Mind rape [was: Re: INTERCEPT THIS]

[Trei, Peter]

> Tim May[SMTP:tcmay at got.net]  wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, August 9, 2001, at 01:55 PM, Trei, Peter wrote:
> 
> > Aimee, who is somewhat of a newcomer to our list, is groping towards
> > an idea which seems to hold the minds of many contributors; that the
> > contents of our private data are as personal, and should be as 
> > inviolate,
> > as the contents of our heads.
> >
> > To those of us to whom the use of computers is as natural as breathing,
> > our data are as much a part of us as our memories, and we instinctively
> > feel they should be just as intimately held.
> >
> > We now use computers as extensions of our minds - a vast store of
> > knowledge, ideas, and abilities. This ability simply did not exist at 
> > the
> > time the Constitution was written, and as computers grew out of
> > accounting equipment, their data came to be treated as 'papers'
> > rather than 'memories'.
> 
> I agree with your sentiments, but not where I think you are going with 
> this.
> 
> Importantly, there is nothing in the Constitution about "memories"  have 
> special protection. There is "secure in one's papers and possessions," 
> there is language about under what conditions a person may be compelled 
> to testify, but there is no special protection or language about 
> "memories."
> 
Well, the 5th protects one from having to testify against oneself. I'm 
not going trying to go Choatian on you (is he on vacation?) but the 
personal data I store on a machine which I own, have sole access 
to, and which I stored with no immediate intention to show 
to others, seems to have properties more similar to a personal 
memory than does a piece of paper in a file cabinet at my 
accountant's office. 

That being the case, being forced to divulge my personal data, to be
used against me, *feels* like the sort of thing the 5th was meant to
prevent. 

[Lets not get into particular legal arguments at this point - I'm talking 
about my gut reactions.] 

> And I think writings on a computer are no more special than writings in 
> journals and letters and personal papers. Many of the Founders and their 
> contemporaries were _prodigious_ writers, generating thousands of notes 
> and letters a year. Many were ardent diarists.
> 
They were also ardent burners of old personal papers. Part of Faustine's 
point is that with a keylogger, there is no private space outside the skull.
The simplest drafting out of an idea - including ideas that may be
immediatly 
discarded as wrong/immoral/illegal/unworkable - become known to the
eavesdropper.

[good stuff deleted]

> The problem is not that "memories" are being seized. The problem is that 
> "secure in one's papers and possessions" has become a joke, a null and 
> void idea.
> 
> The solution is pretty obvious to most liberty-minded folks:
> 
> 1) End the War on (Some) Drugs. This will eliminate most trafficking, 
> distribution, money laundering, and gang war crimes.
> 
The Economist recently (July 26) ran a special report (10-15 pages) on 
the diasaster that is US drug policy, with a set of strong arguments
in favor of legalisation. It'd be worth your time to read it:
http://www.economist.com/background/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=706591
and following articles, with an editorial at
http://www.economist.com/background/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=709603

	[deleted]

> 5) Fewer things criminal, but punish real crimes harshly. Instead of 
> letting an arsonist off with a stern lecture while putting a kid selling 
> blotter acid at a Dead concert in prison for 10 years, don't prosecute 
> the kid and kill the arsonist. For thieves, put them on a work gang for 
> several years. For murderers and rapists (real rapists, not Wimmin's Lib 
> victims), kill them.
> 6) For cops found guilty of inserting toilet plungers into detainees, 
> kill them.
> 7) For those involved in burning the Waco compound, kill them.
> And so on.
> 
[This is really a separate and off-topic issue] I object to all killing 
except in immediate and urgent defense of life and limb. I won't 
attempt to persuade you here. But even if I were a serial killer
like Dubya, I would stop shy of killing rapists and other 
non-murderers. If rape as well as murder carried the death penalty, 
rapists (the real rapists you refer to) would be strongly motivated 
to murder their victims - doing so eliminates the best (and usually 
only) witness against them, and even if they are convicted, carries 
no additional penalty - it's tough to make someone serve two 
death sentences consecutively.  

> But stop manufacturing police state thoughtcrimes and then using the 
> courts to rubber-stamp hunting expeditions for more crimes revealed in 
> papers and diaries and computer discs.
> 
Agreed.

> --Tim May
> 
Peter Trei