From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 11:41:15 PST
To: mech@eff.org
Subject: Re: Privacy != right?
Message-ID: <9311171928.AA01258@lux.YP.acad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



 > Only under certain, very limited, circumstances, and again this is not a
 > right but an entitlement, since it by definition infringes a right.  If
 > you don't "get" the distinction, try on this simple example: you have a
 > right to swing your arm (and please note that it, like the right to
 > privacy, is another of those rights not specifically enumerated, but
 > covered by the 9th Amendment), but I have an entitlement to not be hit in
 > the face by your swinging arm.  My entitlement supercedes your right, but
 > only under certain circumstances (e.g. when my face is in imminent danger
 > of being struck by your arm, or has already been struck - assault, and
 > battery respectively, if intentional - but I cannot use my entitlement to
 > demand that you _never_ swing your arm)

Ok, but this is a limited view.
How about the individual who stands N+1 units away from you, where N is the
length of their arm, and repeatedly swings at you. Even though you
both know that the +1 satsifys your *entitlement to not be hit*, it
certainly seems to be an assault of some sort.

So, OK, you have the right to turn away,
but now the attacker moves to a new position, maybe only N +.5 this time,
and each time you move he countermoves. 

You are still in no imminent *danger* .
But you are being subjected to unwatned harrasement.
In such a case it is reasonable to demand your privacy from being subjected
to the harrasers atentions.


Now add to this the factor that the perpetrator hides behind a pseudonym,
and has taken measures to insure he escapes any accountability for the 
hostility and willfull harrasement. He uses multiple accounts to bypass
Kill files and filters, while rationalising his campaign as his right
of free speach, god-granted vigilantism against crypto-sinners, and
merely a graphic representation of his humble opinion.

this is essentially what has been going on in soc.motss for years.

This is essentially what is going on in cypherpunks with the Detweiler
situation.

I am seeing exactly the same range of individual responses to Detweiler
as i see in soc.motss to *dark knight* and *artimus* and *Ralf*.

I don't think this is a coincidence.

On cypherpunks, the list management has the right to cut him 
out of the list, and thus stop him from receiving list-messages.
However, he can still mail to the list and continue to offer his opinions on it,
even if he is not a recipient. Sorta like standing on one side of a 
wall and lobbing grenades over the top.

Trust me, I understand the progression of these things, i've seen it
happen over and over. I have grown a thick skin, but I also keep notes.


So OK , the list management can hack filters to *not re-transmit*
messages from his account, getting past such filters is easy.
In fact forging account adresses is easy, so the next step is to 
send his opinions from forged adresses, say - as Hal Finney, Or Perry Metzger.


There is no accountability for this sort of thing, and until there is
these systems are unsuitable for anything but conversation.

I happen to want more than conversation out of my network connectivity,
and I recognise that there is a price for everything.

_rhetorical question ... no need to answer to anyone but yourself..._
Do you want gummint types setting the fee schedules, or are you
gonna get busy ....

LUX ./. owen