Breaking into girlfriend's files

[Ken Arromdee]

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 at jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

"No boom today.  Boom tomorrow, there's always a boom tomorrow."  --Ivanova