Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
Black Unicorn:
1> All potentially damaging information, by virtue of it's potential "wrongful use" shall be banned. 2> All information clearly going to be used for the "wrong purposes" shall be restricted. The result in 1>, I think is quite clear. The result in 2>, requires some ONE, some GROUP to decide what is and is not A> "clearly going to be used for," B> "the wrong purposes." ... You end up with either a cut throat thought police regime, or slightly less offensive paternalistic censorship. You choose, what is it you want to have?
Any individual has the right to decide what information to give out. If that means the individual has to judge someone else's purposes, then so be it. The individual may even try to persuade others not to give out the information. It only becomes a problem if he's trying to use force--to keep others who _do_ want to reveal the information, from revealing it. This is _the_ difference between the current situation, and real police state censorship; censorship prevents someone from speaking who wants to speak; it doesn't merely mean that the government itself won't speak to you. -- Ken Arromdee (email: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu) "No boom today. Boom tomorrow, there's always a boom tomorrow." --Ivanova
On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 94 15:06:43 EST From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> To: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
Black Unicorn:
1> All potentially damaging information, by virtue of it's potential "wrongful use" shall be banned. 2> All information clearly going to be used for the "wrong purposes" shall be restricted. The result in 1>, I think is quite clear. The result in 2>, requires some ONE, some GROUP to decide what is and is not A> "clearly going to be used for," B> "the wrong purposes." ... You end up with either a cut throat thought police regime, or slightly less offensive paternalistic censorship. You choose, what is it you want to have?
Any individual has the right to decide what information to give out. If that means the individual has to judge someone else's purposes, then so be it. The individual may even try to persuade others not to give out the information.
It only becomes a problem if he's trying to use force--to keep others who _do_ want to reveal the information, from revealing it. This is _the_ difference between the current situation, and real police state censorship; censorship prevents someone from speaking who wants to speak; it doesn't merely mean that the government itself won't speak to you.
The problem I had was the justification of refusal to disclose in some moral argument. Even more annoying was the poster's attempt to cast that argument as a cypherpunk position (of which there are none). Like I said, I will be the last to argue there is any sort of duty to disclose, and the first to flame if someone justifies their refusal to disclose on anything other than an individual decision not to. A lecture on morality accompanying a refusal to disclose is just arrogant.
-- Ken Arromdee (email: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
"No boom today. Boom tomorrow, there's always a boom tomorrow." --Ivanova
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!
participants (2)
-
arromdee＠blaze.cs.jhu.edu -
Black Unicorn