From: khijol!erc (Ed Carp [Sysadmin])
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 94 20:43:31 PDT
To: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Corporations and Encryption
In-Reply-To: <199406200201.TAA06906@netcom5.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <m0qFZYk-0004EbC@khijol.uucp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> Finally, all the arguments about there being _other_ ways for
> corporate secrets to leak out are accurate, but beside the point. Of
> course there are, and I have done extensive writing on this (BlackNet,
> information markets, Gibson-style "escrow" of key employees, etc.).
> But that employees can use their home computers to sell corporate
> secrets is somthing they will have to learn to deal with somehow (*),
> not a reason to limit corporations' abilities to set policy in their
> workplaces.
> 
> (*) One possibility, the Gibson scenario mentioned (cf. "Count Zero"),
> is to require key employees in extremely sensitive positions to forego
> access to outside contacts. It may not work very will, and it may be
> distasteful to many or most people, but it's not a violation of "civil
> rights."

Clancy mentioned a scenario that corporations (and others) might be able to
take advantage of - the so-called "Canary Trap".  Instead of identical copies
of a sensitive memo being made, slightly different copies are prepared
instead.  The meaning isn't changed, but the precise wording is, so that if
someone quites verbatim, the precise wording will indicate which document
was leaked, and hence the leaker.  I know for a fact that the United States
and Canada use this for their classified material, at least some of it.

> Along with "democracy," the term "civil rights" is bandied about too
> much and is used to justify entirely too much State intervention.
> Mutually agreed-upon contracts always take precedence over democracy
> and civil rights. 

This is not entirely true, as the courts have ruled that certain contractual
agreements, even when made between consensual parties, may be null and
void, because they go against public policy.  Consider if I contract with
you to kill someone, and at the conclusion of the contract I will pay you
a certain amount of money.  So, you wax the guy, and come to me with his ear
or left testicle or whatever, demanding payment.  I give you the finger, and
instead of putting a .22 hollowpoint between my eyes, you take me to court.
The courts would rule that the contract had no force of law, because it
essentially was a contrat to do something that was against public policy.
Same with illegal "contracts" some companies coerce people into signing as
a condition of employment.  The companies can argue that the employees signed
them of their own free will, but the courts would hold that if the act was
illegal, there can be no binding contract.
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG/VE3	ecarp@netcom.com, Ed.Carp@linux.org

"What's the sense of trying hard to find your dreams without someone to share
it with, tell me, what does it mean?"        -- Whitney Houston, "Run To You"