From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 94 06:34:34 PST
To: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9412232332.A24470-0100000@netcom10>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941224085238.29752A@access3.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, James A. Donald wrote:

> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 00:01:19 -0800 (PST)
> From: James A. Donald <jamesd@netcom.com>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Cc: Ian Farquhar <ianf@sydney.sgi.com>
> Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
> 
> On Fri, 23 Dec 1994, Ian Farquhar wrote:
> 
> > > What a load of amoral rubbish.
> > 
> On Fri, 23 Dec 1994, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > By who's standard?  Yours?
> 
> Well I guess Black Unicorns standards are not such that
> one should entrust secrets to him.

Absolutely not unless:

1>  I am paid to keep them.

2>  I am bound by an attorney-client relationship.

3>  Ignore the above two in any absolute forms.


But not for the reasons you suspect, in fact I submit the reverse is true.

Clearly the distinction between the likelyhood of someone keeping a 
secret and the advisibility of disclosing damaging information to anyone, 
trustworthy or not (or protecting it insufficently, or failing to 
research the methods use you to protect it), evades you.

If you cannot see that my trustworthiness, when a significantly positive 
variable, is not the sole consideration in deciding if you should tell me 
something, you're in the wrong area of speculation.

Further, if you cannot see that my hands off and nose out of where it 
doesn't belong position, makes me a MORE attractive individual to confide 
in, one less likely to turn your secrets over to the thought police, or to pass 
judgement based on some personal and artificial moral construct bearing only 
limited resemblence to any other, and being utterly unpredictable, then 
you're in the wrong area of speculation.


Query:  Who is likely to turn more evidence over to police in criminal 
matters?

1>  "Trusted" family members.
2>  "Amoral" attornies who refuse to be blinded by conventional (read 
reactionary) morality?

Who do you want knowing your secrets?  (When anyone should know them at all)


-uni- (Dark)

>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our
> property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
> are.  True law derives from this right, not from
> the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com
 
And I would submit, you, and you alone, the individual you, have the 
OBLIGATION to defend yourself and your property, and the RESPONSIBILITY 
to defend it less the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state come in and 
do it for you.

-uni- (Dark) 
 

073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!