There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly
************** http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html The Netly News June 12, 1997 Privacy? What Privacy? by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer. That's your responsibility. So you can imagine my dismay when I learned I'd be sitting through four full days of Federal Trade Commission hearings this week on Internet privacy. The commission's goal? To define "privacy rights" for the Net -- and to be perhaps the first federal agency to regulate it. The commissioners are being spurred on by consumer groups that want the government to bar firms from collecting information about your online wanderings. Businesses say that such a rule would stifle Internet advertising and commerce and have recently released a flurry of self-regulatory proposals. [...] Which is one reason why I think there is no general right to privacy -- at least as the consumer groups and privacy advocates describe it. Rotenberg likes to say "Privacy is not an absolute right, but a fundamental right." But in truth, privacy is not a right but a preference: Some people want more of it than others. Of course there's an essential right to privacy from the government. (Beware government databases: Nazis used census data in Germany and Holland to track down and eliminate undesirables.) You also have a right to privacy from Peeping Toms. But -- no matter how much big-government fetishists want this to be true -- you don't own information about yourself. After all, journalists are able to investigate someone's private life and publish an article -- even if it contains embarrassing personal details. This is a good thing: Any restrictions would weaken the First Amendment. Then there's gossip, which is a time-honored way of trading in others' personal information. "The reindeer-herding Lapps, for whom theft of livestock is easy and common, gossip about who has stolen which animal and where they are," sociologist Sally Engle Merry writes. [...] ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
[...]
I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer. That's your responsibility.
Booooooooo! Hisssssssssss! Putting your bread and butter before your morals, eh? Maybe if someone would go through all your records and post them all over the net, you'd feel differently! Declan, this truly sucks. :( I'm very disappointed in you. You are truly scum if you believe this. =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die. And I hate cough |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?" |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die. |..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================
Oh, and at least read the whole article. -Declan Privacy? What Privacy? by Declan McCullagh June 12, 1997 I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer. That's your responsibility. So you can imagine my dismay when I learned I'd be sitting through four full days of Federal Trade Commission hearings this week on Internet privacy. The commission's goal? To define "privacy rights" for the Net -- and to be perhaps the first federal agency to regulate it. The commissioners are being spurred on by consumer groups that want the government to bar firms from collecting information about your online wanderings. Businesses say that such a rule would stifle Internet advertising and commerce and have recently released a flurry of self-regulatory proposals. "At what point do we trigger some concern?" FTC Commissioner Christine Varney asked on Tuesday, the first day of the hearing. "Is there any circumstance under which access to the information that exists should be restricted?" Evan Hendricks from Privacy Times responded: "We see there's a huge problem developing with personal information over the Internet." EPIC's Marc Rotenberg added later: "We are selling information today that 10 years ago would not be bought and sold. The law has not kept up with these developments." Yet this misses the point. Protecting your personal privacy online is your responsibility. Turn off cookies. Don't give out your home address. Educate your children. Use the Anonymizer. Stay away from web sites you don't trust. You, not the federal government, should make these decisions. Which is one reason why I think there is no general right to privacy -- at least as the consumer groups and privacy advocates describe it. Rotenberg likes to say "Privacy is not an absolute right, but a fundamental right." But in truth, privacy is not a right but a preference: Some people want more of it than others. Of course there's an essential right to privacy from the government. (Beware government databases: Nazis used census data in Germany and Holland to track down and eliminate undesirables.) You also have a right to privacy from Peeping Toms. But -- no matter how much big-government fetishists want this to be true -- you don't own information about yourself. After all, journalists are able to investigate someone's private life and publish an article -- even if it contains embarrassing personal details. This is a good thing: Any restrictions would weaken the First Amendment. Then there's gossip, which is a time-honored way of trading in others' personal information. "The reindeer-herding Lapps, for whom theft of livestock is easy and common, gossip about who has stolen which animal and where they are," sociologist Sally Engle Merry writes. "Fencing off information behind a newly-created wall of 'privacy rights' has obvious free speech implications," says Solveig Bernstein, a lawyer at the Cato Institute. "The government has no business telling private firms whether they can share information about events and people." Fortunately, you have some options. Say you walk into Radio Shack and that teenager behind the counter wants your home address. You have three choices: Convince the guy he doesn't need it, ask the government to force him not to require it -- or leave. Yes, leave. The same with a virtual storefront on a web site. If you don't like what information it records about you, or you're unsure about its privacy policies, take your browser elsewhere. Vote with your mouse button. New technologies will make this easy. Yesterday at the FTC hearing the Electronic Frontier Foundation unveiled TRUSTe, which is a privacy rating system for web sites where three types of icons indicate what a web site does with your personal information. Firms display the appropriate icon and agree to spot checks and audits to ensure they comply. "We're trying to foster honesty, not regulation. We're trying to foster the ability of the consumer to make a choice," EFF chairman Esther Dyson said. "If companies find people don't want to do business with them because of free exchange, they'll offer that option." That's exactly right, and that's why TRUSTe is such a good idea. Unlike FTC regulations that end at national borders, TRUSTe's icons can appear on overseas sites and foster electronic commerce globally. Indeed, most Americans prefer nongovernmental solutions. A Lou Harris survey announced yesterday said 70 percent of the public believes the private sector, not the feds, should take the lead in protecting privacy online. "By 2 to 1 the responses say business is more likely to be trusted to do good in this area," says pollster Stanley Greenberg. "When asked about a privacy commission that would take a regulatory approach, two thirds were against such a measure." But somehow, I doubt the FTC will take the hint. *
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Oh, and at least read the whole article.
-Declan
Privacy? What Privacy?
by Declan McCullagh June 12, 1997
I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer. That's your responsibility.
I still disagree, and not just online. There is plenty of information that you have no control over but should. Your credit card transactions for instance can be looked up by any scumbag willing to pay money to TRW and it's ilk. Your DMV records, your health records. In theory only those that need to know this knowledge should be able to access it, and in practice what have we seen so far? If I give XYZ corp any info I expect them not to sell that info without my permission. Verily, that information is valuable, therefore if they want to sell it, they should get my permission, and should pay me for it. I don't necessarily want government restrictions on privacy, however I would want a constitutional amendment to privacy that says: all I do is private unless I explicitly share it with others, and if I do share it, they may not pass it on to others without my permission. This is on a personal level, not on a corporate or governmental level. Why I feel this way is an excercise for the reader. Hint: Uncle Sam works for us since we pay him from our income. We don't work for him (most of the time.) How many loons have used DMV records to stalk their victims? How about the nice Netscape hole that allows sites to surf your hard drive as you're surfing their sites? Yes, I do take privacy seriously, and I do protect it. But to say anyone has the right to snoop my machines and see what I have there is NOT cool. What I leave on my computer is my private business, and NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO SURF IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. Whether or not they have root. As for Radio Shack weasels, I don't give them info, or give them misleading info. What's on my hard drives and in my machine's RAM is NONE OF ANYONE'S BUSINESS! At the last PC Expo, I registered as H.P. Lovecraft. When I buy things that are purchased by credit card I know that info will leak out, and don't do this unless I'm willing to leak it out. So, I still disagree with your view. Even after reading the whole article. =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die. And I hate cough |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?" |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die. |..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================
It's sad but not surprising that Ray didn't even bother to read the article before saying "FUCK YOU." Talk about clueless... He still misunderstands my position. I'm saying you have no property right in information others collect about you.
How many loons have used DMV records to stalk their victims?
How many loons have used newspaper reports to stalk their victims?
How about the nice Netscape hole that allows sites to surf your hard drive as you're surfing their sites?
Great. You want Congress to pass a law that says "Netscape shall release no more buggy browsers." Yeah, and mandate that pi is 3.14, right?
Yes, I do take privacy seriously, and I do protect it. But to say anyone has the right to snoop my machines and see what I have there is NOT cool. What I leave on my computer is my private business, and NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO SURF IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. Whether or not they have root.
I'm not saying that people have a "right to surf (?) it without your permission." That's a violation of your property rights, a trespass. But if you connect to my web site, I should be allowed to record whatever info leaks from your computer. Don't like it? Cut the flow or don't come. -Declan On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Oh, and at least read the whole article.
-Declan
Privacy? What Privacy?
by Declan McCullagh June 12, 1997
I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer. That's your responsibility.
I still disagree, and not just online. There is plenty of information that you have no control over but should. Your credit card transactions for instance can be looked up by any scumbag willing to pay money to TRW and it's ilk. Your DMV records, your health records. In theory only those that need to know this knowledge should be able to access it, and in practice what have we seen so far?
If I give XYZ corp any info I expect them not to sell that info without my permission. Verily, that information is valuable, therefore if they want to sell it, they should get my permission, and should pay me for it.
I don't necessarily want government restrictions on privacy, however I would want a constitutional amendment to privacy that says: all I do is private unless I explicitly share it with others, and if I do share it, they may not pass it on to others without my permission. This is on a personal level, not on a corporate or governmental level. Why I feel this way is an excercise for the reader. Hint: Uncle Sam works for us since we pay him from our income. We don't work for him (most of the time.)
How many loons have used DMV records to stalk their victims?
How about the nice Netscape hole that allows sites to surf your hard drive as you're surfing their sites?
Yes, I do take privacy seriously, and I do protect it. But to say anyone has the right to snoop my machines and see what I have there is NOT cool. What I leave on my computer is my private business, and NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO SURF IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. Whether or not they have root. As for Radio Shack weasels, I don't give them info, or give them misleading info. What's on my hard drives and in my machine's RAM is NONE OF ANYONE'S BUSINESS!
At the last PC Expo, I registered as H.P. Lovecraft. When I buy things that are purchased by credit card I know that info will leak out, and don't do this unless I'm willing to leak it out.
So, I still disagree with your view. Even after reading the whole article.
=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== ..+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must |./|\. ...\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die. And I hate cough |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?" |\/|\/ .../|\..| "A toast to Odin, | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/. ..+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die. |..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
It's sad but not surprising that Ray didn't even bother to read the article before saying "FUCK YOU." Talk about clueless...
No, at the time, I didn't read the entire article, I did read the ENTIRE snipped version you posted. You then later posted the whole article stating "at least read the whole thing" and I did read the whole at that point. However, I didn't change my oppinion on this.
He still misunderstands my position. I'm saying you have no property right in information others collect about you.
