From: jkreznar@ininx.com (John E. Kreznar)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 22:29:02 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Privacy, Property, Cryptography (long)
In-Reply-To: <199311102317.AA19232@access.digex.net>
Message-ID: <9311110628.AA17830@ininx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> 	No one in my mind has a right to intrude and it is entirely 
> counterintuitive to expect citizens to submit to a duty of 
> disclosure as is the current practice and direction.

And this intuition of yours seems to be reflected in law and statute to a
greater degree than you're allowing elsewhere in your essay.  For example, U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said that the "right to be left alone is
the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."[1]
Yet your opening lines are

> There is no right to privacy in this country.

> 	The much touted "Right to privacy" is a common law 
> conception and invention that, for the most part, has little 
> foundation.  There are constitutional provisions that _suggest_ 
> privacy, but none that "assure" it.  To enforce a right to 
> privacy in court, judges have to do a lot of reaching.

It's hard to believe that support for privacy is _this_ lacking in law or
statute.

(Of course, the foregoing notwithstanding, I embrace the cypherpunks position
that securing privacy is one's own responsibility.)

Elsewhere you state

> Privacy was in a Hohfieldian manner, a privilege.

Hohfield sounds like an interesting read.  Can you give a reference?

[1] Quoted in ACLU Briefing Paper Number 5, "Drug Testing in the Workplace",
published by the Department of Public Education, American Civil Liberties Union,
132 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036, (212) 944-9800.

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.