From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Date: Fri, 6 May 94 17:13:14 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Anonymous, nobody, lefty and Jimbo
Message-ID: <9405070012.AA22968@internal.apple.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>I guess we do disagree.  You seem to want to assert Mr. Nalbandian's 
>rights for him.  He made no effort to conceal his identity or phone 
>number in any meaningful way.  Your version of privacy would forbid you 
>from looking in the telephone directory to complain to the manager of 
>Domino's pizza.

Not at all.  It would, however, forbid me from posting his home address and
phone number to the net with the notation "This son-of-a-bitch sold me a
lousy pizza!  Feel free to phone him at five a.m."

>If he was harassed there is an appropriate remedy for that in Tort law.  
>File a harassment or stalking suit.  Don't try to shield it with some far 
>reaching extension of privacy rights.

Er, file a harassment or stalking suit against _whom_, precisely?

>In fact it was Mr. Nalbandian who incited people (like "nobody") to 
>harass him.  Case in point, the many harassing messages posted to the 
>list.

"Hey!  Two wrongs _do_ make a right!"

>You never did answer my copyright coward question.

I don't view it as being germane to the matter at hand.  I do feel that
posting copyrighted material via an anonymous ID is wrong.

>It's hard to claim your right of free speech has been violated
>when you haven't tried to speak.

Do you claim that a person without an unlisted number has no right to
privacy as far As the phone is concerned, then?

>> "Hey!  The ends _do_ justify the means!"
>
>And the means in this case were hardly offensive.

Oh, well, that makes it just fine, then.

>Once there is the slightest effort to
>protect that information, any attempt to extract it is a violation of privacy
>in my view.

Here's where we differ.  By failing to include his home phone number and
address in his postings, I believe that Mr. Nalbandian _did_ make "the
slightest effort".  If he had included them in his sig, for instance, I
would agree with you.

>Had Mr. Nalbandian only signed his first name, I would
>be on your side.  As it is, I cannot see it your way.

What if he had only signed his first name, but included his last name if
you were to finger his account?

>I only assert that Mr. Nalbandian 
>has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his name and phone number 
>when he all but hands them out.

I think it's that "all but" that we're stuck on here.  By your reasoning,
anyone whose phone number can be derived by anything short of illegal means
is "all but handing it out".

>I think we both agree that Mr(s). Anonymous way crossed the line with the 
>penet.fi release however.

Yes.

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