You say I misunderstand your position. I say I disagree with it. I disagree to having no property rights to information others collect about me. I believe that others should not have the right to collect information about me without my consent. There lies the difference. Why do you continue to refuse to understand that I _DISAGREE_ with as opposed to misunderstand your position? This isn't about misunderstandings or personality conflicts Declan. This is about beliefs.
Great. You want Congress to pass a law that says "Netscape shall release no more buggy browsers." Yeah, and mandate that pi is 3.14, right?
No, I don't wish to have congress pass such laws. I did however state that I believe there should be a constitutional right to privacy in terms of shared information - a built in Non Disclosure Agreement between all interactions. One does not exist, IMHO it should. If I chose to speak in public - as in this forum, I expect that my words will not be private. That's a given. If I speak to XYZ Bank and apply for a loan or credit card, I want that information to be private. If I purchase a printed magazine, the publisher doesn't expect me to scan it in and post it on the net, free for all to access. In fact, if I were to do that and persist in doing it, I would get sued for copyright infringement. I don't believe in software patents, but I do believe in copyright. I believe that what I do, or say should be copyrighted by default. This includes spending patterns, and such. Very much ideal and non-reality, yes, but it is my belief still. I also believe Congress shouldn't be populated by a bunch of money and power hungry slime bags. That is also ideal to me, but a non-reality. Doesn't mean I shouldn't believe it, nor does it mean I shouldn't have the right to disagree with someone that says "Congress should be populated by weasels." Nor do I believe that TRW or the DMV should have the ability to sell my information to others without my permission, or collect it for that matter without a contrat that states how it will be used and who it will be shared with. Can you name one Credit Card company that DOES NOT share its info with TRW? Yes, I can get a debit card, but information about transactions on it will wind up in the hands of TRW. That would be an ideal. Unfortunatly, I have been forced to give up some privacy for things like credit cards and a driver's license. I don't see that I've had any other choice than to give up the ability to drive and purchase things without having to carry large sums of cash. I was forced into giving up privacy. Same as you I suspect. That doesn't mean I agree with the system. It means I didn't have any other choice given basic needs. It doesn't mean that given the chance to change it by voting, I wouldn't. Back to the strawman beatings: I later cited the Netscape hole (or feature if you are paranoid) as an example of something that could escape my machine and stated that whether or not I secure my machine, if information escapes it by such methods, my privacy has been violated. This was given as a hypothetical example of protecting one's privacy, yet still having it violated by leaks. I cannot verify that Netscape's browser won't violate my security. I am forced to put some level of trust in it if I chose to use it. Were I to ask a Netscape representative whether their software were secure before this bug/feature was discovered, would they say no? Sure, I could use IE or some other browser, but unless I carefully analyze the source code, I wouldn't know if it had holes. This paragraph is moot and I'm sure you understand all this already.
Yes, I do take privacy seriously, and I do protect it. But to say anyone has the right to snoop my machines and see what I have there is NOT cool. What I leave on my computer is my private business, and NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO SURF IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. Whether or not they have root.
I'm not saying that people have a "right to surf (?) it without your permission." That's a violation of your property rights, a trespass. But if you connect to my web site, I should be allowed to record whatever info leaks from your computer. Don't like it? Cut the flow or don't come.
The keyword here is "leaks." It doesn't imply with permission. It implies the opposite; and here is where I brought the Netscape bug as an example of a flaw in your thinking. If they, whether on purpose or not, have the ability to snarf anything my browser is willing to give them without my permission, this too is a breech of my privacy. In this example, even though I have taken precautions to disable cookies and DIDN'T enter information as to my email identity, it is still possible to grab it off my hard drive without my permission. Ditto for the ActiveX component that those German hackers wrote to grab info out of Quicken. Was it the fault of the person surfing that some dork at Microsoft misdesigned their software? And because of that, some hacker got my credit cards and went shopping? What recourse do I have against that happening once it does? How do these breeches fit into your ideals? You can brush them off and say "oh, those were bugs or flaws" but privacy has still been violated. How do you feel they should be dealt with? Shall we accept rogue software, and Big Brother Inside software as mere flaws? True, Netscape will say these were unintentional. But if they weren't, -- if they were intentional, would we stand for them and accept them? Earlier I asked you a similar line of questions, which you haven't yet answered (at the time of this writing.) Again, what recourse do you feel you should have against such invasions of your privacy? What protection(s) do you feel you should have? (Other than stating, if you don't want it to leak, don't let it - for which I've shown you plenty of examples of exceptions.) In yet another message you've stated "chmod 700 ~" as a cure. Very funny. A whole lot of good that would do against someone who obtained root, or managed to grab my ISP's backup tapes, etc... Doesn't mean I do not understand that my ISP can't do this. Doesn't mean Mitnick won't get out of jail and break into my account. It means I don't want them to. Sorry, I still chose to DISAGREE with you. You might be able to convince me otherwise with logic, but you won't be able to do so with words such as "clueless" and "if you only read the whole thing." (Granted the same does apply to me using the "Fuck you" subject, but hey, free speech and all that. :) =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die. And I hate cough |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?" |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die. |..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================
He still misunderstands my position. I'm saying you have no property right in information others collect about you.
There is no such thing as intellectual property rights period. All patents and copyrights are violations of free speech, technology is the only way to protect so called "intellectual property"... If you don`t want people to have information don`t release it.
Great. You want Congress to pass a law that says "Netscape shall release no more buggy browsers." Yeah, and mandate that pi is 3.14, right?
No, I wouldn`t mind one that made bugs in Micro$oft stuff criminal ;-)... BTW, I`m pretty sure it was pi=3.2 on that bill.
What I leave on my computer is my private business, and NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO SURF IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. Whether or not they have root.
I'm not saying that people have a "right to surf (?) it without your permission." That's a violation of your property rights, a trespass. But if you connect to my web site, I should be allowed to record whatever info leaks from your computer. Don't like it? Cut the flow or don't come.
Declan put this point very well here, don`t confuse listening to other peoples speech with breaking into their house and reading their private diary. If you don`t want the information free keep it confidential, simple as that. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes:
He still misunderstands my position. I'm saying you have no property right in information others collect about you.
There is no such thing as intellectual property rights period. All patents and copyrights are violations of free speech, technology is the only way to protect so called "intellectual property"...
I fully agree. Technology or good marketing (you can have my software for free, but you need to pay for "support")
Great. You want Congress to pass a law that says "Netscape shall release no more buggy browsers." Yeah, and mandate that pi is 3.14, right?
No, I wouldn`t mind one that made bugs in Micro$oft stuff criminal ;-)... BTW, I`m pretty sure it was pi=3.2 on that bill.
I think it was exactly 3, like it says in the Bible. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
At 01:05 PM 6/13/97 -0400, Ray Arachelian wrote:
Nor do I believe that TRW or the DMV should have the ability to sell my information to others without my permission, or collect it for that matter without a contrat that states how it will be used and who it will be shared with. Can you name one Credit Card company that DOES NOT share its info with TRW? Yes, I can get a debit card, but information about transactions on it will wind up in the hands of TRW.
They're radically different cases. TRW gets your information from people who get credit reports on you, and from creditors who lend you money, both of which are voluntary transactions on your part. You have the option, when negotiating the terms of your business with a company, to specify in your contracts what information they may pass on to third parties, and what restrictions they need to put on that information. Yes, almost everybody you deal with gives everything to TRW or one of its competitors, but you can negotiate that yourself. The reason they do is that it reduces their risks substantially when dealing with the Information Mongers, and therefore reduces their costs and makes them more likely to give you credit, and lets them charge you less money for the credit they give you. But if you can't come to an agreement with anyone, you won't be able to borrow money from them, and you'll need to pay cash up front for things, but those were all voluntary transactions as well. On the other hand, the DMV isn't voluntary - sure they tell you "well, you don't _have_ to drive or own a car", but unlike creditors, who won't do anything bad to you if you don't borrow money from them, the DMV forces you to deal with them by threatening to have cops haul you off to jail and steal your car if you drive without dealing with them. It's an offer you can't refuse. Therefore, there are two ways I can see to look at their use of data: 1) You're slaves anyway - go cope :-) 2) You've given them far more information than you wanted to, and they should respect your privacy and not give it to anyone. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <Pine.SUN.3.96.970613112827.23715F-100000@beast.brainlink.com>, on 06/13/97 at 11:38 AM, Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> said:
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Oh, and at least read the whole article.
-Declan
Privacy? What Privacy?
by Declan McCullagh June 12, 1997
I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer. That's your responsibility.
I still disagree, and not just online. There is plenty of information that you have no control over but should. Your credit card transactions for instance can be looked up by any scumbag willing to pay money to TRW and it's ilk. Your DMV records, your health records. In theory only those that need to know this knowledge should be able to access it, and in practice what have we seen so far?
Well lets see CC transactions are not just your info but the CC issuers info & the merchants info. Should it be illegal for you to tell anyone that you bought a HD from Segate or that you used your Carte Blanch card to do it? If you don't like it pay *CASH*. Health Records are only between you and your doctor unless you bring in a 3rd party (aka health insurance). Once you do that you have opened up your records to whatever the policy of your insurance company is, don't like it get a different insurance company or pay for it in, look out now, *CASH*!!! (I have paid the last 10yrs of medical & dental bills all in cash). DMV records? They are treated the same as *ANY* state licence, they are part of the public record. This includes land titles, auto titles, birth certificates, death certificates, marrage & devorce records, any perfesional license (Doctor, Engeneere, CPA, Archetic, ...ect). As far as your driving record *ALL* court procedings are open to the public. In a free and open society it is not only desired that this information be made public but it is required!! You can not have a free society if everything the government does is hidden away behind closed doors.
If I give XYZ corp any info I expect them not to sell that info without my permission. Verily, that information is valuable, therefore if they want to sell it, they should get my permission, and should pay me for it.
