From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Fri, 6 May 94 16:34:12 PDT
To: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Anonymous, nobody, lefty and Jimbo
In-Reply-To: <9405062237.AA21508@internal.apple.com>
Message-ID: <199405062333.AA15360@access1.digex.net>
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?

Parade of horrors.

Comparing this list to a bathroom stall wall is something of a short sell for
all those on the list.  If this woman had posted provocatively to the list
(Intellectually, not sexually you smart guys) with her name and city in the 
signature, I think perhaps you'd be closer.  Even that example strays far 
from the facts at hand.  If your question then only differs in gender from the
facts really at hand, then my answer is that there is no 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.

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.

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.

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.  Those were messages that scalded through the net and penetrated 
his very personal computer probably RIGHT IN HIS HOME!  I think there's 
an invasion of privacy here!

You never did answer my copyright coward question.

> >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.

You do have to exercise your rights.  You have to comply with the 
regulations set out before you can assemble, or demonstrate.  You have to 
demonstrate or assemble to exercise those rights regardless of those 
regulations.  It's hard to claim your right of free speech has been violated
when you haven't tried to speak.  It's difficult to claim your right to 
assemble has been violated when you were at home all day.

Look to the Supreme Court for a sample of the necessity of exerting an 
expectation of privacy over a thing to have that right protected.

See e.g., _Florida v. Riley_, 488 U.S. 445 (1989); _California v. 
Greenwood_, 486 U.S. 108 (1988).

Even so I think there are things that are per se private regardless of 
any attempt to protect them.  Medical records for example.  Having this 
apply to published phone numbers is a little excessive.

> 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.

Because the home is implicitly a personal realm.  Extending this 
argument to the phonebook is more than a little out of hand.

> >Mr. Nalbandian got exactly what privacy he paid for:  None.
> 
> This misses the point entirely.  Even the indigent have a right to privacy.

And most phone companies provide waivers for those who cannot afford to 
pay for non-published or unlisted phone numbers.  Are you alleging Mr. N 
is an indigent?  In any event this does not speak to the basic question 
as to what type of privacy right does one have to a published and listed 
phone number and address?

> >"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!"

And the means in this case were hardly offensive.

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

You'll not find one more for privacy rights when they are manifested 
than me.  A person who seeks to participate in a semi-public forum bears 
to some degree the responsibility of keeping that information which he or she
would not like exposed protected.  Once there is the slightest effort to
protect that information, any attempt to extract it is a violation of privacy
in my view.  You'll find this basic theory of privacy rights follows the root 
concepts that make up privacy law in the United States.  But the U.S. law 
only goes so far.

I even go even farther.  So far as to insist there is a right of privacy in 
license plates because those are mandatory requirements for the operation 
of an automobile, among other things.  But to assert that one who signs his 
name to a baiting post has an expectation or a right of privacy to his name
and identity is silly.  Had Mr. Nalbandian only signed his first name, I would
be on your side.  As it is, I cannot see it your way.

I don't defend "nobody" because I feel he or she did something right.  I 
don't in fact defend "nobody" at all.  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 we both agree that Mr(s). Anonymous way crossed the line with the 
penet.fi release however.


-uni- (Dark)