There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly

**************

http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html

The Netly News
June 12, 1997

Privacy? What Privacy?
by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)

     I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my
civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no
general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the
right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't
be able to stop someone else from passing along that
information if you let it leave your computer. That's
your responsibility.

     So you can imagine my dismay when I learned I'd
be sitting through four full days of Federal Trade
Commission hearings this week on Internet privacy. The
commission's goal? To define "privacy rights" for the
Net -- and to be perhaps the first federal agency to
regulate it. The commissioners are being spurred on by
consumer groups that want the government to bar firms
from collecting information about your online
wanderings. Businesses say that such a rule would
stifle Internet advertising and commerce and have
recently released a flurry of self-regulatory
proposals.

[...]

     Which is one reason why I think there is no
general right to privacy -- at least as the consumer
groups and privacy advocates describe it. Rotenberg
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.

     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.) You also have a
right to privacy from Peeping Toms.

     But -- no matter how much big-government
fetishists want this to be true -- you don't own
information about yourself. After all, journalists are
able to investigate someone's private life and publish
an article -- even if it contains embarrassing
personal details. This is a good thing: Any
restrictions would weaken the First Amendment. Then
there's gossip, which is a time-honored way of trading
in others' personal information. "The reindeer-herding
Lapps, for whom theft of livestock is easy and common,
gossip about who has stolen which animal and where
they are," sociologist Sally Engle Merry writes.

[...]


-------------------------
Declan McCullagh
Time Inc.
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/

On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html

[...]

>      I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my
> civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no
> general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the
> right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't
> be able to stop someone else from passing along that
> information if you let it leave your computer. That's
> your responsibility.


Booooooooo!  Hisssssssssss!  Putting your bread and butter before your
morals, eh?  Maybe if someone would go through all your records and post
them all over the net, you'd feel differently!

Declan, this truly sucks. :(  I'm very disappointed in you.  You are truly
scum if you believe this.


=====================================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 =========================

I suppose I am scum, at least by Ray's definition.

But let me ask this question: if someone *did* post my credit card/bank
records online through an anonymous remailer, what recourse would I have?
What recourse should I have?

-Declan


On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> > http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html
> 
> [...]
> 
> >      I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my
> > civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no
> > general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the
> > right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't
> > be able to stop someone else from passing along that
> > information if you let it leave your computer. That's
> > your responsibility.
> 
> 
> Booooooooo!  Hisssssssssss!  Putting your bread and butter before your
> morals, eh?  Maybe if someone would go through all your records and post
> them all over the net, you'd feel differently!
> 
> Declan, this truly sucks. :(  I'm very disappointed in you.  You are truly
> scum if you believe this.
> 
> 
> =====================================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 =========================
> 
> 
>

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> I suppose I am scum, at least by Ray's definition.
> 
> But let me ask this question: if someone *did* post my credit card/bank
> records online through an anonymous remailer, what recourse would I have?
> What recourse should I have?
> 
> -Declan

My point exactly.  Why should anyone have access to my machine or my
records and be able to pass it on to others?  Sure the insurance companies
will squeal that they should have access to my DMV and health records, but
should they have the right to take that info and pass it on publically?

What recourse do you feel you should have?

What would YOU do if someone did post all your personal info online?
things like credit records, home address, phone number, DMV records,
health records and such?  What would you WANT to do?  And what control do
you currently have over this?

Mind you, with your credit card info, any one of the "ankle biters" of the
Bevis & Butthead mentality would be able to purchase a dozen toilets and
have them shipped to your home, and other such abuses.  Or report all your
credit cards stolen right before you decide to entertain someone to dinner
and find you can't pay for it... etc...  These are all well known pranks.

Do you see my point and why I'm vehemently opposed to yours?

Or do you believe that "Oh, I have nothing to hide, I'm a good person and
have nothing to fear from anyone?"

> 
> 
> On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > 
> > > http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > >      I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my
> > > civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no
> > > general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the
> > > right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't
> > > be able to stop someone else from passing along that
> > > information if you let it leave your computer. That's
> > > your responsibility.
> > 
> > 
> > Booooooooo!  Hisssssssssss!  Putting your bread and butter before your
> > morals, eh?  Maybe if someone would go through all your records and post
> > them all over the net, you'd feel differently!
> > 
> > Declan, this truly sucks. :(  I'm very disappointed in you.  You are truly
> > scum if you believe this.

=====================================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 =========================

Again Ray misses the point. It's your responsibility to protect your
privacy. Choose credit card companies that protect it and you can enforce
this "right to privacy" through contract law. Ordering toilets on your
cards is already fraud. 

Nobody's saying someone should be allowed to break into your computer.
But by all means, beat that straw man some more.

-Declan


On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> > I suppose I am scum, at least by Ray's definition.
> > 
> > But let me ask this question: if someone *did* post my credit card/bank
> > records online through an anonymous remailer, what recourse would I have?
> > What recourse should I have?
> > 
> > -Declan
> 
> My point exactly.  Why should anyone have access to my machine or my
> records and be able to pass it on to others?  Sure the insurance companies
> will squeal that they should have access to my DMV and health records, but
> should they have the right to take that info and pass it on publically?
> 
> What recourse do you feel you should have?
> 
> What would YOU do if someone did post all your personal info online?
> things like credit records, home address, phone number, DMV records,
> health records and such?  What would you WANT to do?  And what control do
> you currently have over this?
> 
> Mind you, with your credit card info, any one of the "ankle biters" of the
> Bevis & Butthead mentality would be able to purchase a dozen toilets and
> have them shipped to your home, and other such abuses.  Or report all your
> credit cards stolen right before you decide to entertain someone to dinner
> and find you can't pay for it... etc...  These are all well known pranks.
> 
> Do you see my point and why I'm vehemently opposed to yours?
> 
> Or do you believe that "Oh, I have nothing to hide, I'm a good person and
> have nothing to fear from anyone?"
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > > 
> > > > http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > >      I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my
> > > > civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no
> > > > general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the
> > > > right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't
> > > > be able to stop someone else from passing along that
> > > > information if you let it leave your computer. That's
> > > > your responsibility.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Booooooooo!  Hisssssssssss!  Putting your bread and butter before your
> > > morals, eh?  Maybe if someone would go through all your records and post
> > > them all over the net, you'd feel differently!
> > > 
> > > Declan, this truly sucks. :(  I'm very disappointed in you.  You are truly
> > > scum if you believe this.
> 
> =====================================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 =========================
> 
> 
>

Oh, and at least read the whole article.

-Declan
   
   Privacy? What Privacy?

   by Declan McCullagh   June 12, 1997
   
        I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian
   colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online.
   Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you
   shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that
   information if you let it leave your computer. That's your
   responsibility.
   
        So you can imagine my dismay when I learned I'd be sitting
   through four full days of Federal Trade Commission hearings this week
   on Internet privacy. The commission's goal? To define "privacy rights"
   for the Net -- and to be perhaps the first federal agency to regulate
   it. The commissioners are being spurred on by consumer groups that
   want the government to bar firms from collecting information about
   your online wanderings. Businesses say that such a rule would stifle
   Internet advertising and commerce and have recently released a flurry
   of self-regulatory proposals.
   
        "At what point do we trigger some concern?" FTC Commissioner
   Christine Varney asked on Tuesday, the first day of the hearing. "Is
   there any circumstance under which access to the information that
   exists should be restricted?"
   
        Evan Hendricks from Privacy Times responded: "We see there's a
   huge problem developing with personal information over the Internet."
   EPIC's Marc Rotenberg added later: "We are selling information today
   that 10 years ago would not be bought and sold. The law has not kept
   up with these developments."
   
        Yet this misses the point. Protecting your personal privacy
   online is your responsibility. Turn off cookies. Don't give out your
   home address. Educate your children. Use the Anonymizer. Stay away
   from web sites you don't trust. You, not the federal government,
   should make these decisions.
   
        Which is one reason why I think there is no general right to
   privacy -- at least as the consumer groups and privacy advocates
   describe it. Rotenberg 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.
   
        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.) You
   also have a right to privacy from Peeping Toms.
   
        But -- no matter how much big-government fetishists want this to
   be true -- you don't own information about yourself. After all,
   journalists are able to investigate someone's private life and publish
   an article -- even if it contains embarrassing personal details. This
   is a good thing: Any restrictions would weaken the First Amendment.
   Then there's gossip, which is a time-honored way of trading in others'
   personal information. "The reindeer-herding Lapps, for whom theft of
   livestock is easy and common, gossip about who has stolen which animal
   and where they are," sociologist Sally Engle Merry writes.
   
        "Fencing off information behind a newly-created wall of 'privacy
   rights' has obvious free speech implications," says Solveig Bernstein,
   a lawyer at the Cato Institute. "The government has no business
   telling private firms whether they can share information about events
   and people."
   
        Fortunately, you have some options. Say you walk into Radio Shack
   and that teenager behind the counter wants your home address. You have
   three choices: Convince the guy he doesn't need it, ask the government
   to force him not to require it -- or leave.
   
        Yes, leave. The same with a virtual storefront on a web site. If
   you don't like what information it records about you, or you're unsure
   about its privacy policies, take your browser elsewhere. Vote with
   your mouse button.
   
        New technologies will make this easy. Yesterday at the FTC
   hearing the Electronic Frontier Foundation unveiled TRUSTe, which is a
   privacy rating system for web sites where three types of icons
   indicate what a web site does with your personal information. Firms
   display the appropriate icon and agree to spot checks and audits to
   ensure they comply.
   
        "We're trying to foster honesty, not regulation. We're trying to
   foster the ability of the consumer to make a choice," EFF chairman
   Esther Dyson said. "If companies find people don't want to do business
   with them because of free exchange, they'll offer that option."
   
        That's exactly right, and that's why TRUSTe is such a good idea.
   Unlike FTC regulations that end at national borders, TRUSTe's icons
   can appear on overseas sites and foster electronic commerce globally.
   
        Indeed, most Americans prefer nongovernmental solutions. A Lou
   Harris survey announced yesterday said 70 percent of the public
   believes the private sector, not the feds, should take the lead in
   protecting privacy online. "By 2 to 1 the responses say business is
   more likely to be trusted to do good in this area," says pollster
   Stanley Greenberg. "When asked about a privacy commission that would
   take a regulatory approach, two thirds were against such a measure."
   
        But somehow, I doubt the FTC will take the hint.   *

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Oh, and at least read the whole article.
> 
> -Declan
>    
>    Privacy? What Privacy?
> 
>    by Declan McCullagh   June 12, 1997
>    
>         I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian
>    colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online.
>    Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you
>    shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that
>    information if you let it leave your computer. That's your
>    responsibility.

I still disagree, and not just online.  There is plenty of information
that you have no control over but should.  Your credit card transactions
for instance can be looked up by any scumbag willing to pay money to TRW
and it's ilk.  Your DMV records, your health records.  In theory only
those that need to know this knowledge should be able to access it, and in
practice what have we seen so far? 

If I give XYZ corp any info I expect them not to sell that info without my
permission.  Verily, that information is valuable, therefore if they want
to sell it, they should get my permission, and should pay me for it.

I don't necessarily want government restrictions on privacy, however I
would want a constitutional amendment to privacy that says: all I do is
private unless I explicitly share it with others, and if I do share it,
they may not pass it on to others without my permission.  This is on a
personal level, not on a corporate or governmental level.  Why I feel this
way is an excercise for the reader.  Hint: Uncle Sam works for us since we
pay him from our income.  We don't work for him (most of the time.)