Why? Have you entered into any agreement that they would not sell this information? Why is this information any more yours that it is theirs? How can you claim title to property after you have given it away??? Ray you really should re-take Democracy 101 before you start ranting like this. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 iQCVAwUBM6F3OI9Co1n+aLhhAQGV+AP9HIiuM6hy1h0j7tFYTMXHa08hZuAIjSUJ CiURxHerZPAAE3ZPjjT6WllVmofz25Cg7rhfKXmaCaDh+Px8kEur6qFV6jZk/Az/ 0MhLTHuz0foID5TKA24W/p/WrLuOIbQpAnPV1ukb38DjoQ/En1TYFItNe+Jbv75m sWSuYyPffHE= =TvrX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199706131632.LAA12660@mailhub.amaranth.com>, on 06/13/97 at 11:23 AM, "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com> said:
DMV records? They are treated the same as *ANY* state licence, they are part of the public record. This includes land titles, auto titles, birth certificates, death certificates, marriage & divorce records, any professional license ( Doctor, Engineer, CPA, Architect, ...ect). As far as your driving record *ALL* court >proceedings are open to the public.
Wow, sorry about that last message my spell checker seems to be on the blink. :( - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 iQCVAwUBM6F8SI9Co1n+aLhhAQGOMgP/SpWIxPPY+0+ZyVBwG44tnofWqQ/jpEn5 9GXx4qa9TOl3kifMeRDj6DbuHBG47UXiswgx+Nb+XCb3YGYHAhWZlKyvzPdqyNZp 96Ao2RLM444/6ayiamDpi/bG8fMkdrKTmvtt+0QMcH8JZTvB8r9ysYpGk9KEMrgu wEqzfGnTZ0E= =sh/F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
If I give XYZ corp any info I expect them not to sell that info without my permission. Verily, that information is valuable, therefore if they want to sell it, they should get my permission, and should pay me for it.
The default case is total freedom of speech for both individuals and corporations, if you don`t want XYZ corp. to sell your information make a contract with them that they will not sell it, if you do want it sold but want to be paid, then a contract is again the answer.
I don't necessarily want government restrictions on privacy, however I would want a constitutional amendment to privacy that says: all I do is private unless I explicitly share it with others, and if I do share it, they may not pass it on to others without my permission.
The first part is correct, everything you do IS private until you pass it on, if you don`t want transactions traced, don`t use a credit card, if you don`t want a shop to take information; refuse to give it or lie. The second part is a restriction on free speech not based in a contract, there is no such thing as a default case of restricted speech. I agree that privacy is a valuable thing but it comes down to you to protect it, not the state and not the constitution.
personal level, not on a corporate or governmental level. Why I feel this way is an excercise for the reader. Hint: Uncle Sam works for us since we pay him from our income. We don't work for him (most of the time.)
I agree, if the people decide the state cannot collect information on them they are entitled to force the state not to do so. But between individuals and corporations it is a matter of a private contractural agreement.
How many loons have used DMV records to stalk their victims?
I can`t answer this point because I don`t know if the US DMV reg system is supposed to allow anyone access to anyone elses records, if not then this is the fault of the government goons who failed in protecting the information.
Yes, I do take privacy seriously, and I do protect it. But to say anyone has the right to snoop my machines and see what I have there is NOT cool.
No, this is an act of trespass and is unauthorised use of your equipment, what it all comes down to is property: To break into your system is an unauthorised use of your equipment: A tangiable theft. To compare this to speech is a straw man.
As for Radio Shack weasels, I don't give them info, or give them misleading info. What's on my hard drives and in my machine's RAM is NONE OF ANYONE'S BUSINESS!
Quite so, if you don`t want to give radio shack information then refuse, lie or walk away. The only thing wrong with radio shack asking for this information is that the government mandates that such information must be true.
At the last PC Expo, I registered as H.P. Lovecraft. When I buy things that are purchased by credit card I know that info will leak out, and don't do this unless I'm willing to leak it out.
Exactly, YOU and no-one else makes the decision to release the information. Even this can be avoided by holding bank accounts in false names and running debit cards from them (I believe neither of these actions is criminal?). Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: [...]
but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer.
So I'm not premitted to say, 'I give you give you and only you this infomation' and expect my goverment to help me if thay violate this condtionn? [...]
Businesses say that such a rule would stifle Internet advertising and commerce and have recently released a flurry of self-regulatory proposals.
Yes the good old self-regulatory smoke screan. [...]
Yet this misses the point. Protecting your personal privacy online is your responsibility.
Partly, however there are actions where it is currently neccery for me to release personal infomation, I wish to be pretected from abuse of that innfomation in that context. In addtion such laws should encourage protocls that reduce the need for personal infomation to be realsed. [...]
But in truth, privacy is not a right but a preference: Some people want more of it than others.
But in truth [Right foo] is not a right but a preference: Some peaple want more of it than others.
Of course there's an essential right to privacy from the government.
But what is worce big Bisness or big Goverment. I see no real diffrentce between a multinational comperny and a national goverment. The only way we can get protection from both is to play them off against each other. Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. Buy easter bilbies. Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay? ex-net.scum and prouud I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yukky' a convinceing argument
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:
Booooooooo! Hisssssssssss! Putting your bread and butter before your morals, eh?
Far from it. My position is a principled one, not one of convenience. As a civil libertarian, for instance, I would not support laws that give certain journalists more free speech "rights" than a Net-loon with a web site. -Declan
Awwww, Caaa'monnn. You mean they can license handguns, but not reporters??? I think reporters, particularly the lapdog Whitehouse kind, have killed more people in the last century than domestic handguns, don'tcha think? Heck, now that I think of it, we should also license printing presses, and xeroxgraphy, and computers... ... And e-mail groups! Yeah, that's it. License e-mail groups... Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/
At 07:10 PM 6/13/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
Awwww, Caaa'monnn. You mean they can license handguns, but not reporters???
Indeed, it is strange. What part of "Congress shall make no law" do they not understand?
the part between "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed"... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)
At 8:22 AM -0700 6/13/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Fortunately, you have some options. Say you walk into Radio Shack and that teenager behind the counter wants your home address. You have three choices: Convince the guy he doesn't need it, ask the government to force him not to require it -- or leave.
You can also lie, frequently the most convenient option, and according to surveys, frequently used with nosy web sites. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet was designed | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | to protect the free world | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
At 8:55 AM -0700 6/13/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:
Booooooooo! Hisssssssssss! Putting your bread and butter before your morals, eh?
Far from it. My position is a principled one, not one of convenience.
As a civil libertarian, for instance, I would not support laws that give certain journalists more free speech "rights" than a Net-loon with a web site.
And I hope Declan does not support so-called "shield laws" which give reporters protection against having to reveal sources (modulo the oft-discussed contempt laws). Declan's "job" is as a reporter. Just a job. Not a special class of rights as determined by the government. I am as much a "reporter" as Declan is, in terms of what rights I have. In fact, arguable many of us are reporters, as we report on what we see and what we think....Brock Meeks started out in a similar online forum, as did Declan. At what point did they suddenly gain special protections from interrogations about their sources that the rest of us don't have? (I have no problems with private agents, e.g., Microsoft or whatever, limiting contacts to the "main" reporters. It's their property. If they grant interviews to Declan, Brock, John, Steve, etc., and not to me, I cannot claim my "rights" were violated. Government functions are another matter, and I would generally favor letting anyone claiming to be a reporter in to government press conferences...to do anything else is to give licensing and credentials to speech, which the government should have no right to do. If they need to hold press conferences in RFK Stadium, so be it.) The general area of licensing of reporters is fraught with troubles. (Readers may recall that UNESCO sought to force the United States into going along with this kind of licensing; the U.S. refused. However, the "shield laws" are a dangerous step in the direction of such licensing.) --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
At 12:36 PM -0700 6/13/97, Robert Hettinga wrote:
Awwww, Caaa'monnn.
You mean they can license handguns, but not reporters???
Indeed, it is strange. What part of "Congress shall make no law" do they not understand? (A better example is the ban on certain kinds of rifles, as these are Federal bans. The various handgun licensing provisions are state and local. Though let a state or local government try licensing _speech_ and watch how quickly the Supremes would rule it unconstitutional.) About five years ago I wrote a satirical essay arguing for "Licensing and Regulation" of speech, noting the number of innocents killed by "assault speech" and arguing that a $50 fee for each act of speech is completely consistent with similar fees for exercise of the Second Amendment rights. I'd repost it, but it's buried somewhere on one of my offline disks. --Tim May
I think reporters, particularly the lapdog Whitehouse kind, have killed more people in the last century than domestic handguns, don'tcha think?
Yes, many in the White House have already richly earned termination with extreme prejudice. Several of them also should be tortured before being dispatched. There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Fri, Jun 13, 1997 at 07:10:35PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
At 12:36 PM -0700 6/13/97, Robert Hettinga wrote:
Awwww, Caaa'monnn.
You mean they can license handguns, but not reporters???
Indeed, it is strange. What part of "Congress shall make no law" do they not understand?
The second amendment does not include that phrase. The first amendment does. Perhaps they understand it a great deal better than you: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <19970613201551.40314@bywater.songbird.com>, on 06/13/97 at 08:15 PM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:
On Fri, Jun 13, 1997 at 07:10:35PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
At 12:36 PM -0700 6/13/97, Robert Hettinga wrote:
Awwww, Caaa'monnn.
You mean they can license handguns, but not reporters???
Indeed, it is strange. What part of "Congress shall make no law" do they not understand?
The second amendment does not include that phrase. The first amendment does. Perhaps they understand it a great deal better than you:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand Kent?? Some rights more equal than others? - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 iQCVAwUBM6KwP49Co1n+aLhhAQGr5AP/SBW/LaUJSN2ITPrfl1l1Ya4xa03BOJml +eYMr/0XNQe+oUym8XQ0rFOWVRn2o2auFKntMlOyYEF2Ac5Cy/D9cwi0e+lsmz99 zVodO6PRG1Gqe/cUrq3N4dW8Cm3wxOEJJXSwvChQeGAIPiDjz5csgR/6c5M7MI2j 6rCqVOKUOHQ= =u/q3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, Jun 14, 1997 at 09:52:39AM -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand Kent??
