NODE 11f9edb7Re: CMR versus GAK? (fwd) > Right to monitor
Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>Fri, 24 Oct 1997 21:36:31 +0800
Forwarded message:
> From: lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)
> Subject: Re: CMR versus GAK?
> Date: 24 Oct 1997 13:01:12 GMT
> * William H. Geiger III wrote:
> >documents. This is the distinction between corporate access to plain text
> >and GAK. The company *owns* the documents. They have a right to read them
> >any time they want. If you don't want your *private* corrospondance to be
>
> The company *owns* all telephon calls mad from an to there office. So they
> have a right to wiretrap and record all phone calls you does from the
> company. If you don't want your *private* corrospondance be wiretraped and
> recorded, prevent every phone call in private issues from the company.
> Forbit your insurance agency to call you in the company, deny the school
> attended by your children to phone you at work, if your childen is ill, ...
It occurs to me that this entire question is really of much larger social
import:
- do babysitters in your home have an inherent right to not be monitored
in case they harm the child?
- do operators of vehicles on public roads have an inherent right to
privacy about the vehicle?
- do businesses have the right to monitor the uses that their systems
are put to?
- do public officials have an inherent right to privacy about their
actions related to their office?
etc. ad nausium...
These various issues can be broken down into two simple questions that
once answered genericaly can be applied to the specific cases.
The bottem line is:
Does the owner of a resource have an inherent right to control that
resource and if so what are the boundaries?
Does the user of a resource have rights outside the purvue of the owner
of that resource and if so what are the boundaries?
____________________________________________________________________
| |
| The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there |
| be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. |
| |
| -Alan Greenspan- |
| |
| _____ The Armadillo Group |
| ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA |
| /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ |
| .', |||| `/( e\ |
| -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate |
| ravage@ssz.com |
| 512-451-7087 |
|____________________________________________________________________|
NODE 577daa9bRe: CMR versus GAK? (fwd) > Right to monitor
lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)Fri, 24 Oct 1997 22:08:11 +0800
* Jim Choate wrote:
> - do babysitters in your home have an inherent right to not be monitored
> in case they harm the child?
No. Not here.
> - do operators of vehicles on public roads have an inherent right to
> privacy about the vehicle?
Yes. Nobody but the policy can stop them and have a deeper look.
> - do businesses have the right to monitor the uses that their systems
> are put to?
Yes, they can make statistics. Personal specific? No. Not here.
> - do public officials have an inherent right to privacy about their
> actions related to their office?
Yes. They have the right to close the door. Even for minutes.
>Does the owner of a resource have an inherent right to control that
>resource and if so what are the boundaries?
He has this right until he touchs the rights of other people. So he have not
all rights he might want.
>Does the user of a resource have rights outside the purvue of the owner
>of that resource and if so what are the boundaries?
Do you own your house? If not, why do you stop your house owner from
snooping in your flat? It's his ressource. Why do you encrypt e-mails over
your provider's lines? It's his ressource.
If privacy is outlawed in offices, nobody can work legally.
NODE fc267b36Re: CMR versus GAK? (fwd) > Right to monitor
"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@invweb.net>Fri, 24 Oct 1997 22:16:13 +0800
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In <199710241400.JAA23475@einstein.ssz.com>, on 10/24/97
at 09:00 AM, Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> said:
>Forwarded message:
>> From: lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)
>> Subject: Re: CMR versus GAK?
>> Date: 24 Oct 1997 13:01:12 GMT
>> * William H. Geiger III wrote:
>> >documents. This is the distinction between corporate access to plain text
>> >and GAK. The company *owns* the documents. They have a right to read them
>> >any time they want. If you don't want your *private* corrospondance to be
>>
>> The company *owns* all telephon calls mad from an to there office. So they
>> have a right to wiretrap and record all phone calls you does from the
>> company. If you don't want your *private* corrospondance be wiretraped and
>> recorded, prevent every phone call in private issues from the company.
>> Forbit your insurance agency to call you in the company, deny the school
>> attended by your children to phone you at work, if your childen is ill, ...
>It occurs to me that this entire question is really of much larger social
>import:
> - do babysitters in your home have an inherent right to not be
>monitored in case they harm the child?
So long as they are in someone elses home they do not. This is not an
issue of harm to the child this is a issue of it's my house and if you
don't like it get out.
> - do operators of vehicles on public roads have an inherent right to
> privacy about the vehicle?
The very nature of acting in public removes any expectation of privacy.
> - do businesses have the right to monitor the uses that their systems
> are put to?
Of course.
> - do public officials have an inherent right to privacy about their
> actions related to their office?
Nope, public officials are employees of the citizens. As such the citizens
have a right to monitor what they do.
>etc. ad nausium...
>These various issues can be broken down into two simple questions that
>once answered genericaly can be applied to the specific cases.
>The bottem line is:
>Does the owner of a resource have an inherent right to control that
>resource and if so what are the boundaries?
Yes, and the boundaries should be very few. Things like just because you
own a hammer doesn't give you the right to hit people over the head. But
as far as setting policies on how a resource can be used and what
conditions must be met before using them it should be without limit. If
you don't like it the don't use it and go get your own.
>Does the user of a resource have rights outside the purvue of the owner
>of that resource and if so what are the boundaries?
No they do not. If the user of a resource does not like the conditions set
by the owner for the use of that resource then they should not use it.
> The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there
> be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
>
> -Alan Greenspan-
Never truer words were spoken.
- --
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
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
iQCVAwUBNFCsZY9Co1n+aLhhAQFNbwP/R5gydKcbVEX9nOciUO1vox/+ESTJXspT
eTGknDxzC7fBiDHQYuK5fKayDjGvms8w/6eO32XyH2ZI7260yM/RtyTNGSlRlI16
a26v5LZrwqHfa1cLNQQIMl8tOrITQ0mrVoiFEztbTcYQmyHDp1YHm7JFLaOW1EwS
gnCpUuzaFoY=
=G5sB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----