How many loons have used DMV records to stalk their victims?

How about the nice Netscape hole that allows sites to surf your hard drive
as you're surfing their sites?

Yes, I do take privacy seriously, and I do protect it.  But to say anyone
has the right to snoop my machines and see what I have there is NOT cool.
What I leave on my computer is my private business, and NOBODY HAS THE
RIGHT TO SURF IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.  Whether or not they have root.
As for Radio Shack weasels, I don't give them info, or give them
misleading info.  What's on my hard drives and in my machine's RAM is NONE
OF ANYONE'S BUSINESS!

At the last PC Expo, I registered as H.P. Lovecraft.  When I buy things
that are purchased by credit card I know that info will leak out, and
don't do this unless I'm willing to leak it out.

So, I still disagree with your view.  Even after reading the whole
article.

=====================================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 =========================

It's sad but not surprising that Ray didn't even bother to read the
article before saying "FUCK YOU." Talk about clueless...

He still misunderstands my position. I'm saying you have no property right
in information others collect about you.

> How many loons have used DMV records to stalk their victims?

How many loons have used newspaper reports to stalk their victims?
 
> How about the nice Netscape hole that allows sites to surf your hard drive
> as you're surfing their sites?

Great. You want Congress to pass a law that says "Netscape shall release
no more buggy browsers." Yeah, and mandate that pi is 3.14, right? 

> Yes, I do take privacy seriously, and I do protect it.  But to say anyone
> has the right to snoop my machines and see what I have there is NOT cool.
> What I leave on my computer is my private business, and NOBODY HAS THE
> RIGHT TO SURF IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.  Whether or not they have root.

I'm not saying that people have a "right to surf (?) it without your
permission." That's a violation of your property rights, a trespass. But
if you connect to my web site, I should be allowed to record whatever info
leaks from your computer. Don't like it? Cut the flow or don't come. 

-Declan


On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> > Oh, and at least read the whole article.
> > 
> > -Declan
> >    
> >    Privacy? What Privacy?
> > 
> >    by Declan McCullagh   June 12, 1997
> >    
> >         I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian
> >    colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online.
> >    Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you
> >    shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that
> >    information if you let it leave your computer. That's your
> >    responsibility.
> 
> I still disagree, and not just online.  There is plenty of information
> that you have no control over but should.  Your credit card transactions
> for instance can be looked up by any scumbag willing to pay money to TRW
> and it's ilk.  Your DMV records, your health records.  In theory only
> those that need to know this knowledge should be able to access it, and in
> practice what have we seen so far? 
> 
> If I give XYZ corp any info I expect them not to sell that info without my
> permission.  Verily, that information is valuable, therefore if they want
> to sell it, they should get my permission, and should pay me for it.
> 
> I don't necessarily want government restrictions on privacy, however I
> would want a constitutional amendment to privacy that says: all I do is
> private unless I explicitly share it with others, and if I do share it,
> they may not pass it on to others without my permission.  This is on a
> personal level, not on a corporate or governmental level.  Why I feel this
> way is an excercise for the reader.  Hint: Uncle Sam works for us since we
> pay him from our income.  We don't work for him (most of the time.)
> 
> How many loons have used DMV records to stalk their victims?
> 
> How about the nice Netscape hole that allows sites to surf your hard drive
> as you're surfing their sites?
> 
> Yes, I do take privacy seriously, and I do protect it.  But to say anyone
> has the right to snoop my machines and see what I have there is NOT cool.
> What I leave on my computer is my private business, and NOBODY HAS THE
> RIGHT TO SURF IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.  Whether or not they have root.
> As for Radio Shack weasels, I don't give them info, or give them
> misleading info.  What's on my hard drives and in my machine's RAM is NONE
> OF ANYONE'S BUSINESS!
> 
> At the last PC Expo, I registered as H.P. Lovecraft.  When I buy things
> that are purchased by credit card I know that info will leak out, and
> don't do this unless I'm willing to leak it out.
> 
> So, I still disagree with your view.  Even after reading the whole
> article.
> 
> =====================================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 =========================
> 
> 
>

At 01:05 PM 6/13/97 -0400, Ray Arachelian wrote:
>Nor do I believe that TRW or the DMV should have the ability to sell my
>information to others without my permission, or collect it for that matter
>without a contrat that states how it will be used and who it will be
>shared with. Can you name one Credit Card company that DOES NOT share its
>info with TRW?  Yes, I can get a debit card, but information about
>transactions on it will wind up in the hands of TRW.

They're radically different cases.   TRW gets your information from
people who get credit reports on you, and from creditors who lend you money,
both of which are voluntary transactions on your part.  You have the option,
when negotiating the terms of your business with a company,
to specify in your contracts what information they may pass on to third
parties, and what restrictions they need to put on that information.
Yes, almost everybody you deal with gives everything to TRW or one
of its competitors, but you can negotiate that yourself.
The reason they do is that it reduces their risks substantially
when dealing with the Information Mongers, and therefore reduces
their costs and makes them more likely to give you credit,
and lets them charge you less money for the credit they give you.
But if you can't come to an agreement with anyone, you won't be
able to borrow money from them, and you'll need to pay cash up front
for things, but those were all voluntary transactions as well.

On the other hand, the DMV isn't voluntary - sure they tell you
"well, you don't _have_ to drive or own a car", but unlike 
creditors, who won't do anything bad to you if you don't
borrow money from them, the DMV forces you to deal with them
by threatening to have cops haul you off to jail and
steal your car if you drive without dealing with them.  
It's an offer you can't refuse.  Therefore, there are two
ways I can see to look at their use of data:
1) You're slaves anyway - go cope :-)
2) You've given them far more information than
you wanted to, and they should respect your privacy
and not give it to anyone.


#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp
#   (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies.  Thanks.)

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> It's sad but not surprising that Ray didn't even bother to read the
> article before saying "FUCK YOU." Talk about clueless...

No, at the time, I didn't read the entire article, I did read the ENTIRE
snipped version you posted. You then later posted the whole article
stating "at least read the whole thing" and I did read the whole at that
point.  However, I didn't change my oppinion on this.
 
> He still misunderstands my position. I'm saying you have no property right
> in information others collect about you.

You say I misunderstand your position.  I say I disagree with it.  I
disagree to having no property rights to information others collect about
me. I believe that others should not have the right to collect information
about me without my consent.  There lies the difference. Why do you
continue to refuse to understand that I _DISAGREE_ with as opposed to
misunderstand your position?

This isn't about misunderstandings or personality conflicts Declan.  This
is about beliefs.

> Great. You want Congress to pass a law that says "Netscape shall release
> no more buggy browsers." Yeah, and mandate that pi is 3.14, right? 

No, I don't wish to have congress pass such laws.  I did however state
that I believe there should be a constitutional right to privacy in terms
of shared information - a built in Non Disclosure Agreement between all
interactions.  One does not exist, IMHO it should. 

If I chose to speak in public - as in this forum, I expect that my words
will not be private.  That's a given.  If I speak to XYZ Bank and apply
for a loan or credit card, I want that information to be private.

If I purchase a printed magazine, the publisher doesn't expect me to scan
it in and post it on the net, free for all to access.  In fact, if I were
to do that and persist in doing it, I would get sued for copyright
infringement.

I don't believe in software patents, but I do believe in copyright.  I
believe that what I do, or say should be copyrighted by default.  This
includes spending patterns, and such.  Very much ideal and non-reality,
yes, but it is my belief still.  I also believe Congress shouldn't be
populated by a bunch of money and power hungry slime bags.  That is also
ideal to me, but a non-reality.  Doesn't mean I shouldn't believe it, nor
does it mean I shouldn't have the right to disagree with someone that says
"Congress should be populated by weasels." 

Nor do I believe that TRW or the DMV should have the ability to sell my
information to others without my permission, or collect it for that matter
without a contrat that states how it will be used and who it will be
shared with. Can you name one Credit Card company that DOES NOT share its
info with TRW?  Yes, I can get a debit card, but information about
transactions on it will wind up in the hands of TRW.

That would be an ideal. Unfortunatly, I have been forced to give up some
privacy for things like credit cards and a driver's license.  I don't see
that I've had any other choice than to give up the ability to drive and
purchase things without having to carry large sums of cash.  I was forced
into giving up privacy.  Same as you I suspect.  That doesn't mean I agree
with the system.  It means I didn't have any other choice given basic
needs.  It doesn't mean that given the chance to change it by voting, I
wouldn't. 

Back to the strawman beatings:

I later cited the Netscape hole (or feature if you are paranoid) as an
example of something that could escape my machine and stated that whether
or not I secure my machine, if information escapes it by such methods, my
privacy has been violated.  This was given as a hypothetical example of
protecting one's privacy, yet still having it violated by leaks.

I cannot verify that Netscape's browser won't violate my security.  I am
forced to put some level of trust in it if I chose to use it.  Were I to
ask a Netscape representative whether their software were secure before
this bug/feature was discovered, would they say no?  Sure, I could use IE
or some other browser, but unless I carefully analyze the source code, I
wouldn't know if it had holes.  This paragraph is moot and I'm sure you
understand all this already.
 
> > Yes, I do take privacy seriously, and I do protect it.  But to say anyone
> > has the right to snoop my machines and see what I have there is NOT cool.
> > What I leave on my computer is my private business, and NOBODY HAS THE
> > RIGHT TO SURF IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.  Whether or not they have root.
> 
> I'm not saying that people have a "right to surf (?) it without your
> permission." That's a violation of your property rights, a trespass. But
> if you connect to my web site, I should be allowed to record whatever info
> leaks from your computer. Don't like it? Cut the flow or don't come. 

The keyword here is "leaks."  It doesn't imply with permission.  It
implies the opposite; and here is where I brought the Netscape bug as an
example of a flaw in your thinking.  If they, whether on purpose or not,
have the ability to snarf anything my browser is willing to give them
without my permission, this too is a breech of my privacy.  In this
example, even though I have taken precautions to disable cookies and
DIDN'T enter information as to my email identity, it is still possible to
grab it off my hard drive without my permission.  

Ditto for the ActiveX component that those German hackers wrote to grab
info out of Quicken. Was it the fault of the person surfing that some dork
at Microsoft misdesigned their software?  And because of that, some hacker
got my credit cards and went shopping?  What recourse do I have against
that happening once it does?

How do these breeches fit into your ideals?  You can brush them off and
say "oh, those were bugs or flaws" but privacy has still been violated.
How do you feel they should be dealt with?

Shall we accept rogue software, and Big Brother Inside software as mere
flaws?  True, Netscape will say these were unintentional.  But if they
weren't, -- if they were intentional, would we stand for them and accept
them?

Earlier I asked you a similar line of questions, which you haven't yet
answered (at the time of this writing.)  Again, what recourse do you feel
you should have against such invasions of your privacy?  What
protection(s) do you feel you should have? (Other than stating, if you
don't want it to leak, don't let it - for which I've shown you plenty of
examples of exceptions.)


In yet another message you've stated "chmod 700 ~" as a cure.  Very funny.
A whole lot of good that would do against someone who obtained root, or
managed to grab my ISP's backup tapes, etc...  Doesn't mean I do not
understand that my ISP can't do this.  Doesn't mean Mitnick won't get
out of jail and break into my account.  It means I don't want them to.

