There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly (fwd)
Hi, Forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:58:37 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly
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.
A right is not a question of popularity or amplitude, it is a question of existance. It is or it isn't. Some people want more guns than others (obvious even to you) so you seriously hold that there is no fundamental Constitutional right to own firearms? Or speech, we don't all want to use it to the same amount, we therefore don't have a right to free speech? Or (oh my god!) crypto, we don't all want to use it to the same degree therefore we don't have a right to use crypto? Serious boo-boo. I hope it ain't gone to print yet... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|
I suspect the scare about privacy has led to muddled thinking. Free speech is a right that strictly limits the government's ability to control what you say. We should have a similar right of privacy from the government. But I give up my free speech "rights" when I attend a college with a wacky speech code or go to work at a company with workplace speech policies. My choices in those situations are governed by my free speech preferences. Similarly, I give up my privacy "rights" when I go to unknown web sites, apply for a loan, or post to Usenet, etc. These also are preferences. I'm surprised not to hear more from other folks here: my position is one cypherpunks have advocated for years -- controlling what data flow from my computer is my responsibility. -Declan On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Jim Choate wrote:
Hi,
Forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:58:37 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly
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.
A right is not a question of popularity or amplitude, it is a question of existance. It is or it isn't. Some people want more guns than others (obvious even to you) so you seriously hold that there is no fundamental Constitutional right to own firearms? Or speech, we don't all want to use it to the same amount, we therefore don't have a right to free speech? Or (oh my god!) crypto, we don't all want to use it to the same degree therefore we don't have a right to use crypto?
Serious boo-boo.
I hope it ain't gone to print yet...
____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|
Declan McCullagh writes:
I suspect the scare about privacy has led to muddled thinking.
I agreed with the point of your article, though you might have been more careful when uttering the magic word "right".
I'm surprised not to hear more from other folks here: my position is one cypherpunks have advocated for years -- controlling what data flow from my computer is my responsibility.
I completely agree with your position. I assumed the lack of reaction was simply because you're preaching to the choir here. -- Jeff
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I suspect the scare about privacy has led to muddled thinking.
Free speech is a right that strictly limits the government's ability to control what you say. We should have a similar right of privacy from the government.
That would be nice. You should have put that in your article.
But I give up my free speech "rights" when I attend a college with a wacky speech code or go to work at a company with workplace speech policies. My choices in those situations are governed by my free speech preferences. Similarly, I give up my privacy "rights" when I go to unknown web sites, apply for a loan, or post to Usenet, etc. These also are preferences.
But here you have a choice, you can chose to not accept that job or attend that class, or surf that site, or even do so with a nome de guere. What choice have you to control TRW or the DMV's, or your criminal records if you have any? Those aren't on your computer. You can always attend the classes under assumed names. This has been done before. (I believe one of the Steves at Apple did this - Wozniak???)
I'm surprised not to hear more from other folks here: my position is one cypherpunks have advocated for years -- controlling what data flow from my computer is my responsibility.
It's still early in the morning. I'm sure the thread will explode pretty soon. Yes, but what about the information that others can get to on your ISP? Do you control that info? We've always advocated protecting our own data, but this doesn't mean that we should invade the privacy of those who are clueless, or suck it in when some rogue piece of software (see the netscape thread) endagers our privacy. I'm not saying pull your shades up and stand butt naked infront of your windows. I'm saying someone shouldn't have the right to stick a camera in your home without your knowledge and then publish pictures of you in Playgirl or whatever. =====================================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 =========================
Ray appears unwilling or unable to read what I write, so I may be leaving this thread unless it becomes more interesting and less repetitive, quickly. On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:
Free speech is a right that strictly limits the government's ability to control what you say. We should have a similar right of privacy from the government.
That would be nice. You should have put that in your article.
Get a clue. I did: 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.)
It's still early in the morning. I'm sure the thread will explode pretty soon. Yes, but what about the information that others can get to on your ISP? Do you control that info? We've always advocated protecting our own
Yes. You can control it. Try learning how to "chmod 700 ~". If you don't do it, don't whine about violations of your "privacy rights." -Declan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <Pine.GSO.3.95.970613120008.13113J-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>, on 06/13/97 at 12:04 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> said:
Get a clue. I did:
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.)
