From: Liam David Gray <lg2g+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 May 93 06:54:28 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: PGP, and TANSTAAFL!
In-Reply-To: <9305040751.AA21712@hydra.unm.edu>
Message-ID: <UftbGP_00Uh7I28Gg0@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Stanton McCandlish writes, in response to Perry Metzger, on privacy and
free lunches:
> >[Perry says privacy isn't and shouldn't be free (Liam's summary).]
> Sorry to get on your case yet again, Perry, but I just cannot accept that,
> and I don't think anyone else here can either.

A-ha!  You've just caused me to "un-lurk," Stanton; thanks for the great
opening.

> Privacy should be free, just
> like freedom should be free, and the right to say what you want should be
> free.  This is not to say well made tools for ENSURING these rights should 
> be free.

Here you seem to be confusing the issue.  How can you say that privacy
(the right?) should be free, when defending privacy shouldn't be free? 
Can someone walk up to you and _give_ you privacy?  I always assumed you
had to be willing to go out and get it yourself, by hook or by crook. 
Without defense of a right, the right is moot.  _With_ defense of a
right, the right is moot:  In that case, you already have what you want!

I suppose I also have a "right to lunch," too, with the caveat that each
I must "ensure" my right to lunch by tripping down to MacDonald's and
buying it.  Why bother with the right?  What is free here?  The fact
that MacDonald's is open for business?  But I'm not even guaranteed that!

Are rights a useless construction?

> A radio broadcasting station will sure help you exercise your
> speech rights, but you aren't likely to get one for christmas.  Likewise,
> crypto software should not be expected to be free, unless, as in the case
> of PGP, the author makes it free of their own accord.

Well said; I agree completely.

> While this is true, I would urge people to keep in mind that while we can 
> be expected to pay for tools to help us maintain our rights, no one can
> charge us a fee for those rights themselves.  Privacy is free, it is our
> birthright.

I hope I'm not getting off list topic here on my first post, but the
"privacy is free" meme looks to be potentially damaging for us.  Perhaps
you mean, Stanton, that privacy as a commodity should not be traded for
U.S. dollars, Deutsche Mark, or Mexican Pesos, but for some other
currency?  Sweat, perhaps?  If you pay in sweat, it isn't free--you
could have paid someone else to sweat for you.  Surely this hasn't
boiled down to a question over valid currency for trade in privacy?

I think the fundamental question here is whether rights are free. 
[Whether they "should be" free doesn't mean ANYTHING; what does "should
be" mean?]  Look around; you'll see a lot of people "fighting for their
rights" to do X.  I don't think you can tell _them_ that "the right to
do X is free."

Cheers, TANSTAAFL, and I hope I haven't offended Stanton over a minor point,
Liam

P.S.  If anyone knows what rights are, mail me.  I'm extremely
interested. Don't perpetuate my possible topical error by sending it to
Cypherpunks, unless you think everyone else will be interested. (Maybe
Extropians would be...)
---
Public key available by arrangement       -- The cat is out of the bag.
Too much of a dreamer not to be practical -- Go have your own "valiant defeat."
Liam David Gray <lg2g+@andrew.cmu.edu>    -- Quote me.