Sorry, I still chose to DISAGREE with you.  You might be able to convince
me otherwise with logic, but you won't be able to do so with words such as
"clueless" and "if you only read the whole thing." (Granted the same does
apply to me using the "Fuck you" subject, but hey, free speech and all
that. :) 

=====================================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 =========================

> He still misunderstands my position. I'm saying you have no property right
> in information others collect about you.

There is no such thing as intellectual property rights period. All 
patents and copyrights are violations of free speech, technology is the 
only way to protect so called "intellectual property"... If you don`t 
want people to have information don`t release it.

> Great. You want Congress to pass a law that says "Netscape shall release
> no more buggy browsers." Yeah, and mandate that pi is 3.14, right? 

No, I wouldn`t mind one that made bugs in Micro$oft stuff criminal ;-)... 
BTW, I`m pretty sure it was pi=3.2 on that bill.

> > What I leave on my computer is my private business, and NOBODY HAS THE
> > RIGHT TO SURF IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.  Whether or not they have root.

> I'm not saying that people have a "right to surf (?) it without your 
> permission." That's a violation of your property rights, a trespass. 
> But if you connect to my web site, I should be allowed to record 
> whatever info leaks from your computer. Don't like it? Cut the flow or 
> don't come.  

Declan put this point very well here, don`t confuse listening to other 
peoples speech with breaking into their house and reading their private 
diary. If you don`t want the information free keep it confidential, 
simple as that.

        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"

Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes:

>
> > He still misunderstands my position. I'm saying you have no property right
> > in information others collect about you.
>
> There is no such thing as intellectual property rights period. All
> patents and copyrights are violations of free speech, technology is the
> only way to protect so called "intellectual property"...

I fully agree.  Technology or good marketing (you can have my software
for free, but you need to pay for "support")

> > Great. You want Congress to pass a law that says "Netscape shall release
> > no more buggy browsers." Yeah, and mandate that pi is 3.14, right?
>
> No, I wouldn`t mind one that made bugs in Micro$oft stuff criminal ;-)...
> BTW, I`m pretty sure it was pi=3.2 on that bill.

I think it was exactly 3, like it says in the Bible.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

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

In <Pine.SUN.3.96.970613112827.23715F-100000@beast.brainlink.com>, on
06/13/97 
   at 11:38 AM, Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> said:

>On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

>> Oh, and at least read the whole article.
>> 
>> -Declan
>>    
>>    Privacy? What Privacy?
>> 
>>    by Declan McCullagh   June 12, 1997
>>    
>>         I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian
>>    colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online.
>>    Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you
>>    shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that
>>    information if you let it leave your computer. That's your
>>    responsibility.

>I still disagree, and not just online.  There is plenty of information
>that you have no control over but should.  Your credit card transactions
>for instance can be looked up by any scumbag willing to pay money to TRW
>and it's ilk.  Your DMV records, your health records.  In theory only
>those that need to know this knowledge should be able to access it, and
>in practice what have we seen so far? 

Well lets see CC transactions are not just your info but the CC issuers
info & the merchants info. Should it be illegal for you to tell anyone
that you bought a HD from Segate or that you used your Carte Blanch card
to do it? If you don't like it pay *CASH*.

Health Records are only between you and your doctor unless you bring in a
3rd party (aka health insurance). Once you do that you have opened up your
records to whatever the policy of your insurance company is, don't like it
get a different insurance company or pay for it in, look out now,
*CASH*!!! (I have paid the last 10yrs of medical & dental bills all in
cash).

DMV records? They are treated the same as *ANY* state licence, they are
part of the public record. This includes land titles, auto titles, birth
certificates, death certificates, marrage & devorce records, any
perfesional license (Doctor, Engeneere, CPA, Archetic, ...ect). As far as
your driving record *ALL* court procedings are open to the public.

In a free and open society it is not only desired that this information be
made public but it is required!! You can not have a free society if
everything the government does is hidden away behind closed doors.

>If I give XYZ corp any info I expect them not to sell that info without
>my permission.  Verily, that information is valuable, therefore if they
>want to sell it, they should get my permission, and should pay me for it.

Why? Have you entered into any agreement that they would not sell this
information? Why is this information any more yours that it is theirs? How
can you claim title to property after you have given it away??? 

Ray you really should re-take Democracy 101 before you start ranting like
this.

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

iQCVAwUBM6F3OI9Co1n+aLhhAQGV+AP9HIiuM6hy1h0j7tFYTMXHa08hZuAIjSUJ
CiURxHerZPAAE3ZPjjT6WllVmofz25Cg7rhfKXmaCaDh+Px8kEur6qFV6jZk/Az/
0MhLTHuz0foID5TKA24W/p/WrLuOIbQpAnPV1ukb38DjoQ/En1TYFItNe+Jbv75m
sWSuYyPffHE=
=TvrX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

In <199706131632.LAA12660@mailhub.amaranth.com>, on 06/13/97 
   at 11:23 AM, "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com> said:


>DMV records? They are treated the same as *ANY* state licence, they are
>part of the public record. This includes land titles, auto titles, birth
>certificates, death certificates, marriage & divorce records, any professional license (
>Doctor, Engineer, CPA, Architect, ...ect). As far as your driving record *ALL* court >proceedings are open to the public.

Wow, sorry about that last message my spell checker seems to be on the
blink. :(

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

iQCVAwUBM6F8SI9Co1n+aLhhAQGOMgP/SpWIxPPY+0+ZyVBwG44tnofWqQ/jpEn5
9GXx4qa9TOl3kifMeRDj6DbuHBG47UXiswgx+Nb+XCb3YGYHAhWZlKyvzPdqyNZp
96Ao2RLM444/6ayiamDpi/bG8fMkdrKTmvtt+0QMcH8JZTvB8r9ysYpGk9KEMrgu
wEqzfGnTZ0E=
=sh/F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> If I give XYZ corp any info I expect them not to sell that info without my
> permission.  Verily, that information is valuable, therefore if they want
> to sell it, they should get my permission, and should pay me for it.

The default case is total freedom of speech for both individuals and 
corporations, if you don`t want XYZ corp. to sell your information make a 
contract with them that they will not sell it, if you do want it sold but 
want to be paid, then a contract is again the answer. 

> I don't necessarily want government restrictions on privacy, however I
> would want a constitutional amendment to privacy that says: all I do is
> private unless I explicitly share it with others, and if I do share it,
> they may not pass it on to others without my permission.  

The first part is correct, everything you do IS private until you pass it 
on, if you don`t want transactions traced, don`t use a credit card, if 
you don`t want a shop to take information; refuse to give it or lie.
The second part is a restriction on free speech not based in a contract, 
there is no such thing as a default case of restricted speech. I agree 
that privacy is a valuable thing but it comes down to you to protect it, 
not the state and not the constitution.


> personal level, not on a corporate or governmental level.  Why I feel this
> way is an excercise for the reader.  Hint: Uncle Sam works for us since we
> pay him from our income.  We don't work for him (most of the time.)

I agree, if the people decide the state cannot collect information on 
them they are entitled to force the state not to do so. But between 
individuals and corporations it is a matter of a private contractural 
agreement.

> How many loons have used DMV records to stalk their victims?

I can`t answer this point because I don`t know if the US DMV reg system 
is supposed to allow anyone access to anyone elses records, if not then 
this is the fault of the government goons who failed in protecting the 
information.

> Yes, I do take privacy seriously, and I do protect it.  But to say anyone
> has the right to snoop my machines and see what I have there is NOT cool.

No, this is an act of trespass and is unauthorised use of your equipment, 
what it all comes down to is property: To break into your system is an 
unauthorised use of your equipment: A tangiable theft. To compare this to 
speech is a straw man.

> As for Radio Shack weasels, I don't give them info, or give them
> misleading info.  What's on my hard drives and in my machine's RAM is NONE
> OF ANYONE'S BUSINESS!

Quite so, if you don`t want to give radio shack information then refuse, 
lie or walk away. The only thing wrong with radio shack asking for this 
information is that the government mandates that such information must be 
true.

> At the last PC Expo, I registered as H.P. Lovecraft.  When I buy things
> that are purchased by credit card I know that info will leak out, and
> don't do this unless I'm willing to leak it out.

Exactly, YOU and no-one else makes the decision to release the 
information. Even this can be avoided by holding bank accounts in false 
names and running debit cards from them (I believe neither of these 
actions is criminal?).

        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"

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

[...]

>    but you
>    shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that
>    information if you let it leave your computer.

So I'm not premitted to say, 'I give you give you and only you this
infomation' and expect my goverment to help me if thay violate this
condtionn?

[...]

>    Businesses say that such a rule would stifle
>    Internet advertising and commerce and have recently released a flurry
>    of self-regulatory proposals.

Yes the good old self-regulatory smoke screan.

[...]

>         Yet this misses the point. Protecting your personal privacy
>    online is your responsibility.

Partly,  however there are actions where it is currently neccery for me to
release personal infomation,  I wish to be pretected from abuse of that
innfomation in that context.  In addtion such laws should encourage
protocls that reduce the need for personal infomation to be realsed.

[...]

>    But in truth, privacy is not a right but a
>    preference: Some people want more of it than others.

But in truth [Right foo] is not a right but a preference: Some peaple
want more of it than others.

>         Of course there's an essential right to privacy from the
>    government.

But what is worce big Bisness or big Goverment.  I see no real diffrentce
between a multinational comperny and a national goverment.  The only way
we can get protection from both is to play them off against each other.

Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  Buy easter bilbies.
Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay?  ex-net.scum and prouud     
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yukky' a convinceing argument

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:
> Booooooooo!  Hisssssssssss!  Putting your bread and butter before your
> morals, eh?

Far from it. My position is a principled one, not one of convenience.

As a civil libertarian, for instance, I would not support laws that give
certain journalists more free speech "rights" than a Net-loon with a web
site.

-Declan

Awwww, Caaa'monnn.

You mean they can license handguns, but not reporters???

I think reporters, particularly the lapdog Whitehouse kind, have killed
more people in the last century than domestic handguns, don'tcha think?

Heck, now that I think of it, we should also license printing presses, and
xeroxgraphy, and computers...

... And e-mail groups!  Yeah, that's it. License e-mail groups...

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

At 07:10 PM 6/13/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>>Awwww, Caaa'monnn.
>>You mean they can license handguns, but not reporters???

>Indeed, it is strange. What part of "Congress shall make no law" 
>do they not understand?

the part between "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed"...




#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp
#   (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies.  Thanks.)

At 8:22 AM -0700 6/13/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>        Fortunately, you have some options. Say you walk into Radio Shack
>   and that teenager behind the counter wants your home address. You have
>   three choices: Convince the guy he doesn't need it, ask the government
>   to force him not to require it -- or leave.

You can also lie, frequently the most convenient option, and according to
surveys, frequently used with nosy web sites.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | The Internet was designed  | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | to protect the free world  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

At 8:55 AM -0700 6/13/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:
>> Booooooooo!  Hisssssssssss!  Putting your bread and butter before your
>> morals, eh?
>
>Far from it. My position is a principled one, not one of convenience.
>
>As a civil libertarian, for instance, I would not support laws that give
>certain journalists more free speech "rights" than a Net-loon with a web
>site.

And I hope Declan does not support so-called "shield laws" which give
reporters protection against having to reveal sources (modulo the
oft-discussed contempt laws).

