From: Dark <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 93 11:29:33 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Privacy/Property
Message-ID: <199311121927.AA08988@access.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 
Mr. Godwin
- ->
 
I note that the ruling against INS would probably not occur today 
in the post-Feist world.
 
<-
 
Conceeded.
 
 
Mr. Godwin
- ->
 
 
I don't see how this reads as Brandeis's having a reservation 
about privacy. Perhaps the premier legal theorist about privacy 
issues in the last 100 years, Brandeis is simply noting that 
privacy isn't a given--one must actively work if one is to 
preserve it. This is perfectly consistent with cypherpunk 
philosophy, IMHO.
 
<-
 
I concur, and add that this is a long cry from reading any
"Right to Privacy" into the law.  If indeed Brandeis is asserting 
that privacy isn't just "given" (Your assessment with which I 
agree) then isn't this a reservation about a existing "right to 
privacy"?  It's possible, Mr. Godwin that the only level we 
differ on is semantics and definitional?
 
I like the cypherpunk approach, very much.  Self empowerment is a 
rewarding and self regulating regime.  I would like to see 
broader remedies available for privacy enforcement.  You can't 
sit on your porch with a shotgun all day and keep trespassers 
off.  It's a well accepted premise that a determined attacker 
will always prevail, given enough resource.  Or at least cause 
lots of problems trying.  It would be nice if this were an 
option, but not the ONLY manner of protection.  No?
 
Cypherpunks is about change of attitude as well not so?
 
- -uni- (Dark)
 
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3
 
iQCVAgUBLOPi4RibHbaiMfO5AQG5cwP9HbYSlZuJlRVcyScCFVIjMui8m1MxoAfj
G9pzvCqZN5PTSaZfMVFxSHcgqRSDiEpILdPZs7mI1+1vdZCNkNPcwHbBvVxuxIf+
IY0tavhtXBAll14c4RA1zq/82OlDqkBcBC+P8FtE1Juf+6MfRZwmrXjmpiWhsCNu
Cg/l8xpdfVM=
=h4K+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----