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

Hi,

Forwarded message:

> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:58:37 -0400
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
> Subject: There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly

> 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.

A right is not a question of popularity or amplitude, it is a question of
existance. It is or it isn't. Some people want more guns than others
(obvious even to you) so you seriously hold that there is no fundamental
Constitutional right to own firearms? Or speech, we don't all want to use it
to the same amount, we therefore don't have a right to free speech? Or (oh
my god!) crypto, we don't all want to use it to the same degree therefore we
don't have a right to use crypto?

Serious boo-boo.

I hope it ain't gone to print yet...

    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http:// www.ssz.com/  |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|

I suspect the scare about privacy has led to muddled thinking.

Free speech is a right that strictly limits the government's ability to
control what you say. We should have a similar right of privacy from the
government.

But I give up my free speech "rights" when I attend a college with a wacky
speech code or go to work at a company with workplace speech policies. My
choices in those situations are governed by my free speech preferences. 
Similarly, I give up my privacy "rights" when I go to unknown web sites,
apply for a loan, or post to Usenet, etc. These also are preferences. 

I'm surprised not to hear more from other folks here: my position is one
cypherpunks have advocated for years -- controlling what data flow from my
computer is my responsibility.

-Declan


On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Jim Choate wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Forwarded message:
> 
> > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:58:37 -0400
> > From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
> > Subject: There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly
> 
> > 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.
> 
> A right is not a question of popularity or amplitude, it is a question of
> existance. It is or it isn't. Some people want more guns than others
> (obvious even to you) so you seriously hold that there is no fundamental
> Constitutional right to own firearms? Or speech, we don't all want to use it
> to the same amount, we therefore don't have a right to free speech? Or (oh
> my god!) crypto, we don't all want to use it to the same degree therefore we
> don't have a right to use crypto?
> 
> Serious boo-boo.
> 
> I hope it ain't gone to print yet...
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________________
>    |                                                                    | 
>    |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
>    |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
>    |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http:// www.ssz.com/  |
>    |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
>    |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
>    |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
>    |                                                  512-451-7087      |
>    |____________________________________________________________________|
> 
>

Declan McCullagh writes:
> 
> I suspect the scare about privacy has led to muddled thinking.

I agreed with the point of your article, though you might have been
more careful when uttering the magic word "right".


> I'm surprised not to hear more from other folks here: my position is one
> cypherpunks have advocated for years -- controlling what data flow from my
> computer is my responsibility.

I completely agree with your position.  I assumed the lack of reaction
was simply because you're preaching to the choir here.


-- Jeff

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> I suspect the scare about privacy has led to muddled thinking.
> 
> Free speech is a right that strictly limits the government's ability to
> control what you say. We should have a similar right of privacy from the
> government.

That would be nice.  You should have put that in your article.

> But I give up my free speech "rights" when I attend a college with a wacky
> speech code or go to work at a company with workplace speech policies. My
> choices in those situations are governed by my free speech preferences. 
> Similarly, I give up my privacy "rights" when I go to unknown web sites,
> apply for a loan, or post to Usenet, etc. These also are preferences. 

But here you have a choice, you can chose to not accept that job or attend
that class, or surf that site, or even do so with a nome de guere. What
choice have you to control TRW or the DMV's, or your criminal records if
you have any?  Those aren't on your computer.

You can always attend the classes under assumed names.  This has been done
before.  (I believe one of the Steves at Apple did this - Wozniak???)
 
> I'm surprised not to hear more from other folks here: my position is one
> cypherpunks have advocated for years -- controlling what data flow from my
> computer is my responsibility.

It's still early in the morning.  I'm sure the thread will explode pretty
soon. Yes, but what about the information that others can get to on your
ISP?  Do you control that info?  We've always advocated protecting our own
data, but this doesn't mean that we should invade the privacy of those who
are clueless, or suck it in when some rogue piece of software (see the
netscape thread) endagers our privacy. 

I'm not saying pull your shades up and stand butt naked infront of your
windows.  I'm saying someone shouldn't have the right to stick a camera in
your home without your knowledge and then publish pictures of you in
Playgirl or whatever.

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

Ray appears unwilling or unable to read what I write, so I may be leaving
this thread unless it becomes more interesting and less repetitive,
quickly. 

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Ray Arachelian wrote:

> > Free speech is a right that strictly limits the government's ability to
> > control what you say. We should have a similar right of privacy from the
> > government.
> 
> That would be nice.  You should have put that in your article.

Get a clue. I did:

        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.)

> It's still early in the morning.  I'm sure the thread will explode pretty
> soon. Yes, but what about the information that others can get to on your
> ISP?  Do you control that info?  We've always advocated protecting our own

Yes. You can control it. Try learning how to "chmod 700 ~". If you don't
do it, don't whine about violations of your "privacy rights."

-Declan

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

In <Pine.GSO.3.95.970613120008.13113J-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>, on
06/13/97 
   at 12:04 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> said:

>Get a clue. I did:

>        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.)

Well this is rather a poor example. The requirment of a census was written
into the costitution and with good reason. Many of the government actions
are based on demographics congressional districting is a prime example.