Declan's "job" is as a reporter. Just a job. Not a special class of rights
as determined by the government. I am as much a "reporter" as Declan is, in
terms of what rights I have. In fact, arguable many of us are reporters, as
we report on what we see and what we think....Brock Meeks started out in a
similar online forum, as did Declan. At what point did they suddenly gain
special protections from interrogations about their sources that the rest
of us don't have?

(I have no problems with private agents, e.g., Microsoft or whatever,
limiting contacts to the "main" reporters. It's their property. If they
grant interviews to Declan, Brock, John, Steve, etc., and not to me, I
cannot claim my "rights" were violated. Government functions are another
matter, and I would generally favor letting anyone claiming to be a
reporter in to government press conferences...to do anything else is to
give licensing and credentials to speech, which the government should have
no right to do. If they need to hold press conferences in RFK Stadium, so
be it.)

The general area of licensing of reporters is fraught with troubles.
(Readers may recall that UNESCO sought to force the United States into
going along with this kind of licensing; the U.S. refused. However, the
"shield laws" are a dangerous step in the direction of such licensing.)

--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."

At 12:36 PM -0700 6/13/97, Robert Hettinga wrote:
>Awwww, Caaa'monnn.
>
>You mean they can license handguns, but not reporters???

Indeed, it is strange. What part of "Congress shall make no law" do they
not understand?

(A better example is the ban on certain kinds of rifles, as these are
Federal bans. The various handgun licensing provisions are state and local.
Though let a state or local government try licensing _speech_ and watch how
quickly the Supremes would rule it unconstitutional.)

About five years ago I wrote a satirical essay arguing for "Licensing and
Regulation" of speech, noting the number of innocents killed by "assault
speech" and arguing that a $50 fee for each act of speech is completely
consistent with similar fees for exercise of the Second Amendment rights.

I'd repost it, but it's buried somewhere on one of my offline disks.

--Tim May


>I think reporters, particularly the lapdog Whitehouse kind, have killed
>more people in the last century than domestic handguns, don'tcha think?

Yes, many in the White House have already richly earned termination with
extreme prejudice. Several of them also should be tortured before being
dispatched.

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."

On Fri, Jun 13, 1997 at 07:10:35PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> At 12:36 PM -0700 6/13/97, Robert Hettinga wrote:
> >Awwww, Caaa'monnn.
> >
> >You mean they can license handguns, but not reporters???
> 
> Indeed, it is strange. What part of "Congress shall make no law" do they
> not understand?

The second amendment does not include that phrase.  The first 
amendment does.  Perhaps they understand it a great deal better than 
you:


                            Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

                           Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed. 

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

>It does *not* say "the right of an *individual* to keep and bear arms
>shall not be infringed.  It says "the people", a collective term.  It
>references a *well-regulated* militia.

Subsequent court rulings have left somewhat unclear the meaning of
"well-regulated militia".  At the present this appears to mean citizens, in
general.

>Therefore my interpretation is that according to the constitution,
>there is a broad right for the population to own guns, but that right
>is fundamentally justified through "the security of a free State".
>Use of arms contrary to the security of the state is not justified
>through the second amendment, nor does the second amendment prohibit
>congress or the states from controlling such unjustified use of arms.

I can't agree with "the security of a free State" aspect.  A higher
priority among the signers and states than "the security of a free State"
was freedom.  It was recognized, in the Declaration of Independance, that
it was the people's right to replace government (even through force of
arms) when they felt it had come to tyranny in order ot maintain freedom.

Unjustified to whom?  The State?  How can the state be the best judge of
what is in the best interests of the people in maintaining their freedom?
Seems the State has a conflict of interest and should recuse itself on this
issue.

--Ste5e

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

In <19970613201551.40314@bywater.songbird.com>, on 06/13/97 
   at 08:15 PM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:

>On Fri, Jun 13, 1997 at 07:10:35PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
>> At 12:36 PM -0700 6/13/97, Robert Hettinga wrote:
>> >Awwww, Caaa'monnn.
>> >
>> >You mean they can license handguns, but not reporters???
>> 
>> Indeed, it is strange. What part of "Congress shall make no law" do they
>> not understand?

>The second amendment does not include that phrase.  The first  amendment
>does.  Perhaps they understand it a great deal better than  you:


>                            Amendment I

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

>                           Amendment II

>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>infringed. 

Which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand Kent??

Some rights more equal than others?

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

iQCVAwUBM6KwP49Co1n+aLhhAQGr5AP/SBW/LaUJSN2ITPrfl1l1Ya4xa03BOJml
+eYMr/0XNQe+oUym8XQ0rFOWVRn2o2auFKntMlOyYEF2Ac5Cy/D9cwi0e+lsmz99
zVodO6PRG1Gqe/cUrq3N4dW8Cm3wxOEJJXSwvChQeGAIPiDjz5csgR/6c5M7MI2j
6rCqVOKUOHQ=
=u/q3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, Jun 14, 1997 at 09:52:39AM -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:
>
>>                            Amendment I
>
>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>>speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>>assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 
>
>>                           Amendment II
>
>>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>>State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>>infringed. 
>
>Which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand Kent??  

I understand that part almost perfectly, I daresay.  It's the rest of 
the sentence that is subject to various interpretations.

The wording of the second amendment is strange, and I have read
several highly opinionated pieces about what it means.  I also read
relevant sections of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.

First of all, consider what it does not say.  It does *not* say 
"Congress shall make no law" -- meaning therefore that congress *can* 
make laws, as long as the rest of the sentence is observed.

It does *not* say "the right of an *individual* to keep and bear arms 
shall not be infringed.  It says "the people", a collective term.  It 
references a *well-regulated* militia.

Furthermore, this amendment was derived from input from two states (I 
don't have the documents handy, or I would tell you exactly).
There are caveats in both of the documents, referring to such things 
as "public safety".  The founding fathers were quite aware that it 
isn't necessary to allow criminals to carry guns at all times.

Therefore my interpretation is that according to the constitution,
there is a broad right for the population to own guns, but that right
is fundamentally justified through "the security of a free State". 
Use of arms contrary to the security of the state is not justified
through the second amendment, nor does the second amendment prohibit
congress or the states from controlling such unjustified use of arms.

Thus, the police can take guns away from common thiefs without fear of
a constitutional challenge.  And states, cities, and other 
governmental agencies can regulate arms for the public good, which may 
mean that certain individuals can't own weapons, or that certain kinds 
of weapons can be proscribed.

Here's an analogy -- imagine a hypothetical addition to the Bill of 
Rights, amendment -1:

                           Amendment -1

A healthy economy, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to engage in business, shall not be
infringed.

The key is the "engage in business" clause.  Engaging in business
implicitly involves a set of rules of the game.  Inforcing those
rules, or modifying them in light of new circumstances (eg invention
of the telephone) is not the same as "infringing". 

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

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

In <19970614230152.15019@bywater.songbird.com>, on 06/14/97 
   at 11:01 PM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:

>On Sat, Jun 14, 1997 at 09:52:39AM -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>>Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:
>>
>>>                            Amendment I
>>
>>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>>>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>>>speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>>>assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 
>>
>>>                           Amendment II
>>
>>>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>>>State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>>>infringed. 
>>
>>Which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand Kent??  

>I understand that part almost perfectly, I daresay.  It's the rest of 
>the sentence that is subject to various interpretations.

>The wording of the second amendment is strange, and I have read several
>highly opinionated pieces about what it means.  I also read relevant
>sections of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.

>First of all, consider what it does not say.  It does *not* say 
>"Congress shall make no law" -- meaning therefore that congress *can* 
>make laws, as long as the rest of the sentence is observed.

>It does *not* say "the right of an *individual* to keep and bear arms 
>shall not be infringed.  It says "the people", a collective term.  It 
>references a *well-regulated* militia.

>Furthermore, this amendment was derived from input from two states (I 
>don't have the documents handy, or I would tell you exactly). There are
>caveats in both of the documents, referring to such things  as "public
>safety".  The founding fathers were quite aware that it  isn't necessary
>to allow criminals to carry guns at all times.

>Therefore my interpretation is that according to the constitution, there
>is a broad right for the population to own guns, but that right is
>fundamentally justified through "the security of a free State".  Use of
>arms contrary to the security of the state is not justified through the
>second amendment, nor does the second amendment prohibit congress or the
>states from controlling such unjustified use of arms.

>Thus, the police can take guns away from common thiefs without fear of a
>constitutional challenge.  And states, cities, and other  governmental
>agencies can regulate arms for the public good, which may  mean that
>certain individuals can't own weapons, or that certain kinds  of weapons
>can be proscribed.

>Here's an analogy -- imagine a hypothetical addition to the Bill of 
>Rights, amendment -1:

>                           Amendment -1

>A healthy economy, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
>right of the people to engage in business, shall not be infringed.

>The key is the "engage in business" clause.  Engaging in business
>implicitly involves a set of rules of the game.  Inforcing those rules,
>or modifying them in light of new circumstances (eg invention of the
>telephone) is not the same as "infringing". 

Well Kent we must be reading from two different dictionaries:

infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of
another

encroach: to enter by gradual steps or by stelth into the possessions or
rights of another.

By the above definition this is exactly what the government has been doing
with it's ever increasing restictions on the possesions of guns by it's
citizens and what the founding fathers wished to posses. If they had
wanted the government to have the power to control and regulate the
ownership of guns then they would have said so.

The Bill of Rights were not added to the Constitution to give the
government more power but to restrict their power.

The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide a final check &
balance on the government. Our founding fathers were all too aware that it
was manditory that the population must be well armed inorder preserve
their freedom against an unjust government.

An unarmed people are just so much sheep waiting for the slaughter.

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

iQCVAwUBM6OP+I9Co1n+aLhhAQEc5AP/V4UM7o91yxhaESIiDtU+Br17EhKWIAKZ
npLBf5C6fhrnztmyK1EMoCrDk5MWPWPKebdlJcdLcqmjrRokqly5UmbqtYYYOs0p
dAK9YUYDLOztYbgKydn1eXNGW75pi7vp4YTuZhIanAc8nvuLJH7TToObvea7Usb9
qenezNBkKho=
=15WI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sun, Jun 15, 1997 at 01:47:14AM -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>
>Well Kent we must be reading from two different dictionaries:
>
>infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of
>another
>
>encroach: to enter by gradual steps or by stelth into the possessions or
>rights of another.

No, that's essentially what my dictionary says.  The issue isn't
"infringe".  The issue is exactly *what* is being infringed upon --
what does it mean to "keep and bear arms", and who is being referred
to by "the people", and what is the meaning of the clause about a
"well *regulated* militia" (my emphasis).

>By the above definition this is exactly what the government has been doing
>with it's ever increasing restictions on the possesions of guns by it's
>citizens and what the founding fathers wished to posses. If they had
>wanted the government to have the power to control and regulate the
>ownership of guns then they would have said so.

I believe they did.  There are numerous other clauses in the 
constitution that grant powers to congress to regulate various things 
in broad and general terms -- those adequately cover guns.

Furthermore, the constitution only covers the federal government.  
State governments have a whole other level of control over individual 
ownership of guns.

A nearby town recently passed a hotly contested city ordinance
forbidding the sale of "junk guns" in the city limits.  Such
ordinances are fairly common -- this case was unusual because it went
to a popular vote.  Perhaps it will be appealed, but I believe that 
an appeal will lose.

>The Bill of Rights were not added to the Constitution to give the
>government more power but to restrict their power.

Here are some interesting clauses from the constitution, listing certain 
powers:

    ...

