natural rights", much as the whole "right to adequate health care" debate has.
Rights are a slippery slope.
Clearly. Thus, it's dangerous to work from the premise that definding a natural right is the only reason to ask for government restraint. I'd like to restrain the government simply because I'm definitely not satisfied that I get my money's worth! -- | GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com> | | TAKE TWA TO CAIRO. ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX: | | (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |
David Lyle writes:
Sandy, please re-read what I said... "private communication". If this were a right, then wiretapping AT ALL would be illegal, and it is not.
Are you saying that if 4th Amendment were really a right, then there'd be no searches and seizures? Wonder why they call it a "Bill of Rights." --Mike
participants (4)
-
LYLE, DAVID R. -
m5＠vail.tivoli.com -
Mike Godwin -
tcmay＠netcom.com