I understand that part almost perfectly, I daresay. It's the rest of the sentence that is subject to various interpretations. The wording of the second amendment is strange, and I have read several highly opinionated pieces about what it means. I also read relevant sections of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers. First of all, consider what it does not say. It does *not* say "Congress shall make no law" -- meaning therefore that congress *can* make laws, as long as the rest of the sentence is observed. It does *not* say "the right of an *individual* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says "the people", a collective term. It references a *well-regulated* militia. Furthermore, this amendment was derived from input from two states (I don't have the documents handy, or I would tell you exactly). There are caveats in both of the documents, referring to such things as "public safety". The founding fathers were quite aware that it isn't necessary to allow criminals to carry guns at all times. Therefore my interpretation is that according to the constitution, there is a broad right for the population to own guns, but that right is fundamentally justified through "the security of a free State". Use of arms contrary to the security of the state is not justified through the second amendment, nor does the second amendment prohibit congress or the states from controlling such unjustified use of arms. Thus, the police can take guns away from common thiefs without fear of a constitutional challenge. And states, cities, and other governmental agencies can regulate arms for the public good, which may mean that certain individuals can't own weapons, or that certain kinds of weapons can be proscribed. Here's an analogy -- imagine a hypothetical addition to the Bill of Rights, amendment -1: Amendment -1 A healthy economy, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to engage in business, shall not be infringed. The key is the "engage in business" clause. Engaging in business implicitly involves a set of rules of the game. Inforcing those rules, or modifying them in light of new circumstances (eg invention of the telephone) is not the same as "infringing". -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <19970614230152.15019@bywater.songbird.com>, on 06/14/97 at 11:01 PM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:
On Sat, Jun 14, 1997 at 09:52:39AM -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand Kent??
I understand that part almost perfectly, I daresay. It's the rest of the sentence that is subject to various interpretations.
The wording of the second amendment is strange, and I have read several highly opinionated pieces about what it means. I also read relevant sections of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.
First of all, consider what it does not say. It does *not* say "Congress shall make no law" -- meaning therefore that congress *can* make laws, as long as the rest of the sentence is observed.
It does *not* say "the right of an *individual* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says "the people", a collective term. It references a *well-regulated* militia.
Furthermore, this amendment was derived from input from two states (I don't have the documents handy, or I would tell you exactly). There are caveats in both of the documents, referring to such things as "public safety". The founding fathers were quite aware that it isn't necessary to allow criminals to carry guns at all times.
Therefore my interpretation is that according to the constitution, there is a broad right for the population to own guns, but that right is fundamentally justified through "the security of a free State". Use of arms contrary to the security of the state is not justified through the second amendment, nor does the second amendment prohibit congress or the states from controlling such unjustified use of arms.
Thus, the police can take guns away from common thiefs without fear of a constitutional challenge. And states, cities, and other governmental agencies can regulate arms for the public good, which may mean that certain individuals can't own weapons, or that certain kinds of weapons can be proscribed.
Here's an analogy -- imagine a hypothetical addition to the Bill of Rights, amendment -1:
Amendment -1
A healthy economy, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to engage in business, shall not be infringed.
The key is the "engage in business" clause. Engaging in business implicitly involves a set of rules of the game. Inforcing those rules, or modifying them in light of new circumstances (eg invention of the telephone) is not the same as "infringing".
Well Kent we must be reading from two different dictionaries: infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another encroach: to enter by gradual steps or by stelth into the possessions or rights of another. By the above definition this is exactly what the government has been doing with it's ever increasing restictions on the possesions of guns by it's citizens and what the founding fathers wished to posses. If they had wanted the government to have the power to control and regulate the ownership of guns then they would have said so. The Bill of Rights were not added to the Constitution to give the government more power but to restrict their power. The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide a final check & balance on the government. Our founding fathers were all too aware that it was manditory that the population must be well armed inorder preserve their freedom against an unjust government. An unarmed people are just so much sheep waiting for the slaughter. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 iQCVAwUBM6OP+I9Co1n+aLhhAQEc5AP/V4UM7o91yxhaESIiDtU+Br17EhKWIAKZ npLBf5C6fhrnztmyK1EMoCrDk5MWPWPKebdlJcdLcqmjrRokqly5UmbqtYYYOs0p dAK9YUYDLOztYbgKydn1eXNGW75pi7vp4YTuZhIanAc8nvuLJH7TToObvea7Usb9 qenezNBkKho= =15WI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, Jun 15, 1997 at 01:47:14AM -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Well Kent we must be reading from two different dictionaries:
infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
encroach: to enter by gradual steps or by stelth into the possessions or rights of another.
No, that's essentially what my dictionary says. The issue isn't "infringe". The issue is exactly *what* is being infringed upon -- what does it mean to "keep and bear arms", and who is being referred to by "the people", and what is the meaning of the clause about a "well *regulated* militia" (my emphasis).
By the above definition this is exactly what the government has been doing with it's ever increasing restictions on the possesions of guns by it's citizens and what the founding fathers wished to posses. If they had wanted the government to have the power to control and regulate the ownership of guns then they would have said so.
I believe they did. There are numerous other clauses in the constitution that grant powers to congress to regulate various things in broad and general terms -- those adequately cover guns. Furthermore, the constitution only covers the federal government. State governments have a whole other level of control over individual ownership of guns. A nearby town recently passed a hotly contested city ordinance forbidding the sale of "junk guns" in the city limits. Such ordinances are fairly common -- this case was unusual because it went to a popular vote. Perhaps it will be appealed, but I believe that an appeal will lose.
The Bill of Rights were not added to the Constitution to give the government more power but to restrict their power.
Here are some interesting clauses from the constitution, listing certain powers: ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; [note: ..."suppress Insurrections"] [note: the mention of the "Militia", and how they have a clear idea of what it is and how it is to be used] ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide a final check & balance on the government.
My reading of the constitution and supporting documents does not support this claim. In fact, William, though it may not appear so, I am relatively impartial on interpretation of the second amendment -- I own several guns, my family has always owned guns, I was a member of the NRA at the earliest possible age, back when their focus was responsible use and not advocacy for large gun companies. My beef with you and Tim and the other gun advocates on the list is precisely this issue of responsibility, not ownership of guns per se. Guns are not toys. They don't belong in the hands of children. [Do you think the constitution guarantees that two-year olds should be able to carry guns, BTW? If not, why not?]
Our founding fathers were all too aware that it was manditory that the population must be well armed inorder preserve their freedom against an unjust government.
I refer you again to the "suppress Insurrections" clause above.
An unarmed people are just so much sheep waiting for the slaughter.
Perhaps true. However, that does not imply that every single individual therefore must own a gun. Saying "the people are armed" is not the same thing as saying "every single individual has a gun". "The people" includes babies, the blind, quadraplegics, psychopaths, convicted felons in jail, Quakers. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
It does *not* say "the right of an *individual* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says "the people", a collective term. It references a *well-regulated* militia.
Subsequent court rulings have left somewhat unclear the meaning of "well-regulated militia". At the present this appears to mean citizens, in general.
Therefore my interpretation is that according to the constitution, there is a broad right for the population to own guns, but that right is fundamentally justified through "the security of a free State". Use of arms contrary to the security of the state is not justified through the second amendment, nor does the second amendment prohibit congress or the states from controlling such unjustified use of arms.
I can't agree with "the security of a free State" aspect. A higher priority among the signers and states than "the security of a free State" was freedom. It was recognized, in the Declaration of Independance, that it was the people's right to replace government (even through force of arms) when they felt it had come to tyranny in order ot maintain freedom. Unjustified to whom? The State? How can the state be the best judge of what is in the best interests of the people in maintaining their freedom? Seems the State has a conflict of interest and should recuse itself on this issue. --Ste5e
I suppose I am scum, at least by Ray's definition. But let me ask this question: if someone *did* post my credit card/bank records online through an anonymous remailer, what recourse would I have? What recourse should I have? -Declan On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
[...]
I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer. That's your responsibility.
Booooooooo! Hisssssssssss! Putting your bread and butter before your morals, eh? Maybe if someone would go through all your records and post them all over the net, you'd feel differently!
Declan, this truly sucks. :( I'm very disappointed in you. You are truly scum if you believe this.
=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== ..+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must |./|\. ...\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die. And I hate cough |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?" |\/|\/ .../|\..| "A toast to Odin, | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/. ..+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die. |..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I suppose I am scum, at least by Ray's definition.
But let me ask this question: if someone *did* post my credit card/bank records online through an anonymous remailer, what recourse would I have? What recourse should I have?
-Declan
My point exactly. Why should anyone have access to my machine or my records and be able to pass it on to others? Sure the insurance companies will squeal that they should have access to my DMV and health records, but should they have the right to take that info and pass it on publically? What recourse do you feel you should have? What would YOU do if someone did post all your personal info online? things like credit records, home address, phone number, DMV records, health records and such? What would you WANT to do? And what control do you currently have over this? Mind you, with your credit card info, any one of the "ankle biters" of the Bevis & Butthead mentality would be able to purchase a dozen toilets and have them shipped to your home, and other such abuses. Or report all your credit cards stolen right before you decide to entertain someone to dinner and find you can't pay for it... etc... These are all well known pranks. Do you see my point and why I'm vehemently opposed to yours? Or do you believe that "Oh, I have nothing to hide, I'm a good person and have nothing to fear from anyone?"
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
[...]
I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer. That's your responsibility.
Booooooooo! Hisssssssssss! Putting your bread and butter before your morals, eh? Maybe if someone would go through all your records and post them all over the net, you'd feel differently!
Declan, this truly sucks. :( I'm very disappointed in you. You are truly scum if you believe this.
=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die. And I hate cough |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?" |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die. |..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================
Again Ray misses the point. It's your responsibility to protect your privacy. Choose credit card companies that protect it and you can enforce this "right to privacy" through contract law. Ordering toilets on your cards is already fraud. Nobody's saying someone should be allowed to break into your computer. But by all means, beat that straw man some more. -Declan On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I suppose I am scum, at least by Ray's definition.
But let me ask this question: if someone *did* post my credit card/bank records online through an anonymous remailer, what recourse would I have? What recourse should I have?
-Declan
My point exactly. Why should anyone have access to my machine or my records and be able to pass it on to others? Sure the insurance companies will squeal that they should have access to my DMV and health records, but should they have the right to take that info and pass it on publically?
What recourse do you feel you should have?
What would YOU do if someone did post all your personal info online? things like credit records, home address, phone number, DMV records, health records and such? What would you WANT to do? And what control do you currently have over this?
Mind you, with your credit card info, any one of the "ankle biters" of the Bevis & Butthead mentality would be able to purchase a dozen toilets and have them shipped to your home, and other such abuses. Or report all your credit cards stolen right before you decide to entertain someone to dinner and find you can't pay for it... etc... These are all well known pranks.
Do you see my point and why I'm vehemently opposed to yours?