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
    naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of
    the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
    and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the
    Service of the United States, reserving to the States
    respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority
    of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by
    Congress;

[note: ..."suppress Insurrections"]
[note: the mention of the "Militia", and how they have a clear idea
       of what it is and how it is to be used]
    ... 

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
    into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested
    by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in
    any Department or Officer thereof.

>The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide a final check & 
>balance on the government. 

My reading of the constitution and supporting documents does not
support this claim.

In fact, William, though it may not appear so, I am relatively 
impartial on interpretation of the second amendment -- I own several 
guns, my family has always owned guns, I was a member of the NRA at 
the earliest possible age, back when their focus was responsible use 
and not advocacy for large gun companies.

My beef with you and Tim and the other gun advocates on the list is 
precisely this issue of responsibility, not ownership of guns per 
se.  Guns are not toys.  They don't belong in the hands of children.
[Do you think the constitution guarantees that two-year olds should 
be able to carry guns, BTW?  If not, why not?]

>Our founding fathers were all too aware that it
>was manditory that the population must be well armed inorder preserve
>their freedom against an unjust government.

I refer you again to the "suppress Insurrections" clause above.

>An unarmed people are just so much sheep waiting for the slaughter.

Perhaps true.  However, that does not imply that every single 
individual therefore must own a gun.  Saying "the people are armed" 
is not the same thing as saying "every single individual has a gun".  
"The people" includes babies, the blind, quadraplegics, psychopaths, 
convicted felons in jail, Quakers.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

At 8:12 AM -0700 6/13/97, Ray Arachelian wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>> http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html
>
>[...]
>
>>      I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my
>> civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no
>> general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the
>> right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't
>> be able to stop someone else from passing along that
>> information if you let it leave your computer. That's
>> your responsibility.
>
>
>Booooooooo!  Hisssssssssss!  Putting your bread and butter before your
>morals, eh?  Maybe if someone would go through all your records and post
>them all over the net, you'd feel differently!
>
>Declan, this truly sucks. :(  I'm very disappointed in you.  You are truly
>scum if you believe this.

Your "go through all your records" point is ambiguous. If others broke into
your house or office and searched your computer they would be guilty of
breaking and entering, and probably theft (of your records). Publication of
your records "all over the net" could be a compounding act, especially in a
civil action against the thieves.

However, if the "go through all your records" is really just collecting and
compiling your public utterances, or information you gave to others (with
no contractual agreement of secrecy), etc., then there is really no
generalized "right to privacy."

In a free and open society people are free to take any information they
have gathered or compiled, cross-indexed and compiled, and sell it or do as
they wish with it. "Tim's Dossier Service" is free to compile dossiers
based on any records he can find.

("Privacy advocates" find such things as "Tim's Dossier Service" abhorrent,
and want laws regulating such things. They even want laws regulating the
searching of past postings on Usenet, services likek DejaNews and
AltaVista.)

So, Ray, count me as "scum." Maybe Vulis will loan you his robot insulter
and you can send ASCII art to the list.

--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."

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Tim May wrote:

> Your "go through all your records" point is ambiguous. If others broke into
> your house or office and searched your computer they would be guilty of
> breaking and entering, and probably theft (of your records). Publication of
> your records "all over the net" could be a compounding act, especially in a
> civil action against the thieves.

So, say that someone got your DMV records, found out where you lived, and
murdered you.  Would your family be able to sue the DMV?  Sure it's public
knowledge, but should it be?  Should breeches of privacy be limited to
"Breaking and Entering" or "hacking?"  Isn't the fundemental problem not
simply trespassing, but rather invasion of privacy?  

If I broke into your house, but didn't touch and thing, and didn't damage
anything, I'd still be trespassing, but would you mind?  If so, why?  I'd
bet because it invades your privacy, because it wasn't with your
permission. That's the root violation.  Trespassing is a side issue.

If the tree does fall in the forrest and no one hears it fall, it has
still fallen.  Whether it makes a noise is a question for Zen students. 
That it has fallen is unquestionable.   So I break into your house and
leave no traces and you don't know about it, would you care? 

What if I release the pictures of your house to the world?  What if I take
them using a telephoto lens from a distance?  What if I use IR scans of
your house to see what you're doing?  Or use microwaves bouncing off
metal objects, or IR lasers bouncing off your windows to listen in? At
what point does it become an invasion of privacy?  And what point would
you say I've gone too far?

Personally, I'd say it's too far when someone's going through my trash and
parking a van outside my house.  But that's my oppinion.


> However, if the "go through all your records" is really just collecting and
> compiling your public utterances, or information you gave to others (with
> no contractual agreement of secrecy), etc., then there is really no
> generalized "right to privacy."

If they are public records that were generated with my consent.  And yes,
I do agree with the above paragraph.  It's a big IF though.  But do I
consent to the DMV giving out my info?  Would I consent to the IRS giving
out my tax return?  Would I consent to TRW giving out credit reports to
anyone who is willing to pay the $50?  Not fucking likely.  Doesn't mean I
have any choice in the matter.  At no point did I sign any piece of paper
telling TRW they have the right to give out my info to anyone willing to
cough up the money.

> In a free and open society people are free to take any information they
> have gathered or compiled, cross-indexed and compiled, and sell it or do as
> they wish with it. "Tim's Dossier Service" is free to compile dossiers
> based on any records he can find.

Depends on what that info is and how it was obtained.  If your dossier
contains my credit cards, I can turn around and sue you, even though you
might have paid TRW to get that info or whatever.

If my phone number is unlisted and I share it with my CC company, and they
in turn release it to TRW, and you get it from them and post it to the
world, then I could sue my CC company, but it would be too late.  Sure, I
protect my info, but if someone didn't respect that, what recourse do I
have against them?  Once the info is out, it's out.
 
> ("Privacy advocates" find such things as "Tim's Dossier Service" abhorrent,
> and want laws regulating such things. They even want laws regulating the
> searching of past postings on Usenet, services likek DejaNews and
> AltaVista.)

Depends on what that information is.  There are robot rule files for your
web site that say "Don't catalog this," and web masters do get pissed if
it does.  Public postings are public. This is granted.  I'm not saying
what I write in public is considered private.  I chose to retain copyright
on it, but waive the distribution restrictions. This is granted. 

Further, if you are making money off my information, and if that
information was not publically available, but you sell it, should I not
have the right to get a slice of your profits - assuming I even agree to
let you sell it?

The question is, should you have the right to collect info that I do not
relese to others publically, and make it public.  After all, if not for
protecting our privacy, what reasons would we need encryption?  What
reasons would we have for the existance of cypherpunks were not cyphers
ultimatly useful in obtaining privacy?  For the coolness of their
mathematical properties only?  For signatures only? Not fucking likely. 
Ask yourself why you favor the use cyphers, Tim.  If you don't say
"privacy" then get the fuck off this list.  Ditto for Declan.  (Of course,
this can't apply to the NSA since they have a different agenda on this
list, but that too is a given.) :)

> So, Ray, count me as "scum." Maybe Vulis will loan you his robot insulter
> and you can send ASCII art to the list.

I must admit, I am surprised at you, but no I don't robospam folks, and I
wouldn't borrow one from Vulis.

Perhaps you can turn around and say "Ray's on the rag" or "gone loony",
but I do feel strongly that information that I share with others should be
kept private unless I say so.  Ditto for "private" email.  (Quotes placed
to indicate how easily it is for bad folks to snoop unencrypted email.)

Perhaps I may be overly sensitive to the issue because Vulis (you did
bring his name up, so live with it) posted whatever public information he
could gain in a nice easily digestible package - much like Tim's Dossier
Service could and threated to send my employers weird email, and in the
same postings posted racist crap, but that was only PUBLICALLY available
info.  I retaliated by doing the same, but imagine how pissed I would be
were this info that wasn't publically available - like credit card
numbers, tax return info, etc... 

So yes, you can say, you need to live in a society that is free and open,
and yes, I can disagree with you and say you're scum for thinking that you
can freely collect info I consider private and then sell it.  It is after
all my right to disagree with this, and my right to freely say that I do. 

And of course this is a publically posted message, so go ahead and place
it in your dossier. :)

<RANT OFF>

=====================================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 =========================

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

In <Pine.SUN.3.96.970613132302.23715J-100000@beast.brainlink.com>, on
06/13/97 
   at 01:58 PM, Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> said:

>So, say that someone got your DMV records, found out where you lived, and
>murdered you.  Would your family be able to sue the DMV?  Sure it's
>public knowledge, but should it be?  Should breeches of privacy be
>limited to "Breaking and Entering" or "hacking?"  Isn't the fundemental
>problem not simply trespassing, but rather invasion of privacy?  

Ray you seem to be missing the point here.

Any state issued permit is public record. This includes your drivers
license and your auto registration.

It is imperative that in a democracy that the public know who and what the
state is giving permits to (there whole other issue of wether the state
should be issuing permits at all but that should be left to another
thread).

In a free and open society the public must be able to review the actions
of its government.

If Joe Sixpack has run over 20 people because he gets his kicks out of it
and the DMV still issues him a license the public has a right to know.

If the California DMV is secretly denying driving license to anyone who
posts to the cypherpunks list the only way anyone would know is by
examining the DMV records.

If the state is going to issue permits on what people can and can not do
the it is crutial that the public can examine these records to insure that
the state is not abusing this power.

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

iQCVAwUBM6GQmo9Co1n+aLhhAQGABwP+OWqazI5cQ7ySLbCZOoq0vmJEhpq6BDg7
3W5x8Ghp+zWIDMt02fyGBgUvROfbgr0SU3Qt26Lu9udMleW400mk3lQYvadPOKMU
Utpgr8octdaKfSNzO3S6LfyME6Ouoy4GhyJ/0rQPZBKJZbWrH5fSTzCB00jck6Uo
YVRHdDKeDV0=
=xqpR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:

> Ray you seem to be missing the point here.

Bzzzt:
 
> Any state issued permit is public record. This includes your drivers
> license and your auto registration.

Should it include your address and phone number?

> It is imperative that in a democracy that the public know who and what the
> state is giving permits to (there whole other issue of wether the state
> should be issuing permits at all but that should be left to another
> thread).

> In a free and open society the public must be able to review the actions
> of its government.

Then we don't live in an open and free society.  Do we have open records
into what the CIA and NSA and such do? etc.?  Very few. 
 
> If Joe Sixpack has run over 20 people because he gets his kicks out of it
> and the DMV still issues him a license the public has a right to know.

But should the public know Joe's phone number and address and date of
birth?  Gee, weren't we screaming this sucks to easily accessible Texas
DMV records a few days ago?

> If the state is going to issue permits on what people can and can not do
> the it is crutial that the public can examine these records to insure that
> the state is not abusing this power.

See CIA comment above.  What of the likes of TRW, and health records?
Should these be open knowledge to anyone who is a credit card agent or
health insurance co?  If it is vital to have this info to keep the
governments in check, why does the government have privacy?  If the
government has privacy, why shouldn't we?  Neither do we, nor the
government have absolute privacy, however, the government controls the
information it deems to keep private.  Why should we not do the same?

Should detailed building plans be made available of all buildings so that
theives can look at them and break into banks more easily?  Perhaps there
are reasons some of these things are available to the public.  Perhaps
there are reasons why not all should be.

=====================================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 =========================

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> 
> > Any state issued permit is public record. This includes your drivers
> > license and your auto registration.
> 
> Should it include your address and phone number?
> 
> > It is imperative that in a democracy that the public know who and what the
> > state is giving permits to (there whole other issue of wether the state
> > should be issuing permits at all but that should be left to another
> > thread).

