Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.

Trei, Peter ptrei at rsasecurity.com
Tue Jul 31 07:53:49 PDT 2001


Thanks for your response. The 'in his direct or indirect 
control' bit is the part that got lost in the article.

I hope it was clear that I was not looking for ways to 
deny a court *access* to a piece of information, but 
rather using the net (prior to a subpoena) as an way 
to make  *sequestration* of a piece of info impossible,
by placing copies permanently outside 'his direct or
indirect control'.

---------------

I hope you read Mike's 'Oh pointy one' note carefully;
it points out one of the great problems most of us IANAL
have with IAAL types - the confusion of laws and court
action with right and justice, and actions which are
simply unlawful at a given time and place with wrong 
and injustice.

Laws and courts are or should be an attempt to map
the behaviour of governments to right and justice, but 
lawyers so often seemed to have been conditioned 
into thinking they are one and the same, rather than 
a (very) rough approximation.

[Case to point: Canter and Siegel claiming that there
was nothing wrong with them sending their Green Card
spam, since there was no law against it.]

It's possible - indeed essential - for people to argue
over right and wrong, justice and injustice without 
regard for what a given legal and court system says;
even a court and legal system which can send Men
With Guns after them. 

Laws do not define Right and Wrong.
Courts and Legal Systems do not define Justice.

They are better than nothing at all, but we should
never imbue them with divine wisdom. That way
lies Tyranny.

Peter Trei





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list