Or do you believe that "Oh, I have nothing to hide, I'm a good person and have nothing to fear from anyone?"
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
[...]
I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer. That's your responsibility.
Booooooooo! Hisssssssssss! Putting your bread and butter before your morals, eh? Maybe if someone would go through all your records and post them all over the net, you'd feel differently!
Declan, this truly sucks. :( I'm very disappointed in you. You are truly scum if you believe this.
=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== ..+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must |./|\. ...\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die. And I hate cough |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?" |\/|\/ .../|\..| "A toast to Odin, | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/. ..+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die. |..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================
At 8:12 AM -0700 6/13/97, Ray Arachelian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
[...]
I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer. That's your responsibility.
Booooooooo! Hisssssssssss! Putting your bread and butter before your morals, eh? Maybe if someone would go through all your records and post them all over the net, you'd feel differently!
Declan, this truly sucks. :( I'm very disappointed in you. You are truly scum if you believe this.
Your "go through all your records" point is ambiguous. If others broke into your house or office and searched your computer they would be guilty of breaking and entering, and probably theft (of your records). Publication of your records "all over the net" could be a compounding act, especially in a civil action against the thieves. However, if the "go through all your records" is really just collecting and compiling your public utterances, or information you gave to others (with no contractual agreement of secrecy), etc., then there is really no generalized "right to privacy." In a free and open society people are free to take any information they have gathered or compiled, cross-indexed and compiled, and sell it or do as they wish with it. "Tim's Dossier Service" is free to compile dossiers based on any records he can find. ("Privacy advocates" find such things as "Tim's Dossier Service" abhorrent, and want laws regulating such things. They even want laws regulating the searching of past postings on Usenet, services likek DejaNews and AltaVista.) So, Ray, count me as "scum." Maybe Vulis will loan you his robot insulter and you can send ASCII art to the list. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Tim May wrote:
Your "go through all your records" point is ambiguous. If others broke into your house or office and searched your computer they would be guilty of breaking and entering, and probably theft (of your records). Publication of your records "all over the net" could be a compounding act, especially in a civil action against the thieves.
So, say that someone got your DMV records, found out where you lived, and murdered you. Would your family be able to sue the DMV? Sure it's public knowledge, but should it be? Should breeches of privacy be limited to "Breaking and Entering" or "hacking?" Isn't the fundemental problem not simply trespassing, but rather invasion of privacy? If I broke into your house, but didn't touch and thing, and didn't damage anything, I'd still be trespassing, but would you mind? If so, why? I'd bet because it invades your privacy, because it wasn't with your permission. That's the root violation. Trespassing is a side issue. If the tree does fall in the forrest and no one hears it fall, it has still fallen. Whether it makes a noise is a question for Zen students. That it has fallen is unquestionable. So I break into your house and leave no traces and you don't know about it, would you care? What if I release the pictures of your house to the world? What if I take them using a telephoto lens from a distance? What if I use IR scans of your house to see what you're doing? Or use microwaves bouncing off metal objects, or IR lasers bouncing off your windows to listen in? At what point does it become an invasion of privacy? And what point would you say I've gone too far? Personally, I'd say it's too far when someone's going through my trash and parking a van outside my house. But that's my oppinion.
However, if the "go through all your records" is really just collecting and compiling your public utterances, or information you gave to others (with no contractual agreement of secrecy), etc., then there is really no generalized "right to privacy."
If they are public records that were generated with my consent. And yes, I do agree with the above paragraph. It's a big IF though. But do I consent to the DMV giving out my info? Would I consent to the IRS giving out my tax return? Would I consent to TRW giving out credit reports to anyone who is willing to pay the $50? Not fucking likely. Doesn't mean I have any choice in the matter. At no point did I sign any piece of paper telling TRW they have the right to give out my info to anyone willing to cough up the money.
In a free and open society people are free to take any information they have gathered or compiled, cross-indexed and compiled, and sell it or do as they wish with it. "Tim's Dossier Service" is free to compile dossiers based on any records he can find.
Depends on what that info is and how it was obtained. If your dossier contains my credit cards, I can turn around and sue you, even though you might have paid TRW to get that info or whatever. If my phone number is unlisted and I share it with my CC company, and they in turn release it to TRW, and you get it from them and post it to the world, then I could sue my CC company, but it would be too late. Sure, I protect my info, but if someone didn't respect that, what recourse do I have against them? Once the info is out, it's out.
("Privacy advocates" find such things as "Tim's Dossier Service" abhorrent, and want laws regulating such things. They even want laws regulating the searching of past postings on Usenet, services likek DejaNews and AltaVista.)
Depends on what that information is. There are robot rule files for your web site that say "Don't catalog this," and web masters do get pissed if it does. Public postings are public. This is granted. I'm not saying what I write in public is considered private. I chose to retain copyright on it, but waive the distribution restrictions. This is granted. Further, if you are making money off my information, and if that information was not publically available, but you sell it, should I not have the right to get a slice of your profits - assuming I even agree to let you sell it? The question is, should you have the right to collect info that I do not relese to others publically, and make it public. After all, if not for protecting our privacy, what reasons would we need encryption? What reasons would we have for the existance of cypherpunks were not cyphers ultimatly useful in obtaining privacy? For the coolness of their mathematical properties only? For signatures only? Not fucking likely. Ask yourself why you favor the use cyphers, Tim. If you don't say "privacy" then get the fuck off this list. Ditto for Declan. (Of course, this can't apply to the NSA since they have a different agenda on this list, but that too is a given.) :)
So, Ray, count me as "scum." Maybe Vulis will loan you his robot insulter and you can send ASCII art to the list.
I must admit, I am surprised at you, but no I don't robospam folks, and I wouldn't borrow one from Vulis. Perhaps you can turn around and say "Ray's on the rag" or "gone loony", but I do feel strongly that information that I share with others should be kept private unless I say so. Ditto for "private" email. (Quotes placed to indicate how easily it is for bad folks to snoop unencrypted email.) Perhaps I may be overly sensitive to the issue because Vulis (you did bring his name up, so live with it) posted whatever public information he could gain in a nice easily digestible package - much like Tim's Dossier Service could and threated to send my employers weird email, and in the same postings posted racist crap, but that was only PUBLICALLY available info. I retaliated by doing the same, but imagine how pissed I would be were this info that wasn't publically available - like credit card numbers, tax return info, etc... So yes, you can say, you need to live in a society that is free and open, and yes, I can disagree with you and say you're scum for thinking that you can freely collect info I consider private and then sell it. It is after all my right to disagree with this, and my right to freely say that I do. And of course this is a publically posted message, so go ahead and place it in your dossier. :) <RANT OFF> =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die. And I hate cough |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?" |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die. |..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <Pine.SUN.3.96.970613132302.23715J-100000@beast.brainlink.com>, on 06/13/97 at 01:58 PM, Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> said:
So, say that someone got your DMV records, found out where you lived, and murdered you. Would your family be able to sue the DMV? Sure it's public knowledge, but should it be? Should breeches of privacy be limited to "Breaking and Entering" or "hacking?" Isn't the fundemental problem not simply trespassing, but rather invasion of privacy?
Ray you seem to be missing the point here. Any state issued permit is public record. This includes your drivers license and your auto registration. It is imperative that in a democracy that the public know who and what the state is giving permits to (there whole other issue of wether the state should be issuing permits at all but that should be left to another thread). In a free and open society the public must be able to review the actions of its government. If Joe Sixpack has run over 20 people because he gets his kicks out of it and the DMV still issues him a license the public has a right to know. If the California DMV is secretly denying driving license to anyone who posts to the cypherpunks list the only way anyone would know is by examining the DMV records. If the state is going to issue permits on what people can and can not do the it is crutial that the public can examine these records to insure that the state is not abusing this power. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 iQCVAwUBM6GQmo9Co1n+aLhhAQGABwP+OWqazI5cQ7ySLbCZOoq0vmJEhpq6BDg7 3W5x8Ghp+zWIDMt02fyGBgUvROfbgr0SU3Qt26Lu9udMleW400mk3lQYvadPOKMU Utpgr8octdaKfSNzO3S6LfyME6Ouoy4GhyJ/0rQPZBKJZbWrH5fSTzCB00jck6Uo YVRHdDKeDV0= =xqpR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Ray you seem to be missing the point here.
Bzzzt:
Any state issued permit is public record. This includes your drivers license and your auto registration.
Should it include your address and phone number?
It is imperative that in a democracy that the public know who and what the state is giving permits to (there whole other issue of wether the state should be issuing permits at all but that should be left to another thread).
In a free and open society the public must be able to review the actions of its government.
Then we don't live in an open and free society. Do we have open records into what the CIA and NSA and such do? etc.? Very few.
If Joe Sixpack has run over 20 people because he gets his kicks out of it and the DMV still issues him a license the public has a right to know.
But should the public know Joe's phone number and address and date of birth? Gee, weren't we screaming this sucks to easily accessible Texas DMV records a few days ago?
If the state is going to issue permits on what people can and can not do the it is crutial that the public can examine these records to insure that the state is not abusing this power.
See CIA comment above. What of the likes of TRW, and health records? Should these be open knowledge to anyone who is a credit card agent or health insurance co? If it is vital to have this info to keep the governments in check, why does the government have privacy? If the government has privacy, why shouldn't we? Neither do we, nor the government have absolute privacy, however, the government controls the information it deems to keep private. Why should we not do the same? Should detailed building plans be made available of all buildings so that theives can look at them and break into banks more easily? Perhaps there are reasons some of these things are available to the public. Perhaps there are reasons why not all should be. =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die. And I hate cough |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?" |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die. |..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Any state issued permit is public record. This includes your drivers license and your auto registration.
Should it include your address and phone number?
It is imperative that in a democracy that the public know who and what the state is giving permits to (there whole other issue of wether the state should be issuing permits at all but that should be left to another thread).
One important distinction: If the state issues me a permit, they probably have a right to the information pertaining to the permit, e.g. they do need the make, model, year, and similar information about the car to issue a title or registration. If they are issuing state ID, they need to know that I am me in order to issue it. They don't need to place my mother's maiden name into the record although I think it appears on my birth certificate, and would cause problems since this is used as an informal password. My driver's license is a permit to drive, not a permit to be me. You can make a case for the database containing my age, but date of birth? Much of what appears is not necessary for the purpose stated. So are you making the case for having the state ask every detail about your life and being able to place it in the licensing database, or only answers to those questions relevant to issuing the license?