One important distinction:

If the state issues me a permit, they probably have a right to the
information pertaining to the permit, e.g. they do need the make, model,
year, and similar information about the car to issue a title or
registration.  If they are issuing state ID, they need to know that I am
me in order to issue it.  They don't need to place my mother's maiden name
into the record although I think it appears on my birth certificate, and
would cause problems since this is used as an informal password.  My
driver's license is a permit to drive, not a permit to be me.  You can
make a case for the database containing my age, but date of birth?  Much
of what appears is not necessary for the purpose stated. 

So are you making the case for having the state ask every detail about
your life and being able to place it in the licensing database, or only
answers to those questions relevant to issuing the license?

In <97Jun13.180309edt.32257@brickwall.ceddec.com>, on 06/13/97 
   at 06:03 PM, tzeruch@ceddec.com said:

>On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:

>> On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>> 
>> > Any state issued permit is public record. This includes your drivers
>> > license and your auto registration.
>> 
>> Should it include your address and phone number?
>> 
>> > It is imperative that in a democracy that the public know who and what the
>> > state is giving permits to (there whole other issue of wether the state
>> > should be issuing permits at all but that should be left to another
>> > thread).

>One important distinction:

>If the state issues me a permit, they probably have a right to the
>information pertaining to the permit, e.g. they do need the make, model,
>year, and similar information about the car to issue a title or
>registration.  If they are issuing state ID, they need to know that I am
>me in order to issue it.  They don't need to place my mother's maiden
>name into the record although I think it appears on my birth certificate,
>and would cause problems since this is used as an informal password.  My
>driver's license is a permit to drive, not a permit to be me.  You can
>make a case for the database containing my age, but date of birth?  Much
>of what appears is not necessary for the purpose stated. 

>So are you making the case for having the state ask every detail about
>your life and being able to place it in the licensing database, or only
>answers to those questions relevant to issuing the license?

I would say only the relevant info for issuing a license. This is not to
say that the license should be anonymous. If the government is going to
issue a license/permit then the citizens have a right to know who these
license/permits are issued to.

Ray and some others are mixing several issues:

-- Should the State be involved in issueing these permits?

-- Should the information be public?

-- How should the information be used if it is public?

I woun't go into the fist one as I don't want to get off on a tangent.

As for the second one yes the information should be public and yes it will
have to containe enough personal information so that I or anyone else can
verify that the State is doing what they say they are. A good example of
this is voting registrations in Chicago. It has long been known as the
"most democratic city in the country, even the dead can vote".

The third one is the one that is causing people the most greif. If as I
contend with the second question that this info should and *must* be made
public then there is nothing that can be done here. Public information is
public information. What I or anyone else does with that information once
it becomes public is no ones bussines but my own. 

Because some people do things you don't like with this *public* info is
not an excuse for passing draconian laws and closing government action
from public view. This is the type of argumants that the government uses
against us on crypto (the four horseman), it is the same type of argument
that is used everytime the governement wants to shit on another part of
the constitution. Someone may or maynot do somthing we don't like so we
are going to pass some laws and restrict the rights of the citizens even
more. The saddest part is the sheeple thank them for it.

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

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 tzeruch@ceddec.com wrote:

> 
> If the state issues me a permit, they probably have a right to the
> information pertaining to the permit, e.g. they do need the make, model,
> year, and similar information about the car to issue a title or
> registration.  If they are issuing state ID, they need to know that I am
> me in order to issue it.  They don't need to place my mother's maiden name
> into the record although I think it appears on my birth certificate, and
> would cause problems since this is used as an informal password.  My
> driver's license is a permit to drive, not a permit to be me.  You can
> make a case for the database containing my age, but date of birth?  Much
> of what appears is not necessary for the purpose stated. 
> 
> So are you making the case for having the state ask every detail about
> your life and being able to place it in the licensing database, or only
> answers to those questions relevant to issuing the license?

I'm making the case that information I share with (for example) the DMV
should not be viewable by those OUTSIDE of the DMV and NYPD without my
consent - i.e. if Joe Insurance Inc. wants to insure my car, they need my
permission to have the DMV release the info; but some folks have taken
this to other weird tangents, such as polarizing one's point of view into
either libertarian or stasist.  I hold neither.  And I've given up on the
cluelessness of the same folks, so the topic I've dropped. :) 


=====================================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 =========================

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

In <Pine.SUN.3.96.970623184633.28368H-100000@beast.brainlink.com>, on
06/23/97 
   at 06:51 PM, Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> said:

>On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 tzeruch@ceddec.com wrote:

>> 
>> If the state issues me a permit, they probably have a right to the
>> information pertaining to the permit, e.g. they do need the make, model,
>> year, and similar information about the car to issue a title or
>> registration.  If they are issuing state ID, they need to know that I am
>> me in order to issue it.  They don't need to place my mother's maiden name
>> into the record although I think it appears on my birth certificate, and
>> would cause problems since this is used as an informal password.  My
>> driver's license is a permit to drive, not a permit to be me.  You can
>> make a case for the database containing my age, but date of birth?  Much
>> of what appears is not necessary for the purpose stated. 
>> 
>> So are you making the case for having the state ask every detail about
>> your life and being able to place it in the licensing database, or only
>> answers to those questions relevant to issuing the license?

>I'm making the case that information I share with (for example) the DMV
>should not be viewable by those OUTSIDE of the DMV and NYPD without my
>consent - i.e. if Joe Insurance Inc. wants to insure my car, they need my
>permission to have the DMV release the info; but some folks have taken
>this to other weird tangents, such as polarizing one's point of view into
>either libertarian or stasist.  I hold neither.  And I've given up on the
>cluelessness of the same folks, so the topic I've dropped. :) 

Only one here being clueless is you Ray.

The state is not allowed to engage in secret activities with select
members of society. Whenever it issues a permit or a license to someone it
is public knowledge. Whenever someone is arrested, whenever there is a
trial both great and small the full details are public information.

All actions of the state *must* be reviewable by the citizens. You can not
have a free and open society without the people being able to check on
what it's government is doing.

This means that all of the following *must* be open to the public:

DMV Records
Criminal Records
Voter Registrations
Census Records
Building Permits
Profesional Licenses
Court Transcripts
Federal Records
State Records
County Records
City Records
ect, ect, ect.

The problem here is *NOT* that this information is public. The problem is
that the goverment has got it's fat little fingers into everything. The
solution is *NOT* letting the state hide what it is doing with these so
called privacy laws but to get the state out of where it has no business
being in the first place!!!

And this has nothing to do with GAK or any other 1984ish monitoring of
citizens. The issue here is bringing the activities of the state into the
light of day. The activities of the citizens that do not directly involve
the state are not at issue here.

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

iQCVAwUBM689eY9Co1n+aLhhAQFAKQP/ZzTP16dZaSSH2NIS2jj6HyNxvu2xZjfH
nxT70qouw2RXOjjupLCcsWA1E44uHNEhyh3GFv11eBb0AnE869h1YBwUAnUpk4yN
r7Xr1y8NIWjckowQQ6Dnq4GlMVUSM9BTwUvBGaaE/TdM/LDZcJLXR9U/3G5h9gsF
iAE9w+8FekQ=
=k3eZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:

> Only one here being clueless is you Ray.

Thanks for the compliment.  I burp in your general direction.
 
> The state is not allowed to engage in secret activities with select
> members of society. Whenever it issues a permit or a license to someone it
> is public knowledge. Whenever someone is arrested, whenever there is a
> trial both great and small the full details are public information.

Asking the state to protect my privacy by not disclosing the information I
disclose to it is not asking the state to engage in secret activities with
select members of society.  It is asking it not to release information
that I am forced to give them in return for certain goods, services, or
privilidges - driving for example.  Having a driver's license doesn't mean
I wish to share the information that the DMV requires to provide such a
license to the world.

Paying taxes doesn't mean I wish to disclose my 1040 form to the world.
 
> All actions of the state *must* be reviewable by the citizens. You can not
> have a free and open society without the people being able to check on
> what it's government is doing.

And tell me dear William, in what way will you prevent the government from
taking capricious actions against a free and open society by allowing
anyone to find out a phone number that is unlisted by simply calling up
DMV records?

This isn't keeping tabs on the government, this is keeping tabs on the
people which the government choses to infringe on.

If the DMV wasn't giving licenses to certain types of people and one
believed that this was the case, one should ask those people who felt that
they were discriminated against.  One should not have the ability to look
at EVERY record in the DMV databases - no matter how noble the thought.

This is not to protect the DMV, this is to protect those listed within its
databases.

> This means that all of the following *must* be open to the public:

Again, by your oppinion, not mine.  And no, I don't believe in a "free and
open" society.  I believe in a "free and private" society.
 
> Criminal Records

As for these, IMHO, once a criminal has completed their sentence they
should be allowed to have a life.  Having these records available to all
is a means of discriminating against them for having commited a crime as
judged by a jury.  Not necessarily having commited the crime, but being
convicted of doing so - as is well known mistakes have been made and lives
have been destroyed by such mistakes.

IMHO, repeat offenders will wind up in jail again, and will be punished
again.  This should not infringe on their right to secure jobs or the
right to rent, or buy homes.

The idea of the justice system is to correct these wrongs, not to punish
for life.  Once the debt is paid, it is paid.  There are some who believe
that offenders should not be re-released into society because they will
commit more crimes, and/or that the communities should be notified when
they are allowed to move there.  If it is the case that person X is likely
to commit more crime, then that fact should play a factor in person X's
parole hearing.  IMHO, if the danger is there, don't let the bastard out.
If it isn't, then let them go and let them live in peace and privacy.

> Voter Registrations

These too can be both a benefit and an infringement on privacy.  Whatever
information these records hold might be used for other purposes.

> Census Records

Why?  What is the purpose of having these records available in forms other
than a number?

> Building Permits

I agree here.

> Profesional Licenses

Sure, but only so far as to say "Yep, person X has this license" not "and
they live on xyz street, have three kids, and a poodle."

> Court Transcripts

Granted.

> Federal Records
> State Records
> County Records
> City Records

Granted, but which specific records?

> ect, ect, ect.

clue: You mean etc as in "Et Cetera."

> The problem here is *NOT* that this information is public. The problem is
> that the goverment has got it's fat little fingers into everything. The
> solution is *NOT* letting the state hide what it is doing with these so
> called privacy laws but to get the state out of where it has no business
> being in the first place!!!

I agree that there is ALSO a problem that the government has its fat
fingers in everything and is allowed to do things that others aren't
allowed to do.  For instance many places where gambling is illegal provide
lotteries with astronomical odds against the player.  Were the things done
by casinos, nobody would play.

I agree that what the state does and whom they interact with should be
public knowledge.  I do not agree that by virtue of interacting with the
state that I should be force to give up my privacy.  I do not have the
choice of not interacting with the state due to lovelies such as income
taxes and drivers licenses - I should not be forced to give up privacy as 
well because of this.

