Re: The Utility of Privacy

At 6:55 AM 11/18/1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                          SANDY SANDFORT
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>C'punks,
>
>On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:
>
>> >> Informally, I don't know anybody who has suffered due to a loss of
>> >> privacy.
>> >
>> >Your circle of associations must be limited.
>> 
>> Examples [of people who have suffered due to loss of privacy]?
>
>Phil Zimmermann often tells the story of a woman whose marriage
>was destroyed by the revelation of a long-past indiscretion. 
>After her husband divorced her, she committed suicide.

Deceiving your spouse is not a good reason to protect your privacy.

>Any number of celebrities have been stalked, attacked and even
>killed by obsessed fans who found them through public records.

Unfortunately most readers of this list do not have this problem.

>Every year, children and business executives are kidnapped for
>ransom.  The proximate cause of these kidnappings is a breach in
>privacy about the whereabouts and schedules of the victim.  

Or this problem.

>Hitler's gun registration in Germany allowed the Jews to be
>disarmed.  I'm sure you are aware of the ultimate consequences
>of that little invasion of privacy.

Not a bad example, but genocide happens rarely.

Those alert enough to protect their privacy in advance might be alert
enough to get out in time, anyway.

Subjective utility: low.

>The US Post Office co-operated in the identification and 
>imprisonment of people of Japanese ancestry during the second
>world war.

97,000 victims over a ~100 year period.  Doesn't really show up on the
scope, sorry.  (Plus downside bad, but few were murdered.)

>The problem with having a whole lot of private information about
>you floating around in public is not what damage it can do to you
>now, but rather the problems it potentially could cause in the
>future.  Just about everyone on this list has been to university.
>Not long ago, a college education was essentially a death warrant 
>in Cambodia.  Prior to that, a degree was considered a good thing
>there.  People saw no reason to hid the fact that they had been
>in school.  Trouble is, things changed.
>
>And the trouble today is that things can change now, too.  Think
>about the things that you have publicly done or advocated.  Even
>if they are as legal as church on Sunday NOW, how comfortable 
>will you be about them if there is extreme right or left takeover
>in the future?  Start to get the picture?

These things CAN happen.  Will they happen?  Odds are low.

BTW, are you operating under your True Name?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, someone wrote:

> At 6:55 AM 11/18/1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

> >On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:

> >> >> Informally, I don't know anybody who has suffered due to a loss of
> >> >> privacy.
> >> Examples [of people who have suffered due to loss of privacy]?

Note in the following exchange that HC firsts asks for examples
of harm, then when clearly unambiguous examples are given, tries 
to imply that the examples are rare, trivial or (most amazingly)
that the victim did suffer, but must have deserved his/her fate!

> >Phil Zimmermann often tells the story of a woman whose marriage
> >was destroyed by the revelation of a long-past indiscretion. 
> >After her husband divorced her, she committed suicide.
> 
> Deceiving your spouse is not a good reason to protect your privacy.

Really?  What if the spouse is violently abusive?  You might 
want to leave him and NOT be tracked down and killed.
 
> >Any number of celebrities have been stalked, attacked and even
> >killed by obsessed fans who found them through public records.
> 
> Unfortunately most readers of this list do not have this problem.

Unfortunately?  You don't have to be famous to be stalked.  Many
ordinary people are being dogged by former or would-be paramors.
Is it HC's contention that this is only a problem when a 
majority of Cypherpunks suffer from it?
 
> >Every year, children and business executives are kidnapped for
> >ransom.  The proximate cause of these kidnappings is a breach in
> >privacy about the whereabouts and schedules of the victim.  
> 
> Or this problem.

How fatuous.

> >Hitler's gun registration in Germany allowed the Jews to be
> >disarmed.  I'm sure you are aware of the ultimate consequences
> >of that little invasion of privacy.
> 
> Not a bad example, but genocide happens rarely.

They happens all to often.  Is this response supposed to be joke?
 
> Those alert enough to protect their privacy in advance might be alert
> enough to get out in time, anyway.

Yeah, I guess HC is right, the slow ones deserved it.
 
> >The US Post Office co-operated in the identification and 
> >imprisonment of people of Japanese ancestry during the second
> >world war.
> 
> 97,000 victims over a ~100 year period.  Doesn't really show up on the
> scope, sorry.  (Plus downside bad, but few were murdered.)

Yeah, just a few.  Okay by me and HC, I recon.
 