In <97Jun13.180309edt.32257@brickwall.ceddec.com>, on 06/13/97 at 06:03 PM, tzeruch@ceddec.com said:
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Any state issued permit is public record. This includes your drivers license and your auto registration.
Should it include your address and phone number?
It is imperative that in a democracy that the public know who and what the state is giving permits to (there whole other issue of wether the state should be issuing permits at all but that should be left to another thread).
One important distinction:
If the state issues me a permit, they probably have a right to the information pertaining to the permit, e.g. they do need the make, model, year, and similar information about the car to issue a title or registration. If they are issuing state ID, they need to know that I am me in order to issue it. They don't need to place my mother's maiden name into the record although I think it appears on my birth certificate, and would cause problems since this is used as an informal password. My driver's license is a permit to drive, not a permit to be me. You can make a case for the database containing my age, but date of birth? Much of what appears is not necessary for the purpose stated.
So are you making the case for having the state ask every detail about your life and being able to place it in the licensing database, or only answers to those questions relevant to issuing the license?
I would say only the relevant info for issuing a license. This is not to say that the license should be anonymous. If the government is going to issue a license/permit then the citizens have a right to know who these license/permits are issued to. Ray and some others are mixing several issues: -- Should the State be involved in issueing these permits? -- Should the information be public? -- How should the information be used if it is public? I woun't go into the fist one as I don't want to get off on a tangent. As for the second one yes the information should be public and yes it will have to containe enough personal information so that I or anyone else can verify that the State is doing what they say they are. A good example of this is voting registrations in Chicago. It has long been known as the "most democratic city in the country, even the dead can vote". The third one is the one that is causing people the most greif. If as I contend with the second question that this info should and *must* be made public then there is nothing that can be done here. Public information is public information. What I or anyone else does with that information once it becomes public is no ones bussines but my own. Because some people do things you don't like with this *public* info is not an excuse for passing draconian laws and closing government action from public view. This is the type of argumants that the government uses against us on crypto (the four horseman), it is the same type of argument that is used everytime the governement wants to shit on another part of the constitution. Someone may or maynot do somthing we don't like so we are going to pass some laws and restrict the rights of the citizens even more. The saddest part is the sheeple thank them for it. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 tzeruch@ceddec.com wrote:
If the state issues me a permit, they probably have a right to the information pertaining to the permit, e.g. they do need the make, model, year, and similar information about the car to issue a title or registration. If they are issuing state ID, they need to know that I am me in order to issue it. They don't need to place my mother's maiden name into the record although I think it appears on my birth certificate, and would cause problems since this is used as an informal password. My driver's license is a permit to drive, not a permit to be me. You can make a case for the database containing my age, but date of birth? Much of what appears is not necessary for the purpose stated.
So are you making the case for having the state ask every detail about your life and being able to place it in the licensing database, or only answers to those questions relevant to issuing the license?
I'm making the case that information I share with (for example) the DMV should not be viewable by those OUTSIDE of the DMV and NYPD without my consent - i.e. if Joe Insurance Inc. wants to insure my car, they need my permission to have the DMV release the info; but some folks have taken this to other weird tangents, such as polarizing one's point of view into either libertarian or stasist. I hold neither. And I've given up on the cluelessness of the same folks, so the topic I've dropped. :) =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die. And I hate cough |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?" |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die. |..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <Pine.SUN.3.96.970623184633.28368H-100000@beast.brainlink.com>, on 06/23/97 at 06:51 PM, Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> said:
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 tzeruch@ceddec.com wrote:
If the state issues me a permit, they probably have a right to the information pertaining to the permit, e.g. they do need the make, model, year, and similar information about the car to issue a title or registration. If they are issuing state ID, they need to know that I am me in order to issue it. They don't need to place my mother's maiden name into the record although I think it appears on my birth certificate, and would cause problems since this is used as an informal password. My driver's license is a permit to drive, not a permit to be me. You can make a case for the database containing my age, but date of birth? Much of what appears is not necessary for the purpose stated.
So are you making the case for having the state ask every detail about your life and being able to place it in the licensing database, or only answers to those questions relevant to issuing the license?
I'm making the case that information I share with (for example) the DMV should not be viewable by those OUTSIDE of the DMV and NYPD without my consent - i.e. if Joe Insurance Inc. wants to insure my car, they need my permission to have the DMV release the info; but some folks have taken this to other weird tangents, such as polarizing one's point of view into either libertarian or stasist. I hold neither. And I've given up on the cluelessness of the same folks, so the topic I've dropped. :)
Only one here being clueless is you Ray. The state is not allowed to engage in secret activities with select members of society. Whenever it issues a permit or a license to someone it is public knowledge. Whenever someone is arrested, whenever there is a trial both great and small the full details are public information. All actions of the state *must* be reviewable by the citizens. You can not have a free and open society without the people being able to check on what it's government is doing. This means that all of the following *must* be open to the public: DMV Records Criminal Records Voter Registrations Census Records Building Permits Profesional Licenses Court Transcripts Federal Records State Records County Records City Records ect, ect, ect. The problem here is *NOT* that this information is public. The problem is that the goverment has got it's fat little fingers into everything. The solution is *NOT* letting the state hide what it is doing with these so called privacy laws but to get the state out of where it has no business being in the first place!!! And this has nothing to do with GAK or any other 1984ish monitoring of citizens. The issue here is bringing the activities of the state into the light of day. The activities of the citizens that do not directly involve the state are not at issue here. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 iQCVAwUBM689eY9Co1n+aLhhAQFAKQP/ZzTP16dZaSSH2NIS2jj6HyNxvu2xZjfH nxT70qouw2RXOjjupLCcsWA1E44uHNEhyh3GFv11eBb0AnE869h1YBwUAnUpk4yN r7Xr1y8NIWjckowQQ6Dnq4GlMVUSM9BTwUvBGaaE/TdM/LDZcJLXR9U/3G5h9gsF iAE9w+8FekQ= =k3eZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Only one here being clueless is you Ray.
Thanks for the compliment. I burp in your general direction.
The state is not allowed to engage in secret activities with select members of society. Whenever it issues a permit or a license to someone it is public knowledge. Whenever someone is arrested, whenever there is a trial both great and small the full details are public information.
Asking the state to protect my privacy by not disclosing the information I disclose to it is not asking the state to engage in secret activities with select members of society. It is asking it not to release information that I am forced to give them in return for certain goods, services, or privilidges - driving for example. Having a driver's license doesn't mean I wish to share the information that the DMV requires to provide such a license to the world. Paying taxes doesn't mean I wish to disclose my 1040 form to the world.
All actions of the state *must* be reviewable by the citizens. You can not have a free and open society without the people being able to check on what it's government is doing.
And tell me dear William, in what way will you prevent the government from taking capricious actions against a free and open society by allowing anyone to find out a phone number that is unlisted by simply calling up DMV records? This isn't keeping tabs on the government, this is keeping tabs on the people which the government choses to infringe on. If the DMV wasn't giving licenses to certain types of people and one believed that this was the case, one should ask those people who felt that they were discriminated against. One should not have the ability to look at EVERY record in the DMV databases - no matter how noble the thought. This is not to protect the DMV, this is to protect those listed within its databases.
This means that all of the following *must* be open to the public:
Again, by your oppinion, not mine. And no, I don't believe in a "free and open" society. I believe in a "free and private" society.
Criminal Records
As for these, IMHO, once a criminal has completed their sentence they should be allowed to have a life. Having these records available to all is a means of discriminating against them for having commited a crime as judged by a jury. Not necessarily having commited the crime, but being convicted of doing so - as is well known mistakes have been made and lives have been destroyed by such mistakes. IMHO, repeat offenders will wind up in jail again, and will be punished again. This should not infringe on their right to secure jobs or the right to rent, or buy homes. The idea of the justice system is to correct these wrongs, not to punish for life. Once the debt is paid, it is paid. There are some who believe that offenders should not be re-released into society because they will commit more crimes, and/or that the communities should be notified when they are allowed to move there. If it is the case that person X is likely to commit more crime, then that fact should play a factor in person X's parole hearing. IMHO, if the danger is there, don't let the bastard out. If it isn't, then let them go and let them live in peace and privacy.
Voter Registrations
These too can be both a benefit and an infringement on privacy. Whatever information these records hold might be used for other purposes.
Census Records
Why? What is the purpose of having these records available in forms other than a number?
Building Permits
I agree here.
Profesional Licenses
Sure, but only so far as to say "Yep, person X has this license" not "and they live on xyz street, have three kids, and a poodle."
Court Transcripts
Granted.
Federal Records State Records County Records City Records
Granted, but which specific records?
ect, ect, ect.
clue: You mean etc as in "Et Cetera."
The problem here is *NOT* that this information is public. The problem is that the goverment has got it's fat little fingers into everything. The solution is *NOT* letting the state hide what it is doing with these so called privacy laws but to get the state out of where it has no business being in the first place!!!
I agree that there is ALSO a problem that the government has its fat fingers in everything and is allowed to do things that others aren't allowed to do. For instance many places where gambling is illegal provide lotteries with astronomical odds against the player. Were the things done by casinos, nobody would play. I agree that what the state does and whom they interact with should be public knowledge. I do not agree that by virtue of interacting with the state that I should be force to give up my privacy. I do not have the choice of not interacting with the state due to lovelies such as income taxes and drivers licenses - I should not be forced to give up privacy as well because of this. Based on what you say everything the state does should be public. Fine, but if anyone were able to see anyone else's 1040 forms, you'd have a lot of invasion of privacy. This is what you fail to see or understand. This isn't a strawman, it's plain fact. If I can see your return, I can see how much you make, whatever deductions or exemptions you claim can give me a slew of information as to what you have purchased and your general life style. The address info and SSN will give me even more keys into your info. Birth and Marriage records will tell me who your mother is, then I can look up her records, and find her maiden name, then I can take your SSN, your mother's maiden name, your date of birth and hand them over to TRW and see your credit card purchases, etc. This is the thing that should not be that you are advocating, the thing I and fighting you on. I think that it is indeed the case that you require a few clues.
And this has nothing to do with GAK or any other 1984ish monitoring of citizens. The issue here is bringing the activities of the state into the light of day. The activities of the citizens that do not directly involve the state are not at issue here.