Based on what you say everything the state does should be public.  Fine,
but if anyone were able to see anyone else's 1040 forms, you'd have a lot
of invasion of privacy.  This is what you fail to see or understand.  This
isn't a strawman, it's plain fact.  If I can see your return, I can see
how much you make, whatever deductions or exemptions you claim can give me
a slew of information as to what you have purchased and your general life
style.  The address info and SSN will give me even more keys into your
info.  Birth and Marriage records will tell me who your mother is, then I
can look up her records, and find her maiden name, then I can take your
SSN, your mother's maiden name, your date of birth and hand them over to
TRW and see your credit card purchases, etc.  This is the thing that
should not be that you are advocating, the thing I and fighting you on.  I
think that it is indeed the case that you require a few clues.

> And this has nothing to do with GAK or any other 1984ish monitoring of
> citizens. The issue here is bringing the activities of the state into the
> light of day. The activities of the citizens that do not directly involve
> the state are not at issue here.

Then DMV records should not be fully visible, neither should 1040 forms,
for example.  But the key is "that do not directly involve the state"  The
problem is that the state directly involves us into their activities and
we directly involve them through our votes.  That is the key that will
unlock the records into the activities of the citizens, and unlock their
privacy when they should not.

For the most part we agree - the government's activities should be public
knowledge and should be watched and reviewed carefully.  However in your
eagerness to make this happen you would also strip away the privacy of the
citizens only because the government interacts and forces itself on
interacting with them.

And that is the clue you fail to get.

=====================================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 =========================

My computer is generally down these days - I brought it up for a short
while to check the e-mail, but will be taking it down again soon...

Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> writes:
> Asking the state to protect my privacy by not disclosing the information I
> disclose to it is not asking the state to engage in secret activities with
> select members of society.  It is asking it not to release information
> that I am forced to give them in return for certain goods, services, or
> privilidges - driving for example.  Having a driver's license doesn't mean
> I wish to share the information that the DMV requires to provide such a
> license to the world.

Not that it means much, but: we both live in NYC.  I have a licence, but
I haven't driven the car in probably 3 or 4 years (my wife takes the darn
thing all the time).

One can live in NYC or SF and not have a car or licence. On the other hand
one can live in NYC and drive a gypsie cab and not have a licence (apparently
lots of people do!) because if you're pulled over and you don't have a
license, you're not arrested, and your car is not impounded - you're just
given a ticket which you don't have to pay.  Tickets are for suckers like
us who are in the system.

> Paying taxes doesn't mean I wish to disclose my 1040 form to the world.

It's public in some Scandinavian countries.  I recall that there anyone can
check the balance on your bank account.

> > Criminal Records
>
> As for these, IMHO, once a criminal has completed their sentence they
> should be allowed to have a life.  Having these records available to all
> is a means of discriminating against them for having commited a crime as
> judged by a jury.  Not necessarily having commited the crime, but being
> convicted of doing so - as is well known mistakes have been made and lives
> have been destroyed by such mistakes.

But of course not just the conviction record but the arrest record is
public information.

> > Voter Registrations
>
> These too can be both a benefit and an infringement on privacy.  Whatever
> information these records hold might be used for other purposes.

These are public in the U.K.  Indeed they'd find electioneering much
harder if they weren't.

> > Census Records
>
> Why?  What is the purpose of having these records available in forms other
> than a number?

Why, to round up all the japs, to confiscate their homes and businesses,
and to ship them to concentration camps. :-)

> > Building Permits
>
> I agree here.

I don't see why anyone other than a buglar should be interested in the
intrnal layour of someone home. :-)

> > Profesional Licenses
>
> Sure, but only so far as to say "Yep, person X has this license" not "and
> they live on xyz street, have three kids, and a poodle."

How about: patient X complaint about Dr. Y.

> > Court Transcripts
>
> Granted.

How about: Mrs. X is suing Mr. X for divorce and alleges that he's
been sexually molsting their kids.  In practice, this happens very
often, and is usually dismissed by the family court as pure bulshit.

How about adoption records...

> allowed to do.  For instance many places where gambling is illegal provide
> lotteries with astronomical odds against the player.  Were the things done
> by casinos, nobody would play.

But of course: if private casinos were allowed to compete against
the gubmint-run lotteries, they'd offer better odds, and no one would
play gubmint lotteries.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

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

In <Pine.SUN.3.96.970624113126.8208A-100000@beast.brainlink.com>, on
06/24/97 
   at 12:00 PM, Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> said:

>On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:

>> Only one here being clueless is you Ray.

>Thanks for the compliment.  I burp in your general direction.
> 
>> The state is not allowed to engage in secret activities with select
>> members of society. Whenever it issues a permit or a license to someone it
>> is public knowledge. Whenever someone is arrested, whenever there is a
>> trial both great and small the full details are public information.

>Asking the state to protect my privacy by not disclosing the information
>I disclose to it is not asking the state to engage in secret activities
>with select members of society.  It is asking it not to release
>information that I am forced to give them in return for certain goods,
>services, or privilidges - driving for example.  Having a driver's
>license doesn't mean I wish to share the information that the DMV
>requires to provide such a license to the world.

>Paying taxes doesn't mean I wish to disclose my 1040 form to the world.
> 
>> All actions of the state *must* be reviewable by the citizens. You can not
>> have a free and open society without the people being able to check on
>> what it's government is doing.

>And tell me dear William, in what way will you prevent the government
>from taking capricious actions against a free and open society by
>allowing anyone to find out a phone number that is unlisted by simply
>calling up DMV records?

>This isn't keeping tabs on the government, this is keeping tabs on the
>people which the government choses to infringe on.

>If the DMV wasn't giving licenses to certain types of people and one
>believed that this was the case, one should ask those people who felt
>that they were discriminated against.  One should not have the ability to
>look at EVERY record in the DMV databases - no matter how noble the
>thought.

>This is not to protect the DMV, this is to protect those listed within
>its databases.

>> This means that all of the following *must* be open to the public:

>Again, by your oppinion, not mine.  And no, I don't believe in a "free
>and open" society.  I believe in a "free and private" society.
> 
>> Criminal Records

>As for these, IMHO, once a criminal has completed their sentence they
>should be allowed to have a life.  Having these records available to all
>is a means of discriminating against them for having commited a crime as
>judged by a jury.  Not necessarily having commited the crime, but being
>convicted of doing so - as is well known mistakes have been made and
>lives have been destroyed by such mistakes.

>IMHO, repeat offenders will wind up in jail again, and will be punished
>again.  This should not infringe on their right to secure jobs or the
>right to rent, or buy homes.

>The idea of the justice system is to correct these wrongs, not to punish
>for life.  Once the debt is paid, it is paid.  There are some who believe
>that offenders should not be re-released into society because they will
>commit more crimes, and/or that the communities should be notified when
>they are allowed to move there.  If it is the case that person X is
>likely to commit more crime, then that fact should play a factor in
>person X's parole hearing.  IMHO, if the danger is there, don't let the
>bastard out. If it isn't, then let them go and let them live in peace and
>privacy.

>> Voter Registrations

>These too can be both a benefit and an infringement on privacy.  Whatever
>information these records hold might be used for other purposes.

Obviously you have never seen Chicago Politics at work. Chicago the most
democratic country in the world, even the dead get to vote ... TWICE!!! :)

>> Census Records

>Why?  What is the purpose of having these records available in forms
>other than a number?

>> Building Permits

>I agree here.

>> Profesional Licenses

>Sure, but only so far as to say "Yep, person X has this license" not "and
>they live on xyz street, have three kids, and a poodle."

>> Court Transcripts

>Granted.

>> Federal Records
>> State Records
>> County Records
>> City Records

>Granted, but which specific records?

>> ect, ect, ect.

>clue: You mean etc as in "Et Cetera."

>> The problem here is *NOT* that this information is public. The problem is
>> that the goverment has got it's fat little fingers into everything. The
>> solution is *NOT* letting the state hide what it is doing with these so
>> called privacy laws but to get the state out of where it has no business
>> being in the first place!!!

>I agree that there is ALSO a problem that the government has its fat
>fingers in everything and is allowed to do things that others aren't
>allowed to do.  For instance many places where gambling is illegal
>provide lotteries with astronomical odds against the player.  Were the
>things done by casinos, nobody would play.

>I agree that what the state does and whom they interact with should be
>public knowledge.  I do not agree that by virtue of interacting with the
>state that I should be force to give up my privacy.  I do not have the
>choice of not interacting with the state due to lovelies such as income
>taxes and drivers licenses - I should not be forced to give up privacy as
> well because of this.

>Based on what you say everything the state does should be public.  Fine,
>but if anyone were able to see anyone else's 1040 forms, you'd have a lot
>of invasion of privacy.  This is what you fail to see or understand. 
>This isn't a strawman, it's plain fact.  If I can see your return, I can
>see how much you make, whatever deductions or exemptions you claim can
>give me a slew of information as to what you have purchased and your
>general life style.  The address info and SSN will give me even more keys
>into your info.  Birth and Marriage records will tell me who your mother
>is, then I can look up her records, and find her maiden name, then I can
>take your SSN, your mother's maiden name, your date of birth and hand
>them over to TRW and see your credit card purchases, etc.  This is the
>thing that should not be that you are advocating, the thing I and
>fighting you on.  I think that it is indeed the case that you require a
>few clues.

>> And this has nothing to do with GAK or any other 1984ish monitoring of
>> citizens. The issue here is bringing the activities of the state into the
>> light of day. The activities of the citizens that do not directly involve
>> the state are not at issue here.

>Then DMV records should not be fully visible, neither should 1040 forms,
>for example.  But the key is "that do not directly involve the state" 
>The problem is that the state directly involves us into their activities
>and we directly involve them through our votes.  That is the key that
>will unlock the records into the activities of the citizens, and unlock
>their privacy when they should not.

>For the most part we agree - the government's activities should be public
>knowledge and should be watched and reviewed carefully.  However in your
>eagerness to make this happen you would also strip away the privacy of
>the citizens only because the government interacts and forces itself on
>interacting with them.

>And that is the clue you fail to get.

How are you going to verify what the government *says* it is doing without
a mechinism of authenticating of who they are doing it with?

How can you verify that the census reports are vailid if you don't know
who is in the census?

How can you check and see if the party in power is stuffing the balot
boxes if you can't confirm who is on the voting rolls??

How will you know which John Doe is issued a Medical License without
additional information being available?

How can you prevent criminal records from being known when all police
arrests & court procedings are public knowledge?

In your zeal to make public information "private" you are giving the
government the perfect mechanism to hide all its activities from its
citizens.

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

iQCVAwUBM7AjHY9Co1n+aLhhAQFGXQP+MeTQt7vohgI7QBSa1rgAzaXXX4woRcLv
5Rbfx/r0XCSoyjDIREPcrnpwX0RQRHs07+NpXKCrygqeU7ruD6zw5xmZaP9obyw3
iGqoqcemt+x/S+UZGh2w4mXMN7GKLzyihoxTg/wYIbW964qr20ujig0jJ7pyDrpL
DtyNs8NB4ZQ=
=Me1A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:

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


Gee thanks for quoting my entire message.  You know, I really love to see
the stuff I wrote before over and over again when I reply to it.  *NOT*.
If you reply, please don't quote the entire messages.  Just what you're
replying to.  


[Mass Snippage]

> How are you going to verify what the government *says* it is doing without
> a mechinism of authenticating of who they are doing it with?

Watch them carefully.  If they do what they're not supposed to do, word
will eventually leak out in most circumstances, not all, and most
certainly not in spool related things.  But leaks do occur.  Watching what
they say and do will give you that info.  Same as any of the reporters
will do.  Ask Declan if need be. :)
 
> How can you verify that the census reports are vailid if you don't know
> who is in the census?

