Forwarded message:

From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net> Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:20:34 -0800

...

They're bound by economics and nothing else, not even the government cats.

Which is preferable IMHO, and I think most here agree (at least in this context). As soon as you give some entity (e.g. government) the power of force to regulate privacy,

Woah there cowboy, just exactly how the hell do you jump from economics to privacy...talk about a strawman.

you create an entity that will abuse that force

Abuse is the nature of man, not economics, privacy, government systems, etc. They're things, they have no desire and most definitely have no concept of privacy, economics, duty, etc. A a person or persons are abused it's by another person or persons.

Plus such regulations are a false security blanket that diminishes demand for true privacy-creating tools (cryptography) -- not to mention you current regime turns around and attacks those tools.

It depends on the regulation and how it's applied. You simply can't equitably apply the statement that all regulation is bad because it's equaly clear that no regulation has its own pitfalls and abuses.

Being bound by the law of economics is generally a good thing.

Yes, provided you have 'fair competition' which you can't in a free market. Provided all companies and their management operate within some sort of ethical guidelines, which they won't (and don't). And on and on. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------