Then DMV records should not be fully visible, neither should 1040 forms, for example. But the key is "that do not directly involve the state" The problem is that the state directly involves us into their activities and we directly involve them through our votes. That is the key that will unlock the records into the activities of the citizens, and unlock their privacy when they should not. For the most part we agree - the government's activities should be public knowledge and should be watched and reviewed carefully. However in your eagerness to make this happen you would also strip away the privacy of the citizens only because the government interacts and forces itself on interacting with them. And that is the clue you fail to get. =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die. And I hate cough |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?" |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die. |..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <Pine.SUN.3.96.970624113126.8208A-100000@beast.brainlink.com>, on 06/24/97 at 12:00 PM, Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> said:
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Only one here being clueless is you Ray.
Thanks for the compliment. I burp in your general direction.
The state is not allowed to engage in secret activities with select members of society. Whenever it issues a permit or a license to someone it is public knowledge. Whenever someone is arrested, whenever there is a trial both great and small the full details are public information.
Asking the state to protect my privacy by not disclosing the information I disclose to it is not asking the state to engage in secret activities with select members of society. It is asking it not to release information that I am forced to give them in return for certain goods, services, or privilidges - driving for example. Having a driver's license doesn't mean I wish to share the information that the DMV requires to provide such a license to the world.
Paying taxes doesn't mean I wish to disclose my 1040 form to the world.
All actions of the state *must* be reviewable by the citizens. You can not have a free and open society without the people being able to check on what it's government is doing.
And tell me dear William, in what way will you prevent the government from taking capricious actions against a free and open society by allowing anyone to find out a phone number that is unlisted by simply calling up DMV records?
This isn't keeping tabs on the government, this is keeping tabs on the people which the government choses to infringe on.
If the DMV wasn't giving licenses to certain types of people and one believed that this was the case, one should ask those people who felt that they were discriminated against. One should not have the ability to look at EVERY record in the DMV databases - no matter how noble the thought.
This is not to protect the DMV, this is to protect those listed within its databases.
This means that all of the following *must* be open to the public:
Again, by your oppinion, not mine. And no, I don't believe in a "free and open" society. I believe in a "free and private" society.
Criminal Records
As for these, IMHO, once a criminal has completed their sentence they should be allowed to have a life. Having these records available to all is a means of discriminating against them for having commited a crime as judged by a jury. Not necessarily having commited the crime, but being convicted of doing so - as is well known mistakes have been made and lives have been destroyed by such mistakes.
IMHO, repeat offenders will wind up in jail again, and will be punished again. This should not infringe on their right to secure jobs or the right to rent, or buy homes.
The idea of the justice system is to correct these wrongs, not to punish for life. Once the debt is paid, it is paid. There are some who believe that offenders should not be re-released into society because they will commit more crimes, and/or that the communities should be notified when they are allowed to move there. If it is the case that person X is likely to commit more crime, then that fact should play a factor in person X's parole hearing. IMHO, if the danger is there, don't let the bastard out. If it isn't, then let them go and let them live in peace and privacy.
Voter Registrations
These too can be both a benefit and an infringement on privacy. Whatever information these records hold might be used for other purposes.
Obviously you have never seen Chicago Politics at work. Chicago the most democratic country in the world, even the dead get to vote ... TWICE!!! :)
Census Records
Why? What is the purpose of having these records available in forms other than a number?
Building Permits
I agree here.
Profesional Licenses
Sure, but only so far as to say "Yep, person X has this license" not "and they live on xyz street, have three kids, and a poodle."
Court Transcripts
Granted.
Federal Records State Records County Records City Records
Granted, but which specific records?
ect, ect, ect.
clue: You mean etc as in "Et Cetera."
The problem here is *NOT* that this information is public. The problem is that the goverment has got it's fat little fingers into everything. The solution is *NOT* letting the state hide what it is doing with these so called privacy laws but to get the state out of where it has no business being in the first place!!!
I agree that there is ALSO a problem that the government has its fat fingers in everything and is allowed to do things that others aren't allowed to do. For instance many places where gambling is illegal provide lotteries with astronomical odds against the player. Were the things done by casinos, nobody would play.
I agree that what the state does and whom they interact with should be public knowledge. I do not agree that by virtue of interacting with the state that I should be force to give up my privacy. I do not have the choice of not interacting with the state due to lovelies such as income taxes and drivers licenses - I should not be forced to give up privacy as well because of this.
Based on what you say everything the state does should be public. Fine, but if anyone were able to see anyone else's 1040 forms, you'd have a lot of invasion of privacy. This is what you fail to see or understand. This isn't a strawman, it's plain fact. If I can see your return, I can see how much you make, whatever deductions or exemptions you claim can give me a slew of information as to what you have purchased and your general life style. The address info and SSN will give me even more keys into your info. Birth and Marriage records will tell me who your mother is, then I can look up her records, and find her maiden name, then I can take your SSN, your mother's maiden name, your date of birth and hand them over to TRW and see your credit card purchases, etc. This is the thing that should not be that you are advocating, the thing I and fighting you on. I think that it is indeed the case that you require a few clues.
And this has nothing to do with GAK or any other 1984ish monitoring of citizens. The issue here is bringing the activities of the state into the light of day. The activities of the citizens that do not directly involve the state are not at issue here.
Then DMV records should not be fully visible, neither should 1040 forms, for example. But the key is "that do not directly involve the state" The problem is that the state directly involves us into their activities and we directly involve them through our votes. That is the key that will unlock the records into the activities of the citizens, and unlock their privacy when they should not.
For the most part we agree - the government's activities should be public knowledge and should be watched and reviewed carefully. However in your eagerness to make this happen you would also strip away the privacy of the citizens only because the government interacts and forces itself on interacting with them.
And that is the clue you fail to get.
How are you going to verify what the government *says* it is doing without a mechinism of authenticating of who they are doing it with? How can you verify that the census reports are vailid if you don't know who is in the census? How can you check and see if the party in power is stuffing the balot boxes if you can't confirm who is on the voting rolls?? How will you know which John Doe is issued a Medical License without additional information being available? How can you prevent criminal records from being known when all police arrests & court procedings are public knowledge? In your zeal to make public information "private" you are giving the government the perfect mechanism to hide all its activities from its citizens. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 iQCVAwUBM7AjHY9Co1n+aLhhAQFGXQP+MeTQt7vohgI7QBSa1rgAzaXXX4woRcLv 5Rbfx/r0XCSoyjDIREPcrnpwX0RQRHs07+NpXKCrygqeU7ruD6zw5xmZaP9obyw3 iGqoqcemt+x/S+UZGh2w4mXMN7GKLzyihoxTg/wYIbW964qr20ujig0jJ7pyDrpL DtyNs8NB4ZQ= =Me1A -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Gee thanks for quoting my entire message. You know, I really love to see the stuff I wrote before over and over again when I reply to it. *NOT*. If you reply, please don't quote the entire messages. Just what you're replying to. [Mass Snippage]
How are you going to verify what the government *says* it is doing without a mechinism of authenticating of who they are doing it with?
Watch them carefully. If they do what they're not supposed to do, word will eventually leak out in most circumstances, not all, and most certainly not in spool related things. But leaks do occur. Watching what they say and do will give you that info. Same as any of the reporters will do. Ask Declan if need be. :)
How can you verify that the census reports are vailid if you don't know who is in the census?
Conduct your own independant census and see how big a difference there is. If you can't, then conduct random but smaller spot checks and see how they match. Count the number of entries in the phone book. You shouldn't be too far off from the actual number of residents within an area though you'd be missing unlisted numbers.
How can you check and see if the party in power is stuffing the balot boxes if you can't confirm who is on the voting rolls??
Ask the voters to anonymously re-vote, take polls. Etc.
How will you know which John Doe is issued a Medical License without additional information being available?
These aren't done by Uncle Sam, they're done by AMA or whatever. As I said licenses should be available to you in terms of yes, he's had a license, or no he ain't got one.
How can you prevent criminal records from being known when all police arrests & court procedings are public knowledge?
Court procedings, not criminal records. Hmmm, caught me there ya did. :) Good question. Any other suggestions as to how to protect the privacy of someone who served their time?
In your zeal to make public information "private" you are giving the government the perfect mechanism to hide all its activities from its citizens.
I'm not asking for laws to be passed to "protect" privacy. I'm asking that privacy be recognized as one of the inalienable rights. In other words, a constitutional amendment much like the 1st that says you have the right to privacy. Not necessarily what happens when it is broken. If it's broken, you sue Unlce Sam. I'm not asking for public information to be hidden. I'm asking for information that is personal and should be private to be private- i.e. driving records, health records, addresses, phone numbers, and relationship records to be kept private. I'm not asking to hide what the government does. Not all information that is public is personal - such information should remain public. The actions of the state, the actions of public corporations should be public. Information on citizens should not be made public WITHOUT their consent. =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die. And I hate cough |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?" |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die. |..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================
My computer is generally down these days - I brought it up for a short while to check the e-mail, but will be taking it down again soon... Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> writes:
Asking the state to protect my privacy by not disclosing the information I disclose to it is not asking the state to engage in secret activities with select members of society. It is asking it not to release information that I am forced to give them in return for certain goods, services, or privilidges - driving for example. Having a driver's license doesn't mean I wish to share the information that the DMV requires to provide such a license to the world.
Not that it means much, but: we both live in NYC. I have a licence, but I haven't driven the car in probably 3 or 4 years (my wife takes the darn thing all the time). One can live in NYC or SF and not have a car or licence. On the other hand one can live in NYC and drive a gypsie cab and not have a licence (apparently lots of people do!) because if you're pulled over and you don't have a license, you're not arrested, and your car is not impounded - you're just given a ticket which you don't have to pay. Tickets are for suckers like us who are in the system.
Paying taxes doesn't mean I wish to disclose my 1040 form to the world.
It's public in some Scandinavian countries. I recall that there anyone can check the balance on your bank account.
Criminal Records
As for these, IMHO, once a criminal has completed their sentence they should be allowed to have a life. Having these records available to all is a means of discriminating against them for having commited a crime as judged by a jury. Not necessarily having commited the crime, but being convicted of doing so - as is well known mistakes have been made and lives have been destroyed by such mistakes.
