From: Will Rodger <rodger@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 07:23:14 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: "Matchcode" technology sparks privacy flames.....
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970922104428.006977f4@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970922191439.006a46f8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 03:46 PM 9/22/97 +0000, Declan McCullagh wrote, regarding the 
right of people to say almost anything anywhere under any 
circumstance:
 This principle does not disappear when the
>> >information being shared is digital.

To which I suggested that simple gossip is qualitatively different 
from posting confidential information about others to, say, a 
newsgroup or Web page. Thus: 

>> That's a bold assertion, but not one that squares easily with the 
>> half-dozen or so privacy laws already on the books at the federal 
>> level.
>
(stuff snipped)

Declan responded:
 
>And yes, some of the "half-dozen or so privacy laws already on the 
books"
>are misguided. Just as many argue laws against drugs, gambling, or
>FCC rules prohibiting the broadcast of "indecent" material are also
>unconstitutional -- and a waste of our police's time.

That's a great response, but I still see little chance that this 
argument will go away on constitutional grounds. Until then, I'm 
reporting on what happens. It's shocking and intellectually 
indefensible, I know, but hey, my money's on reality.;-).


>> I would like to go to those small-town folk of whom urban 
>> intellectuals write so eloquently and ask them what they would 
think 
>> of their neighbors posting all their gossip to a place where 
millions 
>> can read it. Something tells me they wouldn't see those two 
actions 
>> as one in the same. There is a qualitiative difference between the 

>> two.
>
>The problem is, I suspect, in drawing that line. Want to try your 
hand in
>drawing a line outlining the scope of "obscenity" laws? Remember 
they
>cover textual material in some states and comics in others. No? I 
didn't
>think so. 

Actually, I'd be more than happy to "draw the line" if I did such 
things for a living - but I don't. In any case, I'd address the topic 
of privacy on its own without referring to hot button issues like 
obscenity. I invite everyone else to decide if the two issues are a 
fair parallel or not.

I now invite Solveig, Julie and everyone else to comment. Me, I'm 
just betting on the horses....

Will

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNCb73tZgKT/Hvj9iEQLCiACghlPBpeIaUHheWN4Bp9JJXlEFp2IAoLB6
OVSFs2pSDjjRqidKHmy9uT6H
=DRrn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----