There is a fight going on in cogress right now as the current
administration wants to be able to gestimate the census rather than doing
an actuall head count so it can manipulate the figures any way it wants
(ie change the figures in key congressional districts so they can re-draw
them to favor their supporters).

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

iQCVAwUBM6F5Vo9Co1n+aLhhAQGMOQQAkJ+3CqXwhsJVVO7xXNE2C91A4GQK1uXd
GgBlABNshvWlZoqPsGcmnOm1QZVIUPBavPx4hHsVk3UMvaQeiwGeWfp1dBmmxGMo
v2LqRev7dlsLAIUcG/2dZ3kaEy/S+Vlqtb04Pklq+vkjM3RFYDYfF5b1AkfntCnA
laNv9MKl8w8=
=iIwz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Get a clue. I did:
> 
>         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.)

Today the Nazi's would simply pay Experian (was TRW) for their databases. 
I think the IRS already does. 

Private databases collect a lot of data that I am not asked about, or from
government, or that I am required to turn over (e.g. Government requires a
taxpayer ID number to open a bank account, so I can't shop for a bank that
offers privacy as an option, but they will then turn around and give the
information to the databasers).  Since the Government is the origin of the
Social Security Number, and requires its use in many instances, there
should be a law that I should be able to remove any government-required
information removed from any non-governmental-required database.  This may
restrict my access to things like credit (they have the right to say, no
SSN, no credit, which is where I differ with most privacy advocates), but
I should have that choice.

Right now, the lines are too fuzzy.  I think government and private
databases should be disjoint.  Otherwise "private databases" are just a
way for government to evade any restriction on collection or use.

And do they have the right to hold stale or inaccurate data?  And can they
use fraudulent means of obtaining it, or archive data obtained by such
means?

tzeruch@ceddec.com writes:

> On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> > Get a clue. I did:
> >
> >         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.)
>
> Today the Nazi's would simply pay Experian (was TRW) for their databases.
> I think the IRS already does.

Why do you need to bring up the Nazis when the U.S. Gubmint used its own Census
data to round up Americans of Japanese descent (who said so on their Census
forms) and to intern them in concentration camps.

> Private databases collect a lot of data that I am not asked about, or from
> government, or that I am required to turn over (e.g. Government requires a
> taxpayer ID number to open a bank account, so I can't shop for a bank that
> offers privacy as an option, but they will then turn around and give the
> information to the databasers).

Good news: no sane bank gives its client info to the databasers.

---

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

Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> writes:

> I suspect the scare about privacy has led to muddled thinking.
>
> Free speech is a right that strictly limits the government's ability to
> control what you say. We should have a similar right of privacy from the
> government.
>
> But I give up my free speech "rights" when I attend a college with a wacky
> speech code or go to work at a company with workplace speech policies. My
> choices in those situations are governed by my free speech preferences.
> Similarly, I give up my privacy "rights" when I go to unknown web sites,
> apply for a loan, or post to Usenet, etc. These also are preferences.

I agree with the above.

I also wish for (and work on) technology solutions to do things like post
to Usenet w/o giving up one's privacy.

---

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

At 7:56 AM -0700 6/13/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>I suspect the scare about privacy has led to muddled thinking.
>
>Free speech is a right that strictly limits the government's ability to
>control what you say. We should have a similar right of privacy from the
>government.
>
>But I give up my free speech "rights" when I attend a college with a wacky
>speech code or go to work at a company with workplace speech policies. My
>choices in those situations are governed by my free speech preferences.
>Similarly, I give up my privacy "rights" when I go to unknown web sites,
>apply for a loan, or post to Usenet, etc. These also are preferences.
>
>I'm surprised not to hear more from other folks here: my position is one
>cypherpunks have advocated for years -- controlling what data flow from my
>computer is my responsibility.


I agree with everything Declan is saying. There is serious confusion out
there about "rights to privacy," everything from people passing laws
limiting how businesses may run their businesses to proposed laws limiting
the records people and companies may keep.

Sadly, too many people are simply ignorant of the underlying issues and
haven't given the issues much critical thought.

Hence the calls for "privacy laws," which actually violate more basic rights.

I predict a long battle with these "privacy advocates," especially the D.C.
lobbyist groups.

--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."

> > 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.
> 
> A right is not a question of popularity or amplitude, it is a question of
> existance. It is or it isn't. Some people want more guns than others
> (obvious even to you) so you seriously hold that there is no fundamental
> Constitutional right to own firearms? Or speech, we don't all want to use it
> to the same amount, we therefore don't have a right to free speech? Or (oh
> my god!) crypto, we don't all want to use it to the same degree therefore we
> don't have a right to use crypto?

No, privacy is not a right, it is most definitely a preference. If you 
allow information to become freely available then there is no way to put 
the genie back in the bottle, once information is available it requires 
restrictions on freedom of speech to stop the spread of that information, 
and restrictions on freedom of private equiment to prevent its storage 
and use. 
This is all based on freedom of speech, there is no such thing as 
"private information" in the sense of it being somehow wrong for 
unauthorised people to posess that information, it is up to you how much 
privacy you prefer and correspondingly how much effort you put into 
preventing information from becoming available.

        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"