Conduct your own independant census and see how big a difference there is.
If you can't, then conduct random but smaller spot checks and see how they
match.  Count the number of entries in the phone book.  You shouldn't be
too far off from the actual number of residents within an area though
you'd be missing unlisted numbers.

> How can you check and see if the party in power is stuffing the balot
> boxes if you can't confirm who is on the voting rolls??

Ask the voters to anonymously re-vote, take polls.  Etc.
 
> How will you know which John Doe is issued a Medical License without
> additional information being available?

These aren't done by Uncle Sam, they're done by AMA or whatever.  As I
said licenses should be available to you in terms of yes, he's had a
license, or no he ain't got one.
 
> How can you prevent criminal records from being known when all police
> arrests & court procedings are public knowledge?

Court procedings, not criminal records.  Hmmm, caught me there ya did. :)
Good question.  Any other suggestions as to how to protect the privacy of
someone who served their time?

> In your zeal to make public information "private" you are giving the
> government the perfect mechanism to hide all its activities from its
> citizens.

I'm not asking for laws to be passed to "protect" privacy.  I'm asking
that privacy be recognized as one of the inalienable rights.  In other
words, a constitutional amendment much like the 1st that says you have the
right to privacy.  Not necessarily what happens when it is broken.  If
it's broken, you sue Unlce Sam.

I'm not asking for public information to be hidden.  I'm asking for
information that is personal and should be private to be private- i.e. 
driving records, health records, addresses, phone numbers, and
relationship records to be kept private. I'm not asking to hide what the
government does.  

Not all information that is public is personal - such information should
remain public.  The actions of the state, the actions of public
corporations should be public.  Information on citizens should not be made
public WITHOUT their consent.

=====================================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 =========================

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

In <Pine.SUN.3.96.970613150817.23715K-100000@beast.brainlink.com>, on
06/13/97 
   at 02:16 PM, Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> said:

>On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:

>> Ray you seem to be missing the point here.

>Bzzzt:
> 
>> Any state issued permit is public record. This includes your drivers
>> license and your auto registration.

>Should it include your address and phone number?

Yes

>> It is imperative that in a democracy that the public know who and what the
>> state is giving permits to (there whole other issue of wether the state
>> should be issuing permits at all but that should be left to another
>> thread).

>> In a free and open society the public must be able to review the actions
>> of its government.

>Then we don't live in an open and free society.  Do we have open records
>into what the CIA and NSA and such do? etc.?  Very few. 
>

Two wrongs don't make a right Ray. The whole CIA NSA thing is just a
flimsy straw man. All the documants being discused are on the state and
local level. They do not have "national security" that they can hide
behinde.

 
>> If Joe Sixpack has run over 20 people because he gets his kicks out of it
>> and the DMV still issues him a license the public has a right to know.

>But should the public know Joe's phone number and address and date of
>birth?  Gee, weren't we screaming this sucks to easily accessible Texas
>DMV records a few days ago?

YOU may have been screaming about it I was not.

>> If the state is going to issue permits on what people can and can not do
>> the it is crutial that the public can examine these records to insure that
>> the state is not abusing this power.

>See CIA comment above.  What of the likes of TRW, and health records?
>Should these be open knowledge to anyone who is a credit card agent or
>health insurance co?  If it is vital to have this info to keep the
>governments in check, why does the government have privacy?  If the
>government has privacy, why shouldn't we?  Neither do we, nor the
>government have absolute privacy, however, the government controls the
>information it deems to keep private.  Why should we not do the same?

>Should detailed building plans be made available of all buildings so that
>theives can look at them and break into banks more easily?  Perhaps there
>are reasons some of these things are available to the public.  Perhaps
>there are reasons why not all should be.

Look Ray I answered all this in my previous post.

You have two choices you can take the Libertarian view of a minimal
governement where all it's actions are reveiwable by it's citizens or you
can take the Statest view of big governemtn where all is's actions are
hidden and all "solutions" are more regulation and biger government.

The whole privacy issue is a strawman proped up by the government to
frighten the sheeple so they can pass their agenda. What's their agenda?
To have a series of privacy laws they can hide behind to keep their
actions hidden from public view.


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

iQCVAwUBM6KmKI9Co1n+aLhhAQE56wQAskQH55tdy1zmcVplKau06ZbAKyVKgaFb
L8PULoOlxTcmtWBoGv2Rcu6hnzc9K/w8g5v9GsRVsYl5WG/+nJRsV2r7E6LTBnao
glxAkzZcNjbM/ihD67XueXOn7ObbdNVMyeOv/FXMdUidlVeoKqJtXWlHpO7BYJjy
s+xyclr3EPk=
=nFID
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, 14 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:

> >Should it include your address and phone number?
> 
> Yes

Well then, so much for asking the phone company to NOT list your number in
the phone book.  If someone wants to find you, all they have to do is
cough up some dough and register themselves as an insurance broker or
whatever and they can look at DMV records to get your phone number.
Thanks but no thanks.  You are being too dense on this.
 
> Two wrongs don't make a right Ray. The whole CIA NSA thing is just a
> flimsy straw man. All the documants being discused are on the state and
> local level. They do not have "national security" that they can hide
> behinde.

NSA I'll grant you might be a straw man.  FBI and CIA records should be
open to all to read - except ongoing current stuff, but I don't mean that
they should be open 50 years after the fact.  Government abuses DO and
HAVE occured.  I neededn't cite things like Waco and Ruby Ridge, do I?

What threat were those events to National Security?

> >But should the public know Joe's phone number and address and date of
> >birth?  Gee, weren't we screaming this sucks to easily accessible Texas
> >DMV records a few days ago?
> 
> YOU may have been screaming about it I was not.

That is quite telling of your beliefs.
 
> You have two choices you can take the Libertarian view of a minimal
> governement where all it's actions are reveiwable by it's citizens or you
> can take the Statest view of big governemtn where all is's actions are
> hidden and all "solutions" are more regulation and biger government.

Why should I accept being pidgeonholed into one category or the other?
Get a clue.
 
> The whole privacy issue is a strawman proped up by the government to
> frighten the sheeple so they can pass their agenda. What's their agenda?
> To have a series of privacy laws they can hide behind to keep their
> actions hidden from public view.

Um yeah, sure, and if you've nothing to hide why ask for privacy right?
Why don't you like put cameras in your home and monitors on the street so
anyone who wants to listen in on you and watch you can do so?

There should be no privacy issue.  Privacy should be a right as should the
right to use strong encryption WITHOUT GAK.  That is the point of strong
encryption without GAK after all: Privacy.  End of Story.

=====================================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 =========================

On Sat, Jun 14, 1997 at 08:58:36AM -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
[...]
>
>You have two choices you can take the Libertarian view of a minimal
>governement where all it's actions are reveiwable by it's citizens or you
>can take the Statest view of big governemtn where all is's actions are
>hidden and all "solutions" are more regulation and biger government.

The consistent libertarian/anarchist view of this would be that the
privacy or non-privacy of records is completely determined by contract
between the person supplying the information and the agency collecting
it.  For example, a medical license would be granted by agencies that 
granted such licenses.  If you wanted a license from a particular agency 
you would deal with them.  The value of the license is determined by 
the reputation of the agency, not whether or not they give out 
doctors home addresses.

>The whole privacy issue is a strawman proped up by the government to
>frighten the sheeple so they can pass their agenda. What's their agenda?
>To have a series of privacy laws they can hide behind to keep their
>actions hidden from public view.

An amusing example of a conspiracy theory.  You are pretty good at 
these, you know.  :-)

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

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

In <19970614074032.37364@bywater.songbird.com>, on 06/14/97 
   at 07:40 AM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:

>On Sat, Jun 14, 1997 at 08:58:36AM -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>[...]
>>
>>You have two choices you can take the Libertarian view of a minimal
>>governement where all it's actions are reveiwable by it's citizens or you
>>can take the Statest view of big governemtn where all is's actions are
>>hidden and all "solutions" are more regulation and biger government.

>The consistent libertarian/anarchist view of this would be that the
>privacy or non-privacy of records is completely determined by contract
>between the person supplying the information and the agency collecting
>it.  For example, a medical license would be granted by agencies that 
>granted such licenses.  If you wanted a license from a particular agency 
>you would deal with them.  The value of the license is determined by  the
>reputation of the agency, not whether or not they give out  doctors home
>addresses.

This is fine if the licensing is being done in the private sector. If it
is being done by the government then it must be public. You can not have a
democracy if everything the governmnet does is hidden from the citizens it
is to server.

>>The whole privacy issue is a strawman proped up by the government to
>>frighten the sheeple so they can pass their agenda. What's their agenda?
>>To have a series of privacy laws they can hide behind to keep their
>>actions hidden from public view.

>An amusing example of a conspiracy theory.  You are pretty good at 
>these, you know.  :-)

No conspiracy Kent just SOP for the government. I believe the current
phrase is "spin-doctoring". Anyone who has spent any time watching how
governemnt works knows that quite often they will create a "problem" for
the sole purpose of providing a "solution".

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

iQCVAwUBM6KxtY9Co1n+aLhhAQG4pQQAs5wbcmE1MekiPkVnbJsICLL7eyf3JwZK
oIAFEqsoa+eRvPYMVJSdlerefvmrCqfMYiOqixrCTFQJQ9re/TDtRwfGTJWHqE8W
Jh/3QvjgeMva9Phl7K0efZ06abeaSRIKMWcnbJikad720TGHKp2sVGlsn5die0yP
X18Plk6V2Hk=
=Wxck
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Privacy? What Privacy?
> by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
> 
>      I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my
> civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no
> general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the
> right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't
> be able to stop someone else from passing along that
> information if you let it leave your computer. That's
> your responsibility.

I think there is a confusion as to whether "The Net" is a public place or
not, and for most purposes it is.  When I say something in public, I
cannot expect it not to be repeated.  I should have no general right to
privacy in a public place.

When I email, if it is something I don't want to see posted everywhere, I
add a copyright notice of some sort - nonredistribution as a condition of 
use.

I don't think it is considered a breach of the first ammendment not to
allow a newspaper to serialize a book without compensating the author,
even if the book is available at a library.  And lots of things are
considered copyrighted without having the circle-c affixed to it. 

Libertarian means as much finding out about the rules and taking
responsibility for your acts (including unintentional publication), as
having rights.  If a site says they will not redistriubte the information,
and then does, it is a form of fraud.  If they don't say, or if they say
they do redistriubte data, it is up to me if I want to send them the data.

I think many people are uninformed, and simply want to use software
without spending the time figuring out what is going on, so it would help
if the various browsers had better Privacy settings (e.g. Lynx asks me if
I want to accept a cookie, yes, now, always, never, but my current
Netscape just has an Always - Warn (but if I cancel, the transfer stops) -
Never).

There is a minimal right to be informed that the browser allows collecting
all this data, and how to disable it.  I can't force people to read the
manuals, but I don't think it is proper to hide the anti-surveillence
controls on software, and disable them by default.

If a misunderstood or malicious application posted all the data in your
financial files without your knowledge and consent do you think you
shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information
since you let it leave your computer? 

Give people an informed choice.  Consent isn't possible without knowledge,
and if people know what is going on, they can decide what data they
will allow to leave their computer for public cyberspace.

tzeruch@ceddec.com writes:
> When I email, if it is something I don't want to see posted everywhere, I
> add a copyright notice of some sort - nonredistribution as a condition of
> use.

That's just silly and has no legal meaning.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps