From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Date: Fri, 6 May 94 15:38:23 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Anonymous, nobody, lefty and Jimbo
Message-ID: <9405062237.AA21508@internal.apple.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Black Unicorn writes
>
>I took it upon myself to poke around a bit and this is what I came up with:
>
>The phone number and address are indeed belonging to one Jim Nalbandian 
>in Tempe, AZ.  They are listed, published, and publicly available.  I 
>guess the bottom line question is when is privacy the burden of the 
>user?  Is it Mr. Nalbandian's obligation to take steps for privacy?  How 
>much at fault can "nobody" be at for publishing information that Mr. 
>Nalbandian could have shielded for pennies?

Would it be your position then, that, say, any woman who doesn't happen to
have an unlisted phone number is fair game to have her name and number
written in a toilet stall in Grand Central Station with the notation "For a
Good Time, call..."?  You wouldn't feel that to be an invasion of privacy?

(If indeed it is the same 
>Jim Nalbandian)  Mr. N's signature held his state and city of residence.  
>It is no great accomplishment for anyone to look up his published 
>information.  Posting it to the net might have been "sleazy" in the eyes 
>of some, but no worse than circumventing copyright laws with the "Information
>Liberation Front."  In fact one could argue that "nobody"'s actions were above
>this sort of criticism.  (I should note that I do not express any 
>personal opinion on the ILF one way or the other).

Sorry, but we clearly disagree here.  I view it as a clear incitement to
harassment, and, in my opinion, _that_ constitutes an invasion of privacy.

>In short Lefty:  Privacy comes to those who seek it.

No.  Privacy is, or should be, the right of all.  I don't have to do
anything special to enjoy my rights to free speech or free assembly.  I
should not have to take special measures to enjoy my right to privacy,
either.

If I don't lock my front door, that doesn't imply that anyone can walk into
my house.  To do so would _still_ be an invasion of privacy.

>Mr. Nalbandian got exactly what privacy he paid for:  None.

This misses the point entirely.  Even the indigent have a right to privacy.

>"nobody" saved us all the $0.75 a long distance information call costs.
>Multiply that in the aggregate and you have some nice money.
>
>I think it worth noting that Mr. Nalbandian hasn't posted since "nobody"'s
>letter.  A considerable social gain in my view.  Perhaps Mr. Nalbandian will 
>take an interest in privacy now, another considerable social gain.

"Hey!  The ends _do_ justify the means!"

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.