> >The problem with having a whole lot of private information about
> >you floating around in public is not what damage it can do to you
> >now, but rather the problems it potentially could cause in the
> >future.  Just about everyone on this list has been to university.
> >Not long ago, a college education was essentially a death warrant 
> >in Cambodia.  Prior to that, a degree was considered a good thing
> >there.  People saw no reason to hid the fact that they had been
> >in school.  Trouble is, things changed.
> >
> >And the trouble today is that things can change now, too.  Think
> >about the things that you have publicly done or advocated.  Even
> >if they are as legal as church on Sunday NOW, how comfortable 
> >will you be about them if there is extreme right or left takeover
> >in the future?  Start to get the picture?
> 
> These things CAN happen.  Will they happen?  Odds are low.

The odds approach unity over time.
 
> BTW, are you operating under your True Name?

NOYB.  More importantly, since you seem to think privacy isn't
all that important why don't you give us your true name, date of
birth, SS#, mother's maiden name, address where you sleep at 
night, pictures of you (and your family), etc.?  After all, as 
you wrote, the "odds are low" anything will come of it.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> At 6:55 AM 11/18/1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> >C'punks,
> >> Examples [of people who have suffered due to loss of privacy]?
> >Phil Zimmermann often tells the story of a woman whose marriage
> >was destroyed by the revelation of a long-past indiscretion. 
> >After her husband divorced her, she committed suicide.
> Deceiving your spouse is not a good reason to protect your privacy.

      Sure it is. Earlier this year I threw a party for my wifes birthday.
A suprise party. I had to deceive her to keep her out of the house I needed
privacy to do this.    

> >Any number of celebrities have been stalked, attacked and even
> >killed by obsessed fans who found them through public records.
> Unfortunately most readers of this list do not have this problem.

     It is still a valid example. Someone made the claim that people do not
need privacy, this is an example of someone who needs it. 
> >Every year, children and business executives are kidnapped for
> >ransom.  The proximate cause of these kidnappings is a breach in
> >privacy about the whereabouts and schedules of the victim.  
> Or this problem.

     See above.

> >Hitler's gun registration in Germany allowed the Jews to be
> >disarmed.  I'm sure you are aware of the ultimate consequences
> >of that little invasion of privacy.
> Not a bad example, but genocide happens rarely.

     Germany. Cambodia, Boznia, Somilia, Rwanda & Zaire. Soviet Russia, 
China...

     All within the last 60 years. 

     Yup. Rarely happen. 

> Those alert enough to protect their privacy in advance might be alert
> enough to get out in time, anyway.
> Subjective utility: low.
> 
> >The US Post Office co-operated in the identification and 
> >imprisonment of people of Japanese ancestry during the second
> >world war.
> 97,000 victims over a ~100 year period.  Doesn't really show up on the
> scope, sorry.  (Plus downside bad, but few were murdered.)

     I am sure that there are other victims in the PO's history, but 
not with as big of numbers. 

     1 is a crime, 100,000 is a crying shame. 

     You know that red thing you see when you open your eyes? It's your 
prostate. 


> >The problem with having a whole lot of private information about
> >you floating around in public is not what damage it can do to you
> >now, but rather the problems it potentially could cause in the
> >will you be about them if there is extreme right or left takeover
> >in the future?  Start to get the picture?
> These things CAN happen.  Will they happen?  Odds are low.
> BTW, are you operating under your True Name?

     I am, but I don't mind being a target. 

     If you think privacy is so bad, why are you indulging in it. 

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

A troll using nobody@huge.cajones.com writes in reply to Sandy Sanfort a
lot of dismissal of past tragedies resulting from privacy violations.
Hir consistent viewpoint seems to be that protecting ones privacy has no
value.  Then sie has the temerity to ask

> BTW, are you operating under your True Name?

My ironometer is absolutely pegged.
- -- 
Roy M. Silvernail --  roy@scytale.com
           "I used to be disgusted, but now I'm just amused."
            -- from an old T-shirt(ca. 1975), not an Elvis Costello lyric

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMpFQkRvikii9febJAQGzMwP9GohOAkCgySe6AMQBo7p5pix5IhpbJ5Ag
srWHv7bp/ARzOx39kMDUhNf/R0+hW4s+emJdn40tRhu0ZKroFzahMU1NPn/COUPO
p1ecbXxmWmUISgB3Xq/rl4kwIf6yx/z0mvId1fXEUGkhu686aaukSvnKJ583VbNL
HlPfR9hS4OM=
=w4LD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----