But of course not just the conviction record but the arrest record is public information.
Voter Registrations
These too can be both a benefit and an infringement on privacy. Whatever information these records hold might be used for other purposes.
These are public in the U.K. Indeed they'd find electioneering much harder if they weren't.
Census Records
Why? What is the purpose of having these records available in forms other than a number?
Why, to round up all the japs, to confiscate their homes and businesses, and to ship them to concentration camps. :-)
Building Permits
I agree here.
I don't see why anyone other than a buglar should be interested in the intrnal layour of someone home. :-)
Profesional Licenses
Sure, but only so far as to say "Yep, person X has this license" not "and they live on xyz street, have three kids, and a poodle."
How about: patient X complaint about Dr. Y.
Court Transcripts
Granted.
How about: Mrs. X is suing Mr. X for divorce and alleges that he's been sexually molsting their kids. In practice, this happens very often, and is usually dismissed by the family court as pure bulshit. How about adoption records...
allowed to do. For instance many places where gambling is illegal provide lotteries with astronomical odds against the player. Were the things done by casinos, nobody would play.
But of course: if private casinos were allowed to compete against the gubmint-run lotteries, they'd offer better odds, and no one would play gubmint lotteries. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <Pine.SUN.3.96.970613150817.23715K-100000@beast.brainlink.com>, on 06/13/97 at 02:16 PM, Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> said:
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Ray you seem to be missing the point here.
Bzzzt:
Any state issued permit is public record. This includes your drivers license and your auto registration.
Should it include your address and phone number?
Yes
It is imperative that in a democracy that the public know who and what the state is giving permits to (there whole other issue of wether the state should be issuing permits at all but that should be left to another thread).
In a free and open society the public must be able to review the actions of its government.
Then we don't live in an open and free society. Do we have open records into what the CIA and NSA and such do? etc.? Very few.
Two wrongs don't make a right Ray. The whole CIA NSA thing is just a flimsy straw man. All the documants being discused are on the state and local level. They do not have "national security" that they can hide behinde.
If Joe Sixpack has run over 20 people because he gets his kicks out of it and the DMV still issues him a license the public has a right to know.
But should the public know Joe's phone number and address and date of birth? Gee, weren't we screaming this sucks to easily accessible Texas DMV records a few days ago?
YOU may have been screaming about it I was not.
If the state is going to issue permits on what people can and can not do the it is crutial that the public can examine these records to insure that the state is not abusing this power.
See CIA comment above. What of the likes of TRW, and health records? Should these be open knowledge to anyone who is a credit card agent or health insurance co? If it is vital to have this info to keep the governments in check, why does the government have privacy? If the government has privacy, why shouldn't we? Neither do we, nor the government have absolute privacy, however, the government controls the information it deems to keep private. Why should we not do the same?
Should detailed building plans be made available of all buildings so that theives can look at them and break into banks more easily? Perhaps there are reasons some of these things are available to the public. Perhaps there are reasons why not all should be.
Look Ray I answered all this in my previous post. You have two choices you can take the Libertarian view of a minimal governement where all it's actions are reveiwable by it's citizens or you can take the Statest view of big governemtn where all is's actions are hidden and all "solutions" are more regulation and biger government. The whole privacy issue is a strawman proped up by the government to frighten the sheeple so they can pass their agenda. What's their agenda? To have a series of privacy laws they can hide behind to keep their actions hidden from public view. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 iQCVAwUBM6KmKI9Co1n+aLhhAQE56wQAskQH55tdy1zmcVplKau06ZbAKyVKgaFb L8PULoOlxTcmtWBoGv2Rcu6hnzc9K/w8g5v9GsRVsYl5WG/+nJRsV2r7E6LTBnao glxAkzZcNjbM/ihD67XueXOn7ObbdNVMyeOv/FXMdUidlVeoKqJtXWlHpO7BYJjy s+xyclr3EPk= =nFID -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, 14 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Should it include your address and phone number?
Yes
Well then, so much for asking the phone company to NOT list your number in the phone book. If someone wants to find you, all they have to do is cough up some dough and register themselves as an insurance broker or whatever and they can look at DMV records to get your phone number. Thanks but no thanks. You are being too dense on this.
Two wrongs don't make a right Ray. The whole CIA NSA thing is just a flimsy straw man. All the documants being discused are on the state and local level. They do not have "national security" that they can hide behinde.
NSA I'll grant you might be a straw man. FBI and CIA records should be open to all to read - except ongoing current stuff, but I don't mean that they should be open 50 years after the fact. Government abuses DO and HAVE occured. I neededn't cite things like Waco and Ruby Ridge, do I? What threat were those events to National Security?
But should the public know Joe's phone number and address and date of birth? Gee, weren't we screaming this sucks to easily accessible Texas DMV records a few days ago?
YOU may have been screaming about it I was not.
That is quite telling of your beliefs.
You have two choices you can take the Libertarian view of a minimal governement where all it's actions are reveiwable by it's citizens or you can take the Statest view of big governemtn where all is's actions are hidden and all "solutions" are more regulation and biger government.
Why should I accept being pidgeonholed into one category or the other? Get a clue.
The whole privacy issue is a strawman proped up by the government to frighten the sheeple so they can pass their agenda. What's their agenda? To have a series of privacy laws they can hide behind to keep their actions hidden from public view.
Um yeah, sure, and if you've nothing to hide why ask for privacy right? Why don't you like put cameras in your home and monitors on the street so anyone who wants to listen in on you and watch you can do so? There should be no privacy issue. Privacy should be a right as should the right to use strong encryption WITHOUT GAK. That is the point of strong encryption without GAK after all: Privacy. End of Story. =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die. And I hate cough |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?" |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die. |..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================
On Sat, Jun 14, 1997 at 08:58:36AM -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote: [...]
You have two choices you can take the Libertarian view of a minimal governement where all it's actions are reveiwable by it's citizens or you can take the Statest view of big governemtn where all is's actions are hidden and all "solutions" are more regulation and biger government.
The consistent libertarian/anarchist view of this would be that the privacy or non-privacy of records is completely determined by contract between the person supplying the information and the agency collecting it. For example, a medical license would be granted by agencies that granted such licenses. If you wanted a license from a particular agency you would deal with them. The value of the license is determined by the reputation of the agency, not whether or not they give out doctors home addresses.
The whole privacy issue is a strawman proped up by the government to frighten the sheeple so they can pass their agenda. What's their agenda? To have a series of privacy laws they can hide behind to keep their actions hidden from public view.
An amusing example of a conspiracy theory. You are pretty good at these, you know. :-) -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <19970614074032.37364@bywater.songbird.com>, on 06/14/97 at 07:40 AM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:
On Sat, Jun 14, 1997 at 08:58:36AM -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote: [...]
You have two choices you can take the Libertarian view of a minimal governement where all it's actions are reveiwable by it's citizens or you can take the Statest view of big governemtn where all is's actions are hidden and all "solutions" are more regulation and biger government.
The consistent libertarian/anarchist view of this would be that the privacy or non-privacy of records is completely determined by contract between the person supplying the information and the agency collecting it. For example, a medical license would be granted by agencies that granted such licenses. If you wanted a license from a particular agency you would deal with them. The value of the license is determined by the reputation of the agency, not whether or not they give out doctors home addresses.
This is fine if the licensing is being done in the private sector. If it is being done by the government then it must be public. You can not have a democracy if everything the governmnet does is hidden from the citizens it is to server.
The whole privacy issue is a strawman proped up by the government to frighten the sheeple so they can pass their agenda. What's their agenda? To have a series of privacy laws they can hide behind to keep their actions hidden from public view.
An amusing example of a conspiracy theory. You are pretty good at these, you know. :-)
No conspiracy Kent just SOP for the government. I believe the current phrase is "spin-doctoring". Anyone who has spent any time watching how governemnt works knows that quite often they will create a "problem" for the sole purpose of providing a "solution". - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 iQCVAwUBM6KxtY9Co1n+aLhhAQG4pQQAs5wbcmE1MekiPkVnbJsICLL7eyf3JwZK oIAFEqsoa+eRvPYMVJSdlerefvmrCqfMYiOqixrCTFQJQ9re/TDtRwfGTJWHqE8W Jh/3QvjgeMva9Phl7K0efZ06abeaSRIKMWcnbJikad720TGHKp2sVGlsn5die0yP X18Plk6V2Hk= =Wxck -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Privacy? What Privacy? by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer. That's your responsibility.
I think there is a confusion as to whether "The Net" is a public place or not, and for most purposes it is. When I say something in public, I cannot expect it not to be repeated. I should have no general right to privacy in a public place. When I email, if it is something I don't want to see posted everywhere, I add a copyright notice of some sort - nonredistribution as a condition of use. I don't think it is considered a breach of the first ammendment not to allow a newspaper to serialize a book without compensating the author, even if the book is available at a library. And lots of things are considered copyrighted without having the circle-c affixed to it. Libertarian means as much finding out about the rules and taking responsibility for your acts (including unintentional publication), as having rights. If a site says they will not redistriubte the information, and then does, it is a form of fraud. If they don't say, or if they say they do redistriubte data, it is up to me if I want to send them the data. I think many people are uninformed, and simply want to use software without spending the time figuring out what is going on, so it would help if the various browsers had better Privacy settings (e.g. Lynx asks me if I want to accept a cookie, yes, now, always, never, but my current Netscape just has an Always - Warn (but if I cancel, the transfer stops) - Never). There is a minimal right to be informed that the browser allows collecting all this data, and how to disable it. I can't force people to read the manuals, but I don't think it is proper to hide the anti-surveillence controls on software, and disable them by default. If a misunderstood or malicious application posted all the data in your financial files without your knowledge and consent do you think you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information since you let it leave your computer? Give people an informed choice. Consent isn't possible without knowledge, and if people know what is going on, they can decide what data they will allow to leave their computer for public cyberspace.
tzeruch@ceddec.com writes:
When I email, if it is something I don't want to see posted everywhere, I add a copyright notice of some sort - nonredistribution as a condition of use.
That's just silly and has no legal meaning. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (13)
-
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} -
Bill Frantz -
Bill Stewart -
Declan McCullagh -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Kent Crispin -
Paul Bradley -
Ray Arachelian -
Robert Hettinga -
Steve Schear -
Tim May -
tzeruch＠ceddec.com -
William H. Geiger III