Well this is rather a poor example. The requirment of a census was written into the costitution and with good reason. Many of the government actions are based on demographics congressional districting is a prime example. There is a fight going on in cogress right now as the current administration wants to be able to gestimate the census rather than doing an actuall head count so it can manipulate the figures any way it wants (ie change the figures in key congressional districts so they can re-draw them to favor their supporters). - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 iQCVAwUBM6F5Vo9Co1n+aLhhAQGMOQQAkJ+3CqXwhsJVVO7xXNE2C91A4GQK1uXd GgBlABNshvWlZoqPsGcmnOm1QZVIUPBavPx4hHsVk3UMvaQeiwGeWfp1dBmmxGMo v2LqRev7dlsLAIUcG/2dZ3kaEy/S+Vlqtb04Pklq+vkjM3RFYDYfF5b1AkfntCnA laNv9MKl8w8= =iIwz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Get a clue. I did:
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.)
Today the Nazi's would simply pay Experian (was TRW) for their databases. I think the IRS already does. Private databases collect a lot of data that I am not asked about, or from government, or that I am required to turn over (e.g. Government requires a taxpayer ID number to open a bank account, so I can't shop for a bank that offers privacy as an option, but they will then turn around and give the information to the databasers). Since the Government is the origin of the Social Security Number, and requires its use in many instances, there should be a law that I should be able to remove any government-required information removed from any non-governmental-required database. This may restrict my access to things like credit (they have the right to say, no SSN, no credit, which is where I differ with most privacy advocates), but I should have that choice. Right now, the lines are too fuzzy. I think government and private databases should be disjoint. Otherwise "private databases" are just a way for government to evade any restriction on collection or use. And do they have the right to hold stale or inaccurate data? And can they use fraudulent means of obtaining it, or archive data obtained by such means?
tzeruch@ceddec.com writes:
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Get a clue. I did:
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.)
Today the Nazi's would simply pay Experian (was TRW) for their databases. I think the IRS already does.
Why do you need to bring up the Nazis when the U.S. Gubmint used its own Census data to round up Americans of Japanese descent (who said so on their Census forms) and to intern them in concentration camps.
Private databases collect a lot of data that I am not asked about, or from government, or that I am required to turn over (e.g. Government requires a taxpayer ID number to open a bank account, so I can't shop for a bank that offers privacy as an option, but they will then turn around and give the information to the databasers).
Good news: no sane bank gives its client info to the databasers. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> writes:
I suspect the scare about privacy has led to muddled thinking.
Free speech is a right that strictly limits the government's ability to control what you say. We should have a similar right of privacy from the government.
But I give up my free speech "rights" when I attend a college with a wacky speech code or go to work at a company with workplace speech policies. My choices in those situations are governed by my free speech preferences. Similarly, I give up my privacy "rights" when I go to unknown web sites, apply for a loan, or post to Usenet, etc. These also are preferences.
I agree with the above. I also wish for (and work on) technology solutions to do things like post to Usenet w/o giving up one's privacy. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
At 7:56 AM -0700 6/13/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I suspect the scare about privacy has led to muddled thinking.
Free speech is a right that strictly limits the government's ability to control what you say. We should have a similar right of privacy from the government.
But I give up my free speech "rights" when I attend a college with a wacky speech code or go to work at a company with workplace speech policies. My choices in those situations are governed by my free speech preferences. Similarly, I give up my privacy "rights" when I go to unknown web sites, apply for a loan, or post to Usenet, etc. These also are preferences.
I'm surprised not to hear more from other folks here: my position is one cypherpunks have advocated for years -- controlling what data flow from my computer is my responsibility.
I agree with everything Declan is saying. There is serious confusion out there about "rights to privacy," everything from people passing laws limiting how businesses may run their businesses to proposed laws limiting the records people and companies may keep. Sadly, too many people are simply ignorant of the underlying issues and haven't given the issues much critical thought. Hence the calls for "privacy laws," which actually violate more basic rights. I predict a long battle with these "privacy advocates," especially the D.C. lobbyist groups. --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."
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.
A right is not a question of popularity or amplitude, it is a question of existance. It is or it isn't. Some people want more guns than others (obvious even to you) so you seriously hold that there is no fundamental Constitutional right to own firearms? Or speech, we don't all want to use it to the same amount, we therefore don't have a right to free speech? Or (oh my god!) crypto, we don't all want to use it to the same degree therefore we don't have a right to use crypto?
No, privacy is not a right, it is most definitely a preference. If you allow information to become freely available then there is no way to put the genie back in the bottle, once information is available it requires restrictions on freedom of speech to stop the spread of that information, and restrictions on freedom of private equiment to prevent its storage and use. This is all based on freedom of speech, there is no such thing as "private information" in the sense of it being somehow wrong for unauthorised people to posess that information, it is up to you how much privacy you prefer and correspondingly how much effort you put into preventing information from becoming available. 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"
participants (9)
-
Declan McCullagh -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Jeff Barber -
Jim Choate -
Paul Bradley -
Ray Arachelian -
Tim May -
tzeruch＠ceddec.com -
William H. Geiger III